500 years of protesting what?

[BobRyan]

The reason for Luther's call to reform was the tyranny of Rome. It comes down to the sacraments, Rome effectively teaches you cannot be properly baptized unless by them, so they are defacto agents of salvation rather then ministers of the gospel.

True the "power" in Gospel was limited to "the sacraments" which only Catholics priests had the "powers" to administer... powers that the RCC says "they do not lose even if the priest is excommunicated".

================================= the "power" argument
from NewAdvent SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The minister of this sacrament (Tertia Pars, Q. 82)

I answer that, As stated above (Baptism lies both in the words and in the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive the power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well as for the dead." For instrumental power lies in several instruments through which the chief agent acts.


...

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as Baptism remains in them," i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, "so do their orders remain intact." Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.

I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication.

But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't Seventh Day Adventists count Ellen G White as an authoritative interpreter of scripture and aren't at least some of her written words regarded as revelations from God in effect making her some of her writings a secondary source as important in Seventh Day Adventist teaching and practise as anything that a church council, says in Orthodoxy and anything that a Pope approves in Catholicism?

All prophets from Adam to this very day -- if they are true prophets -- get their inspiration from God.

1 Tim 3:16.. 2Peter 1:20-21.

Notice that in Acts 17:11 they "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken by Paul -- were so".

Now we w would argue that Paul himself had the gift of prophecy - and yet his message was to be tested "sola scriptura" to see if in anything it contradicted.

Gal 1:6-9 "Even if WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel other than we have preached let him be accursed".

The "sola scriptura" test of Paul was not "have you given us any information?" but rather "has your teaching contradicted known scripture". Thus all the revelation you find in the NT does not contradict that principle of "sola scriptura" testing. Neither did sola scriptura testing as in Acts 17:11 mean that no Bible writer was allowed to be inspired beyond that point. In fact in 1 Cor 14 we have this "when you come together... each person has a revelation"

Adventists do not view the messages God gave to Ellen White as an 'exception' to this Bible rue - but rather fully in harmony with it.

 

[BobRyan]

With regards to point 5 you mention Catholicism only, as if Protestant state authorities did not use the threat of force to institute their own vision of how things ought to be. Calvin's Geneva could be said to be more totalitarian

If both sides come together on that point in Germany and condemn all violence of history committed by either Protestant or Catholic groups as being "sinful" and "crimes against humanity" and not at all "infallible" (thus also condemning Lateran IV with all of its "extermination of heretics" laws) - I think both sides "'win" -- so also does humanity.

Do you think the Catholic position will do that? Because there is no "infallible torture commands" among the Protestants - they are free to condemn all of it at no risk at all to Protestant doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

Westminster Confession of Faith

The above will take folks to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 1 will define sola scriptura.

I'm sure @Albion will help us out with the Anglican confession addressing sola scriptura.

And section 19 of that document has a very good explanation of "Law and Grace" as does section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"

 

[BobRyan]

No, sorry, no. Sola Scriptura does not include or imply that idea.

Until you read Acts 17:11

Or do you think that the Catholics and the Protestants in Germany will come to an agreement that texts like Acts 17:11 are absolutely not examples of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice? That such a text should not be given as an example of that teaching?

I would be pretty amazed if all the protestants signed up for that sort of rejection of Acts 17:11

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, "Protestant" is a legal term and comes fromt the Diet of Speyer in 1529. The Diet reversed the earlier religious toleration of the reformation in the Holy Roman Empire. The Electors and other "barons" entered a formal protestation of the Diet proceedings. The protestation was an appeal of sorts and the signers were known as "protestants".

Thanks for that detail.

Still some may argue against the "protest" in Protestantism. Everyone has free will.

 

[JacksBratt]

Since there is at least some focus this month on the reformation, the protestant reformation and how wide the GAP is between protestant doctrine and Catholicism - lets work out some of the details.

