Scripture vs. History

Mary Meg · Apr 20, 2019

So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

HTacianas · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

The "gaps"in the new testament you mentioned are filled in by the traditions of the Church, as Paul said to the Thessalonians:

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The Thessalonians had been taught both by letter and in person by word of mouth. I can tell you that the traditions of the Church have varied little. And any changes in those traditions have been made only by necessity of the times and are well documented.

You're right to read the writings of the Church Fathers, and you are not wrong to disagree with them. The teachings of the Church Fathers are valid only in as much that they have been ratified by the Church. Any individual may have been wrong on any single point and later been overruled by a Synod or Council. If we take the Arian heresy for example. Arius was only wrong *after* the Council of Nicea determined that he was wrong. That's an odd way to put it I know, but it's just that.

There are also some outside sources we can use such as Pliny's letter to Trajan describing the habits of Christians in 112 AD:

"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god"

Meeting before dawn was not a tradition of the Jewish sabbath, but meeting before dawn on Sunday was. So it confirms that Sunday worship was the norm for Christians as early as 112 AD. The hymn they would "sing responsively" was the Liturgy we still sing responsively today.

Studying the history of the Church -from all sources- will help flesh out the "traditions you have been taught". And you'll find that those traditions are still present in the original apostolic Churches today.

Apologetic_Warrior · Apr 20, 2019

Well, Sola Scriptura isn't solo scriptura, Protestants read the ECF, we even have a translation by the Protestant Philip Schaff, and Protestants do not reject early Creeds either. I am not familiar with the backgrounds of all the Reformers but at least a couple were of the Augustianian order, and they did not reject Augustine after becoming Reformers. And if we survey the Reformation Churches, the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches all have secondary authorities in the form of statements of faith, Confessions, etc. So as it turns out, Sola Scriptura, does not entail a rejection of tradition, rather it is a different hierarchy of authority in contrast to the RCC. Please be kind, it's early and I just woke up, still trying to wake up.

Athanasius377 · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible."

I would object to this definition or perhaps use of Sola Scriptura. It means that scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith. As opposed to the idea of two streams of infallible revelation in scripture and tradition; which in practice is sola ecclesia. It does not exclude the idea of tradition. Tradition is a good thing and as Lutherans we do not reject a tradition because it is not found in Scripture. We do however reject a tradition if it conflicts with Scripture. Furthermore Lutherans went through great pains to prove our position was was not an innovation during the Reformation. What you may be objecting to are the folks who as I say, "roll and smoke their own theology". Lutherans object to this as well.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

Nicely stated, Mary! I couldn't have said all of that any better. But, you might as well stay in your existing denomination since, after the wash of study in all of the areas you've cited, there appears presently to be no "perfect" choice. Besides, it's not as if everything was just "so clear" epistemologically speaking even from the beginning---we see Peter being upbraided by Jesus for faulty thinking; we see Paul upbraiding Peter and also getting into it with Barnabas. We see things having to be discussed and debated in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), and that even, apparently, "with the help of the Holy Spirit."

My point is akin to your several points, and that is: God didn't deliver His Message to us in decisive, necessarily clear-cut, nor comprehensive terms, terms that would exclude the need for us to also further use the 'brains' that He's given each of us, allowing us to find out more about our world through more or less scientific means.

So, why not just stay in your present denomination, Mary?

FireDragon76 · Apr 20, 2019

What you are describing is a critique of the Baptist, or perhaps Presbyterian approaches, but it's not universal to all Protestants.

Mary Meg · Apr 20, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
What you are describing is a critique of the Baptist, or perhaps Presbyterian approaches, but it's not universal to all Protestants.

And I really didn't intend it as a critique, more as a problem in search of solutions.

Albion · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way.

Very well, but the church you admire does see them that way.

But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

Exactly--which is what the older Protestant churches (such as mine) say about the matter.

