Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 01-23-2013, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

as I know, but that the protestant interpretation so they can brew salvation recipies.

Faith in the heart is required here and that is the fruition of good works as in 'good works against the stream of consciousness,' which so is just contrary to 'repent and belief' to become 'believe and repent' with it's implications.

Waldenses and Cathars:

Sola fide ---Only faith is sufficient for salvation, is indeed a salvation recipe, you are right. It is of course a religious concept and it has no meaning outside religion and it is true that every religion requires faith as the necessary condition for salvation from some misfortune or another

Faith and good works as the recipe for salvation---- It looks more reasonable than sola fide because naive people believe it is more rational and moral than sola fide, but it is not true. Faith and good works is an enslaving doctrine.
The work that must be added to faith is not the honest behaviour of a good pagan, but the compliance with the very specific rules of behaviour of religion. As an illustration, a kind nice catholic wilfully fails to go to mass on a Sunday and that means a capital sin and hell. Confessing this horrible sin to a priest is the behaviour of a slave and being forgiven by the priest can only be an act of faith.

Sola fide means faith in god and faith plus works means faith in the pope and his troopers. The murder of political opponents of the papacy is an example of the good works required for salvation from the wrath of the pope in this life and divine hell after death.

Chili · 01-23-2013, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

[Waldenses and Cathars:

Sola fide ---Only faith is sufficient for salvation, is indeed a salvation recipe, you are right. It is of course a religious concept and it has no meaning outside religion and it is true that every religion requires faith as the necessary condition for salvation from some misfortune or another

Faith and good works as the recipe for salvation---- It looks more reasonable than sola fide because naive people believe it is more rational and moral than sola fide, but it is not true. Faith and good works is an enslaving doctrine.
The work that must be added to faith is not the honest behaviour of a good pagan, but the compliance with the very specific rules of behaviour of religion. As an illustration, a kind nice catholic wilfully fails to go to mass on a Sunday and that means a capital sin and hell. Confessing this horrible sin to a priest is the behaviour of a slave and being forgiven by the priest can only be an act of faith.

Sola fide means faith in god and faith plus works means faith in the pope and his troopers. The murder of political opponents of the papacy is an example of the good works required for salvation from the wrath of the pope in this life and divine hell after death.

Right direction for sure, and good works does not mean for righeousness sake, while in fact just the opposite is true. I like the enslaving aspect you wrote as sheep under the shepherd, and further aloof under the pope and his militant regime only for as far as it pertains to his flock.

He so is like a people rancher on his side his own fence where Christ dwells among them in the maturing of age without ageing in presence because Mary is crowned Queen mother of the Church who is renewed 'in and by' the age as it move through the ages, and so is what 'infallibility' is about. It just means in charge of destiny in a realm of their own, which makes them untouchable in it, i.e. we have our own law and by that law he must die as Catholic and as Catholic only so the man (as Christ) can be set free in him too.

To get back to your point, the good works is not directly about achievements, but the contradiction they create between good and evil inside the mind of the believer to the point that it triggers a seclusion or resignment of worldly affairs, that so is like spinning a coccoon wherein renewal is part of the plan they are trying to bring about, so that 'the God within' can do his own thing.

In this Piety in children is crucial to paint a picture of Eden in them that becomes the starting point from where they enter their own world that eventually becomes their own labyrinth in the mind of the believer, who is challenged to enter with telic vision (Sola Fida) to slay the minotaur within.

And so the the prettier Eden is painted the easier the minotaur is seen as the enemy within to bring this incubation about. In this sense good works are the complexity of our own Spire, Golding called it:

Quote:

"that was to rise another eighty feet in another chamber, with more lights, more hosannaing heads, more platforms and ladders, so that the mind whinced to think of it; whinced at any rate up here, where solidity balanced in midair among the birds, held its breath over a diminishing series of squares with a round hole at the bottom which nevertheless was the top."

