Protestant ways

[mercygate]

smelton:

What scripture would you use to support your statement that the Holy Spirit prevents the church from making errors?

Several places. For starters: The power of binding and loosing given to Peter (Mt. 16:18), and then to the other Apostles (Mt. 18:18), clinched by the power of the Keys to Peter alone (Mt. 16:19), then at the farewell discourse in John 16:12-15 (speaking to the eleven – not to a multitude):

12] "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

In Mt. 28, at the Great Commission (again: only to the eleven) he authorizes the Apostles to teach in his name and promises to be with them always:

18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

 

[MariaG]

SolaChristo:

As for my church. The church is so small we dont hold seperate Sunday School classes.

I am just trying to fully understand.

So you have no children’s bibles with pictures?

What about books with illustrations? You did say pictures were not okay, right?

And that would include photos? No pictures in photo albums or walls?

I am trying to get a full definition of graven image, in your church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

mercygate:

Several places. For starters: The power of binding and loosing given to Peter (Mt. 16:18), and then to the other Apostles (Mt. 18:18), clinched by the power of the Keys to Peter alone (Mt. 16:19), then at the farewell discourse in John 16:12-15 (speaking to the eleven – not to a multitude):

12] "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

In Mt. 28, at the Great Commission (again: only to the eleven) he authorizes the Apostles to teach in his name and promises to be with them always:

18] And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. **
19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

puzzleannie:

at least in England the reason was plain old fashioned lust and greed. Henry VIII wanted a new wife, the pope wouldn’t let him divorce the old one, so he started his own church with himself as its head so he could do anything he wished. naturally anyone who disagreed was eliminated. Not to mention that he had virtually bankrupted the country and saw the wealth of the Church as a handy source for more dough and stuff. His nobles were also quick to see the benefits of usurping any convent, church or monastery on their lands, driving off the monks, and diverting those incomes to their personal pockets, and making all the artistic wealth of those statues, windows, carvings, gilded altars, and sacramental plate their personal private possessions.

It was not until the Puritan revolution however that the wholesale destruction of sacred sites began, and for that you would need a historical-psychological study of what was driving the Puritans.

Puzzle, not to be contentious, but that’s not exactly the whole story. Henry was not a brilliant, calculating man who set out to do cruel things to the church of God for his own enrichment. He was a very devout man whose faith was shaken by his first marriage–in other words, because his wife could not give him a successor to the throne, he believed that God had cursed the marriage–that it never should have happened to begin with. Petitioning Rome for an annullment, he thought his case was obvious: God disapproved of the marriage. The Pope, being very politic, refused to give the annullment. Henry was perplexed and mortified and, believing that the Pope was unwilling to lift God’s curse–and thereby unwilling to restore proper harmony and do God’s will–Henry saw the authority of the Pope as nullified (no doubt with the help of some more conniving counsellors who were sympathetic to the cause of reformation). Henry thought he was conforming to the will of God in getting out of a marriage he believed was cursed.

The subsequent history of the reformation in England is not a pleasant one–a confusing series of back and forth pronouncements on what is orthodoxy and what is not, bishops and archbishops wrangling over what is better, the “old way” or the “new thinking,” people on both sides of the argument being executed in Henry’s lifetime, the authority of his edicts being invoked in both cases. Henry himself tried to follow a middle road between reform and catholic tradition, but his edicts (which tended more towards the reform camp at first, but which he subsequently tempered towards the “old way”) and his actions (which were looked upon as very catholic) were often seen to be at odds. And they were. It wasn’t until Elizabeth that some sort of tenuous harmony was established, and not until the 19th century that catholic tradition was recovered (or began to be recovered) by the Anglican church.

Eamon Duffy has written a fantastic book on the reformation in England called “The Stripping of the Altars”–including a survey of high medieval catholic piety and a catalogue of Henry’s actions towards reform, his backtracking, his indecisiveness, and the ultimate pillaging of traditional catholicism in England. It’s quite eye-opening, and sad (I say this as an Anglican), and is written from a Roman Catholic perspective. Duffy’s thesis tends to be this–given the rise in literacy and the activity of the laity in the church as seen through guild activities and devotional manuals, many of the excesses of medieval piety would have naturally been curbed and many of the reforms implemented by force would have come about naturally (such as the Bible in the vernacular), given the tendency of Rome (at the time, at least) to be more responsive to the needs of the laity. I think one of the horrible things the reformation did was to squash this impulse in Rome and (even despite the counter-reformation) delay or destroy a reforming impulse. It put Rome on the defensive for the next 600 years.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[SolaChristo]

MariaG:

I am just trying to fully understand.

