Tree of Life
Hide The Pain
But Scripture isn't at all clear whether some practices were practiced or are acceptable. For example, infant baptism. The New Testament is silent. Credo-Baptists like my folks make an argument from silence, they interpolate that infant baptism was not practiced the Apostles and was a later accretion. Lots of other people (including, I think, Lutherans) say infant baptism is completely consistent with the faith of the Apostles as revealed in Scripture, and should be practiced, since it is attested to by the second century. So your idea of "measuring practices against Scripture" necessarily depends on interpolation by whatever traditional assumptions you are starting from. How do we get around this?
I believe that the Bible does teach infant baptism. But this is not the central issue being debated here. The question is: to whom do we finally appeal? What settles the matter? Baptists argue that Scripture teaches credo baptism. Presbyterians like myself argue that Scripture teaches paedo-baptism. How may we infallibly know? Only by appealing to Scripture. Every person has the responsibility of examining the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Many people convert to Rome because they are uncomfortable with this responsibility. They want some infallible authority outside of Scripture to tell them which interpretation is correct. But Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man and it is with Jesus himself that we have to do. You cannot simply abdicate your responsibility to study the Bible and come to your own conclusions about which interpretation is correct.
Frankly, yes, I think I'd rather have a church that resembled the Church in 2nd century Asia Minor (and yes, I'm well aware by that statement that I'm tipping a hat to Eastern Orthodoxy).
That’s fine that you’d rather have this. But you still haven’t answered the question as to why every church should be as you might prefer. And if you want a church that looks like a 2nd century church, you will certainly not find this in Roman Catholicism.
"Cultural expression and liberty" sound an awful lot like "modernism" to me. Many Lutherans -- maybe yours? -- accept female clergy, for example. But that, to me, is not just "cultural expression and liberty," but patent contradiction to Scripture. Where do you draw the line?
I try to draw the line where the Bible draws the line. I am a conservative Presbyterian and I reject the ordination of women, not because I believe that the church has historically rejected this, but because I believe the Bible forbids it.
But there is much that the Bible doesn’t say which every church has to decide upon. For example, the Bible says that the church should meet on the Lord’s Day for worship but does not say what time or how long. Suppose some prominent church decided that all churches should meet at 10am and for 2 hours. Should all churches accept this just because some prestigious church says so, or is there room for freedom and cultural expression? Likewise the Bible says to publicly read Scripture and teach, but it does not say exactly how to do this. Can we preach through books of the Bible or should we follow something like the Roman Missal? Is there room for freedom and difference of cultural expression on this, or should the judgment of one prominent church also be imposed on every church in this instance?
Upvote
0