Why do Protestants have ministers and pastors?

[Jim_Dandy]

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

Start the thread and I’ll join you there.

 

[Anthony_V]

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.

Firstly, Paul was speaking about his own letter in 14:37-38. He is sending the the church of Corinth his letter as a means of settling the Jewish-christian vs gentile-christian disputes (among other things). In addition, this letter was written at about 56 AD. The first Gospel (Mark) wasn’t even written until somewhere between 65 and 70 AD, 10 years later. If the Bible itself wasn’t compiled yet, it couldn’t have bound itself yet even if it was truly the word of God. 1 Timothy wasn’t written at least until 65 AD.

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)

Oh, I’m familiar with Dr. White. Very intelligent man. The point is not the number of denominations though. The point is that there are denominations at all. Even 2 different churches both with apostolic succession – Catholic and Orthodox-- is one too many. Interestingly enough, the identity of these two churches, though long separated, is one that gives a definite testimony to the fact that there is Sacred Apostolic Tradition somewhere. Further, if you truthfully read up on the Church fathers, in context, you will find that their beliefs sacramentally match those of these two churches. Anyhow, the battle over Sacred Tradition is more a game of chess than of theory or history. Both you and I know that Calvin was a brilliant man (even if I don’t agree with reformed theology).

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…

Tenets of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, minimizing the universal Church merely down to an invisible one, rejecting Sacred Tradition, “once saved, always saved”, rejecting the idea that Christ wishes to use sacraments as the mainstream economy of grace, etc.

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).

Doctrinal development, but Biblical development in a sense. We can both agree that the Bible (all its books at the same moment, meaning) didn’t exist until after John finished “Amen” at the end of Revelation. But Christ’s message had already been unleashed through oral Tradition. Likewise, we understand that man does not immediately understand what has happened when God speaks to him. Whatever process you want to believe that compiled the Bible was one of discernment, which to fundamentalists is indeed dogma in and of itself. The Bible does not say “no more doctrine pertaining to faith and morals may be made outside this book” or “this is all the doctrine on faith an morals that is correct”. When John finished those last words, I highly doubt he knew his Revelation would be the last book in the Bible. We have no evidence that he was commissioned (by God or anyone, really) to “finish” the Bible. Just to finish his book.

 

[Anthony_V]

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?

Here, you are claiming a fallacy actually. The Orthodox churches generally agree that the seat of Peter has a definite primacy. To what extent is the struggle between Catholics and Orthodox, not the whether or not the Papal office has primacy at all. Also, the only opposition to Petrine primacy is in a) Protestant churches (other than CoE) and other small churches that claim to have their own pope (Coptic Orthodox, etc). All of them have the 7 sacraments, though. I refer you to a couple very very smart Eastern Catholics on here, ConstantineTG and Mardukm. I’m still in high school, so I don’t have to study Petrine doctrines extensively. You’ll have to forgive me for that. Eastern Catholics excel in that field (Petrine doctrines), though, since they’re the Orthodox extension of Catholicism. You could also ask the question on the eastern Catholic forum.

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.

By that token, I could just as easily pull out 1 Timothy 3:15 (20 or so years before Luke was written, as Luke was probably a disciple of Paul’s). It’s no doubt that the Bible was written for the purpose of spreading the truth about the Truth. It doesn’t seem apparent that the writers intended the Bible to be the only source of doctrine; even if they did know there would be a Bible, they wouldn’t know what other books would end up in it; They had to discern which books were inspired and which ones weren’t by what fitted Sacred Tradition. I don’t see any sort of discernment process happening by authority except at the council of Rome in 382 AD. Even if the Bible is divinely inspired and the word of God straight from the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit still has to give the authority to someone to make an infallible discernment to proclaim that the context in which it is compiled, e.g. the Bible is infallible as well! I think that’s what I was trying to say earlier, but couldn’t articulate it.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anthony,

Indeed, what I was trying to demonstrate with this passage however was that we can see when reading the scriptures they clearly state that they are to be taken as having been given authority by Jesus, the Corinthians quote was merely to serve as an example of this. Paul is indeed speaking of his own letter, telling his readership to listen to what he says, as he writes with the Lords authority.(1)

Interestingly enough, the identity of these two churches, though long separated, is one that gives a definite testimony to the fact that there is Sacred Apostolic Tradition somewhere.