While Luther may have "started" with 95 objections to selling indulgences.. that is not the sum total of the "gap" between protestantism and catholicism.

Foundational in Protestantism is this - (at the very least).

1. Sola Scriptura - Acts 17:11 (testing all doctrine and practice against the standard of the Bible instead of Bible+traditions-of-men). Col 2:22 "—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men"

2. Grace alone (mankind is saved by grace through faith - Ephesians 2) not saved by powers of sacrament or powers in a "rite" or ritual plus ...

3. Faith alone - justified by faith alone - meaning that when the lost person comes to Christ - they are saved not on the basis of good works done as a lost person - but saved by faith alone.

4. Christ alone - "there is no OTHER name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" -- so then no earthly priest or pope stands between us and Christ who is the "one mediator between God and man" 1 Tim 2:5-6

We come boldly to the throne of grace - directly to God in prayer. No earthly mediator or Pope between.

(And of course both sides agree that all the glory goes to God alone for the plan of salvation)

===============================================

I am not sure that whatever meetings are going on this month and next .. in Germany are going to find agreement on the points listed above.

In addition there is in the "gap" between the Bible and catholicism

1. Prayers to the dead -- called "the Dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4.
2. Claims to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" - by contrast Christ was offered up "once for all" Hebrews 10 and no earthly priest has been given the powers to confect the "body, blood,soul and divinity of Christ in the mass"
3. The "doctrine of discovery" regarding what Catholics are allowed to do to the natives of newly discovered lands in cases where those natives refuse to convert to Catholicism
4. Infallibility of Catholic church councils and popes.
5. Authorizing violence against Christians for "thought crimes" for doctrinal differences with the Papacy.
6. Editing the Sabbath Commandment to point it to week-day-1
7. Apocryphal books injected into the Bible canon -- (books that even Jerome declared were not legitmately part of the Canon of scripture)
8. The Pope's claim to in any way be the head or leader of any denomination on earth - other than his own denomination - the Roman Catholic Church.
9. Purgatory -- does not exist according to the Bible but the RCC promotes it anyway.
10. Praying to angels
11. Bowing down before images to pray to and to promise to serve those whom they represent.
12. The idea that Catholic Church tradition holds equal weight to scripture or that an understanding of scripture that does not agree with the RCC is by definition incorrect.
13. Monastic celibate orders that appear to have promoted certain forms of sin at some level within the group.
14. "power" in the bishop or the priest to give sacraments power to mark the soul, or effect the New Birth, or forgive sins.. etc.

I am probably missing a few of the topics in "the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism
==================================

So then what are the odds that the folks in Germany are ever going to be able to close the gap on such key doctrinal points of difference?

I thought the Pope was trying to unite all religions. Not just the Protestant and RCC and all the other denominations of the Christian church.. but Muslim and other religions as well...

Was this not what we saw earlier this year?

 

[GingerBeer]

Adventists do not view the messages God gave to Ellen White as an 'exception' to this Bible ru[l]e - but rather fully in harmony with it.

Minus the explanatory preamble - which is not included in the above quote but which can be read by anybody interested if they click the link at the beginning of the quote - it appears that Seventh Day Adventists do in fact regard at least some of Ellen G White's written words as revelations from God that are authoritative and normative for Seventh Day Adventist teaching and practise.

What Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians say about the canons of the ecumenical church councils is less elevated than what is claimed by Seventh Day Adventists for at least some of Ellen G White's written work because Orthodox Christians do not regard the canons of ecumenical councils as revelations given by God nor do Catholic Christians regard the canons of ecumenical church councils approved by a pope as revelation from God. Both of these ancient churches regard the canons of ecumenical church councils as true and faithful teaching that is binding on Christians but not as revelations from God.

If you complain that Orthodox Christians or Catholic Christians veer to the left or to the right from the path of "sola scriptura" because of their stated views regarding the canons of ecumenical church councils then Seventh Day Adventists also veer to the right or to the left from the path of "sola scriptura" because of their adherence to at least some of Ellen G White's written words as revelations from God. This is a consequence of having at least some of Ellen G White's writings as authoritative and normative sources for teaching and practise within the Seventh Day Adventist church.

