lsume

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2017
1,491
696
70
Florida
✟417,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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? :anguished:
Go into a fast and pray about finding Christ Who leads to Truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I am probably closest to Reformed, and I would agree that sola scriptura does not mean a rejection of tradition. Infallible is the distinction I am making here.
Oh goody! We have a new definition of "sola scriptura"! Some people on CF mean doctrine must be affirmed by Sacred Scripture before it can be believed. Others on CF believe it means a doctrine cannot be prohibited by Sacred Scripture; otherwise it's acceptable. Now we have someone saying that, essentially, that by "sola" and by "scriptura", you don't actually mean "sola" or "scriptura". While this may sound suspiciously like "prima scriptura" (another invented doctrine), it's actually quite different because reasons.

@Mary Meg

Again, I challenge you to PROVE that these so called traditions and or history is on the same level of authority as Scripture in regards to it being divine. Personally, I think this is not about the evidence, but you are simply going by your distaste of Protestantism. Please keep in mind that I do not believe in Protestantism or Catholicism, Orthodox churches, etc. You don't have to fit a certain mold or group of people so you can feel like you can belong. Following the Lord Jesus is not really about meeting our needs only, but it is about meeting the needs of others and the Lord. The moment we realize that following the truth or following Jesus is about not what we want, it is the moment that we start to hear His Word in what it says plainly (Instead of trying to listen or hear the traditions of men or even church history). For in the end, we are going to have to explain our actions to the Lord. Did we stay true to His Word alone or did we decide to stray away from what God said? I would rather play it safe than be sorry. For the Bible makes NO mention.... I repeat... NO mention of how if you do not obey these extra biblical traditions than you are damned. Please read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 over and over and over again in prayer. Also, please read the words of Jesus on the traditions of men in Scripture, as well.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

For St. Irenaeus, agreement with Rome was a pre-requisite for authentic Christian faith. He doesn't even attempt to mention Sacred Scripture, or even right doctrine. He simply pointed to communion with Rome as the decisive factor. Where did he get that idea, I wonder?

"Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition."
-- Eusebius Of Caesarea, Church History

It doesn't sound like Eusebius believed in "sola scriptura" to me. Why not, I wonder?

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition."
-- Clement Of Alexandria, Miscellanies, [A.D. 208]

Ditto Clement. I wonder why that might be?
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you were lead to believe an overly romanticized portrayal of the Reformation, that's unfortunate, but you also should not be too hasty to dismiss it altogether.
This is one element of Protestantism that doesn't make any sense. It took leaving Protestantism to figure that out.

But what exactly is the point of Protestantism? Catholicism is rather easy to understand. She believes she's the Church that Our Lord founded and she continues teaching from the same Magisterium that she's always taught from.

Orthodoxy is easy to understand too. They believe somewhat the same thing; they disagree with Rome on some key issues and believe their own Churches are the truest embodiment of the faith in the world today.

But most Protestant communities make no such claims about themselves. Most are rather open about the fact that their communities didn't exist until fairly recently. They don't necessarily define their identities based on doctrine. They certainly don't depend on history either.

It seems that their sole identifying characteristic, their entire raison d'être, is separation from (and being different from) (and sometimes being hostile to) Rome.

I have my share of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches. But I believe they are mostly few in number, and certainly of lesser significance than some people believe. I will even grant that some Anglicans are a lot closer to Catholicism than even they may realize.

But mainstream Protestantism in general seems to have very few defining purposes. The only one I've been able to identify is opposition to the Pope.
 
Upvote 0

worshipjunkie

Active Member
Dec 30, 2018
314
321
Springfield
✟27,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Oh goody! We have a new definition of "sola scriptura"! Some people on CF mean doctrine must be affirmed by Sacred Scripture before it can be believed. Others on CF believe it means a doctrine cannot be prohibited by Sacred Scripture; otherwise it's acceptable. Now we have someone saying that, essentially, that by "sola" and by "scriptura", you don't actually mean "sola" or "scriptura". While this may sound suspiciously like "prima scriptura" (another invented doctrine), it's actually quite different because reasons.

