Why I'm discontent with my Protestantism

[Halbhh]

Not in the sense that I used that word, no.

It means, as you say, "universal" -- but your understanding of that word is not the historical understanding. Historically it meant "everybody in agreement with one another in matters of doctrine and practice" -- and that agreement was manifest by churches being in communion with one another. And I don't think you can claim that your idea of "universal" is the same thing by any stretch.

Jesus prayed that "we all might be One" (John 17:21), and Paul insisted that we should "all be in the same mind and judgment" (1 Cor 1:10). And it's just not true that "all Christians who follow what is in the New Testament" are "in the same mind and judgement," about much of anything.

What I thought when I read: "everybody in agreement with one another in matters of doctrine and practice" was how different it is than the basic definition:
cath·o·lic ''including a wide variety of things; all-embracing."

"All-embracing"...is basically the opposite of demanding others agree with us.

Instead of saying I accept you because you agree with me, I say I accept you even if you don't agree with me.

That's part of the good (as I see it) in the modern Catholic Church, actually.

In the Catholic Church we see a huge diversity of viewpoints and ways and ideas and emphasis.

Yet, instead of splitting, they remain together (mostly).

So, instead of using their differences to demand adherence and splitting when people do the normal thing of disagreeing....

They are instead being mostly content to be highly varied in views, emphasis, and much more (or often (and it's easy to find example and exceptions both)).

We have that same good in our own congregation actually also (Lutheran) were we remain together in general harmony, that's very real and strong, even while I know we have differing viewpoints and emphasis in our church, just like any other (including I'd expect any church anywhere with more than a few dozen people).

To be "in same mind and in same judgement" we put Christ first, instead of one of us, so that His words rule us, instead of us ruling over others. So we are One, as He prayed, and has been accomplished.

 

[Knee V]

The word "catholic" was originally used to distinguish the church from splinter groups that would pop up and claim to have received their teachings from such and such Apostle. The opposite of the teachings of those splinter groups was the teachings that had been received "everywhere, always, and by all." "Catholic" means "according to the whole", not "universal" per se, although, properly understood, "universal" can be a translation of that word.

 

[Halbhh]

The word "catholic" was originally used to distinguish the church from splinter groups that would pop up and claim to have received their teachings from such and such Apostle. The opposite of the teachings of those splinter groups was the teachings that had been received "everywhere, always, and by all." "Catholic" means "according to the whole", not "universal" per se, although, properly understood, "universal" can be a translation of that word.

Very useful wording "according to the whole", the Body of Christ, as a whole.

Reminds of the lovely

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
1 Corinthians 12 NIV

And the wonderful next chapter, on Christian love.

 

[FireDragon76]

Does a "real believer" have to have 100% true doctrine? 90%? 80%?

Of course not. There were lots of real believers that had areas of deception.

What happened was God's "Plan B."

My pastor usually considers Jewish sources when approaching Old Testament interpretation in preparation for sermons, even if our primary method of interpretation is Christological. I think that's not that rare now days in our denomination.

 

[Mary Meg]

The word "catholic" was originally used to distinguish the church from splinter groups that would pop up and claim to have received their teachings from such and such Apostle. The opposite of the teachings of those splinter groups was the teachings that had been received "everywhere, always, and by all." "Catholic" means "according to the whole", not "universal" per se, although, properly understood, "universal" can be a translation of that word.

Yes. Good call. I think what I described above -- "agreeing in matters of doctrine and practice" -- is closer to the meaning of "orthodoxy."

 

[Knee V]

What happened was God's "Plan B."

My pastor usually considers Jewish sources when approaching Old Testament interpretation in preparation for sermons, even if our primary method of interpretation is Christological. I think that's not that rare now days in our denomination.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure that's true. The Bible has to be interpreted, and I think most people don't have the tools to interpret it correctly without some kind of guidance. Even the NT says God would appoint pastors and teachers.

I don't think that's inconsistent with Protestantism. Luther's main objection to his critics was that he'ld put in his time and was in fact an actual doctor of divinity, and had the right to interpret the Scriptures according to the Church's own understanding of the legalities involved. It's not quite the same as someone that's an armchair theologian that decides things don't seem right to him because he didn't like how the deck chairs were laid out.

In fact, Luther's conviction only deepened the more he got into debates with Rome. He started realizing that he indeed was a "Hussite", despite the fact he initially criticized Jan Hus, he began to realize the problems he had with Rome were deeper than just indulgences. So, he was willing to listen to other voices he initially disagreed with.

 

[Mary Meg]

I do not deny the Jews made grave mistakes. But the Church cut itself off of the cultural understanding of its own scriptures. That was an act of doctrinal suicide.

If the Apostles considered the Hebrew context of the New Testament Scriptures essential, they not not have written them in Greek, in largely Gentile terms.

That's not to say the Hebrew context is not important. Of course it is. From the earliest times, the Church read both the Old Testament and the New Testament. But if Hebraic purity were that important, they'd have written the Gospels of Jesus in Hebrew, and insisted on Hebrew training for converts -- in the way Jews traditionally do for the Old Testament, and Muslims do for the Arabic text of the Qu'ran.