Well I would state quite simply, yes, in Scripture. Again my position here has been that the Apostolic oral message was contained within Scripture. Paul speaks in multiple places of his tradition; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessolonians 2:15, 2 Thessolonians 3:6; his oral Apostolic preaching. But it is an assumption that this is distinct from what is written. (2) I’ve asked multiple times for any Apostolic Traditions (plural), all I’m given is the canon, which, with modern scholarship, is seen not as the product of a magisterium, but of covenant. (3) It must be looked at in a first century Jewish context. The authors knew they were writing what would function as Scripture (4), and as such that it would have to be the standard to which all was held; hence Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:3, Matthew 22:29. In both places here, scripture is given primacy as the very words of God, and where people are directed to find doctrine, hence telling the sadducees their error lies in not knowing scripture. Regarding Church Fathers; is it wrong to have a favourite? I really like Augustine…

Tenets of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, minimizing the universal Church merely down to an invisible one, rejecting Sacred Tradition, “once saved, always saved”, rejecting the idea that Christ wishes to use sacraments as the mainstream economy of grace, etc.

Ok. I wouldn’t simply reduce the Church to an invisible one however, see Calvin here for example: rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/churchvisible.htm Again I do not reject Sacred Tradition, I just think that the sacred Apostolic Tradition is now in scripture, to be an unchanging and abiding witness(5). OSAS; see the Canons of Dort here for the Reformed understanding of the Perseverance of the saints; spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm , the fifth Head of doctrine. As for the sacraments, I acknowledge 2, Baptism and the Eucharist.

The Bible does not say “no more doctrine pertaining to faith and morals may be made outside this book” or “this is all the doctrine on faith an morals that is correct”

In line with what I’ve stated above, I see that all things defined as doctrine or dogma must however be done only if they are in accord with scripture. And again, with the covenantal patterns and authors intents I’ve stressed so strongly throughout these posts, what was written would be taken as “terms that testified to this new covenant” (6) and as such what was written was to be considered sufficient for salvation and to be where doctrine was sought out.

I highly doubt he knew his Revelation would be the last book in the Bible. We have no evidence that he was commissioned (by God or anyone, really) to “finish” the Bible. Just to finish his book.

Happy to agree here what I’m saying is now we have the full collection of authentic books and letters that are God Breathed, they are a perpetual and ever abiding and unchanging witness to Apostolic doctrine (7) All Apostolic messages necessary for salvation are there. If there is another source for this, let it be shown.

Continued…

(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) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
(3) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/covenant-canon-and-new-testament-church.html
(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 119-120
(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
(6) - 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
(7) - 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 117l

 

[Lincoln7]

I will steer clear of your paragraph regarding Pertine issues, I am happy to admit I am no expert in that field! Also it risks taking us into other discussion territory, I’m sure we both busy enough just with this one lol, well at least I am

It doesn’t seem apparent that the writers intended the Bible to be the only source of doctrine; even if they did know there would be a Bible, they wouldn’t know what other books would end up in it; They had to discern which books were inspired and which ones weren’t by what fitted Sacred Tradition

Again see the Covenental patterns posts I’ve made, their intent was to write scripture, and with what I posted earlier in this post, it serves as a sufficient rule. (8) With the Church expanding at such a rapid rate, the Apostles committed their preaching and message to writing in order for it to maintain its authority (9) Going back to what I said earlier on tradition and my position that it is contained fully in scripture, when Paul speaks of traditions, is he really speaking of the Immaculate conception here, or Papal infallibility? if he had these in mind, it should be abundantly clear that all early Christians held them. If this abundance is not clear, then it is clear they are much later in date, and that appeals to Paul’s tradition mentioning verses for the basis of upholding modern catholic traditions is a non starter. They serve to show that his tradition was contained In a written form. (10)

still has to give the authority to someone to make an infallible discernment to proclaim that the context in which it is compiled, e.g. the Bible is infallible as well! I think that’s what I was trying to say earlier, but couldn’t articulate it.

Again see who I posted earlier, the early church in its canon ideas and development functioned with the basis of covenant in mind, not a magisterial authority. (11) Secondly, this is pushing the issue back a step, the obvious question now is regarding how one knows Rome to be the one true church? In the same way Im asked how do I know I have the right books of scripture.

Peace, very good discussion, have a nice day, or night lol, depending on our different time zones!