. . . that he now wanted to reach in his own tipsy-turvy world as seen from above. So the works do belong as the labyrinth must exist before the minotaur can be seen, and then a life-line is needed to get back home with white sails, now as our private Snow White in charge. This life-line then is Infant Baptism when a white candle is given to keep so it may serve them as the life-line to get back home and so find that it will drag us to Rome as we trail from 'shiner' to 'shiner' as the primitive altars we placed along the way out, like Hansel and Grethel maybe, as milestones of faith instead of deeds of righteousness as breadcrumbs placed along the way in that the ravens picked aways to leave us stranded and lost in a small world of our own.

It's all imagery and the above is the venue they try to maintain against all the others, each with a shortcut of their own also known as 'Transavenue 49' that goes from the early signs of trouble ahead directly to Jesus and leave the turmoil to rot in the believer himself.

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2013, 08:39 AM

Were there not three groups of Protestants? The monarchs and princes who like Henry VIII wanted to decide somethings for themselves, like who is my wife, the clerics and scholars and the others - the Levellers, ranters, Quakers.

I am not at all clear that the gnostic traditions of the pure ones - the good god and the evil one who made the earth - survived, except in secret and much changed.

In my opinion Languedoc is stiil a hot bed of heresy, although pretending to be Catholic they have produced Gaudi, Dali, Miro, Picasso and Barcelona FC!

Iskander · 01-23-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Were there not three groups of Protestants? The monarchs and princes who like Henry VIII wanted to decide somethings for themselves, like who is my wife, the clerics and scholars and the others - the Levellers, ranters, Quakers.

I am not at all clear that the gnostic traditions of the pure ones - the good god and the evil one who made the earth - survived, except in secret and much changed.

In my opinion Languedoc is stiil a hot bed of heresy, although pretending to be Catholic they have produced Gaudi, Dali, Miro, Picasso and Barcelona FC!

The gnostics are the playmate of the marcionites.

Protestants:

The Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.

Quote:

The 14th century witnessed greater social changes in England than any other century except the 19th. These changes were in large part a result of the hundred years’ war with France, which began in 1337, and the terrible ravages of the Black Death. The century was marked by the legal adoption of the English tongue as the language of the country and the increased respect for parliament, in whose counsels the rich burgher class demanded a voice, and its definite division into two houses, 1341. The social unrest of the land found expression in popular harangues, poems, and tracts, affirming the rights of the villein and serf class, and in the uprising known as the Peasants’ Revolt.

The distinctly religious life of England, in this period, was marked by obstinate resistance to the papal claims of jurisdiction, culminating in the Acts of Provisors [statutes of provisors, http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_...visors1351.asp ]
, and by the appearance of John Wyclif, one of the most original and vigorous personalities the English Church has produced.

The uprising, which broke out in 1381, was a vigorous assertion of the popular demand for a redress of the social inequalities between classes in England. The insurgent bands, which marched to London, were pacified by the fair promises of Richard II., but the Kentish band led by Watt Tyler, before dispersing, took the Tower and put the primate, Sudbury, to death. He had refused to favor the repeal of the hated decapitation tax. The abbeys of St. Albans and Edmondsbury were plundered and the monks ill treated,

The demands of the insurgents, as they bore on the clergy, insisted that Church lands and goods, after sufficient allowance had been made for the reasonable wants of the clergy, should be distributed among the parishioners, and that there should be a single bishop for England. This involved a rupture with Rome

sotto voce · 01-23-2013, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.

The Church of England did not exist in the 14th century, as Church Society will confirm. The body that the CoE was to unanimously describe as antichrist, a body it believed to be described in 2 Co 11:14-15, had a 'branch' called Ecclesia Anglicana, what it pretended was the church in England. A small semantic difference? One that launched the Spanish Armada, anyway.

Iskander · 01-23-2013, 12:39 PM

Protestants:

Quote:

§ 39. The Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.