No, I just mean we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certainly, the teachings of those who came before us has value. It's just not assumed to be automatically correct and infallible. It's not like because they were early (and considering that earlier reaches to the Council of Nicea, it's very much a relative term) they're right. Of course, it's not like that for Catholics, either. The Church tells you which of the early church fathers to believe and which ones not to, and which of their comments are tradition and which ones to ignore, even as it appeals to those same church fathers to support its right to infallibility.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, I just mean we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certainly, the teachings of those who came before us has value. It's just not assumed to be automatically correct and infallible.
Why consider non-scriptural sources at all though? I mean, the Protestants will tell anybody who will listen that Sacred Scripture is clear in what it says. Why complicate something which need not be complicated?

It's not like because they were early (and considering that earlier reaches to the Council of Nicea, it's very much a relative term) they're right.
The people who were personally taught and instructed by the apostles know less than we do simply because we have fewer of the apostles' writings? Interesting.

Of course, it's not like that for Catholics, either. The Church tells you which of the early church fathers to believe and which ones not to, and which of their comments are tradition and which ones to ignore, even as it appeals to those same church fathers to support its right to infallibility.
Why would it be otherwise? The Early Church generally agreed on doctrine, faith, morals, theology, etc. Sure, outliers exists. Although fewer than is generally acknowledged. But anyway, as you say, they're not understood to have been inspired. They're not even writing in what the Catholic Church would regard as ex cathedra.

It's worth saying that some early Christian leaders started off just fine but eventually they branched off into heresy. Under those circumstances, the Church wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't explain which writings are trustworthy and which ones are heretical. I don't see why this should be controversial for anybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh goody! We have a new definition of "sola scriptura"! Some people on CF mean doctrine must be affirmed by Sacred Scripture before it can be believed. Others on CF believe it means a doctrine cannot be prohibited by Sacred Scripture; otherwise it's acceptable. Now we have someone saying that, essentially, that by "sola" and by "scriptura", you don't actually mean "sola" or "scriptura". While this may sound suspiciously like "prima scriptura" (another invented doctrine), it's actually quite different because reasons.


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."
-- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

For St. Irenaeus, agreement with Rome was a pre-requisite for authentic Christian faith. He doesn't even attempt to mention Sacred Scripture, or even right doctrine. He simply pointed to communion with Rome as the decisive factor. Where did he get that idea, I wonder?

"Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition."
-- Eusebius Of Caesarea, Church History

It doesn't sound like Eusebius believed in "sola scriptura" to me. Why not, I wonder?

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition."
-- Clement Of Alexandria, Miscellanies, [A.D. 208]

Ditto Clement. I wonder why that might be?

I could write for days on why I believe the Catholic church is unbiblical. But I have discovered that doing so at CF on the forums does not go over too well. So unless you want to hear my case on why I think the Catholic church is unbiblical via by PM, then I would be happy to give you the reasons. But I get the feeling you are not open to seeing the reasons. In other words, why I would like to discuss it with you openly here, my hands are tied and I fight my battles where I can. This is why I will not reply to your post in what you have said.

In any event, may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you (even if we may disagree).
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
unbiblical
I don't even know what this word means. Seems like it means everything or nothing. It's a meaningless word.

But I have discovered that doing so at CF on the forums does not go over too well.
Yeah, those pesky rules about declaring other people aren't Christians really interferes with the polemics, don't they?

So unless you want to hear my case on why I think the Catholic church is unbiblical via by PM
I really don't.

But I get the feeling you are not open to seeing the reasons
This is an interesting criticism you've put forth. You wrote:

"Again, I challenge you to PROVE that these so called traditions and or history is on the same level of authority as Scripture in regards to it being divine"

You directed that to a relatively new member who is obviously conflicted over her Christian identity at the moment. You issued an impossible challenge and so I replied with quotes from the Early Church Fathers showing that a lot of the doctrines the new member referred to were essentially normative Christian belief in the first century.

