Know church history well but stay protestant

[JM]

I studied ancient history, but I did not find that I wanted to be Babylonian

(“Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations.” Revelation 17:5).

The draw to the "ancient and undivided church" is powerful in this day and age and I have experienced that myself. To be deep into history, in my case, has made me less of an individualistic Christian and a better adjusted Protestant.

 

[tz620q]

That isn't the meaning or origin of the word.

It doesn't derive from the act of protesting against the Roman Catholic Church but, instead, from a protest of Lutherans against a particular decree of the 1520s by which the Holy Roman Empire rescinded certain rights that had previously been given the Lutherans parallel to the status of the Empire's Catholics. That's the "protest" in the word "Protest-antism."

So since the Holy Roman Empire does not exist anymore, you should stop protesting and come home to the Catholic Church like Newman did. Or is the road too narrow for the broad via media.

 

[Albion]

Those institutions with the oldest traditions are neither here nor there. They are not necessarily good or bad. They are merely old.

Not necessarily. We often read on these forums claims about which church is doing things the way the Apostolic church did them.

That means people of different denominations must care which churches are the ones that actually can trace their history that far back.

 

[Albion]

So since the Holy Roman Empire does not exist anymore, you should stop protesting and come home to the Catholic Church like Newman did.

Very funny. But I'm not protesting anything.

You are entirely welcome to belong to the Roman Catholic Church so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mountainmike]

It was a lighthearted comment, Mike, but factually correct. I don't think we need fight over it.

No. But let’s fight over this...

What are the 39 articles? Or do we mean 10 or 42?
I’m certain ( or hoping) that cranmer would not claim infallibility.

So at best the title of 39 articles is “ Cranmers personal opinion on a few theology issues ..”.

So when he says “ repugnant to scripture” , he really means, “ I personally don’t agree with this or that interpretation”

Example, Let’s take one of cranmers opinions. That penance is not a sacrament.

It’s based on his personal opinion that John 20:23 is not what it literally says it is ! That indeed the ( delegated) power is given to forgive sins or not. It clearly could mean the catholic meaning because that’s what the words say.

So if you disagree, as all catholics do: where is the court of appeal? Or as scripture says : the power to “ bind and loose” meaning, Against cranmers personal opinion, when the articles themselves limit the power of synods to give definitive judgement: the articles claim are fallible and anyway can only be called by civil authority.

In short the anglican theolog is someone’s personal opinion presented as authority with no power to allow change, even where it clearly disagrees with early church: for me at least, the Anglican articles are an “ epistle of straw “ and the diversity and divergence in Anglican theology is directly a result.

it was my opinion that Jesus would not allow such anarchy over his church. Not least because he says he appointed a leader...

lights blue touch paper, retires immediately!

No seriously - that is why I left. The Anglican communion lacks doctrinal authority.

but I’ll keep repeating it: I have every respect for anglicans, I was one.
It’s just not for me, I can’t resolve the contradictions.

 

[Albion]

Well, what's right is what matters. To me, anyway. The Articles of Religion are in accord with scripture, which, as you know, is God's word.

What's permitted by the church to be believed by the membership appears to be what matters to you. That's how it seems, anyhow, judging by that post.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well, what's right is what matters. To me, anyway. The Articles of Religion are in accord with scripture, which, as you know, is God's word.

What's permitted by the church to be believed by the membership appears to be what matters to you. That's how it seems, anyhow, judging by that post.

I asked a fair question. By what authority do you put cranmers or your opinions ahead of those appointed to “ bind and loose”? What authority have the articles? By what authority do you disregard a book of the scripture from which Jesus quoted : the septuagint?

How can you resolve or appeal disagreements on doctrine, say John 20:23 ?
Or are you just told what to believe?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Not necessarily. We often read on these forums claims about which church is doing things the way the Apostolic church did them.

That means people of different denominations must care which churches are the ones that actually can trace their history that far back.

