Question for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe371
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
… at least the institutionalized communions have, to one degree or another, identified doctrines, and do not place the believer into the position of having figure things out on their own.
… For a Lutheran, the Church is quite visible, as it is where the word is preached and the sacraments administered among the congregation of believers.
Jon
Click to expand...
Your second sentence implies “truly” before the word “preached”. The problem is illuminated by denominations that formerly preached within what you, and I, would consider Christian orthodoxy but since abandoned it to more or less. Some still administer sacraments, that’s no assurance.

Institutionalized churches seldom deny their identified doctrines, they gradually reinterpret them, and frame their ideas with scripture and tradition, the same framing that the still orthodox churches rely on now. Emphasis on “gradually”.

So the believer IS placed in a “position of having to figure things out on their own”, because he constantly has to evaluate his denomination to see if it is still trustworthy. He can appeal his pastor’s error to the larger body, but those same safeguards (appeal process; reference to scripture, tradition, authoritative documents) were in place in denominations that went from orthodoxy to heresy.The safeguards were tried, and failed. They didn’t openly deny the gospel, or Luther, or whoever, they said this is true; but in the new situation this other Bible verse, or this other work by Calvin, or whoever, is relevant here.

Having a “congregation of believers” around him doesn’t make the believer’s discernment any sharper, if their senses have been dulled in the same direction, by the same weakening guide that dulls him. You can say “if my guide becomes untrustworthy I will go elsewhere.” This ignores the fact that your own ability to notice slowly creeping heresy is altered by your altering guide, as well as the effect of peer pressure. Historical experience shows the pressure is to “go with the flow”. The greater danger is not that you would be unable to appeal your pastor’s error, but you are less able to notice that certain orthodox doctrine is now consistently omitted.
 
commenter said:
Your second sentence implies “truly” before the word “preached”. The problem is illuminated by denominations that formerly preached within what you, and I, would consider Christian orthodoxy but since abandoned it to more or less. Some still administer sacraments, that’s no assurance.

Institutionalized churches seldom deny their identified doctrines, they gradually reinterpret them, and frame their ideas with scripture and tradition, the same framing that the still orthodox churches rely on now. Emphasis on “gradually”.

So the believer IS placed in a “position of having to figure things out on their own”, because he constantly has to evaluate his denomination to see if it is still trustworthy. He can appeal his pastor’s error to the larger body, but those same safeguards (appeal process; reference to scripture, tradition, authoritative documents) were in place in denominations that went from orthodoxy to heresy.The safeguards were tried, and failed. They didn’t openly deny the gospel, or Luther, or whoever, they said this is true; but in the new situation this other Bible verse, or this other work by Calvin, or whoever, is relevant here.

Having a “congregation of believers” around him doesn’t make the believer’s discernment any sharper, if their senses have been dulled in the same direction, by the same weakening guide that dulls him. Historical experience shows the pressure is to “go with the flow”.
Click to expand...
Well stated. In Jon’s church/ LCMS, congregational polity allows for some autonomy but the president/ bishop discipline the clergy. Lutheran priests in the episcopal system can also be disciplined/ removed. This is how Lutherans maintain authority in compliance to the Augsburg Confession.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Yes, the Bible, bound by language, time and culture may make correct statements, but it can’t be and obviously isn’t an infallible teacher—otherwise its meaning would be perfectly clear to all who read it. That’s not God’s fault; that’s human limitation on both the part of the writer and reader. Divine guidance doesn’t result in perfect humans (that’s where your logic breaks down); that’s one of the primary story lines of the Bible itself. And we also know this from human experience.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Both Moses and Isaiah saw God, to some degree…and were still fallible sinners after the experience. That is the whole reason for the advent of the God-Man, because of our inability to perfectly follow God, after all.
 