So you have no children’s bibles with pictures?

What about books with illustrations? You did say pictures were not okay, right?

And that would include photos? No pictures in photo albums or walls?

I am trying to get a full definition of graven image, in your church.

God Bless,
Maria

Maria,
I have photo albums, Ive seen childrens bibles with illustrations and have given DVDs and Videos of bible stories to my nieces.
I dont knell before them. I dont light candles in front of them. I dont say prayers while looking at thses pictures or objects as if this is a “special” spot.

 

[Mickey]

MariaG:

So you have no children’s bibles with pictures?

Pictures can be an exellent teaching tool.
img211.imageshack.us/img211/6716/iccrucifixion2zt.th.jpg

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

edward_george:

The thing is, whether a Saint lived in the first century or the twenty-first century, his reason for being a Saint is still the same: Christ. When we look upon images of those people who have so perfectly imitated Christ as to be counted among his elect, we find good examples for living in the way in which Christ would have wanted us to. As he said to his Apostles, “Whoever hears you, hears me.” The greatest testimony to Christ’s message is in his holy ones. By learning about the saints we learn about the greater reason why they are saints–Christ’s redeeming grace. They wouldn’t be saints without Christ. In short, veneration of saints is very Christ-centered.

-ACEGC

Edward_George, this is such an important understanding to have regarding the Communion of Saints. Often, a protestant will ask, “Isn’t Christ the only mediator between God and Man?” To which the answer is “Yes!” And the doctrine of the Communion of Saints makes sure that we understand that whatever “mediation” the saints offer on our behalf is, in fact, the grace of Christ working within the Church! Indeed, the Communion of Saints is the entire church of Christ, is the body of Christ triumphant in glory and suffering in this valley of tears. The prayers of the saints are the prayers of Christ–they have completely subjugated themselves to his Holy Will and are perfect instruments of his grace. An image of saint, therefore, always points to Christ. Not to be too controversial, but Martin Luther enjoined us to “Be Christ to each other.” Is this not the work of holiness? Is this not what it is to be a Christian?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Mickey]

SolaChristo:

Maria,
I have photo albums, Ive seen childrens bibles with illustrations and have given DVDs and Videos of bible stories to my nieces.
I dont knell before them. I dont light candles in front of them. I dont say prayers while looking at thses pictures or objects as if this is a “special” spot.

img377.imageshack.us/img377/1323/prodigalson7wo.th.jpg
Perhaps this will help your understanding. The above Icon depicts the parable of the Prodigal Son. I will look at the Icon and reflect on this wonderful Scriptural parable. I will light a candle which represents the light of Christ and I will pray to my Lord and Savior. I do not worship the Icon. Do I need the Icon in order to pray properly? No. Icons were used by the early Christians to teach Scripture to the illiterate and the literate alike. It is Sacred Tradition, not idol worship. Do you really believe that Catholics and Orthodox are so ignorant as to believe we are communicating with, and worshipping an Icon or a statue?

 

[SolaChristo]

img377.imageshack.us/img377/1323/prodigalson7wo.th.jpg
Perhaps this will help your understanding. The above Icon depicts the parable of the Prodigal Son. I will look at the Icon and reflect on this wonderful Scriptural parable. I will light a candle which represents the light of Christ and I will pray to my Lord and Savior. I do not worship the Icon. Do I need the Icon in order to pray properly? No. Icons were used by the early Christians to teach Scripture to the illiterate and the literate alike. It is Sacred Tradition, not idol worship. Do you really believe that Catholics and Orthodox are so ignorant as to believe we are communicating with, and worshipping an Icon or a statue?

Perhaps this will help your understanding.
I will read the story of the prodigal son in my bible. I will reflect on this story and will realize the love of God for His children. I can read the words of Jesus and let them resonate in my thoughts and in my heart. The biblical admonition to place Gods word in the doorway of your house you do with the doorway of your heart.

