Do Budge and Eutychus agree on theology?

[SJP]

Eutychus said:

"it has been my personal experience { I get around for various time and project reasons } that 90% agreement is the norm for most normal Christians. Where we tend to disagree is on the non-essentials, like eschatological timings, spiritual gifts, and the like, on the biggies the differences are almost inconsequential"


This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority.

Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons. Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther's Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli's purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man's salvation might be in jeopardy.

St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one's spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation - a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

Protestants also differ on other soteriological issues: most Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denominationalists and other groups are Arminian and accept free will and the possibility of falling away from salvation (apostasy), while Presbyterians, Reformed and a few Baptist denominations and other groups are Calvinist and deny free will and the possibility of apostasy for the elect. In contrast to the former denominations, the latter groups have a stronger view of the nature of original sin, and deny that the Atonement is universal.

Traditional, orthodox Methodism (following founder John Wesley) and many "high church" Anglicans have had views of sanctification (that is, the relationship of faith and works, and of God's enabling and preceding grace and man's cooperation) akin to that of Catholicism. These are questions of how one repents and is saved (justification) and of what is required afterwards to either manifest or maintain this salvation (sanctification and perseverance). Thus, they are primary doctrines, even by Protestant criteria.

The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don't baptize at all (the latter doesn't even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:



Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:


Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life
for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From edition by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224, 230, 162, 165)


Anglicanism concurs with Luther on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:



Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

(From The Book of Common Prayer, New York: The Seabury Press, 1979, 873)

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17) , stating that it is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth."

The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of perspicuity. Again, the Bible is obviously not perspicuous enough to efficiently eliminate these differences, unless one arrogantly maintains that sin always blinds those in opposing camps from seeing obvious truths, which even a "plowboy" (Luther's famous phrase) ought to be able to grasp. Obviously, an authoritative (and even infallible) interpreter is needed whether or not the Bible is perspicuous enough to be theoretically understood without help. Nothing could be clearer than that. Paper infallibility is no substitute for conciliar and/or papal infallibility, or at least an authoritative denominational (Creedal / Confessional) authority, if nothing else.
[b]
The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.[/b]


"Heart speaks to heart" - John Henry Cardinal Newman The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/perspicuity-clearness-of-scripture.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html[/url]

[jswranch]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1048714' date='Aug 23 2006, 04:21 AM']
The goal is a relationship with Jesus, not the physical ingested kind, but the spiritual love kind.

Let God direct you where He wants you. For some, that will be a local parish, for others, a local vibrant church. AND, if either goes "bad" on you, for goodness sake, get OUT, it is your salvation here...not loyalty to the sign over the front door that counts.
[/quote]
Some items:

-I suppose this is where we disagree. I find the call to a relationship with Jesus to be a physical one and a spiritual one where we consume God's Word and he fills us with his sanctifying holiness as we walk with Him. I find your belief on this issue to be a new theology which developed in the last 150 years and is foreign to any other beliefs in the history of Christianity.

-I already attend a local vigrant church.

-Actually, I do find 'loyalty' to be essential. I see people being tossed about theologically with every wind of change. The truth has got to be so much more. I choose the beliefs of the Christians that started and was reflected in 100-300 AD.

[SJP]

Eutychus said:

"it has been my personal experience { I get around for various time and project reasons } that 90% agreement is the norm for most normal Christians. Where we tend to disagree is on the non-essentials, like eschatological timings, spiritual gifts, and the like, on the biggies the differences are almost inconsequential"


This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority.

Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons. Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther's Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli's purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man's salvation might be in jeopardy.

St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one's spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation - a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

Protestants also differ on other soteriological issues: most Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denominationalists and other groups are Arminian and accept free will and the possibility of falling away from salvation (apostasy), while Presbyterians, Reformed and a few Baptist denominations and other groups are Calvinist and deny free will and the possibility of apostasy for the elect. In contrast to the former denominations, the latter groups have a stronger view of the nature of original sin, and deny that the Atonement is universal.

Traditional, orthodox Methodism (following founder John Wesley) and many "high church" Anglicans have had views of sanctification (that is, the relationship of faith and works, and of God's enabling and preceding grace and man's cooperation) akin to that of Catholicism. These are questions of how one repents and is saved (justification) and of what is required afterwards to either manifest or maintain this salvation (sanctification and perseverance). Thus, they are primary doctrines, even by Protestant criteria.

The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don't baptize at all (the latter doesn't even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:



Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:


Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life
for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From edition by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224, 230, 162, 165)


Anglicanism concurs with Luther on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:



Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

(From The Book of Common Prayer, New York: The Seabury Press, 1979, 873)

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17) , stating that it is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth."

The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of perspicuity. Again, the Bible is obviously not perspicuous enough to efficiently eliminate these differences, unless one arrogantly maintains that sin always blinds those in opposing camps from seeing obvious truths, which even a "plowboy" (Luther's famous phrase) ought to be able to grasp. Obviously, an authoritative (and even infallible) interpreter is needed whether or not the Bible is perspicuous enough to be theoretically understood without help. Nothing could be clearer than that. Paper infallibility is no substitute for conciliar and/or papal infallibility, or at least an authoritative denominational (Creedal / Confessional) authority, if nothing else.
[b]
The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.[/b]


"Heart speaks to heart" - John Henry Cardinal Newman The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/perspicuity-clearness-of-scripture.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1048784' date='Aug 23 2006, 07:49 AM']
Nice BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN....