=commenter;11846715]Your second sentence implies “truly” before the word “preached”. The problem is illuminated by denominations that formerly preached within what you, and I, would consider Christian orthodoxy but since abandoned it to more or less. Some still administer sacraments, that’s no assurance.
Click to expand...
Institutionalized churches seldom deny their identified doctrines, they gradually reinterpret them, and frame their ideas with scripture and tradition, the same framing that the still orthodox churches rely on now. Emphasis on “gradually”.
Click to expand...
And sometimes not-so-gradually. From my perspective as one who was raised in the LCA, then ELCA, the “gradual” drift away from scripture and confessions seems anything but gradual.
So, as a confessional Lutheran, I am constantly on the alert for rift happening in the LCMS.
So the believer IS placed in a “position of having to figure things out on their own”, because he constantly has to evaluate his denomination to see if it is still trustworthy. He can appeal his pastor’s error to the larger body, but those same safeguards (appeal process; reference to scripture, tradition, authoritative documents) were in place in denominations that went from orthodoxy to heresy.The safeguards were tried, and failed. They didn’t openly deny the gospel, or Luther, or whoever, they said this is true; but in the new situation this other Bible verse, or this other work by Calvin, or whoever, is relevant here.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard some traditional Catholics make the same kind of remarks about Vat II, Novus Ordo, etc. OTOH, I don’t deny that this is a constant issue, particularly with the progressive secular influences such as feminism, the gay rights movement, etc.
Having a “congregation of believers” around him doesn’t make the believer’s discernment any sharper, if their senses have been dulled in the same direction, by the same weakening guide that dulls him. You can say “if my guide becomes untrustworthy I will go elsewhere.” This ignores the fact that your own ability to notice slowly creeping heresy is altered by your altering guide, as well as the effect of peer pressure. Historical experience shows the pressure is to “go with the flow”. The greater danger is not that you would be unable to appeal your pastor’s error, but you are less able to notice that certain orthodox doctrine is now consistently omitted.
Click to expand...
All the more reason for written confessions, tradition as it were, and well-catechized members willing to speak up for orthodoxy.

Jon
 
Per_Crucem said:
Indeed. Both Moses and Isaiah saw God, to some degree…and were still fallible sinners after the experience. That is the whole reason for the advent of the God-Man, because of our inability to perfectly follow God, after all.
Click to expand...
Yet still when they functioned within the office given them by God, they were protected by God to teach and judge in His name. As a private individual they were fallible, but when they acted as Prophets, it was God who guaranteed the infallibility of what they were doing.

The same holds for the Pope, or Catholic bishops in union with him. In their day to day decisions on mundane issues, even as a private theologian they can and do err. However when they are functioning in the office and role that God gave the Church, as the Vicar of Christ or Successor of the Apostles, it is not the man who is Infallible, as much as it is that Christ’s promise that He would remain with the Church to the consummation of the earth, and the power to bind and loose which guards us and ensures that those actions are infallible. You see the Protestant idea that the Catholic Church gives a man infallibility is not what the Church teaches, it is God who protects the Church and sees to it that any official dogmatic or morally binding promulgation is infallible. Just as it is Christ Jesus, and His priesthood who acts through the sacraments to give us the graces that they externally represent, the individual priest while he has the authority of Christ’s priesthood granted to him does not of his own personal power act, but Christ through that priesthood he is entrusted with who acts.
 
Hi Jon,
JonNC said:
From the Mr. Staples’ column:

Mr. Staple is wrong, that there is no explication of the practice of sola scriptura, as I’ve posted it here often. From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

Interestingly, it sounds nothing like what Mr. Staples renders as his experience as a “protestant”. So, for one to completely understand his experience, one needs to know what communion he was a member of. I’m sure he’s revealed that, but I simply do not know what it as.

Among Lutheran pastors, even from varying synods, there is indeed a uniform understanding. So, when he says there is no uniform understanding among “protestant” pastors, one again needs to know from what specific communions they were.

Again, from the column:

For almost all, these are the wrong questions. From the Lutheran perspective, it is in fact the Church that uses and employs the practice of sola scriptura. As for where the practice is taught, no where explicitly, though it can be inferred, not in opposition to the teaching role of the Church, but as a method for the Church to use.
As for the canon, it has been historically practiced in the Church that different communions, different sees and patriarchs, have had and continue to have variances in canonical books.
If Mr. Staples received different answers to these questions, he probably was asking pastors from different communions. If so, it shouldn’t have been a surprise.