Of course, the word Protestant also includes fundamentalists and some other offshoots of offshoots, and they typically are cool towards church history in general, not just the testimony of the so-called Church Fathers.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

Mary, since you're in the middle of the evangelical 'muddle' of issues, maybe you'd be interested in reading the follow book by Christian Smith, who is a Christian sociologist, Protestant turned Catholic: The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.

Here's a very brief two-minute video where Christian Smith is interviewed by another person and gives the basic idea of his book. Following this, for the purpose of balance, I've added a link to a critical review of Smith's book. I hope this gives you some additional food for thought as to why a Fundamentalist view of Sola Scriptura is more than likely a faulty way to handle our mutually shared Sacred Scriptures.

Critical Review:
Christian Smith Makes the Bible Impossible

Athanasius377 · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

I am not sure which Protestants have this kind of issue with the Early Church Fathers but it is not the Traditional Protestant stance. Lutherans and the Reformed churches have always placed great emphasis on learning what the ECF wrote. It has been said the Calvin was almost encyclopedic in his knowledge of the ECF. I myself have multiple shelves with the writings of the ECF and think that what they have to say on any number of topics is well worth the study. That said, they are not infallible in what they write and do err. Furthermore a lot of what we do have is the ECF responding to a specific topic or controversy and so it can be a challenge to read them if you don't know the context in which they are writing.

The one thing we as Lutherans do not try to do is make the ECF appear like modern Lutherans because they are not. The most beneficial way to read the ECF is to allow the ECF be the ECF without forcing a preconceived notion about what they must believe and then read that notion into their writings. While I freely admit that they do not sound like Modern Lutherans they don't sound like Modern Roman Catholics either.

Mary Meg · Apr 20, 2019

Albion said:
Very well, but the church you admire does see them that way.

See, I think you are presuming I've already sold my soul to Rome, but the church I admire, I wonder if it even exists anymore.

The church I admire is the Church of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory ... but it could be true that that Church fell into corruption, or schism destroyed it, or it could be true that it exists now in your church or lots of churches. I just don't know. I also admire the Catholic Church today, yes, but I acknowledge all the critiques people are bringing to me, and now I just don't know...

(I would also point out that the Church I'm talking about isn't necessarily the Church of Rome at all. It all seems to look to Rome, but Ignatius was in Antioch, Irenaeus in Gaul, Cyprian in Carthage, Ambrose in Milan, Augustine in Hippo, Athanasius in Alexandria, Jerome in Palestine -- so in a very real sense, the church I'm looking for is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.)

Albion said:
Exactly--which is what the older Protestant churches (such as mine) say about the matter.

And I appreciate that.

Albion said:
Of course, the word Protestant also includes fundamentalists and some other offshoots of offshoots, and they typically are cool towards church history in general, not just the testimony of the so-called Church Fathers.

Well fundamentalist is pretty much where I'm at now.

BBAS 64 · Apr 20, 2019

Good Day, Mary

I think you have created a false dilemma, and has been pointed out your understanding of the historical Christian teaching of Sola Scriptura is lacking. Now that is often due the inability of your teachers to correctly teach the doctrine in a manner that is both biblical, historical and useful.

I like many here, and many writers who are not a member of the Roman church have put a lot of time in to reading the church Fathers, and non Roman church writers have written extensively on them. You are correct they are Historical resources and should be used and viewed as such and are very useful. But they are not infallible, nor are they inspired they are only historical.

Your questions in the end will always boil down to that of infallible authority for the Non Roman Church member that will always be that which is God - Breathed out. For a member it will always be the Church which has claimed such authority for it's self. I for one do not find the name- it- claim-it Roman church very convincing biblically , or historically... that is just me.

For His Glory Alone!

Bill

FireDragon76 · Apr 20, 2019

Albion said:
Very well, but the church you admire does see them that way.

The Church Fathers are not seen as infallible in Orthodoxy, though there is a tendency to read them with a self-confirmation bias. For instance, most Orthodox won't admit that the early church was divided over the use of images in worship.

