Protestants reforming ?

[Prosmith]

I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light. Somewhere, someday, I will stand before God. On that day, heaven and earth may flee away, but I will stand serene, for at my side will be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I cannot thank him enough. We cannot praise him enough. To him be the honor and the glory and the power forever and forever. Amen.

As C.S. Lewis once said, when our life is done, it won’t matter what we’ve done, but only who we are with.

 

[JPeter]

.
Prosmith - you have to read more of Clement. He believed we are saved by faith and works, not faith alone.

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98).

Amen!

You look for anything with the word work in it and then think you make a point. Research Sola Fide!

 

[pablope]

I cannot imagine having to decide if certain of my sins are mortal, if the venial ones will send me to the torments of purgatory, if the church is always right, if indulgences are necessary, if my confessions are truly adequate, my prayers sufficient, and my good works acceptable. I want to know that I am safe with God, safe with the wholesome, saving righteousness of Christ. I want to plead nothing but his blood, no hope but his word of promise, no worry but his peace, no guilt but his shame, no darkness but his light. Somewhere, someday, I will stand before God. On that day, heaven and earth may flee away, but I will stand serene, for at my side will be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I cannot thank him enough. We cannot praise him enough. To him be the honor and the glory and the power forever and forever. Amen.

Ok…but I did not ask for a poem…nor for an evasion…I asked…so let me repost and make it simple with a yes or no answer…or do you not want to face the answer:

So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

Yes or no?

What is your reply going to be?

Are you going to say…I am clean (when in fact, you are not) and use Christ to cover yourself?

Yes or no?

** Isn’t this lying? **

Yes or no?

**
And do you think God will be blind and not see through what you said?
**

Yes or no?

 

[GKC]

As C.S. Lewis once said, when our life is done, it won’t matter what we’ve done, but only who we are with.

I’ve been a Lewis collector for nigh unto 50 years. Gimme a source for that one, if you have it.

GKC

 

[pablope]

Scripture makes it absolutely clear we cannot contribute the least speck to our salvation.

Our baptism clothed us in Christ’s perfect righteousness

 

[JPeter]

So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

Yes or no?

I think its heretical to believe we have the ability to cleanse ourselves of sin. God would not ask that.

What is your reply going to be?

Are you going to say…I am clean (when in fact, you are not) and use Christ to cover yourself?

Yes or no?

I am clean because of the blood of Christ which makes me righteous. Not because of anything I have done but because of what Jesus has done for me and in me.

Isn’t this lying?

Yes or no?

no! God see’s us as righteous. Jesus did it all!

And do you think God will be blind and not see through what you said?

Yes or no?

When God looks at me He see’s me as pure as snow because Jesus victory is my victory by faith.

Stop trying to be your own God.

 

[pablope]

I see no problem here.

I would agree with the Orthodox in saying that it never existed and the Roman Church began to teach it because she was power hungry.

 

[JPeter]

How?

 

[mingmingni]

Welcome to GW2 Gold store--www.guildwars2buygold.com
ArenaNet today announced the formal adoption of a new video, Guild Wars 2 will be held on August 28, 2012 officially on sale operations.So, for those who care about the players of the game, you do not have and then all day online to search for the formal Offer hours of operation of the game, because you personally started playing the game after a month.Tp satisfy amounts of GW2 player’s requirement that we have prepared sufficient GW2 Gold for sale now!Come to our store **buy Guild Wars 2 Gold **can enjoy the 15 minutes delivery !

 

[pablope]

Q: So, let me ask…here you are, standing before God…using Imputed righteousness…using Christ to cover your sins and what not…and God asks you…have you cleansed yourself of sin?

 

[JPeter]

And the Orthodox are not? So how did you come to the conclusion Rome is power hungry?

Perhaps you have missed the Orthodox claims for their own authority. Does this not make them power hungry?

When Rome asserted its authority…was this not in part, because of the Orthodox claims to be their own pope?

I would not side with the Orthodox either. They are in better shape than Rome but still in error.
XIX. Of the Church.
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the
pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered
according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are
requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also
the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of
Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Is truth determined by a vote? Is that how Anglicans have determined gay marriage? women priests? allowing contraception?

A vote does not determine truth. A large percentage of Anglicans do not agree with this and are fighting against it. This is something you are not allowed to do when your Church teaches heresy. Which is why they have gotten away with it for so long.

Why? As compared to what-anglican view? Orthodox view?

