"I guess I just don't see what you are talking about. I think all Muslims would look back to the community in Medina as a model, and the Quran and sunnah. And on the Christian side, even many of the reformers had a goal of trying to go back to the primitive church. But then so did the Catholics claim apostolic authority."
Dear Gilberto, Claiming apostolic authority is quite a different thing than trying to go back to the 'good ole' days' in Medina. Certainly they are claiming a continuity with the past, but more in the sense that the tree has continuity with the seed which is quite different from wanting to recreate the apostolic life. Indeed, the church usually considered the movements which tried to do that as heretical. "There *were* alot of things included in the Reformation. Luther wasn't the only reformer." Yes, but then we are talking about completely different movements. The Anabaptist movement had much more in common with reform movements which proceeded Luther than Luther himself. > Yes, Luther was opposed to the sell of indulgences, but > that was primarily because it violated the doctrine of justification by > faith. "I'm not sure why you have to put a "but" in there." My point is that Luther was primarily trying to reform church doctrine unlike previous attempts at reform or even some of those which followed which instead wanted to reform church practice. "He actually DID believe in consubstantiation (that the bread was still bread, the wine was still wine, but that the real presence of jesus was still a part of the picture) but not transubstantiation (the bread and wine was no longer bread and wine but turned into the body and blood of Christ" No, he didn't believe in substances period. That's an Aristotelian metaphysical conception he would have rejected. But he did believe in the Real Presence without denying it was still bread and wine. "I'm not saying we should go back in time. That's an idea you are putting into my mouth." Sorry. But it is certainly what a term like 'counter-reformation' suggests. "One of the sources of law in traditional methodology is actually the Urf or the customs of the time. Islam is already flexible enough to deal with current conditions..." I'm not familiar with that as a source in the Shari'ah. Which school uses that? I am more familiar with the consensus of the community being a source of law but that is generally understood to be the consensus of the 'ulama not the customary law. And the 'ulama are typically the most conservative faction in Islamic society, hardly the group one would expect much forward-thinking from. "And I also wouldn't say that the Wahabis/Salafis are *actually* going back to the principles operating in Medina." I wouldn't say they are actually doing it either. Revivalist movements in the end always end up creating something completely different when they try to recreate the past. Here in Mississippi we have a number of black Pentecostal churches that call themselves apostolic which in this case means going back to the early apostles, not that their authority originally came from them. You can be sure that no first century Christian apostle would have recognized what goes on in those churches! warmest, Susan __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
