A History of the Church: 1517 A.D. to the Present Protestantism and its Forms

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_013.htm ^ | unknown | Fr. John A. Hardon

[stfassisi]

First Principle Form of Protestantism - Sola Scriptura What are the essentials of Protestantism? It is not to know what some of those essentials are, because in over four hundred years, going on five hundred years, they have remained I would say, quite constant, in other words, those basic premises of Protestantism have not basically changed. And in Latin that’s why they got started first sola scriptura: Scripture alone. How do we know God’s mind and will from Scripture alone? Sola scriptura, by Scripture alone. Only the written revealed word of God is necessary, not just for salvation, but to know everything that God wants us to both believe, and to do. It is all contained in the Bible. Historically, that position could not have, could not have been assumed, no way, until the discovery of print. Usually we assign about 14, 1465 as the beginning of the print age. And the first printed book, as I am sure we all know, was the – Bible. Well, Luther and his followers identified all of God’s revelation with that written book. As over the years, I’ve been telling people, the more bizarre, the more incredible, the stranger an idea is – talk about human nature – the more believers you are liable to get. Imagine claiming the law of God, revealed Truth, is in a written book. When until less than a century before the rise of Protestantism, there were no books in existence. There were manuscripts, but no books.

[stfassisi]

Father Hardon wrote much of his material in the presence of the Blessed sacrament.

This will probably stir some.
I,m posting this and I will be gone for a few days til Sunday

[Pyro7480]

Catholic ping!

[IrishCatholic]

bookmark for later reading.

[east1234]

bookmark

[tmp02]

interesting. No scripture given for support. No biblical or extra biblical (God spoke or showed to me) ...hummmm.

Solo Scripture means that God can not change. If He does speak to you, He WILL NOT say anything different than what He has written in the Bible (spelling?) If a book or person claims to have favor with God and speak the voice of God and contradict the Bible, then one of the sources IS NOT from God. You pick.

[Campion]

interesting. No scripture given for support.

He's discussing history; it's not an apologetics lecture, and not a devotional or Bible study.

Solo Scripture means that God can not change. If He does speak to you, He WILL NOT say anything different than what He has written in the Bible (spelling?)

It's sola scriptura. But you don't need sola scriptura to get where you're going; all you need is a belief in the inspiration of Scripture, an orthodox belief about the nature of God, and logic.

[tmp02]

Hasn't the "Word" changed over history?

[Augustinian monk]

"For Protestants it does not really, really, make a difference whether Jesus Christ is really God or not."

What a bufoon this guy is!

[tmp02]

I understand, but he is speaking with no footnotes for his claims, that's all.

[Uri’el-2012]

"For Protestants it does not really, really, make a difference whether Jesus Christ is really God or not."

What a bufoon this guy is!

9 posted on 11/15/2006 12:27:58 PM MST by Augustinian monk

You give John Hardon far too much credit!

He is either completely ignorant or a purposeful lier

b'shem Y'shua

[OpusatFR]

""For Protestants it does not really, really, make a difference whether Jesus Christ is really God or not.""

Bishop John Shelby Spong comes to mind.

"Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way." SNIP~

http://www.anglicantas.org.au/tasmaniananglican/200310-spong.html

[Frumanchu]

Interesting that you posted the excerpt you did. It is a horribly inaccurate representation of the doctrine of sola scriptura. The statement about it not really making a difference to Protestants whether Jesus was truly God or not only confirm the fact that this is hardly anything approaching a scholarly study.

[A.J.Armitage]

What exactly are you claiming?

[Frumanchu]

Oh good grief. J. Gresham Machen directly addressed every single one of these 83 years ago in Christianity and Liberalism.

[bornacatholic]

What a bufoon this guy is!

For Protestants it does not really, really, make a difference whether Jesus Christ is really God or not. Six of Luther’s works have never been published and they will never be published, as long as there is a Lutheran left on earth. They’ll never be published. Kept in safety deposit boxes in Germany. One page after another, and the manuscript is of Martin Luther, Christ is described as and I am being very kind, as a lecherous sinner. No way, no way, that the Christ of Martin Luther could be the living God.

*Fr. Hardon was a brilliant priest. Please rethink your post, re-read what Fr. Hardon wrote, and then, feel at liberty to apologise. Fr. Hardon is CLEARLY referring to what Luther wrote

[Frumanchu]

This post filed under Roswell/Fake Moon Landing

[bornacatholic]

You were prdestined to make that post so I am unable to extend any credit to you :)

[Frumanchu]

Silly goose, Calvinists never take credit anyway.

[OpusatFR]

I'm not claiming anything. One poster disclaimed the remark and I posted what I remember from Spong's talks.

Y'all can discuss it among yourselves. I just put info forth.