The view of the Church when gathered as a whole and open to the Holy Spirit. All men can err. The early church fathers are about 80 percent in agreement and when they disagreed they had councils. Only 7 have ever been legitimate.

Then who is the vicar of Christ?

No one. XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in
Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain
anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound
one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although
the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to
decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought not to enforce
any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

But Peter and his faith are one and the same…you cannot separate them.

Why not?

So let me ask you…how was the Church built if it was only the faith of peter…and not both?

It was built on Peters confession of faith. Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. The Apostles were sent out equally.

 

[pablope]

Well, isn’t this how we learn…from each other…and how one learns his faith…by asking questions?

The first couple of questions have the answer in the quote.

Well, if the answer was there, I would not have asked questions…so maybe, you can point them out.

Why do you make it so hard on yourself.

Scripture says to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Whether you like it or not your going to heaven because of Jesus and not because of what your doing.

So…you already know who is going to heaven or not? Are you God that you are able to know?

It is Finished!

Christ work is indeed finished…but that does not mean ours is. We still have to apply the work of Chris to our lives…to live as Christ intended us to live…as Christ suffered…so must we also suffer…if we are to truly imitate the life of Christ.

I am hesitant to be critical of Rome. After the rampart heresies of the liberal Protestant churches, one cannot help but admire Rome in her steadfast refusal to bow before certain idols of modernity.

Why do you think Rome is able to hold steadfast against the headwinds of Liberalism? Is this not because of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church…through the Pope?

Further, in the sections on the Church, I found her teaching most irenic, holding to her own supremacy yet not condemning of others.

That supremacy is exercised with love and charity and a desire to fulfill Christ’s prayer that all be one. Why do you think Rome is (as far as I know), the only one with an office of Reconciliation?

On the other hand, so much is at stake. According to the Anglican Reformers, this Roman teaching does not do justice to Scripture, to the holiness of God, the depth of human sin, the fallibility of our understanding of Christian truth, the power of Christ’s atonement, and the need for peace with God in regard to our salvation.

Where did the authority of the Anglican reformers come from to make such a declaration?

No one, none, except Christ and those clothed in his righteousness received in faith, can stand.

How did you determine this?

 

[pablope]

I would not side with the Orthodox either. They are in better shape than Rome but still in error.

How do you know that? How did you come to that conclusion? And how would you know who is error or not? Are you the source of truth?

XIX. Of the Church.
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the
pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered
according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are
requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also
the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of
Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Sorry…but where did this come from? Is this an infallible declaration of someone?

This is something you are not allowed to do when your Church teaches heresy. Which is why they have gotten away with it for so long.

Who are you talking about here?

The view of the Church when gathered as a whole and open to the Holy Spirit. All men can err. The early church fathers are about 80 percent in agreement and when they disagreed they had councils. Only 7 have ever been legitimate.

Again…who decides what is legitimate or not? Who has that authority? Why only 7?

Who decided only 7 are legitimate?

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Looks like you are picking and choosing…as opposed to taking the whole completely:

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Does the quote above describe your pick and choose approach?

No one. XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in
Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain
anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound
one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although
the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to
decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought not to enforce
any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

why no one? Did God leave us to our own devices? Is this why there are several thousand protestant denominations? And is this the reason why Anglicans cannot even agree among themselves?

Why not?
It was built on Peters confession of faith. Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. The Apostles were sent out equally.

Again…demonstrate how the church was built on faith alone…and not on the whole of peter…faith and himself.

 

[JPeter]

So…how can you enter heaven…if you still have sin in you? Can one enter heIf sins are not cleansed…then can you explain this passage from Rev 21: 27…which states…27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.aven with sin still in their soul…yes or no?

Jesus already completed it on the cross. The grace of Christs cross is given at baptism. Which is the Holy Spirits work in you. Grace is what Jesus won for us on the cross. It is what allows God to view us as righteous even though we are not yet righteous.

You said this in another post…“The most crucial battle of the good fight is living in daily repentance”…isn’t this cleansing oneself of sin? Is repentance, the struggle to defeat sin…with the help of the grace of God…is this not part of the cleansing of our sins? Is this not work?

Because of the Holy Spirit working in us we can cooperate with our sanctification. This is where the Holy Spirit works to make us more Christ like. Justification is not a process Jesus is the sole Justifier and not you. Not even in part.

If we cannot cleanse our sinfulness…why is contrition and repentance even necessary? Why is it then even necessary to ask for forgiveness?

So I ask…why is it heretical?