There is much more, but I think the point is, from my perspective, Mr. Staples’ experience with sola scriptura was nothing like what is found in orthodox Lutheran teaching, and since Luther and the Lutheran reformers often get the blame/credit for SS, the default understanding of it probably ought to start there.
Jon
Click to expand...
I read your post last night and I thought you should know that I was with Tim Staples today. I let him know that last night, right here on CA, you declared that ‘Mr. Staple is wrong’. He has a great sense of humor, and got quite a chuckle out of that. He said. “What, you mean little Ole Me?” He doesn’t take himself too seriously.

I could take your criticism of him apart piece by piece, but will just make a few comments.

First of all, what Tim was describing was ONLY his personal experience, and since he didn’t depict it as anything else, you cannot say that he is wrong. He mentioned that there is no uniform understanding of Sola Scriptura within Protestantism, and in this, he was correct. Furthermore, he was making GENERAL comments about Protestantism IN GENERAL. Not every valid criticism of Protestantism IN GENERAL needs to be answered with text from the Lutheran Confessions.

Is it not appropriate for people (Protestants or otherwise) to comment on Protestantism IN GENERAL, or should they make a thousand ‘qualifying comments’ regarding all of the groups who consider themselves to be ‘set aside’ from ‘other Protestants’ in one way or another? That kind of ‘requirement’ would really that would limit criticism of Protestantism IN GENERAL wouldn’t it?

BTW, if I had remembered, I would have asked him for his opinion of the Lutheran Confessions. I guess I still can. He’s not exactly ‘bashful’. He makes a tremendous amount of sense and is not afraid to tell it like it is. That’s why he is so effective as a Catholic Apologist. You would love him as a Christian and as a man, but needless to say, you wouldn’t like everything about him.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

One last question: How much time would it have taken you to do the research necessary to find out about Tim Staples’s Protestant denominational background?
 
There is a wise and respected poster on these boards who has a saying that is, I think, useful to recall in conversation with others. The exact wording may be off, but it’s something to the effect of, ‘Generally, it is generally unwise and inaccurate to offer generalizations about general groups of people in general… generally.’

I think that’s particularly important to bear in mind when considering the OP’s question, “When did God stop infallibly guiding His church, and shift the emphasis to scripture alone?” because not all “protestant” groups necessarily adhere to a ‘Great Apostasy.’ It certainly wasn’t Joe’s intent, but it’s similar to asking ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’
 
Topper17 said:
Hi Jon,

I read your post last night and I thought you should know that I was with Tim Staples today. I let him know that last night, right here on CA, you declared that ‘Mr. Staple is wrong’. He has a great sense of humor, and got quite a chuckle out of that. He said. “What, you mean little Ole Me?” He doesn’t take himself too seriously.

I could take your criticism of him apart piece by piece, but will just make a few comments.

First of all, what Tim was describing was ONLY his personal experience, and since he didn’t depict it as anything else, you cannot say that he is wrong. He mentioned that there is no uniform understanding of Sola Scriptura within Protestantism, and in this, he was correct. Furthermore, he was making GENERAL comments about Protestantism IN GENERAL. Not every valid criticism of Protestantism IN GENERAL needs to be answered with text from the Lutheran Confessions.

Is it not appropriate for people (Protestants or otherwise) to comment on Protestantism IN GENERAL, or should they make a thousand ‘qualifying comments’ regarding all of the groups who consider themselves to be ‘set aside’ from ‘other Protestants’ in one way or another? That kind of ‘requirement’ would really that would limit criticism of Protestantism IN GENERAL wouldn’t it?