No, it doesn't. Being concerned about doing things the oldest way is not the same as being concerned with being associated with the oldest institution.

 

[tz620q]

Very funny. But I'm not protesting anything.

You are entirely welcome to belong to the Roman Catholic Church so far as I'm concerned.

Likewise for you, and we will make sweet music wherever we are. By the way, do you still sing in the choir? If so, have you started singing in church yet. Ours has been on hold for over a year now. This will be the second Easter without a choir singing.

 

[Anthony2019]

I am still very much a novice when it comes to studying church history, but I enjoy exploring it and I have learned a lot as a result.
I am a confirmed member of the Church of England, the mother church of the Anglican Communion, which in theology and practice is both Catholic and Reformed.
Anglicans have preserved many Catholic traditions and these go back many centuries. The Eucharist, apostolic succession, the sacraments, the liturgy, amongst many others, have always been central to Anglican belief and practice.
The Church of England has been in existence long before Henry VIII, long before the Reformation. In fact its origins can be traced to as early as the 2nd Century.
Yet the Anglican church has always been open to change. Whether politically, socially or theologically motivated, Anglicans have always been open to new ways of thinking and they have been heavily influenced by reformed theology. It values its roots but equally recognises its need to change to remain living, active and relevant and able to reach out to a new generation of people.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am still very much a novice when it comes to studying church history, but I enjoy exploring it and I have learned a lot as a result.
I am a confirmed member of the Church of England, the mother church of the Anglican Communion, which in theology and practice is both Catholic and Reformed.
Anglicans have preserved many Catholic traditions and these go back many centuries. The Eucharist, apostolic succession, the sacraments, the liturgy, amongst many others, have always been central to Anglican belief and practice.
The Church of England has been in existence long before Henry VIII, long before the Reformation. In fact its origins can be traced to as early as the 2nd Century.
Yet the Anglican church has always been open to change. Whether politically, socially or theologically motivated, Anglicans have always been open to new ways of thinking and they have been heavily influenced by reformed theology. It values its roots but equally recognises its need to change to remain living, active and relevant and able to reach out to a new generation of people.

Your post begs a question: does truth change?
So should “reformed” theology affect it?

As I said to Albion: you need to answer for yourself. Assuming Cranmer was not infallible, the 39 articles are simply his opinion on a variety of theological questions, including even “ what is scripture”. But By what authority does he get to decide that? How do we Know his opinions are true? . When he says “ repugnant to scripture” he means his opinion of scriptural meaning. Is that a sure foundation for a church or a house of straw?

To whom did Jesus give the power to decide questions of law and doctrine “ bound in heaven”?

Take a simple example John 20:23 underpins the Catholic sacrament of penance , the delegated authority to forgive or not. Cranmers personal opinion was that it isn’t, despite the literal meaning, But how does he get to decide? Why should others accept the articles?

It’s a fascinating journey whatever you then decide...

The Anglican Church is a wonderful place, I have every respect for it, it was my church for 3 decades, but like Newman I couldn’t accept the contradictions inherent in it.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

I've heard the story of many protestants became Roman Catholic after they're exposed to church history and the church fathers. But I guess as an anglican, I don't see the appeal there, maybe anglican too is rich in history, the continuity is there unlike many modern protestant churches.. so I as a protestant I don't feel I need a leap..

The only problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is that their Popes have added tradition like the extra ideas about Mary and purgatory that aren't in the Bible. Adding an authoritative tradition alongside of the Bible is unacceptable to me.

 

[hedrick]

I asked a fair question. By what authority do you put cranmers or your opinions ahead of those appointed to “ bind and loose”? What authority have the articles? By what authority do you disregard a book of the scripture from which Jesus quoted : the septuagint?

How can you resolve or appeal disagreements on doctrine, say John 20:23 ?
Or are you just told what to believe?

