I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
And again, where did I say that you mustn't read him?
The point is that Luther is a railway points operator who derailed a quarter of Christianity. Calvin laid the track after. The fact that they were black hearted men - unlike the vast majority of their innocent followers on the train from Hell - is incidental. And not coincidental.
We are not saved by our filthy rags work of faith, exercise of the free gift to the elect only, that we might receive grace, participating in a one time offer. All are saved in Christ's gracious faithfulness. All. From that twisted, accreted Gordian knot begun by Augustine and Ambrose et al before him.
@Ruth, I rate you. I really do, you're one of the pillars here, of immense, deserved stature. That will always be so for the past's sake. But going forward, unless you can substantiate by any means that I said not to read Luther, or what I said can be interpreted - the magic word - that way, that cannot continue.
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
Probably a topic such as "Wicked Bad Christians" would get some attention ship-board.
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
I think they should all be pointed out and their theology examined. And not just Christianity.
But "there are other bastards too" is not a reason to ignore the examination of one of them.
Especially the arguably most seminal figure in the protestant reformation.
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
I think they should all be pointed out and their theology examined. And not just Christianity.
But "there are other bastards too" is not a reason to ignore the examination of one of them.
Especially the arguably most seminal figure in the protestant reformation.
I don't think that anyone here has been ignoring the examination of Luther. The Lutherans and 'fellow travellers' here have been willing to engage, and quite patient, at least mostly and initially. It's Martin54's monomaniacal crusade that 'gets the mustard up my nose'. This reminds me of his crusades of some years past, which were equally generating of heat and darkness.
I don't think that anyone here has been ignoring the examination of Luther. The Lutherans and 'fellow travellers' here have been willing to engage, and quite patient, at least mostly and initially. It's Martin54's monomaniacal crusade that 'gets the mustard up my nose'. This reminds me of his crusades of some years past, which were equally generating of heat and darkness.
You've been patiently enduring being named for a murderously heated Jew-hater who unbelievably further derailed (I mean, who'd have thought it could get much worse?) a third of Christianity? Well done thou good and faithful. Unless you aren't a Lutheran by name of course, but only de facto in his dark 'theology'.
Humanity must wait another 500 years for the Reformed, litotically Evangelical, heart of darkness to have its final beat I suppose.
And if you or any other damnationist has got cool enlightenment to bring to the Augustinean-Lutheran-Calvinist totem pole, to justifying this axis of evil that runs through then barble belt, prey do. I mean please, really, justify your God will you?
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
And again, where did I say that you mustn't read him?
The point is that Luther is a railway points operator who derailed a quarter of Christianity. Calvin laid the track after. The fact that they were black hearted men - unlike the vast majority of their innocent followers on the train from Hell - is incidental. And not coincidental.
That really isn't how intellectual history works. Something like the Reformation would have probably happened had Luther never been born, although not in the same way. Also I don't really think that you can seriously claim that Luther and Calvin were black hearted men who persuaded a third of Christendom - otherwise goodhearted - to adopt their doctrines. The Reformers squabbled like cats in a sack, the idea that they submitted tamely to Luther and Calvin on all points of doctrine would have caused them to laugh like a drain. The reason that none of them adopted a Neo-orthodox universalist soteriology isn't because Lex Luther and his evil sidekick put the 'fluence on them but because the idea wasn't current at the time. You might as well blame Francis I of France for not adopting the political stances of Jean-Paul Sartre!
@Ruth, I rate you. I really do, you're one of the pillars here, of immense, deserved stature. That will always be so for the past's sake. But going forward, unless you can substantiate by any means that I said not to read Luther, or what I said can be interpreted - the magic word - that way, that cannot continue.
I inferred from your likening the word "Lutheran" itself to the Confederate flag, from your description of Luther's theology as "murderously wrong," from your saying that "Lutheranism is diametrically opposite and opposed to Christ," from your calling a cornerstone of Lutheranism a "medieval schoolboy error," etc etc, that you don't think people should read Luther's works. But if you think we should be reading them, I regret the error and await further instruction with bated breath. I wouldn't want you hauling me down off my pedestal.