But everyone knows that isn't so, except maybe you.
[url="http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm"]http://withchrist.org/catholic.htm[/url]
You mean you CANNOT see, rather than HAVE NOT seen.

There is quite the difference.
[/quote]
A true Catholic is one who believes in the dogmas taught by the Church and is loyal to Rome and the Magisterium. Those who do not, whether schismatic "rad-trads," or liberal "Catholics" who deny some or all of Church doctrine, are not really Catholics, despite what they may call themselves.

Other divisions are more about differences in worship style than theological disagreement.
(For instance, Eastern and Latin Rite Catholics have different lituriges and liturgical traditions, yet both believe the same doctrine, and are loyal to Rome.)

Surely, Budge and Euty would agree that there are many calling themselves "Christian" (including non-Catholics) who are in fact Christian in name only!

Many use words such as "Christian" and "Catholic" as "cultural" labels which have very little meaning.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Socrates

[Eutychus]

[quote]A true Catholic is one who believes in the dogmas taught by the Church and is loyal to Rome and the Magisterium. Those who do not, whether schismatic "rad-trads," or liberal "Catholics" who deny some or all of Church doctrine, are not really Catholics, despite what they may call themselves. [/quote]

Odd, the Trads say that about YOUR sort of Roman Catholic.

They, at least, have historical precedence behind them.

And the Liberals thing both of you are wrong.

So, who decides who is right, and TOSSES OUT the others? After all, everyone cannot be right, and the ones that are "wrong" without being excomunicated, have every bit as much right to claim fealty and correctness as anyone else.

That is what the MAGICSTEERINGTHEM is for ... isn't it? To remove the heretics?

[curtins]

There is no 'tossing out'. There is the truth, as contained in the Catholic church, and then there is less than the truth. If you do not submitt to the teachings of the Church, ie the truth, then you are not being tossed out- you are making your own prideful decision.

The magisterium exists to teach on faith and morals.

[Eutychus]

[quote]
The magisterium exists to teach on faith and morals.[/quote]

Why so many "Magicsteeringthems" then?

Ordinary

Teaching

Extraordinary

Superduperordinary?

Frankly, it just seems like a program designed to give "plausible deniabilty" whenever someone muffs one, they can disavow each other, and frequently do.

[homeschoolmom]

Stop refering to the Magistarium as the "Magicsteeringthems."

[Eutychus]

[quote]Magistarium [/quote]

Why?

I'm not catholic, and I find the very concept hilarous beyond belief. Since NO ONE actually knows who they are, and there are what, three or FOUR different versions of them...it is a concept that actually parallels the Sanhedrin or the Rabbinical Councils.

You do know, that in Matthew 23, when Jesus says call no man "teacher" the actual word in GREEK when translated into Latin is MAGISTER, so actually your church, picked the ONE word that Jesus said not to use for collective governence and made it into THE word that they use.

Magister = Teacher = Magisteerium = Group of Teachers = Sanhedrin

Edited August 23, 2006 by Eutychus

[homeschoolmom]

You've been asked not to do it. It's offensive. I know you think that it's okay to be offensive, but it's not. Don't do it again.

[Eutychus]

My my my.....

Are we touchy today or what?

If you insist, but I find PROTESTANT highly offensive to me.

Shall we trade off?

[homeschoolmom]

I'm not touchy today. I'm just getting tired of you being rude by refering to our clergy as the boys in silk dresses among other things. You hide behind the fact that the phorum guildlines grant you a little more wiggle room because you are not Catholic. However, common courtesy would ask that you be polite. You are not. It is diffiicult to have a civil dialogue this way.

[Eutychus]

Not to belabor the point, but they do wear silk dresses.

Evangelicals would laugh a preacher out of the pulpit who showed up gussied up like those dandies, with watered silk, lace, and such.

Why should, I *an evangelical* honor those who are so obviously violating the CLEAR teachings of Jesus? Walking around, dressed like SPECIAL HUMANS, desiring praise, honor, and using such terms of address as holy father, your eminence, your excellency, and other such honorifics SPECIFICALLY condemned? The dress is condemned, the titles are condemned, and I will NOT pretent to have anything other than disguste at those effeminate prissies in such garb and with such elevated needs for human adoration.

[quote]Matthew 23:1 (KJV) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
[color="#990000"][b]
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.[/b][/color]

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: { MAGISTERIUM } for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
[size=5]
[b]1[color="#990000"]2 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; [/color][/b][/size]and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.[/quote]

We are NOT told to honor such men, but to DEBASE them openly, and so I do.

I'm just following the CLEAR instructions of our Lord Jesus Christ here.

[homeschoolmom]

Those graduating from HS are not wearing dresses. Neither are the clergy who wear vestments.

[bball33]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1049271' date='Aug 23 2006, 09:14 PM']
We are NOT told to honor such men, but to DEBASE them openly, and so I do.

I'm just following the CLEAR instructions of our Lord Jesus Christ here.
[/quote]

I find it quite funny. Why do you use scripture against other scripture? Jesus said to obey your authority. You know, the perception is in the eye of the beholder, and obviously, you have a different perception than I do about the Church. However, when you signed up you agreed to a set of rules which ask you to not debase them. I could go around calling Billy Graham and several other prominent "evangelicals" names, because I may or may not like them, yet I do not. Either way, do it because you were asked.