H
hn160
Guest
Lutherans do not offer a sacrifice because that was done once by Christ, but in Church of Sweden, the ordained clergy are called priests.
- Status
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi Jim Dandy,
I assume that this will be brought up, I would use it anyway…: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 1 Thessolonians 2:15 (ESV)
The verse here fails to give any indication that the tradition being referred to as actually distinct from what has been written? As in the traditions content. It may have been passed on in an oral way, but if one suggests that this different mode of transition has a different content to it, content not found in scripture, it is done by pre-supposition, the text gives no indication of this.(2)
Can any quoted unwritten tradition be brought up not found in scripture, even materially? If dogmas and decrees such as Papal Infallibility are Tradition of the unwritten form, finding them in history, going back 2000 years, is needed.(3)
Peace, hope your well.
Lincs
(1) - bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
(2) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
If I may be allowed to do that oh so crude thing and post a response to a question with a question; where does the Bible tell us to hold to Sacred Tradition? by this I mean Tradition that is not recorded in scripture, the “the unwritten traditions” to quote The Council of Trent.(1)
I assume that this will be brought up, I would use it anyway…: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 1 Thessolonians 2:15 (ESV)
The verse here fails to give any indication that the tradition being referred to as actually distinct from what has been written? As in the traditions content. It may have been passed on in an oral way, but if one suggests that this different mode of transition has a different content to it, content not found in scripture, it is done by pre-supposition, the text gives no indication of this.(2)
Can any quoted unwritten tradition be brought up not found in scripture, even materially? If dogmas and decrees such as Papal Infallibility are Tradition of the unwritten form, finding them in history, going back 2000 years, is needed.(3)
Peace, hope your well.
Lincs
(1) - bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
(2) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
H
Holly3278
Guest
I always thought that a minister and a pastor is the same thing in Protestant churches. I believe they have such people because this person is responsible for preaching and guiding the local ecclesial community.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Both Judaism and Christianity were handed down by oral tradition. Judaism was about a thousand years old before the first word of what we call the Old Testament (so named by the Catholic Church) was written down, and it took another thousand years to complete. The Catholic Church was about a quarter of a century old before the first word of the New Testament (so named by the Catholic Church) was written, and it was the end of the first Christian century before it was completed. The writings to be regarded as Christian Scripture were not finally discerned until the end of the fourth century. The NT consists of 27 of the Church’s own writings.Hi Jim Dandy,
If I may be allowed to do that oh so crude thing and post a response to a question with a question; where does the Bible tell us to hold to Sacred Tradition? by this I mean Tradition that is not recorded in scripture, the “the unwritten traditions” to quote The Council of Trent.(1)
I assume that this will be brought up, I would use it anyway…: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 1 Thessolonians 2:15 (ESV)
The verse here fails to give any indication that the tradition being referred to as actually distinct from what has been written? As in the traditions content. It may have been passed on in an oral way, but if one suggests that this different mode of transition has a different content to it, content not found in scripture, it is done by pre-supposition, the text gives no indication of this.(2)
Can any quoted unwritten tradition be brought up not found in scripture, even materially? If dogmas and decrees such as Papal Infallibility are Tradition of the unwritten form, finding them in history, going back 2000 years, is needed.(3)
Peace, hope your well.
Lincs
(1) - bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
(2) - beggarsallreformation.blogspo…lar-roman.html
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspo…lar-roman.html
Historical Christianity was not based on the written word, but on the oral teaching of Christ and the Apostles. The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church. The New Testament is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It is a record of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church during the first fifty years or so of her existence, after her founding by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem.
Jesus didn’t leave us a book, nor did He instruct anyone to write a single word. He left us the Catholic Church as our teacher. The Church wrote the NT and compiled and named the Bible, guided by the Spirit. She was about 350 years old at the time.
An example of Sacred Apostolic Tradition is the canon of the Bible. The Sacred Apostolic Tradition that the Pope and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church are Infallible in their teaching is found in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, c. A.D. 180-199; Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200; St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle to [Pope] Cornelius, A.D. 252.
Peace be with you,
Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
The point of the OP (as I understand it) is that Protestants believe that the Bible Only (Sola Scriptura) is the sole rule for faith and morals; therefore, interpreters such as ministers and pastors should not be required. The Bible is self-interpreting (so they say).