Nicely done @Ruth. Dignified, open, honest, courageous, humble and combative. Impressive. I'm afraid your position is secure going forward.
Lutherans continue to incarnate Christ whilst paradoxically bearing the name of His greatest misrepresenter. Heresiarch. Blasphemer. And yes, if they knew his evil works and black theology that they call white, as our sacredness gene compels, and came to realise that the opposite is true, that their faith in Christ doesn't save them, that His faithfulness in them does, then maybe they could modify that descriptor? Just prefix Anti- or the softer Post-.
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
And again, where did I say that you mustn't read him?
The point is that Luther is a railway points operator who derailed a quarter of Christianity. Calvin laid the track after. The fact that they were black hearted men - unlike the vast majority of their innocent followers on the train from Hell - is incidental. And not coincidental.
That really isn't how intellectual history works. Something like the Reformation would have probably happened had Luther never been born, although not in the same way. Also I don't really think that you can seriously claim that Luther and Calvin were black hearted men who persuaded a third of Christendom - otherwise goodhearted - to adopt their doctrines. The Reformers squabbled like cats in a sack, the idea that they submitted tamely to Luther and Calvin on all points of doctrine would have caused them to laugh like a drain. The reason that none of them adopted a Neo-orthodox universalist soteriology isn't because Lex Luther and his evil sidekick put the 'fluence on them but because the idea wasn't current at the time. You might as well blame Francis I of France for not adopting the political stances of Jean-Paul Sartre!
Of course it doesn't Callan, excellent response. The innocent followers are those centuries later who saved the Jews of occupied Denmark and Norway, and Holland and Germany where they could, and now save refugees in the US as per my link above. And yes, I'm a great believer in determinism, that the perverted, inverted, reversed theology would have happened one way or another. We have to go down every possible social evolutionary cul-de-sac after all. Whatever we can get wrong, we will. Forever in matters of religion. The ancient denominations are still overwhelmed with patriarchy that they can never transcend, they have too much face to lose and their epistemology is irreparable. The next ice age maximum might change everything, might enable us to recalibrate, but no, that's fantasy. We will continue to justify where the elephant has taken us as our idea.
Nicely done @Ruth. Dignified, open, honest, courageous, humble and combative. Impressive. I'm afraid your position is secure going forward.
Combative in the sense of standing your ground, maintaining an honourable pugilist stance according to The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, even in a bare knuckle fight in Hell.
I never said there was nothing to repudiate in Luther. There's plenty. I just don't see the point of singling out Luther when there are so many problematic and outright horrific characters in the history of Christianity.
And again, where did I say that you mustn't read him?
The point is that Luther is a railway points operator who derailed a quarter of Christianity. Calvin laid the track after. The fact that they were black hearted men - unlike the vast majority of their innocent followers on the train from Hell - is incidental. And not coincidental.
That really isn't how intellectual history works. Something like the Reformation would have probably happened had Luther never been born,
Given that Thou Shalt Schism is practically the 11th commandment and that the rulers of many countries were looking for an excuse to shed Papal power and tribute, of course it was going to happen. It doesn't change that Luther and his beliefs are, in out timeline, directly influential.
On my jacket when spectating drag racing. Why the question? Not many Lutherans per se, de jure in the UK either. Millions de facto.
I asked because I'm curious about your lived experience of a symbol belonging to a horror in another country.
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
On my jacket when spectating drag racing. Why the question? Not many Lutherans per se, de jure in the UK either. Millions de facto.
I asked because I'm curious about your lived experience of a symbol belonging to a horror in another country.
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
Just to clarify: in your opinion are all Protestants who are not Arminian, something like the Orthodox, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Universalist in their Soteriology therefore Lutherans whether they call themselves that or not?
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
Which tells me jack shit about why you brought in the Confederate flag.
On my jacket when spectating drag racing. Why the question? Not many Lutherans per se, de jure in the UK either. Millions de facto.
I asked because I'm curious about your lived experience of a symbol belonging to a horror in another country.
@Ruth I may be able to answer the question you think @Martin54 is evading.