Your reply to me? At no time did you attempt to rebut any of the quotations I included. Instead, you complained about rules which are designed to keep the peace around here. Unless your response to my Church Father quotes was going to be accusing me of not being a Christian, I don't understand why you ignored the quotes. You even went on to say:

This is why I will not reply to your post in what you have said.
I mean, is that supposed to suffice as a substantive response? "I can't reply to your post with those Church Father quotes because forum rules prohibit me from saying you're not a Christian"? I mean, that's really quite remarkable. And sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

Yodas_Prodigy1

Active Member
Apr 9, 2019
67
33
63
Rockford
✟18,642.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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? :anguished:

Something to think about... Paul had to send letters to churches within a decade of his leaving them... They had gotten in to error and he needed to recalibrate them... So it is with the early church fathers... The Reformation was a huge zero adjust... Getting back to more biblical accuracy... Since then, we started to wander again...
 
  • Like
Reactions: worshipjunkie
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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? :anguished:
I have taken into consideration the church fathers for various things at various times, but by the time of them, the faith had shifted from being more Hebraic, to being more Greek. Understanding first century Jewish culture helped me understand more NT than before because it effects the context so much. What did the early church look like? Jewish... until roughly 100 years after the resurrection, then things began to shift.
 
Upvote 0

worshipjunkie

Active Member
Dec 30, 2018
314
321
Springfield
✟27,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Why consider non-scriptural sources at all though? I mean, the Protestants will tell anybody who will listen that Sacred Scripture is clear in what it says. Why complicate something which need not be complicated?
The people who were personally taught and instructed by the apostles know less than we do simply because we have fewer of the apostles' writings? Interesting.

I just saw this, so forgive me for not answering earlier.

Correct me if I"m wrong, but the period that is generally considered in history to be the early church fathers is generally 100-400 AD. If heresies had already arisen within the lifetime of the Apostles, you cannot assume person A is correct because they're living a generation out. And for a lot of those "personally taught and instructed by the Apostles" it's tradition with a lowercase t. I'm sure some of it's true; I'm sure a lot of it is not. I'd like to see some evidence.

Why would it be otherwise? The Early Church generally agreed on doctrine, faith, morals, theology, etc. Sure, outliers exists. Although fewer than is generally acknowledged. But anyway, as you say, they're not understood to have been inspired. They're not even writing in what the Catholic Church would regard as ex cathedra.

I think it's the reverse; there's far less unanimity then Catholics suppose. But whatever the case is as far as that goes, as you say, they aren't writing in what is regarded as ex cathedra. Yet their quotes are still used to support the Catholic position- the quotes are put forward as church teaching under the ordinary Magisterium. You don't get to make your own source for an argument. If I referred you to my blog for this debate and said it was teaching from God because I said it was because there was a quote on there that said I had the authority, you'd rightly say it's ridiculous. But for some reason the Catholic church claims all the early Church teaching as its own, then decides which quotes are infallible, then uses those quotes to support its position. It's a very circular argument. The problem is not that the church warned people against heresy, the problem is the claim that she is the watchdog and guardian of the Christian church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
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? :anguished:
First of all, at 18, your study of the New Testament is not complete. Not by a long shot.

Second of all, gaining understanding from the Church Fathers doesn't deny Sola Scriptura. Those that claim otherwise misunderstand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures themselves are the supreme, authoritative source for God's will, and that nothing from God will contradict them. The rest, we can be more flexible about.

This makes sense within the context of history, since many practices evolved between the first century and the Middle Ages. Communion evolved from a "love feast" in New Testament times to forgoing the meal in favor of just taking the elements, to just serving the bread instead of both the bread and the wine (that last bit was a gripe of Luther's). Paul refers to singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, but worship music took a downturn in the early centuries to further separate from pagan ways, then it came surging back. After the Jews kicked Christians out of synagogues, churches met in homes, then Christians rented basilicas to hold their services, then they started building their own churches.