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
Christ and the Apostles taught, and therefore the Catholic Church teaches, that our priests offer the very same once-for-all sacrifice offered by Christ. At Mass, we are kneeling at Calvary.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Scripture tells us that Jesus died once for all sin. Nicene Creed (He suffered death and was buried). How can the Catholic church recreate that OR transcend time to do that and why would it do that?? Jesus did it already.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Amen!Hi Jim Dandy,
If I may be allowed to do that oh so crude thing and post a response to a question with a question; where does the Bible tell us to hold to Sacred Tradition? by this I mean Tradition that is not recorded in scripture, the “the unwritten traditions” to quote The Council of Trent.(1)
I assume that this will be brought up, I would use it anyway…: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 1 Thessolonians 2:15 (ESV)
The verse here fails to give any indication that the tradition being referred to as actually distinct from what has been written? As in the traditions content. It may have been passed on in an oral way, but if one suggests that this different mode of transition has a different content to it, content not found in scripture, it is done by pre-supposition, the text gives no indication of this.(2)
Can any quoted unwritten tradition be brought up not found in scripture, even materially? If dogmas and decrees such as Papal Infallibility are Tradition of the unwritten form, finding them in history, going back 2000 years, is needed.(3)
Peace, hope your well.
Lincs
(1) - bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
(2) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
L
ltwin
Guest
A minister can refer to any member of the clergy. A pastor is a minister who has charge of a church, or a subset of a church (such as youth pastor or children’s pastor).
And someone who believes in Sola Scriptura would say that Scripture clearly shows that the church had leaders and teachers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, bishops, presbyters, deacons (this is an ad hoc list, I’m not ranking them in importance
).Sola Scriptura does not mean that teachers and leaders are not needed, only that anything that teachers teach is to be judged according to scripture. If a teaching goes against Scripture, then that teaching is false.
Hi Jim,
This might be the interpretation of some, but Lutherans recognize the role of the Church for teaching and doctrine. Sola scriptura is, in fact, a practice of the Church in hermeunetics. It holds teachers and teachings accountable. It doesn’t eliminate the need for them. Hence, while we hold them subordinate to scripture, the doctrinal teachings of the confessions, the creeds, and the 7 councils are vital, and pastors are held to them.
As for Lutheran pastors, it is not their role to interpret scripture. They proclaim the Gospel, and are held to it, and to the Lutheran confessions. Additionally, as called and ordained servants of Christ, they administer the sacraments. It is reasonable to say that they do lead the congregation in the offering of a sacrifice of thanks and praise during the liturgy of the sacament.
The reason I didn’t initially respond to the OP is that he said:
And since Lutherans do not subscribe to solo scriptura, and our understanding of sola scriptura’s role is different than he states, I didn’t want to be off-topic. Sorry if my reply here is.
Peace, Jim.
Jon
This kind of relates back to the Lutheran school that has been attacked by the central government regarding its handling of a school employee (ministeral exception). A teacher, for instance, in the Lutheran school system is considered a minister. But teachers are not pastors. Pastors are the ordained clergy, whose role is quite more than preaching and guiding, though that is there also.
Of course, other communions may handle things differently.
Jon
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Jim Dandy, thanks for the response,
I agree that the catholic church was around 25 years old by the time the first NT writings, give or take a few years, by this I mean the universal catholic church, which as a Protestant I respectfully view as not being the Church today known as the Catholic Church, capital C. But this is not our discussion…
The formation of the Canon, I agree is usually the only Tradition given when one asks for a Sacred “unwritten tradition”, but this idea that it was unknown until the fourth century, that prior to this no one had any idea what was or was not a canonical book I find rather wrong. By assenting to this view, unwittingly credence is given to the Bauer hypothesis; namely that there were competing orthodoxies in early Christianity, with the winners not being decided, along with the Canon they would choose, until a very late date.(1) Such a view of canon development, used as a method to prove Church authority, plays into the hands of scholars who hold to such views.
Canon is tied up to Covenant, one rather brilliant book gives excellent treatment of this, establishing that as the early Christians recognised the work of Jesus and the New Covenant (2), that “they naturally would have anticipated written documents to follow that testified to the terms of that covenant.” (3) The idea of it being something unknown of until the fourth century doesn’t hold water, hence why we have Peter testifying to the letters of Paul as being scripture in 2 Peter 3:16, thus of the canon, as they were documents of this new covenant. I admit what I’ve posted here is a rather small and measly morsel of trying to establish said point, the chapter of the book gives far more in depth treatment.