Every sin is a serious matter. So we never take sin lightly. But it is also true that the blood of Jesus Christ wipes all our sins away. It is that forgiving love of Jesus that leads us in faith to want to do no sin. But as long as we are this side of heaven, our sinful nature will often get us to do the sin we don’t want to do (Romans 7). But at the same time the love of Jesus leads us to offer our bodies in service to him and to ask him to help us do that in our lives more each day (Romans 6:1-11).

1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.

From the passage above…can you explain how the blood of Christ makes you righteous? How do you reconcile what you said with that passage from 1John3?

Again it is the Holy Spirit that leads you to do what is righteous. You are by nature fallen and can’t do anything to please God unless the Holy Spirit enables you. It is not about you.

Why is it not lying? How will God see you are righteous if…as Rev 14 says…
13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”“Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them

.”
Faith must show itself in works or you do not have faith. Your works do not make you right before God as Jesus already did that. Works are the result of faith. You cannot add anything to what Jesus did for you on the cross.

If you still have vestiges of sin in you…if you are not totally cleansed…what will you say at the gate? Christ cover for me?

That was exactly why Jesus died on the cross. We are totally cleansed in the eyes of God because of Jesus. His victory is mine by faith.

Again…is God blind? Are you going to deceive God in saying you are righteous when in fact you are not?

Your deceiving yourself if you think your going to stand before a holy God with nothing but human ideas of righteousness.

How do you know how God will look at you? Actually, if you really look at it…by telling God to not look at you but to look at another direction…to look blindly…to cloak your darkness and to see you white as snow…when in reality, you still are sinful…don’t you realize you are actually telling God how to look at you.

By his Son’s life, death, and resurrection God declared us—by nature wicked—to be righteous in his sight (Romans 4:5). Even our faith, which clings to Christ’s salvation, is part of God’s complete gift package (Ephesians 2:8,9) worked by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) through the gospel (Romans 10:17).

So…who is trying to be your own God…you or me?

You

 

[JPeter]

Well, isn’t this how we learn…from each other…and how one learns his faith…by asking questions?

Fair enough.

Well, if the answer was there, I would not have asked questions…so maybe, you can point them out.

Read the quotes above your answers.

Scripture says to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

lol…
herefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 **for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
**

So…you already know who is going to heaven or not? Are you God that you are able to know?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Christ work is indeed finished…but that does not mean ours is. We still have to apply the work of Chris to our lives…to live as Christ intended us to live…as Christ suffered…so must we also suffer…if we are to truly imitate the life of Christ.

On the other hand, for believers, the standard by which we will be judged isn’t the Law but the Gospel. John 5:24 would be a case of such a statement. Put another way, there is absolute full accountability for every sin that anyone has ever committed–but it is Jesus, not us, on whom the punishment fell. Notice that in Matthew 25:34-40 there is no mention at all of the sins that believers undoubtedly committed during their lives, but only of their deeds of love and mercy.

Why do you think Rome is able to hold steadfast against the headwinds of Liberalism? Is this not because of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church…through the Pope?

The gospel message though distorted is taught there and the sacraments. You Church has some pretty liberal factions. The Jesuits!

That supremacy is exercised with love and charity and a desire to fulfill Christ’s prayer that all be one. Why do you think Rome is (as far as I know), the only one with an office of Reconciliation?

They have lost a lot of folks. I don’t think this shows anything but I am glad people are returning to Church.

Where did the authority of the Anglican reformers come from to make such a declaration?

Even the Catholic Church admits they were corrupt at this time. The reformers studied the earliest Church fathers and came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church which they were part of did not look like this. We strive for the faith once delivered unto the saints. In its fullness.

 

[JPeter]

Looks like you are picking and choosing…as opposed to taking the whole completely:

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Does the quote above describe your pick and choose approach?

For Anglicanism, Councils are not above the scriptures. Rather, by warrant of scripture itself, they are guided by the Holy Spirit to be the faithful keepers and expositors of the Word of God. Anglicanism has always allowed that Councils can err, as Article XXI attests, but this does not invalidate the fact that conciliarity is the scripturally sanctioned means by which Christ governs His Church. In Acts 15, a Council of the apostles and bishops make key decisions about how the growing Church will interact with the pagan gentile world. The Council declared that the decisions they had reached “seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit,” affirming that the work of Councils is truly guided by God (Acts 15:28). This does not mean that Councils are part of some kind of ongoing revelation, but rather that God guides them in their work of receiving the revelation already given through the Scriptures, so that God’s Word may be heard, understood, and applied anew in all situations.

why no one? Did God leave us to our own devices? Is this why there are several thousand protestant denominations? And is this the reason why Anglicans cannot even agree among themselves?