Basically, we understand that there are different, valid expressions of Christianity. Scripture however, must be the anchor for every expression of Christianity. Your worship service and mine are different from what they would have been like in the first century, but that's OK since the services in the 14th century also would have been different from it.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
No. The Bible uses the word “divine” just like it does the word “holy.”

“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” (Hebrews 9:1).

No, it does not. If the translators had meant for the same word to be used for two different things, they would have used the same word, not two different words. To decide that the words "holy" and "divine" are exactly the same is a misuse of language, but perhaps it is exactly such misuse that has encouraged people to worship a book vs. worship of a living God.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, it does not. If the translators had meant for the same word to be used for two different things, they would have used the same word, not two different words. To decide that the words "holy" and "divine" are exactly the same is a misuse of language, but perhaps it is exactly such misuse that has encouraged people to worship a book vs. worship of a living God.

*Sigh*. Worshiping a book is bowing down to it and thinking it is God (Which would be wrong). But who does that? God is spirit. The communicated Word of God is a part of God’s minds and thoughts. We reverence His Word because it comes from God. The verse I showed proves that divine service is the same as holy service. So the word “divine” is not a word that is exclusive to God’s inner core essence or being alone. Although the word can be used in that way. For I believe the Bible has homonyms in it.

Anyways, to give you an example:

A fiancé may cherish the letters from her man who lives in another country because they are far away from each other. But that does not mean she talks to the letters, takes the letters out on dinner dates, and kisses the letters as if it was her fiancé. See the difference?
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
*Sigh*. Worshiping a book is bowing down to it and thinking it is God (Which would be wrong). But who does that? God is spirit. The communicated Word of God is a part of God’s minds and thoughts. We reverence His Word because it comes from God. The verse I showed proves that divine service is the same as holy service. So the word “divine” is not a word that is exclusive to God’s inner core essence or being alone. Although the word can be used in that way. For I believe the Bible has homonyms in it.

Anyways, to give you an example:

A fiancé may cherish the letters from her man who lives in another country because they are far away from each other. But that does not mean she talks to the letters, takes the letters out on dinner dates, and kisses the letters as if it was her fiancé. See the difference?

Not sure why throwing a third word used as a verb rather than as an adjective would be helpful.

So when we claim that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine as part of doctrine, it is *exactly* the same as claiming that Jesus is both fully human and fully holy with the *exact* same meaning and message as before?

(If you say yes, then you are really misunderstanding the meanings of these two words because the implication of saying yes is going to be that Jesus is not God.)

When you see God's Word as *living* as His Voice vs. just being physical words on a page, then it makes for a lot less misunderstanding as to what is being worshiped.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not sure why throwing a third word used as a verb rather than as an adjective would be helpful.

So when we claim that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine as part of doctrine, it is *exactly* the same as claiming that Jesus is both fully human and fully holy with the *exact* same meaning and message as before?

(If you say yes, then you are really misunderstanding the meanings of these two words because the implication of saying yes is going to be that Jesus is not God.)

When you see God's Word as *living* as His Voice vs. just being physical words on a page, then it makes for a lot less misunderstanding as to what is being worshiped.

Not sure what the Hypostatic Union has to do with our conversation. Also, how do you define worship? Do you believe I consider the Bible to be as God Himself just because I say it is divine? Again, God is spirit.

Divine even in our own culture can refer to it being heavenly. A person can say, “These cookies are divine” and yet they are not saying the cookies are God. They are saying the cookies are heavenly in taste.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what the Hypostatic Union has to do with our conversation. Also, how do you define worship? Do you believe I consider the Bible to be as God Himself just because I say it is divine? Again, God is spirit.

Divine even in our own culture can refer to it being heavenly. A person can say, “These cookies are divine” and yet they are not saying the cookies are God. They are saying the cookies are heavenly in taste.

Because obviously our slang-usage of words in the 21st century is the way to go when reading scripture.
 
Upvote 0