A few questions for Protestants

[BNR32FAN]

What Paul was actually referring to is right there in the verse that was cited in support of the notion that Jesus was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, what he actually said (and now I'm quoting directly from Fidelibus' post) was this--



Obviously, it's the people of God who as a whole are defined as Christ's church.

I disagree because the congregation was always being corrected by the established organization also known as the church. The church does not always refer to a congregation of believers it can also refer to the organization established by the apostles.

 

[Albion]

the problem with this is that concept is it’s subject to interpretation which is often influenced by popular opinion, personal feelings, upbringing, location, or widely held doctrines which actually ends up putting sola scriptura in the back seat so to speak.

Well, SO ALSO ARE all the alternatives!!

People talk as though Sola Scriptura is defective BUT the Pope is infallible if he issues an edict under certain rules and claims that he's infallible. Other people claim that Tradition, i.e. customs, legends, opinions from early church leaders, and so on, are the alternative and are unimpeachable. And some others have their own theories.

All of these are supposed to be the equal of--or superior to--the very word of God!

How does that make sense?

Anybody...Leave the canned and memorized arguments for a moment and answer that question.

 

[Albion]

I disagree because the congregation was always being corrected by the established organization also known as the church.

Even if that is true, it doesn't change the meaning of the words of Scripture which have been quoted by a number of different posters.

And it doesn't guarantee that the congregation, the household of God, will always be correct. That isn't what this passage in Scripture is talking about.

 

[timothyu]

History is history.

Depends on who's.

 

[timothyu]

But people can make it seem like history is something other than what it really is...by carefully choosing the words they use when explaining it.

Yes, if scripture can be manipulated to suit an agenda, so can the 'official' history.

 

[timothyu]

How does that make sense?

Tradition has become the new 'truth' doncha know.

 

[timothyu]

The church does not always refer to a congregation of believers it can also refer to the organization established by the apostles.

That became a later convenient definition of the word, yes. The apostles however did not create an organization but a movement of the people, a way of life they called The Way, not yet another institution of man. If people followed the original way rather than an institution they would be caring for and defending each other instead of an institution.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, SO ALSO ARE all the alternatives!!

People talk as though Sola Scriptura is defective BUT the Pope is infallible if he issues an edict under certain rules and claims that he's infallible. Other people claim that Tradition, i.e. customs, legends, opinions from early church leaders, and so on, are the alternative and are unimpeachable. And some others have their own theories.

All of these are supposed to be the equal of--or superior to--the very word of God!

How does that make sense?

Anybody...Leave the canned and memorized arguments for a moment and answer that question.

Let me just rephrase my statement you quoted in the proper context of the post I was addressing then I will explain how it makes sense.

The problem with the concept that the Bible alone is inspired and final authority on all matters of doctrines and practices is it’s subject to interpretation which is often influenced by popular opinion, personal feelings, upbringing, location, or widely held doctrines which actually ends up putting sola scriptura in the back seat so to speak.

Now you ask how does that make sense? Look around you, how many truths are there? If you believe Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18 then you must believe that His church still exists today. Now the problem is, how do we find it? My advice is to study the scriptures, the early church writings, and early church history of your trying to find the apostolic Church of God mentioned in the scriptures. Look for the churches that were established by the apostles that fit His description and coincide both with the scriptures and early church writings and see where you end up.

 

[timothyu]

Truth is of God, not from man.

Matthew 16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Albion]

Let me just rephrase my statement you quoted in the proper context of the post I was addressing then I will explain how it makes sense.

The problem with the concept that the Bible alone is inspired and final authority on all matters of doctrines and practices is it’s subject to interpretation which is often influenced by popular opinion, personal feelings, upbringing, location, or widely held doctrines which actually ends up putting sola scriptura in the back seat so to speak.

and, as I pointed out in the previous post, so also do all the suggested alternatives (require interpretation)!

Now you ask how does that make sense?