 

[Albion]

Westminster Confession of Faith

The above will take folks to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 1 will define sola scriptura.

I'm sure @Albion will help us out with the Anglican confession addressing sola scriptura.

The relevant article from the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion is this one:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

 

[BobRyan]

The relevant article from the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion is this one:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Sounds like Acts 17:11

 

[Albion]

Thanks for that detail.

Still some may argue against the "protest" in Protestantism. Everyone has free will.

As we often see right here on CF, they certainly do. But, if they wanted to claim that reformed Christians actually do continue to think of themselves primarily as in a state of protest against Roman Catholicism after all this time, they would logically be calling us "Protestors" rather than "Protestants." The fact that they don't do so shows that they're misusing a word that has a special meaning although it looks like it means something else.

 

[BobRyan]

Don't Seventh Day Adventists count Ellen G White as an authoritative interpreter of scripture and aren't at least some of her written words regarded as revelations from God in effect making her some of her writings a secondary source as important in Seventh Day Adventist teaching and practise as anything that a church council, says in Orthodoxy and anything that a Pope approves in Catholicism?

All prophets from Adam to this very day -- if they are true prophets -- get their inspiration from God.

1 Tim 3:16.. 2Peter 1:20-21.

Notice that in Acts 17:11 they "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF the things spoken by Paul -- were so".

Now we w would argue that Paul himself had the gift of prophecy - and yet his message was to be tested "sola scriptura" to see if in anything it contradicted.

Gal 1:6-9 "Even if WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel other than we have preached let him be accursed".

The "sola scriptura" test of Paul was not "have you given us any information?" but rather "has your teaching contradicted known scripture". Thus all the revelation you find in the NT does not contradict that principle of "sola scriptura" testing. Neither did sola scriptura testing as in Acts 17:11 mean that no Bible writer was allowed to be inspired beyond that point. In fact in 1 Cor 14 we have this "when you come together... each person has a revelation"

Adventists do not view the messages God gave to Ellen White as an 'exception' to this Bible rue - but rather fully in harmony with it.

Minus the explanatory preamble - which is not included in the above quote but which can be read by anybody interested if they click the link at the beginning of the quote - it appears that Seventh Day Adventists do in fact regard at least some of Ellen G White's written words as revelations from God that are authoritative and normative for Seventh Day Adventist teaching and practise.

A bit like saying "ignoring what the Bible has to say on the subject of inspired writers... it looks like Adventists believe God's messages to Ellen White were in the category of inspiration and therefore would have authority since inspired writing comes from God".

But the solution-B that starts off ignoring what the Bible says about the source and authority of inspired messages coming from God - is not the same thing as the sola scriptura solution-A of basing our faith in the Bible because solution-B starts with "ignoring what the Bible says on this topic of inspired writing...lets notice this".

Orthodox Christians do not regard the canons of ecumenical councils as revelations given by God nor do Catholic Christians regard the canons of ecumenical church councils approved by a pope as revelation from God.

Rather they claim they are infallible don't nee God to have given them as His input on the subject - they of themselves are infallible - according to their claim.

And we do not claim that Ellen White herself was infallible or that her writings represent binding or authoritative messages "from Ellen White" as is done in the Orthodox model you stated. So in that sense we do "differ" with the Orthodox solution you presented.

The fact that "she said this-or-that" alone would make it "infallible if we were using the orthodox model that you suggest - which appears to be: "the fact that the ecumenical council said it" makes it infallible "no divine revelation from God needed" to make it so.

No such claim is made about anything Ellen White wrote... and in fact the Acts 17:11 model is that of an Apostle "being judged" by the sola scriptura rule. Something that your Orthodox model does not appear to "allow" for the cases of its supposedly infallible ecumenical councils.