This may sound really odd to you. There was a minority (very minority) enthusiasm in some circles in the UK 40+ years ago for drag racing - which I think is racing two very high powered home made vehicles from a standing start over a fairy short distance. A bit like Country and Western, another minority enthusiasm, part of the appeal was that it was exotic, a bit outré, counter-cultural, or perhaps un-cultural . In addition to the noise, mechanical tinkering and hot oil, its enthusiasts would have wanted to emulate the styles of the sort of people who they imagined did drag racing back where they assumed it was invented in red-neck Southern parts of the USA. One of the accoutrements of that association was the Confederate Flag, which they might also have seen painted on the roof of 'General Lee' the Dukes of Hazards' car.
UK drag raisers would not have been alert to all the resonances of the Confederate flag in the US. They would just have seen it as cool among their own subculture.
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
Which tells me jack shit about why you brought in the Confederate flag.
Er, it's an analogy Ruth? Which others see clearly? From the get go?
On my jacket when spectating drag racing. Why the question? Not many Lutherans per se, de jure in the UK either. Millions de facto.
I asked because I'm curious about your lived experience of a symbol belonging to a horror in another country.
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
Just to clarify: in your opinion are all Protestants who are not Arminian, something like the Orthodox, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Universalist in their Soteriology therefore Lutherans whether they call themselves that or not?
Yeah. Because they all call themselves Protestant. If they don't buy in to saving faith in Christ, then they shouldn't. Once you've gone beyond that sola fide cul-de-sac, you're not in that street any more. And regardless of how nice and liberal many Protestants, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Calminians are, the vast majority daren't be. The five significant Anglican congregations I've belonged to included. The biggest the worst by far. But the conversation is impossible in all. The elephant of damnationism fills every sermon, every fearful ear. I have never encountered anyone in Anglicanism bar one person, a priest, who yearned beyond the ghastly confines of faith in Christ. And that was privately of course. Protestant liberals are so despite Protestant theology. I have encountered two Baptist clergy who were superbly de- and re-constructed, but like the Anglican priest, they have to leave the dogma behind, unresolved, which even Protestant emergents like Bell and McLaren have to do. When it actually has been from the beginning.
Please tell me I'm wrong. That I'm as fearfully ignorant as I find the clergy. Worse. That they all know Luther's bitter schoolboy error and all is well. That universalism is orthodox, that the Bible is redeemed by it. Despite nobody here ever saying that to my inadequate recollection. Or my not hearing it if they did. Not even the Orthodox.
It's time to roll back 500 then 2,000 years of damnationism and proclaim universal salvation in Christ, thanks to His faithfulness, as He and Paul clearly, repeatedly, explicitly, only did.
Because 40 years ago I was unforgivably ignorant in draping myself in it when it was flown to defend the evil of slavery, by Christians, built on the holocaust by Christians of four million dead in and around the 'Middle Passage', during a war between Christians that cost a million dead.
Much as nice Lutherans, Evangelicals, Protestants are ignorant of Luther's Jew, Catholic and peasant hatred and the perverse theology - heresy - which drove that, which they still can't not believe.
Because 40 years ago I was unforgivably ignorant in draping myself in it when it was flown to defend the evil of slavery, by Christians, built on the holocaust by Christians of four million dead in and around the 'Middle Passage', during a war between Christians that cost a million dead.
Much as nice Lutherans, Evangelicals, Protestants are ignorant of Luther's Jew, Catholic and peasant hatred and the perverse theology - heresy - which drove that, which they still can't not believe.
So, that's great! Nobody here is a Protestant, an Evangelical, a Lutheran in anything else but name, nobody here is still living under the twisted delusion at its core and/or blaming Paul for that or anything else!
Martin, given that your attitude has resulted in those shipmates who actually belong to Lutheran churches disengaging from this thread, I’m not sure I’d hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
Really Nick? Fancy that. The lack of argument is because there isn't one. But human nature being what it is, that's not going to stop anyone, everyone calling themselves Evangelical as per Luther by more than name, believing it.