Of course the oral preaching and message of the Apostles would carry binding authority, as they spoke with the authority given them by Jesus, but this message, working within the covenantal framework mentioned above, was transmitted to the written word, to be lasting and abiding. (4) Thus the church did not all of a sudden decide some books were scripture, it recognised them very early on.
On further note, pressing this fourth century hypothesis, what happened here? The councils of Hippo and Carthage? These are not considered ecumenical by current Catholic standards, there is no infallible decision until Trent, unless one is suggesting there could be no certainty prior to this of the canon? (5) With respect, I think not. The bible was handed down in the Catholic Church of its day for western Christianity, but this does not necessitate said church was infallible or decided the canon in the fourth Century, as has been demonstrated above. It transmitted them, but did not declare them.
Thus I see the canon as being the product of history, early history, first century history, known to the earliest church as Peters letter gives evidence too in his affirmation of Paul as having penned scripture, to deny as much gives Bauer’s thesis a lot of weight.
Respectfully, peace!
Lincs.
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 24
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
(3) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
(4) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
(5) - vintage.aomin.org/ByWhatAuthority.html
I agree that the catholic church was around 25 years old by the time the first NT writings, give or take a few years, by this I mean the universal catholic church, which as a Protestant I respectfully view as not being the Church today known as the Catholic Church, capital C. But this is not our discussion…
The formation of the Canon, I agree is usually the only Tradition given when one asks for a Sacred “unwritten tradition”, but this idea that it was unknown until the fourth century, that prior to this no one had any idea what was or was not a canonical book I find rather wrong. By assenting to this view, unwittingly credence is given to the Bauer hypothesis; namely that there were competing orthodoxies in early Christianity, with the winners not being decided, along with the Canon they would choose, until a very late date.(1) Such a view of canon development, used as a method to prove Church authority, plays into the hands of scholars who hold to such views.
Canon is tied up to Covenant, one rather brilliant book gives excellent treatment of this, establishing that as the early Christians recognised the work of Jesus and the New Covenant (2), that “they naturally would have anticipated written documents to follow that testified to the terms of that covenant.” (3) The idea of it being something unknown of until the fourth century doesn’t hold water, hence why we have Peter testifying to the letters of Paul as being scripture in 2 Peter 3:16, thus of the canon, as they were documents of this new covenant. I admit what I’ve posted here is a rather small and measly morsel of trying to establish said point, the chapter of the book gives far more in depth treatment.
Of course the oral preaching and message of the Apostles would carry binding authority, as they spoke with the authority given them by Jesus, but this message, working within the covenantal framework mentioned above, was transmitted to the written word, to be lasting and abiding. (4) Thus the church did not all of a sudden decide some books were scripture, it recognised them very early on.
On further note, pressing this fourth century hypothesis, what happened here? The councils of Hippo and Carthage? These are not considered ecumenical by current Catholic standards, there is no infallible decision until Trent, unless one is suggesting there could be no certainty prior to this of the canon? (5) With respect, I think not. The bible was handed down in the Catholic Church of its day for western Christianity, but this does not necessitate said church was infallible or decided the canon in the fourth Century, as has been demonstrated above. It transmitted them, but did not declare them.
Thus I see the canon as being the product of history, early history, first century history, known to the earliest church as Peters letter gives evidence too in his affirmation of Paul as having penned scripture, to deny as much gives Bauer’s thesis a lot of weight.
Respectfully, peace!
Lincs.
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 24
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
(3) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
(4) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
(5) - vintage.aomin.org/ByWhatAuthority.html
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Its been well established that dogma is pronounced for the purpose of countering heresy. There was no Biblical heresy until the Reformation, hence they (the Church) hadn’t yet closed the canon.
We’re not talking about cross-reference. We’re talking about compilation. If said thesis is indeed true (and scripture is inspired due to the writer’s inspiration and not the Church’s), we’re dealing with a case on case basis of analysis of which scriptures fits the message of the gospels-- which necessitates the pre-requisite of Sacred Tradition. Unless you’re suggesting that the gradual and natural compilation of sacred scriptures until the Council of Rome (or whenever event you propose), there is no precedent to the precedence itself. The canon could still be revised even today without immediate consequence because the canon itself had not been closed by any certain authority.
If God came down from Heaven and said “The canon is closed, and so is this case”, then maybe I’d reconsider Sola Scriptura. To my knowledge, that has yet to happen.
Moreover, the Council of Rome, Nicaea, what have you, was to give a very special imprimatur on the compilation of sacred scripture. Remember, the Bible is a library, not a book!