The memorable statute of Provisors forbade all papal provisions and reservations and all taxation of Church property contrary to the customs of England. The act of 1353 sought more effectually to clip the pope’s power by forbidding the carrying of any suit against an English patron before a foreign tribunal

History of the Christian Church, Volume VI: The Middle Ages. A.D. 1294-1517.by Philip Schaff

Horatio Parker · 01-23-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have been wondering whether any information exists about the sociological context of the Europeans first drawn to Protestantism in the 16th century, and whether any of those Europeans had had a direct or indirect association with the ideas of the so-called heretics known as Cathars, Waldenses and Bogomils in terms of rejecting the power and claims of Roman Catholicism. It would appear that so many Europeans were drawn to Protestantism so quickly because they were elements who were not so deeply invested in Catholicism to begin with, and not that they were ALL loyal Catholics who gave up Orthodoxy. I presume there were many other unknown groups who were in Europe.

The church apologists ascribe Manichaean/gnostic heresy against Christianity to the early enemies, and yet argue that the sects accepted the NT canon. But perhaps as remnants from pre-Christian society (even if they were not part of the sects) they simply never fully accepted the official empire religion and adopted the Orthodox canon as part of their own syncretic beliefs. On the other hand, perhaps these later apologists labeled these sects with the convenient descriptions due to the rejection by these sects of the official Orthodox church.

This might explain the rapid growth of Protestantism in certain areas while not in others.

Regarding the usual history describing the Manichaeans, this also seems to be an attempt by early Church writers at legitimizing the authenticity of the NT texts by claiming that the Manichaeans had beliefs about Jesus as early as the second century.

One point I haven't seen mentioned is the collapse of the Byzantine empire. As the Moslems closed in on Constantinople, ancient Greek archives were sent to the west. Including various versions of the bible.

Western scholars learned a number of unpleasant things, among them that the Donation of Constantine, the Popes legal basis for taxation and other powers, was a forgery.

sotto voce · 01-23-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Protestants:

Quote:

§ 39. The Church in England in the Fourteenth Century.

Amateur definitions, Iskander. A Protestant is not a protester. Catholics were protesters. Most protesters were Catholics. Just as they are today!

And sola fide is not about salvation.

Do ask an expert.

Iskander · 01-23-2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

One of the most curious usages is the growth of the word ‘Protestant’. It originally related to a specific occasion in 1529, when the Holy Roman Empire’s Diet (imperial assembly) held in the city of Speyer, the group of princes and cities who supported the programmes of reformation promoted by Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli found themselves in a voting minority: to keep their solidarity, they issued a ‘Protestatio’, affirming the reforming belief they shared. The label ‘Protestants’ thereafter was part of German or imperial politics for decades, and did not have a wider reference than that.

When the coronation of little King Edward VI was being organized in London in 1547, the planners putting in order the procession of dignitaries through the city appointed a place for the ‘Protestants’, by whom they meant the diplomatic representatives of these reforming Germans that were staying in the capital.

Only rather later did the word gain a broader reference

Reformation, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Penguin books,
ISBN 9780140285345.page XX

sotto voce · 01-23-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

One of the most curious usages is the growth of the word ‘Protestant’. It originally related to a specific occasion in 1529, when the Holy Roman Empire’s Diet (imperial assembly) held in the city of Speyer, the group of princes and cities who supported the programmes of reformation promoted by Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli found themselves in a voting minority: to keep their solidarity, they issued a ‘Protestatio’, affirming the reforming belief they shared. The label ‘Protestants’ thereafter was part of German or imperial politics for decades, and did not have a wider reference than that.

When the coronation of little King Edward VI was being organized in London in 1547, the planners putting in order the procession of dignitaries through the city appointed a place for the ‘Protestants’, by whom they meant the diplomatic representatives of these reforming Germans that were staying in the capital.

Only rather later did the word gain a broader reference

Reformation, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Penguin books,
ISBN 9780140285345.page XX

Well done. To affirm is not to protest, is it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2013, 08:39 AM	#33
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Were there not three groups of Protestants? The monarchs and princes who like Henry VIII wanted to decide somethings for themselves, like who is my wife, the clerics and scholars and the others - the Levellers, ranters, Quakers. I am not at all clear that the gnostic traditions of the pure ones - the good god and the evil one who made the earth - survived, except in secret and much changed. In my opinion Languedoc is stiil a hot bed of heresy, although pretending to be Catholic they have produced Gaudi, Dali, Miro, Picasso and Barcelona FC!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.