Lincs

(8) -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 119-120
(9) - 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 118
(10) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tradition-as-viewed-by-popular-roman.html
(11) - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/covenant-canon-and-new-testament-church.htm

 

[Anthony_V]

Hi Anthony,

Indeed, what I was trying to demonstrate with this passage however was that we can see when reading the scriptures they clearly state that they are to be taken as having been given authority by Jesus, the Corinthians quote was merely to serve as an example of this. Paul is indeed speaking of his own letter, telling his readership to listen to what he says, as he writes with the Lords authority.

Again, the possession of this authority is not necessarily one by immediate and direct divine commission. It is my position that he is articulating oral Tradition from the Church (which binds and looses) itself. The line is drawn when we disagree that the Church had the authority to articulate oral Tradition in the first place; oral Tradition is ascribed to the Church, not itself; The Bible is an expression of oral Tradition, which is the Church. When the Bible was written, the inspiration that the apostles gained at Pentecost did not fade away (Acts 1:8, 1:25): that oral Tradition is inspired because it is from the apostles whom Jesus sent and promised to remain with (Matthew 27:16-20, Mark 16:15, John 21:15-17), not because it was merely written down as claiming to be the Word of God. Especially in Mark, Christ says “proclaim” the Gospel, not “write the Gospel down”. In fact, the word he uses here is " κηρύξατε", meaning to herald and proclaim, and is very active. He is telling them to actively proclaim it. The Bible is not active. The Holy Spirit working through the Church is. He’s giving these apostles an inkling that will be sealed at Pentecost, as the birthday of the Church.

Well I would state quite simply, yes, in Scripture. Again my position here has been that the Apostolic oral message was contained within Scripture. Paul speaks in multiple places of his tradition; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessolonians 2:15, 2 Thessolonians 3:6; his oral Apostolic preaching. But it is an assumption that this is distinct from what is written. (2) I’ve asked multiple times for any Apostolic Traditions (plural), all I’m given is the canon, which, with modern scholarship, is seen not as the product of a magisterium, but of covenant. (3) It must be looked at in a first century Jewish context. The authors knew they were writing what would function as Scripture (4), and as such that it would have to be the standard to which all was held; hence Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:3, Matthew 22:29. In both places here, scripture is given primacy as the very words of God, and where people are directed to find doctrine, hence telling the sadducees their error lies in not knowing scripture.

Regarding Church Fathers; is it wrong to have a favourite? I really like Augustine…

Of course you do. He best fits your theology. One of my favorite Church fathers is St. Clement of Alexandria. His expression of the Eucharist is beautiful!

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!” “The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D

Ok. I wouldn’t simply reduce the Church to an invisible one however, see Calvin here for example: rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/churchvisible.htm Again I do not reject Sacred Tradition, I just think that the sacred Apostolic Tradition is now in scripture, to be an unchanging and abiding witness(5). OSAS; see the Canons of Dort here for the Reformed understanding of the Perseverance of the saints; spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm , the fifth Head of doctrine. As for the sacraments, I acknowledge 2, Baptism and the Eucharist.

Thank you for sharing your view. I do not, however, agree with it, as there are many flaws in the system of grace as a mission of the Church. Even the Orthodox, who like to submit more to God as a mystery than a revelation, could not ever possibly agree with concupiscence or predestination the way the reformed churches do. For this reason, Protestantism never really chipped away at their numbers. In order to view Tradition, you must look at both the Catholic and Orthodox churches who, though separated, cling fast to the apostolic mission that Christ founded the Church to do.

 

[Anthony_V]

In line with what I’ve stated above, I see that all things defined as doctrine or dogma must however be done only if they are in accord with scripture. And again, with the covenantal patterns and authors intents I’ve stressed so strongly throughout these posts, what was written would be taken as “terms that testified to this new covenant” (6) and as such what was written was to be considered sufficient for salvation and to be where doctrine was sought out.

The covenatal pattern and its message is completed in Christ through his Church, not the Bible. The Bible is not the Church, nor will it ever be. The Church is the vessel of grace, not the Bible. The confession of Peter through Peter himself is the Rock upon which the Church is built, not the Bible. The Church is the pillar of Truth, not the Bible. The Church upholds the Bible, which is the truth about the Truth.

Happy to agree here what I’m saying is now we have the full collection of authentic books and letters that are God Breathed, they are a perpetual and ever abiding and unchanging witness to Apostolic doctrine (7) All Apostolic messages necessary for salvation are there. If there is another source for this, let it be shown.

See above.