 

[MariaG]

SolaChristo:

Perhaps this will help your understanding.
I will read the story of the prodigal son in my bible. I will reflect on this story and will realize the love of God for His children. I can read the words of Jesus and let them resonate in my thoughts and in my heart. The biblical admonition to place Gods word in the doorway of your house you do with the doorway of your heart.

Reading the bible is a great way to draw closer to Christ.

But the first century Christians did not have Bibles. And Many could not read. How are they to place the words of God into their heart?

Can you only become a Christian once you can read the Bible for yourself? Or are there other ways to meditate upon God’s Word?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

SolaChristo:

Perhaps this will help your understanding.
I will read the story of the prodigal son in my bible. I will reflect on this story and will realize the love of God for His children. I can read the words of Jesus and let them resonate in my thoughts and in my heart. The biblical admonition to place Gods word in the doorway of your house you do with the doorway of your heart.

No Catholic would take issue with what you say.

But for the record, icons are also a doorway to the heart. Jesus tells us that “The eye is the lamp of the body.” Matt 6:22 Icons are a way of “reading” Scripture with the eyes and the heart.

The tradition of icon writing (it’s called *writing – *not painting – for a reason!) draws deeply upon the written word of Scripture; icons in the Eastern tradition are a kind of “graphic” Scripture. Every detail in an icon written on a scriptural theme is dictated by Scripture. In an icon of Our Lady or another Saint, the position of the head and the hands, the color of the clothing, even tiny details in the background all point to Christ.

 

[MariaG]

SolaChristo:

Maria,
I have photo albums, Ive seen childrens bibles with illustrations and have given DVDs and Videos of bible stories to my nieces.
I dont knell before them. I dont light candles in front of them. I dont say prayers while looking at thses pictures or objects as if this is a “special” spot.

Oh, I see. Pictures and stuff are okay as long as you do not worship them.

But you can’t kneel either, or you are worshipping?

I know some Protestants who have a special prayer room. It has nothing in it except their bible on a small table, and sometimes a kneeler. They say it helps them concetrate on God and His word. They kneel down and read the Word. After reading, they hold the bible in their hands, to their head. Do you believe they are worshipping their bible because they are kneeling down with the Bible in front of them?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Mickey]

SolaChristo:

Perhaps this will help your understanding.
I will read the story of the prodigal son in my bible. I will reflect on this story and will realize the love of God for His children. I can read the words of Jesus and let them resonate in my thoughts and in my heart. The biblical admonition to place Gods word in the doorway of your house you do with the doorway of your heart.

I already knew that. But thanks anyway!
Mercygate’s post # 50 would be worth re-reading.

 

[smelton]

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply, not worthy. I’m not sure I agree that when Jesus is talking about the spirit he is just indicating that the Spirit will keep the Church from complete error. I believe that the Spirit is for all believers and all believers make up the Church. Acts 2:38. I would struggle to believe that the church has never errored in its teaching. I’m not sure how the verses you quoted indicate that one of the Spirit’s roles is to keep the Church from possibly making an error. The church is the bride of Christ, full of people. People sin, I’m a part of the church and I’m a sinner. Just my thoughts and beliefs.

 

[mercygate]

smelton:

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply, not worthy. I’m not sure I agree that when Jesus is talking about the spirit he is just indicating that the Spirit will keep the Church from complete error. I believe that the Spirit is for all believers and all believers make up the Church. Acts 2:38. I would struggle to believe that the church has never errored in its teaching. I’m not sure how the verses you quoted indicate that one of the Spirit’s roles is to keep the Church from possibly making an error. The church is the bride of Christ, full of people. People sin, I’m a part of the church and I’m a sinner. Just my thoughts and beliefs.

Ah ha. There you go, smelton: thinking like a Protestant.

The Church as the Bride of Christ (a concept theologically quite distinct from the individual sinners who populate her) is holy, pure, unspotted and without wrinkle.

I am a sinner; I am capable of theological error. Any individual theologian is capable of error. But when the Church speaks with the mind of Christ – through an ecumenical council or through the Magisterium – she does not err.