If you complain that Orthodox Christians or Catholic Christians veer to the left or to the right from the path of "sola scriptura" because of their stated views regarding the canons of ecumenical church councils then Seventh Day Adventists also veer to the right or to the left from the path of "sola scriptura" because of their adherence to at least some of Ellen G White's written words as revelations from God. T

The argument that "no message from God - given to a prophet can truly be inspired and hold authority if you don't also argue that ecumenical councils in the Orthodox church have the same weight as God speaking" is not a level of equivocation that many protestants would accept.

 

[BobRyan]

As we often see right here on CF, they certainly do. But it comes from misunderstanding the origin of the word. In fact, if they want to claim that reformed Christians actually do continue to think of themselves as in a state of protest against Roman Catholicism after all this time, they would be logically be calling us "Protestors," rather than "Protestants."

Litigators rather than litigants?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

If you read the US Constitution and the articles of confederation and then look today at how the constitution is interpreted you can conclude that America has changed its understanding and declares in many instances things that contradict the original intent. If you look at the scriptures VS the traditions you can see again the same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

I thought the Pope was trying to unite all religions. Not just the Protestant and RCC and all the other denominations of the Christian church.. but Muslim and other religions as well...

Was this not what we saw earlier this year?

Yes but this 500 year anniversary thing - with so much focus in Germany by the Catholic Church on Luther - is specific to Protestantism and bridging the gap.. I don't think they are arguing that Buddhists should particularly care about what Protestants or Luther did historically. The effort seems to be to at least "narrow the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

[Albion]

Until you read Acts 17:11

Or do you think that the Catholics and the Protestants in Germany will come to an agreement that texts like Acts 17:11 are absolutely not examples of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice? That such a text should not be given as an example of that teaching?

I would be pretty amazed if all the protestants signed up for that sort of rejection of Acts 17:11

Since you ask, no, Acts of the Apostles 17:11 doesn't either prove or disprove Sola Scriptura. Believers in SS and those who reject the concept alike think that it is good to study the word of God for guidance. The issue is more refined than that.

Sounds like Acts 17:11

It's not. The wording used in the Articles was very carefully chosen in order to address (and reject) the views of Englishmen more inclined towards Roman views and also those more inclined in the other direction--both at once.

You might want to read this Article again.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Until you read Acts 17:11

Or do you think that the Catholics and the Protestants in Germany will come to an agreement that texts like Acts 17:11 are absolutely not examples of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice? That such a text should not be given as an example of that teaching?

I would be pretty amazed if all the protestants signed up for that sort of rejection of Acts 17:11

Since you ask, no, Acts of the Apostles 17:11 doesn't either prove or disprove Sola Scriptura.

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

As we both know - a great many Protestants will argue that the above is a perfect example of "Sola Scriptura" being used in NT times.

Believers in SS and those who reject the concept alike think that it is good to study the word of God for guidance.

The text does say 'they studied the scriptures because they thought that scripture is also - good for guidance" -- rather the statement is made in the form of a TEST -- "To SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul -- WERE SO".

That is very different from "I found these three books and they were all helpful".

It would be like me saying " I am not sure that what you are saying is even true at all -- let me check out what you just said with scripture to see if it is true or not" -- the very thing the Papacy was not happy about when Protestants did that with Catholic doctrine - comparing it to scripture to see "IF" it is valid or not.

 

[Albion]

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

As we both know - a great many Protestants will argue that the above is a perfect example of "Sola Scriptura" being used in NT times.

I would be very disappointed if I were to encounter many Protestants who actually did think that.

 

[GingerBeer]

it looks like Adventists believe God's messages to Ellen White were in the category of inspiration and therefore would have authority since inspired writing comes from God

Were at least some of Ellen G White's writings inspired by God?

 

[BobRyan]

Were at least some of Ellen G White's writings inspired by God?

I keep saying they were