A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[fhansen]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, But I hear a lot of 'you protestants always going by the book tisk tisk". But then I observe catholicism going by the book as much as possible. Going by the book only seems to be a problem when it comes to extrabiblical tradition.

Ok, so if we go only by the book, then baptismal regeneration is up for grabs; the book can be used to represent it as regenerative or not. Same for the Real Presence and even the deity of Christ, where Arianism pretty much dominated for decades if not centuries. But in the case of the first two, there was never even controversy within the churches; Tradition, the lived legacy/experience of the church, informed and confirmed proper Scriptural understanding. With Arianism, again, the bishops at Nicaea argued based on what they'd always and everywhere understood, along with Scripture. The Trinity won the day even if it would require more councils and more time to finally squeeze the heresy out.

 

[fhansen]

It's pretty easy to put that to the test by looking up experts in church history and patristics.

Maybe, but people often select their experts according to their expectations. Best to research that one yourself, supplemented with commentary.

 

[ozso]

Maybe, but people often select their experts according to their expectations. Best to research that one yourself, supplemented with commentary.

I'm not sure what that means. You said; "anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC". But I think it's highly unlikely that most Protestants who have fully studied the early fathers ended up joining the EOC or RCC. I think maybe you're concluding that since that was your experience, most everyone else will have the same experience you did.

 

[ozso]

Ok, so if we go only by the book, then baptismal regeneration is up for grabs; the book can be used to represent it as regenerative or not. Same for the Real Presence and even the deity of Christ, where Arianism pretty much dominated for decades if not centuries. But in the case of the first two, there was never even controversy within the churches; Tradition, the lived legacy/experience of the church, informed and confirmed proper Scriptural understanding. With Arianism, again, the bishops at Nicaea argued based on what they'd always and everywhere understood, along with Scripture. The Trinity won the day even if it would require more councils and more time to finally squeeze the heresy out.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Arius was a Catholic and an example of many disagreements within Catholocism. I've read Catholics bringing up various heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism, and how the Catholic church stamped them out. But at the same time they were started by Catholics and existed within Catholocism. Which indicates to me that there's always been disagreements within Catholocism as there have been within Protestantism. And also that within Protestantism there have been views that have been condemned as heresy by virtually all of Protestantism.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure what that means. You said; "anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC". But I think it's highly unlikely that most Protestants who have fully studied the early fathers ended up joining the EOC or RCC. I think maybe you're concluding that since that was your experience, most everyone else will have the same experience you did.

Its just the things they say! The things they believed and the way they practiced the faith. Maybe I'm wrong but I tend to think most Protestants don't dig too deeply there.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Arius was a Catholic and an example of many disagreements within Catholocism. I've read Catholics bringing up various heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism, and how the Catholic church stamped them out. But at the same time they were started by Catholics and existed within Catholocism. Which indicates to me that there's always been disagreements within Catholocism as there have been within Protestantism. And also that within Protestantism there have been views that have been condemned as heresy by virtually all of Protestantism.

Well, the church that anathematized them didn't consider them to be Catholic-based on their beliefs. Catholicism is defined by its beliefs. When we disagree with them, especially once those beliefs are dogmatized, then we're outside of Catholicism. Arius thought he was speaking for the church but God knew otherwise, and the rest is history. Again, the RCC defines Catholicism. In Protestantism there is no ultimate authority. Dissenters can and often do just go and start their own church, or live as lone wolves, etc.

 

[ozso]

Its just the things they say! The things they believed and the way they practiced the faith. Maybe I'm wrong but I tend to think most Protestants don't dig too deeply there.

Not the average protestant, or catholic for that matter. But there's lots of historians who do. I wouldn't be surprised if my current pastor has, considering he used to be a seminary professor.

 

[ozso]

Well, the church that anathematized them didn't consider them to be Catholic-based on their beliefs. Catholicism is defined by its beliefs. When we disagree with them, especially once those beliefs are dogmatized, then we're outside of Catholicism. Arius thought he was speaking for the church but God knew otherwise, and the rest is history. Again, the RCC defines Catholicism. In Protestantism there is no ultimate authority. Dissenters can and often do just go and start their own church, or live as lone wolves, etc.