BTW, if I had remembered, I would have asked him for his opinion of the Lutheran Confessions. I guess I still can. He’s not exactly ‘bashful’. He makes a tremendous amount of sense and is not afraid to tell it like it is. That’s why he is so effective as a Catholic Apologist. You would love him as a Christian and as a man, but needless to say, you wouldn’t like everything about him.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

One last question: How much time would it have taken you to do the research necessary to find out about Tim Staples’s Protestant denominational background?
Click to expand...
Hi Topper,

I do not believe my post deserves the criticisms you raise.
  1. I was quite clear that I think he is wrong that there is no explication of the practice. I stated ours, and I’m certain other communions have statements of theirs. In no way did I imply that his communion did or did not. He said they did not, and I believe him
  2. throughout my post I acknowledge that he was speaking of his own experience.
    Though that is the case, he speaks of it in general terms, as this is the general Protestant view. My response is meant to indicate that it is not my experience.
    3). If we are going to speak generally of Protestants, it seems it should be expected that individuals from varying communions will clarify their views, such as I have done.
    Others are free to do so.
When you speak to him again, please extend my regards, and best wishes. And I extend them to you, as well.

Jon
 
Dave_Noonan said:
God cannot create square circles as philosophers often note; the nature of humans is to be fallible; the nature of God is to be infallible. The church is composed of fallible humans. You could argue that it didn’t have to be that way necessarily (maybe) but that’s the way it is.
Click to expand...
God is not contradiction. And contrary to us, He keeps His promises. He said He would build His Church and that the gates of Hades will not prevail. He said that He would send His Church His Holy Spirit and to guide His Church into all truth. All Truth, Guide you into all truth… The deposit of Faith delivered once for all will be guided by the Holy Spirit into all Truth.

It would be impossible to the Holy Spirit to teach untruth.

Now according to your own logic, Scriptures are errant and Her writers were fallible in their writings. Since they were not hand written or dictated verbatim the human element is undeniably present in them. According to your logic we have no assurance of truth, except a fallible human receives revelation from God directly… which is still not God but the fallible human… thus - uncertainty of truth.

I vehemently disagree with your logic.
 
JonNC said:
Hi Topper,

I do not believe my post deserves the criticisms you raise.
  1. I was quite clear that I think he is wrong that there is no explication of the practice. I stated ours, and I’m certain other communions have statements of theirs. In no way did I imply that his communion did or did not. He said they did not, and I believe him
  2. throughout my post I acknowledge that he was speaking of his own experience.
    Though that is the case, he speaks of it in general terms, as this is the general Protestant view. My response is meant to indicate that it is not my experience.
    3). If we are going to speak generally of Protestants, it seems it should be expected that individuals from varying communions will clarify their views, such as I have done.
    Others are free to do so.
When you speak to him again, please extend my regards, and best wishes. And I extend them to you, as well.

Jon
Click to expand...
Tim Staples was raised Southern Baptist, fell away from church, later belonged to an Assembly of God congregation, then Catholic. My guess is in those communions the understanding of “sola scriptura”, is more open to variation from person to person than Lutheranism, but I would love to see (name removed by moderator)ut from them to clarify.

I admit to frustration with SS being well defined - but differently defined - in some Protestant communions, and less defined in others. For someone trying to be ecumenical, it’s like trying to understand a coworker who uses a rubber yardstick, which sometimes looks as small as a man’s hand, sometimes longer than a man’s height, depending on various definitions. You feel like yelling (in a friendly way) “at this rate we’re never going to rebuild Christianity in Western Civilization. Try the Magisterium instead”.
Then again, I am still in the learning phase, and have a long ways to go.
 
Kliska said:
:confused: I never said that I believed the church is infallible, scripture shows that it isn’t.
Click to expand...
The Church as the body of Christ to which He is the head, is infallible.

The Church as an institution can’t be infallible because it is not a person, thus incapable of making a mistake or being wrong. That’s reserved for persons in the institution.

The people in the Church when in communion with the Pope makes a statement in regards to faith and morals from the Chair of Peter - it is an infallible statement.

Statements made in a different way, while authoritative - are not infallible.

And this in no way means impeccability. Scriptures themselves testify to peccable individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit being infallible in matters of faith and morals.
 
commenter said:
Tim Staples was raised Southern Baptist, fell away from church, later belonged to an Assembly of God congregation, then Catholic. My guess is in those communions the understanding of “sola scriptura”, is more open to variation from person to person than Lutheranism, but I would love to see (name removed by moderator)ut from them to clarify.