May the peace of our Risen Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you now, and always!
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi again Anthony V,
sorry, humor makes things less confrontational in discussions!) I mean, the Marcionite heresy of the second century immidiatley springs to mind, of which I’m prepared to argue, the orthodox response to his canon demonstrates they already had one of their own.
Before moving on, I must confess I’m a little confused by your second paragraph, I think I get it, could I please have it in a more easy to digest way, apologies
Again I think your saying this; “the scriptures are known to be as such, by the first century Christians, because they fit what they heard orally from the Apostles, thus they tested them to the Tradition” ? Am I correct in that this is what your saying? Apologies if not.
Ok, for the most past I utterly agree, in my last post I was happy to utterly assent that Apostolic preaching, orally, was authoritative. There is no question of that for me. What I then said however was that this oral message, this Tradition if you wish to use such a term, was transmitted wholly, with all necessary for salvation, clearly stated, into the Scriptures. (1) To serve as the Plum line for which future Christians, after the Apostles were gone, could look for covenant terms. (2) As I posed earlier, is there any “unwritten Tradition” outside of scripture? Saying that the canon itself is one, doesn’t stack up if Scripture served as the medium in which all the Apostles preaching was contained in anyway.
I hope this makes some sense, if I have gotten wrong what you said and made a case around my error, I do of course apologise I was just a tad confused by it…
Peace mon ami, have a good Lords day!
Lincs
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
Indeed it has, however I don’t think The Reformation was the first Biblical heresy, (I think it’s biblical ofc though haha
sorry, humor makes things less confrontational in discussions!) I mean, the Marcionite heresy of the second century immidiatley springs to mind, of which I’m prepared to argue, the orthodox response to his canon demonstrates they already had one of their own.Before moving on, I must confess I’m a little confused by your second paragraph, I think I get it, could I please have it in a more easy to digest way, apologies
Are you saying that Scripture is only inspired because the Church is? Because that I disagree on ofc, “all scripture is God breathed…”, not Church declared. I doubt your saying it’s only inspired as the church is, I’m just a tad confused here…
Again I think your saying this; “the scriptures are known to be as such, by the first century Christians, because they fit what they heard orally from the Apostles, thus they tested them to the Tradition” ? Am I correct in that this is what your saying? Apologies if not.
Ok, for the most past I utterly agree, in my last post I was happy to utterly assent that Apostolic preaching, orally, was authoritative. There is no question of that for me. What I then said however was that this oral message, this Tradition if you wish to use such a term, was transmitted wholly, with all necessary for salvation, clearly stated, into the Scriptures. (1) To serve as the Plum line for which future Christians, after the Apostles were gone, could look for covenant terms. (2) As I posed earlier, is there any “unwritten Tradition” outside of scripture? Saying that the canon itself is one, doesn’t stack up if Scripture served as the medium in which all the Apostles preaching was contained in anyway.
I hope this makes some sense, if I have gotten wrong what you said and made a case around my error, I do of course apologise
I was just a tad confused by it…Peace mon ami, have a good Lords day!
Lincs
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 114
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Indeed. Scripture is affirmed by Tradition. When the heresy began to mutilate the current compilation of the scriptures, etc, then they knew something was up. Don’t get me wrong, the scriptures that lined up with Tradition were used, but only in a way similar to how we quote Church fathers now-a-days. It hadn’t yet been proclaimed infallible, and that’s where scripture gets its authority. For instance, if I wrote on a sheet of paper, “God is good”, even though its true, it doesn’t make it infallible (since it has no context). Such is the case for scriptures before they were the Bible.Hi again Anthony V,
Indeed it has, however I don’t think The Reformation was the first Biblical heresy, (I think it’s biblical ofc though haha
Before moving on, I must confess I’m a little confused by your second paragraph, I think I get it, could I please have it in a more easy to digest way, apologies
We have different understandings of “inspired” here. Inspired means truthful. Putting the scriptures up to the measuring stick of Tradition identifies which ones are “inspired”, and then the Church declares the nihil obstat, and the imprimatur because it is the Church that defines the context of the scriptures (now Scriptures). There is no change in the objective identity of the Scriptures, just the subjective identity of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit inspires the writers, who write the truth about the Truth, who hand it to the Church, who infallibly discerns that the writings are indeed the truth about the Truth. Infallibility is a declaration, not a change in somethings existence. The Church doesn’t “create” new things. It is a vessel of God’s grace, a perfect organization tool, the sturdy Rock, and the ultimate spiritual advisor.