Think about it. If the the Church is the Body of Christ (and how can it be anything else?) then it *must *speak with definitive authority.

It is by that definitive authority, whether you know it or whether you accept it, that you believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. Once you “get it” that the Church gave us the Bible, the road to grasping the necessity of doctrinal indefectibility is short. Infallibility is merely a sub-text of indefectibility.

 

[smelton]

You got me, I’m guilty - thinking like a protestant I suspect my understanding of the body of Christ goes somthing like this. Every christian is a member of the body. The members make up one body, hopefully unified in doctorine. Here is where I probably, from my understanding, would differ a touch. Christ purchased the church, ie the people, with his blood(Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25, Heb 9:12) We are made perfect, without sin or error, in him in the since that we are justified or reconciled to have peace with God. I don’t think that means our actions here on earth are perfect. Why would Jesus have us pray, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven(a refrence to his church) if it was impossible to error. I would differ in a little that the scripture was given to us by the Holy Spirit through the church. May be just semantics but worth thinking about.

 

[mercygate]

smelton:

You got me, I’m guilty - thinking like a protestant I suspect my understanding of the body of Christ goes somthing like this. Every christian is a member of the body. The members make up one body, hopefully unified in doctorine. Here is where I probably, from my understanding, would differ a touch. Christ purchased the church, ie the people, with his blood(Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25, Heb 9:12) We are made perfect, without sin or error, in him in the since that we are justified or reconciled to have peace with God. I don’t think that means our actions here on earth are perfect.** Why would Jesus have us pray, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven(a refrence to his church) if it was impossible to error.**

Not quite sure what you mean. What is a reference to the Church? Heaven? We would agree that the Church and Kingdom theology definitely overlap.

I would differ in a little that the scripture was given to us by the Holy Spirit through the church. May be just semantics but worth thinking about.

Good semantics. We would agree. Catholics believe that the primary author of Scripture is God, writing through human agency. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. God is the author of Sacred Scripture

. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

 

[NotWorthy]

smelton:

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply, not worthy. I’m not sure I agree that when Jesus is talking about the spirit he is just indicating that the Spirit will keep the Church from complete error. I believe that the Spirit is for all believers and all believers make up the Church. Acts 2:38.

Smelton, thank you for your honest reply. I know it’s its a different way of thinking, even though to us its perfectly natural.

Does the Spirit Guide the Church?
Yes! Look at Sacred Tradition.
You have to admit that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to determine the New Testament Canon’s, right? How else could some corrupt and fallible men determine all the correct books of the New Testament? It didn’t fall out of the sky, you know. So if the Spirit guides the Church to determine the right canon, why shouldn’t it guide the Church in all other teachings, especially when the Bible doesn’t cover every moral dilemna we come across (at least I don’t think stem cell research was mentioned in it).

Second, we know that:
A) Jesus left behind a Church. He stated it quite clearly in Matthew 16.
B) We know that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide something (either the Church or individuals).

Why would He have needed a Church, “The Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” if the Holy Spirit was going to guide people, and not the Church? Wouldn’t that negate the need for a Church?

Notworthy

 

[smelton]

I would 100 percent agree that the Spirit should guide the church and that it is the will of God for that to happen. I don’t have any issue with that at all. I guess in my protestant brain I stuggle to equate perfection and the church. I have no trouble equating perfection and Christ. I have no trouble saying that scripture is the word of God. I just struggle with the concept that the churches word as an organization is the word of God. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is a verse that I think would disqualify your statement about the bible not teaching about every moral issue. Application of the word. I don’t feel that we need the church to tell us what is truth. I believe that is why God inspired the NT writers. I have the truth, God’s word. I’m not sure what biblically qualifies an organization to dictate truth. I agree that with time comes wisdom but also that sometimes with time comes tradition that is not rooted in scripture. I also agree that we need the church, just not to dictate the truth. Does that make sense?

 

[Mickey]

smelton:

I guess in my protestant brain I stuggle to equate perfection and the church.

The Church is the body of Christ with Christ as the head.

smelton:

I just struggle with the concept that the churches word as an organization is the word of God. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is a verse that I think would disqualify your statement about the bible not teaching about every moral issue.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

16 “All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

Peace,
Mickey