Protestant Christians...did you know?

[nsper7]

Thank You nsper7 I am speechless. Thank you for making these points The Holy spirit is working through you. I hope others will listen.

Thank you for the compliment, although, like Roman_Catholic, I am not totally sure what you hope to gain from me. I am merely a college student (undergrad at the University of Florida) and an inquirer/catechumate in the US Episcopal Church (the American province of the Anglican Communion). I have an interest in ordained ministry (Anglican Holy Orders), but I am not even Confirmed yet and barely even an amateur apologist. Don’t put too much stake in my words, but study for yourself (J. P. Holding at Tekton Apologetics Ministries is an excellent apologist).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You are confusing literal with literalistic. The literal meaning of Scripture is what was meant to be conveyed by the Divinely inspired authors (this is why good apologists harp on the importance at such things as context and linguistics in interpreting Scripture, esp. since Scripture was written to a high-context audience: things the author would have assumed the audience already knew would not be directly mentioned). The literalistic meaning is the prima facia (first glance) where Scripture is treated like a newspaper or the newest bit of pulp fiction that anybody can just pick up and read it and assume that everything can be easily picked out without further study (i.e. of the original languages, the socio-cultural context, etc.).

nsper7

I am not sure after reading your discussion about literal and literalistic whether you deny the Real Presence or not, but I have to ask, seeing as you are about to join the Anglican communion and even take Anglican Holy orders; is the Real Presence not something that is taught and believed within the Anglican communion? I am sure I have read Anglicans on this forum defending the belief as passionately as us Catholics.

God bless

 

[nsper7]

nsper7

I am not sure after reading your discussion about literal and literalistic whether you deny the Real Presence or not, but I have to ask, seeing as you are about to join the Anglican communion and even take Anglican Holy orders; is the Real Presence not something that is taught and believed within the Anglican communion? I am sure I have read Anglicans on this forum defending the belief as passionately as us Catholics.

God bless

Allow me to quote from the (Anglican) XXXIX Articles of Religion:

[Article] XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped

Thus, one could say the official Anglican doctrine is that Christ is spiritually (as opposed to substantially or merely symbolically) in the Eucharist; however, there is a wide gammut of practical views. For example, High Church/Anglo-Catholic Anglicans may fall towards the transubstantiation realm (a friend of mine who is an ordained Anglican Priest believes in this view) and Low Church/Evangelical/Reformed Anglicans may take a more memorialistic/symbolic view of Lord’s Supper.

As for me, I tend to take the great Anglican poet John Donne’s words to heart:

He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it.

Divine Poems. On the Sacrament.

When I take Communion I always that for me, the Bread and Wine would be the Body and Blood of Christ, whether “substantially, spiritually or symbolically”.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I am a former protestant and I have to ask all the protestants out there,

Did you know that Jesus said,
“21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” KJV

Did you know that the Canon of the New Testament was not formed until the 4th century?

Did you know that Ignatius of Antioch said.
“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

Did you know that Jerome said,
“Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church” (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

Did you know that this is in scripture,
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Did you know that Paul said,
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Did you know that,
some protestant denominations claim the bible is completely literal, except when Jesus says “this is my Body…This is my Blood”

Did you know that,
all protestant denominations were formed more than 1000 years after Christ died.

Did you know that,
Constantine did not create the Catholic Church

Did you know that,
if Constantine had created the church, then the Council of Nicea would have been invalid since this was after that.

Did you know that,
it does not command that Worship be on Sunday in the Bible. This was decided upon by the Catholic church.

Did you know that,
numerous things you do are not in the Bible at all. They are traditions of the Catholic Church.

Did you know that,
Luther called the Epistle of James an “epistle of straw”

Did you know that,
the Ecumenical Councils are considered tradition and not scripture. How much of your faith is based off of the councils?**

 

[nsper7]

Thank you for reposting the intro post JB.

 

[georgehparker]

I am curious, nsper, whether the Anglican “middle way” appeals to you. If so, do you believe that Anglicanism holds an answer for the rest of Christendom? Think what genius it must possess to induce the Catholic Church to abandon her native, rightful claims to embrace its polite, though rigorous and well-schooled, compromise. I am not trying to be dismissive in asking this, I am a product of Anglican private schooling and might have easily chosen to enter the seminary at my university. I won’t argue that this seminary had embraced silly ideas that bore no connection to Christian orthodoxy, though it had; Anglicanism simply hadn’t the pedigree to establish a claim upon my conscience, nor had it, for that matter, the heritage of vigorous spirituality. I was aware of this before I examined the controversies.
More power to those opposing the hippy-liberal Episcopals, but, remember, Athanasius knew nothing of Thomas Cranmer.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Prior to the canonization of Scripture, all teachings would be through ‘word’ (oral tradition) and ‘epistle’ (the writings of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude, etc.). For example, it is strongly believed that gospels were not written down on paper until some years of Jesus’ ascension. Until they were written down, the gospel stories would have been spread through oral tradition and epistle (look at Luke’s gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, it is pre- and postscripted as a letter written to convince someone of the Truth).

 

[nsper7]

I am curious, nsper, whether the Anglican “middle way” appeals to you. If so, do you believe that Anglicanism holds an answer for the rest of Christendom? Think what genius it must possess to induce the Catholic Church to abandon her native, rightful claims to embrace its polite, though rigorous and well-schooled, compromise. I am not trying to be dismissive in asking this, I am a product of Anglican private schooling and might have easily chosen to enter the seminary at my university. I won’t argue that this seminary had embraced silly ideas that bore no connection to Christian orthodoxy, though it had; Anglicanism simply hadn’t the pedigree to establish a claim upon my conscience, nor had it, for that matter, the heritage of vigorous spirituality. I was aware of this before I examined the controversies.
More power to those opposing the hippy-liberal Episcopals, but, remember, Athanasius knew nothing of Thomas Cranmer.