While there's no central authority in protestantism, there is a standard of what's orthodox and what's heresy. Protestants on CF essentially chased away the universalists for example.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

While there's no central authority in Protestantism, there is a standard of what's orthodox and what's heresy. Protestants on CF essentially chased away the universalists for example.

It is true that there is no central authority in Protestantism it is also true that the bible accepted by Protestants cannot serve as a central authority because it is its interpretation that counts and they all interpret independently and differently, sometimes radically differently.

 

[ozso]

It is true that there is no central authority in Protestantism it is also true that the bible accepted by Protestants cannot serve as a central authority because it is its interpretation that counts and they all interpret independently and differently, sometimes radically differently.

Not when it comes to core theology. I've seen it happen several times on CF when a new member posts something unorthodox and protestant members are all over him pointing out his error. When it comes to the main denominations there's one or two secondary doctrines that are in dispute between one and the other(s). I feel perfectly comfortable attending a Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Pentecostal church because overall they're pretty much the same in my experience. Overall I have that experience with Catholic and Orthodox as well. I listen to an Orthodox priest who gives a short daily message on youtube and I've yet to hear him say anything that's unfamiliar to me. I think the biggest problem that makes it all less ecumenical than it should be is tribalism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I feel perfectly comfortable attending a Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Pentecostal church because overall they're pretty much the same in my experience. Overall, I have that experience with Catholic and Orthodox as well. I listen to an Orthodox priest who gives a short daily message on YouTube and I've yet to hear him say anything that's unfamiliar to me. I think the biggest problem that makes it all less ecumenical than it should be is tribalism.

Agreed, the tribalism is the deepest division.

 

[Strong in Him]

Christian truth accurately and fully.

Jesus is Truth.
The Spirit is Truth.
God's word is Truth.

 

[ozso]

I'd submit that anyone who truly and objectively studied the early fathers to much of any serious degree would have a very difficult time not turning to the EO or RCC.

This prompts another question. What do the ECFs teach that's so different from what the apostles teach?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This prompts another question. What do the ECFs teach that's so different from what the apostles teach?

They teach us to honour the Blessed Virgin Mary, to recognise the aspects of the incarnation implied in names such as "mother of God" and to remember that our prayers are Trinitarian. That we can and ought to pray to Jesus Christ, to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit as occasion demands. They teach us to have bishops, to honour them, and to pay attention to the Church's teaching.

 

[ozso]

The teach us to honour the Blessed Virgin Mary, to recognise the aspects of the incarnation implied in names such as "mother of God" and to remember that our prayers are Trinitarian. That we can and ought to pray to Jesus Christ, to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit as occasion demands. They teach us to have bishops, to honour them, and to pay attention to the Church's teaching.

So they teach what Jesus, the Apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers didn't.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So they teach what Jesus, the Apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers didn't.

Yes, of course; no teaching is given apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[ozso]

Yes, of course; no teaching is given apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first and second part of that answer seems to be a contradiction.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, of course; no teaching is given apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus and the Apostles did not teach that Mary was Queen of heaven, nor a perpetual virgin.

 

[ozso]

Jesus and the Apostles did not teach that Mary was Queen of heaven, nor a perpetual virgin.

What I've put together is starting in the 4th century there was Arianism and Nestorianism and whatever else, offering variations of Christ being human and God. And for whatever reason to combat this great emphasis was placed upon Mary. The queen of heaven, perpetual virgin, immaculate conception etc, is all supposed to confirm the hypostatic union of Christ being 100% human and 100% God.

 

[fhansen]

Jesus is Truth.
The Spirit is Truth.
God's word is Truth.

Was that supposed to somehow have something to do with my post? Is there some alternative to God when it comes to revealed, truths of the Christian faith?