No, what I asked was this--what sense is there in choosing one of the alternatives to Scripture when all of them are subject to various interpretations the same as you say Scripture requires?

And, in addition, they are offered as substitutes for the word of God!

How can anything be more authoritative than God's revelation to mankind?...and bear in mind that just about every denomination, Catholic or Protestant, does consider the Bible to be divine revelation.

 

[Valletta]

Yet it was the Eastern Roman Empire in charge at the time (having won the civil war with the Latin west) which was predominantly Greek.

The change to Latin was definitely more profound than in the east. So the pope saw a need for a major translation for the Church to bring the Word of God to as many people as possible. There were attempts at Latin translations but they lacked quality. So the pope commissioned Saint Jerome to head the project, and the project took decades. Over the centuries there were a lot of dedicated Catholics who took the time to laboriously copy Scripture and also to translate Holy Scripture into so many languages. We forget, but we owe them a great debt.

 

[Valletta]

and, as I pointed out in the previous post, so also do all the suggested alternatives (require interpretation)!


No, what I asked was this--what sense is there in choosing one of the alternatives to Scripture when all of them are subject to various interpretations the same as you say Scripture requires?

And, in addition, they are offered as substitutes for the word of God!

How can anything be more authoritative than God's revelation to mankind?...and bear in mind that just about every denomination, Catholic or Protestant, does consider the Bible to be divine revelation.

God is authoritative, His Word, whether orally transmitted or by writing, is to be treated as equally important. We should "stand fast" by His Word.

 

[Albion]

God is authoritative, His Word, whether orally transmitted or by writing, is to be treated as equally important. We should "stand fast" by His Word.

Hearsay or personal opinion =/= God's word.

Most of what passes for "oral transmission," allegedly handed down from the Apostles, isn't that at all, but is simply folklore or someone's theory that was later pronounced authoritative by the institutional church. Examples include the Assumption (of Mary) and Transubstantiation.

 

[Valletta]

Hearsay or personal opinion =/= God's word.

Most of what passes for "oral transmission," allegedly handed down from the Apostles, isn't that at all, but is simply folklore or someone's theory that was later pronounced authoritative by the institutional church. Examples include the Assumption (of Mary) and Transubstantiation.

No more or no less than someone might consider the Bible as folklore. God's Word is of equal weight, no matter how it is transmitted.

2 Thes 2:15 Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

 

[Albion]

No more or no less than someone might consider the Bible as folklore.

Well, that's not so. As was already noted, almost every denomination you can name teaches that the Bible IS the word of God. How many church bodies teach that the Pope is infallible when he creates a new dogma? It's approximately ONE.

2 Thes 2:15 Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Yes, but it's only a couple of the institutional churches that try to pass that off as authorizing just about anything the institutional church dreams up.

To begin with, the verse doesn't identify any traditions that are to be held to.

The reference could be about the hearers remaining mindful of the Sabbath; or it could refer to praying often; or to family responsibilities; or to any number of other actions that were already practiced but not to authorize any new doctrines. Yet that's what people who cite that passage want us who consider the Bible to be authoritative to think.

Then too, "traditions" do not equal "Holy Tradition," the latter being only the term that the Catholic Church has assigned to its alternative to Sola Scriptura.

It is simply a convenient term for making customs or opinions into dogma. Call it "Holy Tradition" and say it's what has always been believed, even if there isn't any evidence of that being so...or even if there is evidence that it ISN'T so.

 

[timothyu]

are subject to various interpretations

Of course because the institution of man seeks to define itself with scripture rather than build itself to follow the will of God. Flesh before spirit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

and, as I pointed out in the previous post, so also do all the suggested alternatives (require interpretation)!

Interpretation that takes into consideration the scriptures, the early church writings, as well as the early church doctrines. Most people’s interpretations don’t take all these into account.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hearsay or personal opinion =/= God's word.