 

[FireDragon76]

View attachment 255200

Frankly, in a Post-Holocaust world I consider the Jewish perspective to be something we should take seriously, even if it is not the final word. In fact Dietrich Bonhoeffer himself believed the Church had minimized the place of the Old Testament in religion, especially the witness of the Prophets.

 

[Athanasius377]

I am beginning to believe this thread is one big farce. There have been posts that contain contradictory information from what was written in other threads.

 

[Knee V]

Frankly, in a Post-Holocaust world I consider the Jewish perspective to be something we should take seriously, even if it is not the final word. In fact Dietrich Bonhoeffer himself believed the Church had minimized the place of the Old Testament in religion, especially the witness of the Prophets.

What does a post-Holocaust world have to do with anything?

 

[Knee V]

I am beginning to believe this thread is one big farce. There have been posts that contain contradictory information from what was written in other threads.

A farce on the part of the OP or of those who are responding?

 

[Mary Meg]

Not just the catholics. The Orthodox and protestants also.

The whole thing went off the rails in the 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

From what I read, the fault lines were breaking down between Christians and Jews well before Bar Kochba. According to Ignatius (writing in about 107 A.D.):

(VIII) Be not led astray by strange doctrines or by old fables which are profitless. For if we are living until now according to Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For the divine prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. Therefore they were also persecuted, being inspired by his grace, to convince the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his son, who is his Word proceeding from silence, who in all respects was well-pleasing to him that sent him. (IX) If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord’s Day, on which also our life sprang up through him and his death,—though some deny him,—and by this mystery we received faith, and for this reason also we suffer, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians VIII-IX, trans. Lake)​

 

[FireDragon76]

What does a post-Holocaust world have to do with anything?

Acknowledging the role that Christian anti-Semitism played in it seems pertinent.

As our prayers on Good Friday acknowledge, the Jews were the first to hear God's Word, since the Gospel is found in both Testaments.

 

[Knee V]

Acknowledging the role that Christian anti-Semitism played in it seems pertinent.

As our prayers on Good Friday acknowledge, the Jews were the first to hear God's Word, since the Gospel is found in both Testaments.

But what does it have to do with the topic? The fact that one group of non-Christians underwent persecution 1900 years after Christ should have no bearing on how we interpret Scripture. Those who reject Christ will have no bearing on how I see Scripture, no matter what hardships they may have gone through recently.

 

[FireDragon76]

But what does it have to do with the topic? The fact that one group of non-Christians underwent persecution 1900 years after Christ should have no bearing on how we interpret Scripture. Those who reject Christ will have no bearing on how I see Scripture, no matter what hardships they may have gone through recently.

At the very least, acknowledging even the possibility the Church could be wrong is our duty to the Jewish people, and considering their perspective on the Scriptures they actually had first is congruent with that. I believe this is after all related to why Luther was interested in Hebrew in the first place, because he wanted to go back to the original sources.

This is what I meant, BTW, by criticizing the concept of "covering your father's nakedness". Christians should be people of reformation and repentance, owning up to our sinfulness, we should not try to minimize ugly truths or the implications thereof merely for the purposes of our own glory or triumphalism.

 

[Knee V]

At the very least, acknowledging even the possibility the Church could be wrong is our duty to the Jewish people, and considering their perspective on the Scriptures they actually had first is congruent with that. I believe this is after all related to why Luther was interested in Hebrew in the first place, because he wanted to go back to the original sources.

This is what I meant, BTW, by criticizing the concept of "covering your father's nakedeness". Christians should be people of reformation and repentance, owning up to our sinfulness, we should not try to minimize ugly truths or the implications thereof merely for the purposes of our own glory or triumphalism.

But none of that has anything to do with this. You are saying "give non-Christians a say in what constitutes Christianity... because the Holocaust." The only thing more preposterous than that is the fact that people can't see how preposterous that is.

 

[Mary Meg]

I am beginning to believe this thread is one big farce. There have been posts that contain contradictory information from what was written in other threads.

Have I been inconsistent?

 

[FireDragon76]

But none of that has anything to do with this. You are saying "give non-Christians a say in what constitutes Christianity... because the Holocaust." The only thing more preposterous than that is the fact that people can't see how preposterous that is.

I don't see the Church as some monolithic, totalizing, infallible institutional force in the world. That's why I'm not Orthodox or Catholic. The Church is simply the bearer of Good News that God has entrusted to us, but that doesn't make us infallible experts

 

[FireDragon76]

If the Apostles considered the Hebrew context of the New Testament Scriptures essential, they not not have written them in Greek, in largely Gentile terms.

That's not to say the Hebrew context is not important. Of course it is. From the earliest times, the Church read both the Old Testament and the New Testament. But if Hebraic purity were that important, they'd have written the Gospels of Jesus in Hebrew, and insisted on Hebrew training for converts -- in the way Jews traditionally do for the Old Testament, and Muslims do for the Arabic text of the Qu'ran.

I agree the original Hebrew context is not essential in some absolute sense. But I believe today it is more timely and relevant, especially as we enter a world that is further distant from the Greco-Roman one, where the old Christendom is long since dead in the western world, and new questions are raised about what the Church's mission in such a world is.