Interesting video with John and Carol Arnott

This video was made a few days after John and Carol Arnott joined the late CEEC Bishop Tony Palmer and other evangelicals in the Vatican for a three-hour meeting with Pope Francis.

He speaks about “reconciled diversity.”

Any of my readers familiar with Oscar Cullman, the Lutheran theologian who put forward this view?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Interesting video with John and Carol Arnott

  1. Timothy Stevenson says:

    At 3:29, the gentleman says that “What we believe is that we are saved through faith alone”

    Ladies and gentlemen of this blog, may I remind you that the only time “Faith Alone” appears in Scripture is in James 2:24- “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

    But these people have a mutilated Bible, butchered by archheretic Martin Luther who hates the Jews so much that like Marcion of old he would prefer to destroy any sacrificial references in Christianity. SO there’s that.

  2. TACit no more says:

    What a coincidence. Though I cannot by any means say I am familiar with O. Cullman, I can say that just last night in the chapter I’m reading in my current B16 book, “Called to Communion”, I noticed mention of his name twice, with footnotes. Then when I saw this post today and read your question about him, it was immediately clear the O. must be for Oscar and he is a Lutheran theologian whom Benedict XVI (writing while still Cardinal Ratzinger) quoted. The topic is the Petrine succession and Cullman is presented as an example of a Protestant theologian who has firm ideas and arguments, though Cardinal Ratzinger felt they were not that well-founded, about whether Peter/Cephas was the true Christ-appointed leader among the Apostles and retained a ‘solo’ authority, to start the Petrine succession at Rome. As alternatives to the concept of Petrine succession, Cullman apparently made a case that Peter ceded authority to James the brother of the Lord, making Jerusalem rather than Rome the seat (See) of Apostolic authority, while Bultmann posited that a Council of James, John and Peter the ‘three pillars’ succeeded the original single figure of Peter. I hope I have got all that fairly accurate and that maybe someone such as Wm. Tighe or Norm will come along and clarify further. Everyone is hereby encouraged to read ‘Called to Communion’, yet another wonderfully clear and concise work of Joseph Ratzinger’s.

    • William Tighe says:

      I’ve forgotten most of the details about Cullmann, and it’s been years since I read anything by him. He lived from 1902 to 1999, and I think he was a “conservative liberal” (some would say “liberal conservative”) academic Lutheran theologian. He was strongly anti-papal (and advanced various arguments against viewing St. Peter as the “Chief Apostle” or the Bishop of Rome as in any sense “Peter’s successor,” let alone “heir”) for most of his life, but this lessened at the time of Vatican II. He wasn’t a proponent of WO, but didn’t oppose it when it came along. He’s not really the kind of Protestant theologian that interests me much, but in his old age he was firmly opposed to to those who would seek to deny or “reinterpret” the basic Christian Christological teachings.

      • William Tighe says:

        Also, now that I think of it, Cullmann’s ideas about “reconciled diversity” would seem to have more than a little in common with the notion put forth in the early 1980s by two German Catholic theologians, Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries, which basically argued that Catholics and Protestants (by the latter of which they probably meant mainstream German Lutherans and Reformed bodies, with maybe a side glance at the Anglicans) should simply declare “mutual recognition” of each other’s “ministries,” and allow for “intercommunion” (or at least “open eucharistic hospitality”) before resolving theological difficulties and disagreements, in the hopes that somehow they would work themselves out afterwards. Ratzinger (who became Prefect of the CDF in 1981) wrote strongly and cogently against the proposal (in his private capacity as a theologian) and this increased the growing distance between the views of Ratzinger and Rahner.

        Ratzinger also offended various Anglican ecumenists (esp. the late great Henry Chadwick) by showing himself less than enthusiastic about the results of the ARCIC I (the first round of international Anglican/Catholic official dialogues) process: he appreciated the degree of agreement attained in these conversations, but said that there were some “ambiguities” that needed further resolution; whereas (one suspects) from the perspective of some of the Anglicans involved in these conversations such agreements as were reached in them would not have been achieved without a generous measure of ambiguity.

        And considering the paths that these Protestant bodies have since then taken, how right Ratzinger was!

  3. TACit no more says:

    Thank you very much, Professor Tighe! That was what the comment thread needed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s