Most of what passes for "oral transmission," allegedly handed down from the Apostles, isn't that at all, but is simply folklore or someone's theory that was later pronounced authoritative by the institutional church. Examples include the Assumption (of Mary) and Transubstantiation.

Actually, transubstantiation is a completely valid interpretation of the New Testament pericopes which deal with the Eucharist. I would further argue that it is more valid than Zwinglianism and Memorialism.

The reason for this is simple, as Martin Luther famously carved into the table (or wrote on it with chalk) at the Marburg Colloquy,
HOC EST CORPUS MEUM

To wit, our Lord did not say “This is a symbol of my body” or “This is a memorial of my body” but rather “This is my body.”

This has the effect of excluding all Eucharistic interpretations outside of what I think we might call the Calvinist-Eastern Church scale, where the Calvinist end represents a real spiritual presence in the consecrated elements, and the Eastern Church end represents a real change equal to or exceeding transubstantiation, with the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence “in, with and under” and the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in the middle (I put the Eastern churches on the extreme simply because their Eucharistic theology, although sometimes described by a minority of Eastern Orthodox theologians as transubstantiation, does not, according to the majority of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian commentators depend on Aristotelian categories; specifically, there is no dichotomy between substance and accidents).

Now, regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Dormition as it is known in the Eastern Orthodox Church (Oriental Orthodox Christians interestingly tend to call it the Assumption, but the meaning is the same), while this doctrine is not defined within sacred scripture, there are no opposing Patristic narratives, and what is particularly striking is that there are no relics of the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereas we have relics of just about everyone else, even the head of St. John the Baptist. Given the huge emphasis the early church put on the relics of apostles, martyrs and evangelists, to the extent that the early church celebrated its services in the cemeteries and catacombs, with Vespers at Sunset, Matins and the Eucharist at midnight, and Lauds before dawn, a pattern still observed in monasteries, and given that the monuments marking the graves of martyrs and other saints were used as altars on which the Eucharist was consecrated, a practice which continues with the placement of relics in the Holy Table and in antimensia in traditional churches, it strains credulity to suggest that the Mother of God died an ordinary death and was buried - especially when we consider that she was physically closer to God than anyone else, and for long periods of time, by virtue of her status as His mother.

By the way @MarkRohfrietsch , you did that special beautiful service on August the 15th of last year, right?

Also, reverting to Lutheranism, one thing I really admire about Martin Luther is that he did not attend the Marburg Colloquy with a view towards compromising or working out some sort of pan-Protestant ecumenical solution, but rather, he went there with the mindset of a confessor of the faith. The man had a lot of courage. I would venerate him as a saint had it not been for the tragic lapse in judgement he made late in life concerning Judaism and his anti-Semitic collaboration with Lucas Cranach the Elder. If it could be shown, however, that he was suffering from dementia, I would be prepared to change my mind on that point, because, ceteris paribus, Luther is really someone who I want to venerate.

As it stands, I disregard the Three Chapters of Justinian and consider Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia saints worthy of veneration (and at least in the second case, I am not alone; the Church of the East venerates him as Mar Theodore the Interpreter).

 

[The Liturgist]

No more or no less than someone might consider the Bible as folklore. God's Word is of equal weight, no matter how it is transmitted.

2 Thes 2:15 Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 and many other passages, even Galatians 1:6-9, confirm the existence of the Apostolic tradition.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, what I asked was this--what sense is there in choosing one of the alternatives to Scripture when all of them are subject to various interpretations the same as you say Scripture requires?

Because like I said most interpretations don’t take the early church writings and doctrines into account. There’s a lot of evidence out there that people plain out don’t want to see because they don’t want to admit they are wrong, so they attack it and reject it. The biggest problem people have with church history is simply because of the Roman Catholic church’s claim as being the apostolic church. Just their name having the word Catholic on it drags the church of God’s name thru the mud. Most people rejected anything remotely related to the word Catholic because of the Roman church which blinds them from the truth about the church because they don’t know anything about church history.