Matin, you are doing the same as Luther: you are basing your argument on one verse. You may not be interpreting it the same way as Luther did, but you are still proof-texting. And posturing. And it is not worth anyone’s time to try to have a nuanced argument with you.
... I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
I'm not quite sure I've understood what you are arguing, and why you claim you can condemn the whole of Protestant Christianity so unequivocally. Indeed, your unconditional vehemence sounds not that different from those pre-Vatican II Catholics who take the line that everybody who's not a good Catholic is sliding down the shute that leads directly into the flames of hell.
Nor is it entirely clear, or at least it isn't to me, what it is that you advocate in stead.
However, I don't think you're correct in referring to sola fide as believing that we are saved by faith in Christ. That is treating faith as a salvific work. One does hear people speaking in such terms, but we're saved by Christ, his life, death and resurrection, not by what we do or believe.
But, like @Nick Tamen and those to whom he refers, I'm not at the moment minded to carry on engaging with this thread, and my silence must not be taken as agreeing or disagreeing with anything on it.
There's no argument, @Martin54, because you haven't put forward anything worth arguing with. You're just ranting.
@Enoch, thanks for the explanation of how the Confederate flag was sometimes used in the UK. It doesn't sound all that odd - when people lift symbols out of their original culture, all sorts of strange things are bound to happen.
Martin, given that your attitude has resulted in those shipmates who actually belong to Lutheran churches disengaging from this thread, I’m not sure I’d hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
Martin, given that your attitude has resulted in those shipmates who actually belong to Lutheran churches disengaging from this thread, I’m not sure I’d hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
The lack of arguments in response is that there has been no argument in chief. All there have been are what you generously term propositions without any backing.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
The lack of arguments in response is that there has been no argument in chief. All there have been are what you generously term propositions without any backing.
What proposition would you like?
No one is saved by faith in Christ.
All are saved by the faithfulness of Christ.
Do you need backing for that?
I'd like to see any full backing for the opposite.
Martin, given that your attitude has resulted in those shipmates who actually belong to Lutheran churches disengaging from this thread, I’m not sure I’d hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
Agreed.
With what? Nick's baseless fear?
Give me a freaking break. That “fear” is based on long experience. I’m not the only one who’s said it’s a waste of time to attempt to engage with you and your pontification. You’ve taught us all that lesson quite well.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
The lack of arguments in response is that there has been no argument in chief. All there have been are what you generously term propositions without any backing.
What proposition would you like?
No one is saved by faith in Christ.
All are saved by the faithfulness of Christ.
Do you need backing for that?
Yes. You’ve stated a proposition. That’s not enough. You need to support it. You need to show your work. You need to give others some basis to consider whether you might be right, or where you might be wrong.
But if experience is any guide, you won’t. You will simply declare that it’s so because you say so, that it has to be so.
Hence, the waste of complete time engaging with you. You don’t reciprocate.
I'd like to see any full backing for the opposite.
Why should you expect anyone else to provide a “full backing” when you’re unwilling—and seem to think it totally unnecessary—to provide any backing at all? You started this thread. The burden is on you, not on those who have to guess at your reasoning to counter it.
Martin, given that your attitude has resulted in those shipmates who actually belong to Lutheran churches disengaging from this thread, I’m not sure I’d hold my breath waiting for an answer to that question.
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
Agreed.
With what? Nick's baseless fear?
Martin try putting your thought into language we can all understand; explain odd linguistic constructions if you feel you must use them; and be open minded enough to not disregard other's objections out of hand. If you can do those then maybe we can talk.
Comments
And again, where did I say that you mustn't read him?
The point is that Luther is a railway points operator who derailed a quarter of Christianity. Calvin laid the track after. The fact that they were black hearted men - unlike the vast majority of their innocent followers on the train from Hell - is incidental. And not coincidental.
Probably a topic such as "Wicked Bad Christians" would get some attention ship-board.
But "there are other bastards too" is not a reason to ignore the examination of one of them.
Especially the arguably most seminal figure in the protestant reformation.
Stimmt. No question.