This is a struggle that Anglicans in particular find challenging. Like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, we believe in a visible Church, united by a sacramental ministry and a great deposit of faith. But unlike the Churches of Rome and the East, we do not see ourselves as the One True Church in all her fullness, to the exclusion of any other body of Christians. If we are faithful Anglicans, we believe that our tradition has recovered and preserved the ancient faith of the early Church. But even within that claim itself is a suggestion of the same epistemic problem that we’re trying to address. What gave the Reformers the right to “recover” anything? How could they be sure that their reading of Holy Scripture was more pure than that of the medieval Roman Curia? How can we?

Despite all of this hand wringing, we have to land somewhere, and if we have at least come to believe that Jesus really is Lord we have already won the greater part of the battle. As different as the various Christian churches are from one another, they are not that different when it comes to the basic narrative about who God is in Christ and what He has come to do. The options start to narrow when we take into account the witness of the early Church Fathers which should at a minimum turn us away from anything that operates on a claim of new or continuing revelation. That leaves us with the great Catholic traditions and the churches of the early Reformation. But still, how are we to choose between these? What kind of criteria should we use? And how do we know that we’re applying that criteria correctly and not simply following our heart’s desire?

I cannot tell you with any absolute certainty what you should or shouldn’t do. I can give you reasons why I am where I am, but ultimately those can be self serving too.

Again…demonstrate how the church was built on faith alone…and not on the whole of peter…faith and himself.

Anglicanism starts from a place of ecclesiological minimalism, assuming that you are already in some discernible sense a part of the Church if you teach from the scriptures, adhere to the creeds, properly administer the sacraments, and maintain the historic episcopate. Anglicanism has never had much of a problem recognizing the Church of Rome as a true church, just not as the true Church. Even the papacy is only a problem for Anglicans in so much as the pope claims universal ordinary jurisdiction. The great Anglican critique of Roman Catholicism is not that Catholics don’t have it all, but that they have too much. What the Roman Church requires of her adherents in terms of their faith goes well beyond the boundaries of what can be proven by appeal to scripture, even when such an appeal allows for the interpretation of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils.

This is why something like the Ordinariate could never happen in reverse. While many Catholics do become Anglican, for a variety of reasons, there is nothing about Anglicanism that would suggest that they are not truly part of the Church if they stayed put. And yet, the problem with the Roman Church, from an Anglican perspective, is ultimately ecclesiological. While classical Anglicans take pride–perhaps a bit too much sometimes–in the notion that we maintain the ancient faith without cutting away many of the things lost in other Protestant traditions, we also believe firmly that nothing should be added to the faith, unless it be proven by appeal to scripture. While the Anglican Communion allows for a wide diversity of faith and practice in matters that are not essential to salvation, Anglicanism draws the line at anything being required of a person that would contradict, obscure, or in any other way prevent the establishment of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The problem, then, with the Roman Catholic Church’s approach is that it places ecclesiological excess above soteriological necessity.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JPeter]

1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.

From the passage above…can you explain how the blood of Christ makes you righteous? How do you reconcile what you said with that passage from 1John3?

John is instructing his community not to follow the example of what they see the Gnostics doing. Rather, they are to follow the example of what they see Christ himself did and accomplished for them. John says: “You know that he (that is Christ) was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he (that is Christ) is righteous.”

Now John IS NOT saying that we no longer sin; he IS NOT saying we are no longer sinners. What HE IS SAYING is that everyone who is a child of God will be influenced by Christ’s love and grace; by what Christ has done for them. Thus, that influence of Christ WILL CHANGE THEIR HEARTS, MINDS AND LIVES. THAT INFLUENCE OF CHRIST CHANGES ONE’S WILL TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. CHRIST MAKES US AWARE OF THE HARMFULNESS AND DESTRUCTIVENESS OF OUR SIN. THANKS TO WHAT CHRIST HAS DONE FOR US, WE ARE FREE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

Image is latent on a film, it requires development to draw out the picture. We too have potential as children of God. However, we too need development and the proper process to make it plain and useable. We are, for as long as we live, WORKS IN PROGRESS. The work of the Holy Spirit in us and through us is always ongoing–so we continue to grow in our journey of faith as children of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The issue with protestants resides in the misunderstanding of the Early Church Fathers in particular the 100-year period immediately after Christ. Here we see the Tradition of the Apostolic Church in its infant growth in all the aspects of the Apostolic Church.