Certainly Anglicanism holds ‘an’ answer to to Christendom, but not necessarily ‘the’ answer. For me, I am drawn to the liturgy (especially of the Holy Eucharist…that was what reeled me in at first) and I agree with the foundational theology (i.e. the Nicene Creed and the XXXIX Articles) and history, but I do not claim that Anglicanism is the only way to God in Christ or even the best way for all Christians (although obviously I feel it is the best way for me).

I agree firmly with the statement in the Nicene Creed that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but I do not think that one sect/rite(I consider Anglicanism a Rite not a denomination and the Episcopal Church is but a province of the Anglican Communion)/denomination has sole claim to being the OHCAC.

Like I said though, it was the Eucharistic Liturgy (including like the recitation of the Nicene Creed which is I think the best description of the Christian faith and belief) that drew me in.

nsper7;3507964:

Are you assuming that once Scripture was canonized, oral tradition would cease?

What year did this occur, please? Better yet, does the Bible ever say this would happen?

Or is this a tradition of men?

It is not a question of oral tradition ceasing or not. Prior to the canonization of Scripture, Apostolic knowledge (esp. the Gospel stories; remember that St. Paul’s letters were circulated among the early Church almost immediately after they were penned) was transmitted orally (by word of mouth as it were). Once these things were written down and confirmed/affirmed by the Early Church, then the need for oral tradition as a method of passing along Apostolic knowledge has been fulfilled.

Now, I want to make it clear that I do not view tradition as being bad. As I said, one of the key draws to Anglicanism for me was the Eucharistic liturgy, which one would say is a tradition of man (we can trace the development of the Book of Common Prayer back to the Roman Catholic liturgical books used in Mass and I am sure a historian with more knowledge could trace the development of the Mass). Obviously, the original basis of the Eucharist (the Last Supper in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22) was commanded/ordained by Christ Himself (that is why we call it a Sacrament) and whether one does a Reformed-style memorialistic juice-and-crackers (I am not trying to be insulting) or they do a Tridentine Latin Mass, it all stems from Christ’s commandment. Thus, using Communion as an example, the heart of it is Scriptural and from Christ Himself, but there are many different traditions of Communion ritual and even theology and I have heard from various sects/rites/denominations strongly affirming that God has worked through their Communion (whether Reformed or Liturgical, ‘Real Presence’ or memorialistic). In interpretation of Scripture and in works of faith, tradition will play a role in what one does and I have no problem with that. My problem is when people start to view their traditions as being equal to Scripture and/or better than everyone else’s (this is my understanding of Jesus’ words about ‘traditions of men’; it wasn’t Pharisaic tradition that He condemned, but the fact that the Pharisees condemned those who disagreed with their tradition and held it as equal to Scripture).

As a personal example where I see this, at my university is a plaza where people can preach about various things (the Baptists and extreme Calvinists and some Charismatics and non-denoms seem to dominate) and I sometimes go there to try and spread the Gospel to non-Christians (so far, I am the only Episcopalian out there). Invariably, some days I spend more time defending Anglicanism (and even Roman Catholicism) from dogmatic Baptists and Calvinists then I do actually telling non-Christians the Gospel. Even though we all claim to be Christians, the Baptists will tell you that everyone who is Roman Catholic or too strongly disagrees with Baptist theology is going to Hell and Calvinists declare that their interpretation of Scripture is not an interpretation but simply Scriptural truth. This is where tradition becomes a problem and is divisive and damaging (both to the Church and to non-Christians who are left being forced to make a decision as to what denomination they choose lest they make the ‘wrong’ one and live in fear of Hell).

 

[O.S.Luke]

I know all these things. What is the point of this thread?

 

[ChristianRoots]

ChristianRoots;3523271:

It is not a question of oral tradition ceasing or not. Prior to the canonization of Scripture, Apostolic knowledge (esp. the Gospel stories; remember that St. Paul’s letters were circulated among the early Church almost immediately after they were penned) was transmitted orally (by word of mouth as it were). Once these things were written down and confirmed/affirmed by the Early Church, then the need for oral tradition as a method of passing along Apostolic knowledge has been fulfilled.

This concept is not biblical. If it is, show me where I can find it.
If you can’t find it, then who first taught this unscriptural idea to you?

My problem is when people start to view their traditions as being equal to Scripture and/or better than everyone else’s (this is my understanding of Jesus’ words about ‘traditions of men’; it wasn’t Pharisaic tradition that He condemned, but the fact that the Pharisees condemned those who disagreed with their tradition and held it as equal to Scripture).

Apostolic tradition became Scripture, and as such, were equal to one another. Why do you consider them unequal today (believing that Scripture is above Apostolic tradition)?

 

[georgehparker]

nsper, I spent a good three hours the other day composing a response to your last post but lost it at the last minute to a browser crash. Frustrating. I’ll try to address those points later. ChristianRoots picked up on an important point, however; I too wonder at the arbitrariness of a theory which admits the necessity of an apostolic Tradition to detemine, at a three hundred year remove, what writings constitute Holy Scripture, yet disallows one whereby the full and proper sense of it might be maintained and communicated to succeeding generations. This strikes me as highly prejudicial. One might ask, rather, whether we ought so easily accept a settled canon. Luther applying a consistent principle wrote critical prefaces and appended books he considered questionable apart from those he approved. Today’s Protestant hasn’t the stomach. What he has, however, is a superstitious confidence in ‘the Bible’s’ divine origin which rests on its ubiquitous and exalted reputation.