You've been patiently enduring being named for a murderously heated Jew-hater who unbelievably further derailed (I mean, who'd have thought it could get much worse?) a third of Christianity? Well done thou good and faithful. Unless you aren't a Lutheran by name of course, but only de facto in his dark 'theology'.
Humanity must wait another 500 years for the Reformed, litotically Evangelical, heart of darkness to have its final beat I suppose.
Nor would they. Even if they actually wanted this. It'd make them targets
That really isn't how intellectual history works. Something like the Reformation would have probably happened had Luther never been born, although not in the same way. Also I don't really think that you can seriously claim that Luther and Calvin were black hearted men who persuaded a third of Christendom - otherwise goodhearted - to adopt their doctrines. The Reformers squabbled like cats in a sack, the idea that they submitted tamely to Luther and Calvin on all points of doctrine would have caused them to laugh like a drain. The reason that none of them adopted a Neo-orthodox universalist soteriology isn't because Lex Luther and his evil sidekick put the 'fluence on them but because the idea wasn't current at the time. You might as well blame Francis I of France for not adopting the political stances of Jean-Paul Sartre!
I inferred from your likening the word "Lutheran" itself to the Confederate flag, from your description of Luther's theology as "murderously wrong," from your saying that "Lutheranism is diametrically opposite and opposed to Christ," from your calling a cornerstone of Lutheranism a "medieval schoolboy error," etc etc, that you don't think people should read Luther's works. But if you think we should be reading them, I regret the error and await further instruction with bated breath. I wouldn't want you hauling me down off my pedestal.
Lutherans continue to incarnate Christ whilst paradoxically bearing the name of His greatest misrepresenter. Heresiarch. Blasphemer. And yes, if they knew his evil works and black theology that they call white, as our sacredness gene compels, and came to realise that the opposite is true, that their faith in Christ doesn't save them, that His faithfulness in them does, then maybe they could modify that descriptor? Just prefix Anti- or the softer Post-.
Of course it doesn't Callan, excellent response. The innocent followers are those centuries later who saved the Jews of occupied Denmark and Norway, and Holland and Germany where they could, and now save refugees in the US as per my link above. And yes, I'm a great believer in determinism, that the perverted, inverted, reversed theology would have happened one way or another. We have to go down every possible social evolutionary cul-de-sac after all. Whatever we can get wrong, we will. Forever in matters of religion. The ancient denominations are still overwhelmed with patriarchy that they can never transcend, they have too much face to lose and their epistemology is irreparable. The next ice age maximum might change everything, might enable us to recalibrate, but no, that's fantasy. We will continue to justify where the elephant has taken us as our idea.
Combative in the sense of standing your ground, maintaining an honourable pugilist stance according to The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, even in a bare knuckle fight in Hell.
Might just be irrelevant as there are far more pressing issues to address.
Really? Anything else that Lutherans could do anything about? Apart from ditching their heresy?
I asked because I'm curious about your lived experience of a symbol belonging to a horror in another country.
Lutheranism by name doesn't break the surface in the UK obviously, not that the Church does either, but everyone knows it's there. What they don't realise is that two thirds of them are Lutheran by bums on pew, that the whole culture one way or another assumes it. Luther's antisemitism (anti-Judaism be damned) was a by product of his sola fide heresy, an effect of that cause. A heresy in the longggg tradition of Western heresy, a natural progression from Tertullian et al and dear old Augustine. Luther took it to the next level and we have lived with that, experienced that, for 500 years. Hundreds of millions yet do and billions will yet.
Just to clarify: in your opinion are all Protestants who are not Arminian, something like the Orthodox, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, or Universalist in their Soteriology therefore Lutherans whether they call themselves that or not?
Which tells me jack shit about why you brought in the Confederate flag.
This may sound really odd to you. There was a minority (very minority) enthusiasm in some circles in the UK 40+ years ago for drag racing - which I think is racing two very high powered home made vehicles from a standing start over a fairy short distance. A bit like Country and Western, another minority enthusiasm, part of the appeal was that it was exotic, a bit outré, counter-cultural, or perhaps un-cultural . In addition to the noise, mechanical tinkering and hot oil, its enthusiasts would have wanted to emulate the styles of the sort of people who they imagined did drag racing back where they assumed it was invented in red-neck Southern parts of the USA. One of the accoutrements of that association was the Confederate Flag, which they might also have seen painted on the roof of 'General Lee' the Dukes of Hazards' car.