Tradition preceeded Canon by years and Scripture by 350. I believe the first understanding resides in St Ignatius of Antioch and his 7-letters, then to Justin Martyr and of course St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies. The first aspect which is immediately noticed is that St Ignatius speaks in a very consistant manner to St Paul with a direct connection to the Apostle John.

The issue then becomes for Protestants to define where in fact the Church erred in this period. The Primacy was defined as was the hierarchy of the Church, the Eucharist and all the Sacaments were established. The Liturgy of the Apostolic Church’s were all well established and consistant in the three Mysteries of the Church, Jesus Christ, the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mother. Temporal rule was not of consequence.

Tradition existed before any Ecumenical Council and Scripture. Though Tradition does not exceed Scripture, Scripture must be understood in the light of the Apostles Tradition. Scripture is the quasi unanimous testimony of the early church fathers which extends directly from Tradition founded by Jesus Christ and His spoken word to His Apostles.

And the longer one reads the very early church fathers who proceeded from the Apostles the clearer on see’s the Apostolic Church.

Thus Scripture is not above Tradition and the Councils clarify, yet a relationship between all exist, established by the Apostles and their students. Scripture is the handbook of the Tradition.

Scripture without Tradition is mans opinion of Gods Kingdom.

 

[GKC]

I am glad you pointed this out. I will talk to my Priest. I cannot really answer on something I am unsure about. But if the Clergy have to believe it then why would the laity believe anything else?

I’m sorry I missed this.

To cite an Anglican on a point of Anglicanism is not to assume that the citation is not arguable. But one finds things like Bishop George Bull’s words (A VINDICATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND):

“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.” Elizabeth knew she could not closely control what was believed, but she could control what her ministers taught (and not what they necessarily believed, either. And that was a via media of the fractious factions striving to control the direction of the CoE in her reign. Hence the Articles of peace.

I am no expert on the theology of +Bull, but he had a few things to say on the faith/works question, too.

GKC

 

[JPeter]

The issue with protestants resides in the misunderstanding of the Early Church Fathers in particular the 100-year period immediately after Christ. Here we see the Tradition of the Apostolic Church in its infant growth in all the aspects of the Apostolic Church.

Tradition preceeded Canon by years and Scripture by 350. I believe the first understanding resides in St Ignatius of Antioch and his 7-letters, then to Justin Martyr and of course St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies. The first aspect which is immediately noticed is that St Ignatius speaks in a very consistant manner to St Paul with a direct connection to the Apostle John.

The issue then becomes for Protestants to define where in fact the Church erred in this period. The Primacy was defined as was the hierarchy of the Church, the Eucharist and all the Sacaments were established. The Liturgy of the Apostolic Church’s were all well established and consistant in the three Mysteries of the Church, Jesus Christ, the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mother. Temporal rule was not of consequence.

Tradition existed before any Ecumenical Council and Scripture. Though Tradition does not exceed Scripture, Scripture must be understood in the light of the Apostles Tradition. Scripture is the quasi unanimous testimony of the early church fathers which extends directly from Tradition founded by Jesus Christ and His spoken word to His Apostles.

And the longer one reads the very early church fathers who proceeded from the Apostles the clearer on see’s the Apostolic Church.

Thus Scripture is not above Tradition and the Councils clarify, yet a relationship between all exist, established by the Apostles and their students. Scripture is the handbook of the Tradition.

Scripture without Tradition is mans opinion of Gods Kingdom.

The trouble with Catholics is that they throw all protestants into the same category and usually don’t have a clue what we believe in. I know very few Protestants who would say that the erred within its first 500 years. I agree the a lot of what your saying here, but the early Church fathers don’t back Roman Catholicism anymore than they back Lutheranism. Your not saying anything here that I disagree with other than that you think it only applies to Roman Catholicism. Which leads me to believe that you don’t understand Anglicanism and you’ll say anything to show that your Church has superiority. The problem with this is that Roman Catholics don’t do a very good job in showing their superiority. The more I study scripture, how the councils were carried out and, the early church fathers, the more convinced I am that Roman Catholics do not have superiority. The Catholic teachings go way beyond anything that the early Church ever declared. I have no problem giving honor to Mary, I believe in the sacraments, and don’t have a problem with the bishop of Rome as the first among equals as the early councils understood him as such. Again what you have written does not show your superiority above any mainline Church. Its shows you don’t understand the nature of Protestantism. You don’t have anymore proof for your religion than anybody else. It takes faith. That might hurt your pride but its the reality.