 

[Anthony_V]

Again see the Covenental patterns posts I’ve made, their intent was to write scripture, and with what I posted earlier in this post, it serves as a sufficient rule. (8) With the Church expanding at such a rapid rate, the Apostles committed their preaching and message to writing in order for it to maintain its authority (9) Going back to what I said earlier on tradition and my position that it is contained fully in scripture, when Paul speaks of traditions, is he really speaking of the Immaculate conception here, or Papal infallibility? if he had these in mind, it should be abundantly clear that all early Christians held them. If this abundance is not clear, then it is clear they are much later in date, and that appeals to Paul’s tradition mentioning verses for the basis of upholding modern catholic traditions is a non starter. They serve to show that his tradition was contained In a written form. (10)

We disagree on the nature of Tradition. It is transmitted, not contained. Tradition is not history, but a reality. It is still alive and active today. It is proper that the Truth (Christ) be interpreted in light of the Holy Spirit (through the Church). It is not proper than the Truth be interpreted in light of the truth about the Truth (the Bible, though inspired, through man who does not have the capabilities of the Church). The Immaculate Conception is a very old doctrine, but wasn’t proclaimed as dogma until recently. Likewise with papal infallibility (a topic which will fall under petrine primacy. There is more to Ex Cathedra than one would think).

Again see who I posted earlier, the early church in its canon ideas and development functioned with the basis of covenant in mind, not a magisterial authority. (11) Secondly, this is pushing the issue back a step, the obvious question now is regarding how one knows Rome to be the one true church? In the same way Im asked how do I know I have the right books of scripture.

You trace apostolic succession, which is entitled the role of maintaining the truth. It is often a turn off when protestants come to find that the mystical body of Christ is divided into East and West, but that is an issue that will be resolved sometime this century, I believe. Again, I’m not an expert on petrine primacy, but either way, any church you end up at through apostolic succession has all 7 sacraments and believes virtually the same thing about the nature of the sacraments.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anthony,

I have a massive amount of work on today so a response shall come to you, Lord willing, either in around 8 hours from the time I post this, or tomorrow, for me that is (it’s 3:30pm here).

Didn’t want you to think i was simply not responding!

Lincs

 

[couponfit]

Caricatures of another person’s belief systems, while easy, lead to oversimplification and faulty presuppositions.

Good insight. Thanks.

 

[couponfit]

Hi Couponfit,

The short answer as to why Protestants have pastors, or elders, or ministers if you prefer, is because scripture tells us to have them: Titus 1:5-16 for example. The elder is to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” in other words the elder is one who has a firm grip on what was taught, which we find in scripture. They seek too maintain order and shepherd their faithful, it’s a service role. As such they are worthy of double honour: 1 Timothy 5:17.

I do indeed submit to my elders, they teach me from the scriptures, and as such I honour them. But I do test what I hear of them yes, just as Paul instructed to be done for “everything”; 1 Thessolonians 5:21. In context this is referring to prophecies, with Paul instructing them to be tested against what is already known and accepted, aka; the apostles teaching, which as a Protestant I see as being sought in scripture. The same is applied to teaching, it is to be tested to what is already known, to what is sound apostolic teaching, to God Breathed Scripture.

I am sure that the above we can both probably agree on to some extent, we both see the need for teachers, scripture is abundantly clear on it. It’s all about authority in the end as you point out, where we disagree is the test to establish which is correct. So really I can’t think of much more to say, scripture is clear on their being elders in each local church. Worthy of double honour yes, most defintley, as scripture says (see above). But not as a separate category as in priest and layman, for Protestants for the most part will adhere to the priesthood of all believers.

Hope this clarifies a few things for you regarding this matter, not that I’m suggesting I have it all right, but scripture does not lie, and it is clear on the church having elders.

Lincs

Thank you Linconln7.

 

[Anthony_V]

Hi Anthony,

I have a massive amount of work on today so a response shall come to you, Lord willing, either in around 8 hours from the time I post this, or tomorrow, for me that is (it’s 3:30pm here).

Didn’t want you to think i was simply not responding!

Lincs

Duly noted. Have a blessed day.

 

[graceandglory]

SaintPartick333,

Matthew 28:18.

graceandglory,

I think pick and choose is a tad unfair, I read from several different theological guides or from great theologians yes, I like how CS Lewis put it; to have the “breeze of centuries” flowing through me, learning from them,

How many centuries?

My pastor also owned two Christian bookstores. The “history” section had about 10 books. And, I bought two of them… The farthest back they went was five centuries.

Talk about reconstructing history.