UK drag raisers would not have been alert to all the resonances of the Confederate flag in the US. They would just have seen it as cool among their own subculture.
As I said, this might sound very odd.
Er, it's an analogy Ruth? Which others see clearly? From the get go?
Yeah. Because they all call themselves Protestant. If they don't buy in to saving faith in Christ, then they shouldn't. Once you've gone beyond that sola fide cul-de-sac, you're not in that street any more. And regardless of how nice and liberal many Protestants, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Calminians are, the vast majority daren't be. The five significant Anglican congregations I've belonged to included. The biggest the worst by far. But the conversation is impossible in all. The elephant of damnationism fills every sermon, every fearful ear. I have never encountered anyone in Anglicanism bar one person, a priest, who yearned beyond the ghastly confines of faith in Christ. And that was privately of course. Protestant liberals are so despite Protestant theology. I have encountered two Baptist clergy who were superbly de- and re-constructed, but like the Anglican priest, they have to leave the dogma behind, unresolved, which even Protestant emergents like Bell and McLaren have to do. When it actually has been from the beginning.
Please tell me I'm wrong. That I'm as fearfully ignorant as I find the clergy. Worse. That they all know Luther's bitter schoolboy error and all is well. That universalism is orthodox, that the Bible is redeemed by it. Despite nobody here ever saying that to my inadequate recollection. Or my not hearing it if they did. Not even the Orthodox.
It's time.
Much as nice Lutherans, Evangelicals, Protestants are ignorant of Luther's Jew, Catholic and peasant hatred and the perverse theology - heresy - which drove that, which they still can't not believe.
So who is this about exactly?
So why keep the name?
I’m also afraid you may be taking the lack of argument with your propositions as an indication of full agreement with them. It’s more likely, I think, that no one sees any point in wasting their time.
I'm not quite sure I've understood what you are arguing, and why you claim you can condemn the whole of Protestant Christianity so unequivocally. Indeed, your unconditional vehemence sounds not that different from those pre-Vatican II Catholics who take the line that everybody who's not a good Catholic is sliding down the shute that leads directly into the flames of hell.
Nor is it entirely clear, or at least it isn't to me, what it is that you advocate in stead.
However, I don't think you're correct in referring to sola fide as believing that we are saved by faith in Christ. That is treating faith as a salvific work. One does hear people speaking in such terms, but we're saved by Christ, his life, death and resurrection, not by what we do or believe.
But, like @Nick Tamen and those to whom he refers, I'm not at the moment minded to carry on engaging with this thread, and my silence must not be taken as agreeing or disagreeing with anything on it.
@Enoch, thanks for the explanation of how the Confederate flag was sometimes used in the UK. It doesn't sound all that odd - when people lift symbols out of their original culture, all sorts of strange things are bound to happen.
Agreed.
With what? Nick's baseless fear?
The lack of arguments in response is that there has been no argument in chief. All there have been are what you generously term propositions without any backing.
What proposition would you like?
No one is saved by faith in Christ.
All are saved by the faithfulness of Christ.
Do you need backing for that?
I'd like to see any full backing for the opposite.
Yes. You’ve stated a proposition. That’s not enough. You need to support it. You need to show your work. You need to give others some basis to consider whether you might be right, or where you might be wrong.
But if experience is any guide, you won’t. You will simply declare that it’s so because you say so, that it has to be so.
Hence, the waste of complete time engaging with you. You don’t reciprocate.
Why should you expect anyone else to provide a “full backing” when you’re unwilling—and seem to think it totally unnecessary—to provide any backing at all? You started this thread. The burden is on you, not on those who have to guess at your reasoning to counter it.
Martin try putting your thought into language we can all understand; explain odd linguistic constructions if you feel you must use them; and be open minded enough to not disregard other's objections out of hand. If you can do those then maybe we can talk.