Being Orthodox or Catholic in the end means accepting that the Church is always right, in theory, that's what it comes down to. Scholarship may be used but at the end of the day, it can be waived aside in favor of whatever a clerical authority has to say, no matter how unlearned or dubious the opinion. And it doesn't even guarantee absolute uniformity, for instance most Catholics in the US reject their church's official teaching on contraception and the nature of the family.

BBAS 64 · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
See, I think you are presuming I've already sold my soul to Rome, but the church I admire, I wonder if it even exists anymore. The church I admire is the Church of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory ... but it could be true that that Church fell into corruption, or schism destroyed it, or it could be true that it exists now in your church or lots of churches. I just don't know. I also admire the Catholic Church today, yes, but I acknowledge all the critiques people are bringing to me, and now I just don't know...

And I appreciate that.

Well fundamentalist is pretty much where I'm at now.

Good Day, Mary

Well fundamentalist is pretty much where I'm at now.

Now it makes sense... I was there as were many here.

Have you read any reformation ( history)??

In Him,

Bill

Albion · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
See, I think you are presuming I've already sold my soul to Rome

No, I do not. Therefore, lets not make that notion be the focus rather than what you and I have posted about the Church Fathers and infallibility.

Mary Meg · Apr 20, 2019

Albion said:
No, I do not. Therefore, lets not make that notion be the focus rather than what you and I have posted about the Church Fathers and infallibility.

I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.

Albion · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either.

Well, you are mistaken about the second comment there, so my earlier post now looks like it was quite in order. You are seeking information, and this is information you need to have.

Mary Meg · Apr 20, 2019

Albion said:
Well, you are mistaken about the second comment there, so my earlier post now looks like it was quite in order.

Can you cite some sources, then, to back that up?

2PhiloVoid · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
See, I think you are presuming I've already sold my soul to Rome, but the church I admire, I wonder if it even exists anymore. The church I admire is the Church of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory ... but it could be true that that Church fell into corruption, or schism destroyed it, or it could be true that it exists now in your church or lots of churches. I just don't know. I also admire the Catholic Church today, yes, but I acknowledge all the critiques people are bringing to me, and now I just don't know...

(I would also point out that the Church I'm talking about isn't necessarily the Church of Rome at all. It all seems to look to Rome, but Ignatius was in Antioch, Irenaeus in Gaul, Cyprian in Carthage, Ambrose in Milan, Augustine in Hippo, Athanasius in Alexandria, Jerome in Palestine -- so in a very real sense, the church I'm looking for is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.)

And I appreciate that.

Well fundamentalist is pretty much where I'm at now.

Maybe consider this as a side note, Mary: Christ knows His Church isn't perfect, and He will take steps in history to correct and/or refute its chosen course; hence the several ways we can learn from Jesus' address to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, as well as from the prophetic lessons we find in the Old Testament where God sent prophets to confront Israel's sins and apostasies.

We aren't so much to 'look for' a perfect set of fellow Christians in the here and now, but rather to existentially live before God in such a way that we honor all that He has given us in Body, Mind, Soul and Spirit, which includes our relationships with family and brethren. Think of the Christian Faith not so much as a doctrinal or denominational destination to reach today but as a mode of ongoing exploratory observation we undertake as we walk the Narrow Path after (and with) our Lord.

Ultimately, young lady, all of how you decide to move forward in the faith and grapple with its meaning, as we all do, is up to you.

Peace.

BBAS 64 · Apr 20, 2019

Mary Meg said:
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.

Good Day, Mary

There is also a difference between what the ECF would call Tradition and what the current Roman Church would call Tradition. I do not begrudge them the ability and authority to make their own Traditions and teach them to their own members.

What do you admire about the Church of Rome?

In Him,
Bill

Scripture vs. History

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Contributor

Similar threads