Here, you’re stating a historical paradox of limitation on the scriptures themselves. Scripture does not define its own limitations. Its not an entity like the Church is. Its not Tradition itself. It’s is a record of Tradition. It’s like a square vs. rectangle analogy. All squares (sacred Scriptures) are rectangles (sacred Traditions), but not all rectangles (sacred Traditions) are squares (sacred Scriptures). I can’t seem to find the right words on how to express this. As you’re reading this, you probably already see many loopholes. I’ll come back to this later with a fresh mind.
(Emphasis mine) That’s the assumption that’s holding your argument together, and the same argument that holds Sola Scriptura together. I have a counter-argument on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite seem to articulate it. Again, I’ll be back later.
Peace be with you this Sabbath.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi Anthony V,
I may wish to tone down my statement as such of “all the apostles preaching is in scripture”, the text I’m sure we’re both aware of “and Jesus did many other things, not recorded…” from John 21:25, thus not everything is in there. My position is that all needed for salvation is. Does this text support a position affirming “unwritten traditions” (note the plural)? I don’t know of any, all that is given is the canon.
I also wish to post this link ; ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm - If you have a spare 30 mins, I would like to know your thoughts, it’s certainly adjusted a few of mine recently, still trying to process it all.
Peace
Lincs
(1) - pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm#chapi
Indeed here we utterly disagree, “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”(1) Scripture gets its authority because it is the very words of God. The hypothesis you state places the church above scripture, as without said church, you claim scripture has no authority and is unknowable, sola ecclesia? Btw, I mean this as no insult, Merely an observation.
I am indeed seeing “loopholes”, the squares and rectangles argument; I once again pose the question; Is there a Sacred Tradition outside of Scripture? “not all rectangles are squares”, I respectfully ask for a rectangle not in the squares. Or is the canon the only one to be given? Which of course, I’m debating as requiring an infallible church.
I may wish to tone down my statement as such of “all the apostles preaching is in scripture”, the text I’m sure we’re both aware of “and Jesus did many other things, not recorded…” from John 21:25, thus not everything is in there. My position is that all needed for salvation is. Does this text support a position affirming “unwritten traditions” (note the plural)? I don’t know of any, all that is given is the canon.
I also wish to post this link ; ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm - If you have a spare 30 mins, I would like to know your thoughts, it’s certainly adjusted a few of mine recently, still trying to process it all.
Peace
Lincs
(1) - pcanet.org/general/cof_chapi-v.htm#chapi
A
Anthony_V
Guest
May God guide us to hear his voice… Amen. 
I think I articulated that in a way such that we’re using different language here. Authority is a binding power. The Bible does not bind itself out of its own essence, but because rather because it is the word of God. It is written Tradition. The Church discerns, and thus declares it to be the word of God; they don’t “make” it the word of God. This is the same way that you read your Bible and declare it (the Bible) to be the word of God, except its the Church, who has authority by Christ as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” proclaiming it, instead of minister Bob. Moreover, if Sola Scriptura was correct, there would be no need to define “fundamentalism” in order to bypass lack of ecclesial unity. Scattered and dividing churches says the message itself is “apostolic”, but not the churches themselves. Clearly, the early Church didn’t believe that.
According to the accusations of many Evangelical ministers, there are many unbiblical things about the Church. Seeing as how you’re part of the fundamentalist sect, I’d guess the same thing about yourself. To name a few, the apostles’ creed, real presence in the Eucharist, immaculate conception, etc.
Well, where in the Bible does it say that it’s the only thing that’s needed?
I’ll try and read it later when I have time. Thanks for the information.
May God bless you now, and forever.Peace
B
BernadetteM
Guest
You state that you are “Protestant”, how do you explain the fact that within the Anglican Communion some claim to be “Catholic” and others like yourself claim to be “Protestant”?
It is an interesting concept that one denomination doesn’t agree whether it is Catholic or Protestant.
As a former Episcopalian, as a youth brought up in a low church I was taught we were Protestant, then as a very young adult attending an Anglo Catholic parish, I was taught we were Catholic. It is very confusing to others what exactly an Anglican is.