The authority to bind and loose was given to the Church. Cranmer didn’t have personal authority, but the English church accepted his leadership, and in making decisions based on it used that power. Today the Church is divided. However that doesn’t remove its authority. Each part will be held responsible for how it uses the authority.

As far as I know, Albion has no personal authority, but I believe his intention is to represent the decisions made under Christ’s authority by the church to which he belongs.

 

[Mountainmike]

The only problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is that their Popes have added tradition like the extra ideas about Mary and purgatory that aren't in the Bible. Adding an authoritative tradition alongside of the Bible is unacceptable to me.

I suspect you mean “ your opinion of the meaning of the bible” and even “ what is the bible? “

Mary is queen of heaven. The bible says so if you know where to look. So the question is what the bible means, not what it says!!

 

[Mountainmike]

The authority to bind and loose was given to the Church. Cranmer didn’t have personal authority, but the English church accepted his leadership, and in making decisions based on it used that power. Today the Church is divided. However that doesn’t remove its authority. Each part will be held responsible for how it uses the authority.

As far as I know, Albion has no personal authority, but I believe his intention is to represent the decisions made under Christ’s authority by the church to which he belongs.

Not actually.
It was given to the apostles jointly - power wielded by councils ( which is why the church is the foundation of truth - which church clearly matters) and Peter alone. And successors. Both noted in scripture, but there’s the problem.

We disagree on the meaning of scripture: which case we need to go back to authority.....which somewhat rules out cranmer out! He wasn’t given the power! We also need to decide what scripture is, not sure cranmers views on that count either!

 

[Chi.C]

Mary is queen of heaven. The bible says so if you know where to look. So the question is what the bible means, not what it says!!

I'll bite. Where is it in the Scriptures?

 

[Tigger45]

Church history has had a huge impact on my theology over the years and ultimately I ended up in the Lutheran/Anglican genre. I choose membership within those faith traditions based on the sermons preached from the pulpit and spirit of the congregation.

 

[Paidiske]

If we're going to care about historical accuracy, we should note that the 39 Articles do not go back to Cranmer, but were part of the Elizabethan settlement in 1563, and established by a Convocation of the English church. I would add that they were as important politically as theologically, and were part of finding a way forward for the realm to live (and worship) together in peace after terrible violence.

I would not consider them either to be perfect, or to be equally relevant to every context (geographic or temporal) but they did set a reference point which allowed English Christians to find a way forward, and in that sense they accomplished much good.

Studying Church history has not caused me to want to become Roman Catholic. It's not just a matter of what happened then, it's also a matter of what's happened since and what's happening now.

And also what's not happening. I've come to a point in my life, for example, where I'm not even going to consider a church that doesn't ordain women. That level of institutionalised sexism is going to get a hard no.

To be deep into history, in my case, has made me less of an individualistic Christian and a better adjusted Protestant.

Well said. Yes, I can relate very much to that.

 

[1watchman]

I've heard the story of many protestants became Roman Catholic after they're exposed to church history and the church fathers. But I guess as an anglican, I don't see the appeal there, maybe anglican too is rich in history, the continuity is there unlike many modern protestant churches.. so I as a protestant I don't feel I need a leap..

Well, I don't think church truth is about choices so much, but 'Bible-only'. Just be sure you are in accord with that, rather than rationales of men. Sectarianism means setting up a religious sect to please the interests of a group formed. I saw a good subject on sectarianism at the Biblecounsel web site on the Internet, which speaks well to me of the need to hold as much as possible to what holy Scripture teaches for "unity of the faith" as given by God (noting too: 1 Cor. 12:25) ---forgetting the ideas of men; but then this all is: 'to each his own', as the saying goes.

 

[parousia70]

I've heard the story of many protestants became Roman Catholic after they're exposed to church history and the church fathers.

For me, it was the study of scripture, not history, that lead me to convert.

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Presented with these two polar opposite Church structures, I felt compelled to align myself with the Church of Scripture.