I admit to frustration with SS being well defined - but differently defined - in some Protestant communions, and less defined in others. For someone trying to be ecumenical, it’s like trying to understand a coworker who uses a rubber yardstick, which sometimes looks as small as a man’s hand, sometimes longer than a man’s height, depending on various definitions. You feel like yelling (in a friendly way) “at this rate we’re never going to rebuild Christianity in Western Civilization. Try the Magisterium instead”.
Then again, I am still in the learning phase, and have a long ways to go.
Click to expand...
Even within Lutheranism, we see some who wish to redefine not sola scriptura, but whether scripture says to modern society what it said to societies in the past Things like women clergy, and our response to those with same gender attraction. It can be frustrating for me. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you deign with multiple communions.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Things like women clergy, and our response to those with same gender attraction. It can be frustrating for me. I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you deign with multiple communions.

Jon
Click to expand...
Agreed!

…

I will say that Catholic have a particular ‘trap’ they need to be worried about - that as Catholics it seems that binding the will to the Catholic Magisterium may be just as difficult as Lutherans binding their will to the Church, Confessions and Bible.

Here in Seattle, we’re awash in “Catholics in name only” - so perhaps my prognosis is a bit dire.
 
benjohnson said:
Agreed!

…

I will say that Catholic have a particular ‘trap’ they need to be worried about - that as Catholics it seems that binding the will to the Catholic Magisterium may be just as difficult as Lutherans binding their will to the Church, Confessions and Bible.

Here in Seattle, we’re awash in “Catholics in name only” - so perhaps my prognosis is a bit dire.
Click to expand...
Such as this:

ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/longtime-peace-activist-removed-ministry-after-concelebrating-mass-woman-priest

But as you imply, we have no room to throw stones in this matter. Even within the LCMS, there exists the progressive wing.

Jon
 
I don’t know the exact percent but guess that most Lutherans, worldwide, accept female priests/ same-sex marriage. Though the transition has not been easy.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
I don’t know the exact percent but guess that most Lutherans, worldwide, accept female priests/ same-sex marriage. Though the transition has not been easy.
Click to expand...
Not sure why that would be.

“Oh Troian, Anchises’ son, the descent of Avernus is easy.
All night long, all day, the doors of Hades stand open.
But to retrace the path, to come up to the sweet air of heaven,
That is labor indeed.”

~Aeneid 6.10
 
GKC said:
Not sure why that would be.

“Oh Troian, Anchises’ son, the descent of Avernus is easy.
All night long, all day, the doors of Hades stand open.
But to retrace the path, to come up to the sweet air of heaven,
That is labor indeed.”

~Aeneid 6.10
Click to expand...
Whose Inferno will it be?
 
JonNC said:
Hi Joe,
I won’t speak for House, but I would say it IS the Church. That’s how we do it in the LCMS. If, for example, my pastor does or says something that I believe is outside of confessional teaching. Let’s say he claims the Supper is merely symbolic. I go to him first (in a hurry if he says that 😃 ). Then, if necessary, to the elders. If we still can’t resolve, we go to the circuit counselor, the district, etc. House is WELS, as I recall, but I would suspect his routine will be similar.

But let’s say the dispute is between a Catholic, and a Greek Orthodox, and the issue is universal jurisdiction, or perhaps even Transubstantiation, who do they take it to?
The problem doesn’t change when sola scriptura is removed from the equation.

Jon
Click to expand...
:)Hey Jon. You do as scripture tells us to do:thumbsup:; not what sola scriptura advocates (depending on the classification) do - which is take it to sacred scripture, which does nothing in terms of settling disputes. For me the big question was: which church e.g. the CC, the various EOCs, the various LC’s etc. continues to be ineffably and inerrantly guided by God? The answer of course is different for the Catholic Christian, the Eastern Orthodox Christian and the Lutheran Christian. I love all of these churches. However, only one of these churches, in my humble opinion, is the one church of Matthew 16:18-21, John 16:13, Ephesians 3:10, Timothy 3:15 and John 14:16. Either one of these churches continues to be infallibly guided, or none of them are, which really bothered me as a former non-Catholic. :bigyikes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top