God Bless
Bernadette
L
ltwin
Guest
I think most Anglicans would define themselves as being both Catholic and Reformed, being that part of the universal church in England heavily influenced by the Protestant Reformation. Historically, Anglicans were much more ready to identify themselves as Protestant, for example the full name of the Episcopal Church is the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA.” Then in the 1800s you got the Oxford movement and Anglo-Catholicism. Since then, many Anglicans are hesitant to say they are Protestant. Anglicans refer to this concept of being both Catholic and Protestant as the Via Media, the middle way.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi again Anthony V, thanks for the continued discussion, finding it really interesting, regarding your first paragraph in your last post;
Well I think that it does indeed bind itself; Paul is quite clear of his awareness that his message carries divine authority (1) For example see 1 Corinthians 14:37–38, Paul is clear his message is to be taken as if it were Christ. (2) Thus it binds by itself, it needs no church or council to declare it binding, it binds as it carries the authority of Jesus Christ, who himself said “all authority is given to me” - Matthew 28:18. Thus we see Scripture affirming itself as the word of God, the written word of the Apostles, thus of Christ, binding in and of itself.
Besides, are there not several churches all claiming to be the one true church and all claiming to have Sacred Apostolic Tradition to back this claim up? (3)
May I ask respectfully what makes a fundamentalist in your view? This is not an attack, I just want to makes sure we dont get confused about each others position, what makes me fundamentalist in my outlook? My theology is found in the Westminster confession, Heidelberg Catechism or the Canons of Dort for example…
Going back to my previous paragraph; especially when two ecclesial bodies claiming historic continuity hold different views on a subject and both claim to follow the Apostolic Tradition, may i ask respectfully how does one test which is correct?
Anyway il stop now, no one likes to be spammed with a massive essay lol. Hope your well
Peace to you
Lincs.
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 119
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 119
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html
(4) - beggarsallreformation.blogspo…lar-roman.html/
(5) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
Well I think that it does indeed bind itself; Paul is quite clear of his awareness that his message carries divine authority (1) For example see 1 Corinthians 14:37–38, Paul is clear his message is to be taken as if it were Christ. (2) Thus it binds by itself, it needs no church or council to declare it binding, it binds as it carries the authority of Jesus Christ, who himself said “all authority is given to me” - Matthew 28:18. Thus we see Scripture affirming itself as the word of God, the written word of the Apostles, thus of Christ, binding in and of itself.
I see here the common objection has been brought up on the apparent lack of Protestant unity, indeed I do have certain doctrinal differences with some brothers and sisters, but they remain as much, if the 33,000 number is being considered, id advise here - aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
Besides, are there not several churches all claiming to be the one true church and all claiming to have Sacred Apostolic Tradition to back this claim up? (3)
May I ask respectfully what makes a fundamentalist in your view? This is not an attack, I just want to makes sure we dont get confused about each others position, what makes me fundamentalist in my outlook? My theology is found in the Westminster confession, Heidelberg Catechism or the Canons of Dort for example…
Well I adhere to the Apostles Creed, as my church statement of faith says, because it is firmly rooted in scripture and what is contained within it is stated with great clarity in scripture. I have no issue holding to it and calling it a tradition, because it is so very scriptural. The real presence I do not adhere too in the Catholic sense, and seems I am shown where to find it in scripture so often I don’t see it as an “unwritten tradition”, to prove the current Catholic understanding of it, along with the Immaculate Conception, as being from Apostolic Tradition it must be shown that these were held in Christianity’s earliest days, or are they developments? (4)If they are of later arrival and formally promulgated again at a later date to me it demonstrates they are held only because one adheres to one kind of church authority. (I do of course affirm church authority, scripture is very clear on it, but not so to make the church above scripture, able to define new dogmas).
Going back to my previous paragraph; especially when two ecclesial bodies claiming historic continuity hold different views on a subject and both claim to follow the Apostolic Tradition, may i ask respectfully how does one test which is correct?
Cracking question, I again refer back to my post number #30, where I argue that Scripture was to be the vessel for a sure and abiding apostolic message (5), to serve as a rule for things, see the section on covenantal patterns and how this pertains to scripture and why it was written and what the writers intents were. After all as Luke himself says in Luke 1; he wrote so that Theophilus would know the truth of what he heard, in other words, to be a sure way of knowing the truth, a perpetual testimony.
Anyway il stop now, no one likes to be spammed with a massive essay lol. Hope your well
Peace to you
Lincs.
(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 119
(2) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 119
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html
(4) - beggarsallreformation.blogspo…lar-roman.html/
(5) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, Crossway, 2010, Illinois, pg 117
- Status