Know church history well but stay protestant

[Basil the Great]

Oriental Orthodox is the 4th branch. It is very close to Eastern Orthodox, but still separate.

 

[Mountainmike]

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

From the annunciation Jesus was declared a davidic King.
He reinforces that link eg riding a donkey as Solomon has done.
The mother (not spouse) of davidic kings was called queen in OT.
So Mary is a davidic queen, which as we see from OT is an honorary title. Jesus’ kingdom is heaven so “ queen of heaven”

Further we see in Solomon’s time “ the queen was given a throne, he bowed to her, and said I will do whatever you ask of me” so intercession. We see at Cana, but also Jesus says “ what have you to do with me now, my time has not yet come” ( ie later). But he obliges his mother’s request ianyway. Jesus’s time has now come.

So the question is not whether it is supported in scripture, it is whose interpretation do we take? Where is authority?

It was given to councils, the power to bind and loose.

We note that early fathers eg Anasthasius ( him of the Arian heresy, & nicene creed - the generations that decided your New Testament) was Vociferous about the intercession of Saints and Mary in particular.

I prefer to believe their view, not Cranmers opinions 1500 years on, ( the articles) not least because he did what he was told. Henry HAD to break with Rome, because he couldn’t keep adding wives or kids if he didn’t. Henry chopped heads off people he didn’t like, so cranmer supported separation from Rome unlike Thomas More, who was executed because he refused to! ... can’t imagine cranmer wanted to follow his lead to the chopping block....so how convenient he votes separation from Rome. But whatever the truth of coercion, Cranmers views have no legitimate standing greater than any lay opinion. But they are the straw house on which a church was formed.

that’s why I left.

 

[Paidiske]

And yet later Cranmer was martyred (burnt at the stake under Mary) rather than renounce his position.

I think it is probably unfair to him to see his position as simply one of political expediency rather than genuine conviction.

 

[Mountainmike]

And yet later Cranmer was martyred (burnt at the stake under Mary) rather than renounce his position.

I think it is probably unfair to him to see his position as simply one of political expediency rather than genuine conviction.

True paidiske.

I keep saying it. I have every respect for Anglicans.

I just find Catholic theology more consistent. Less apparent contradictions. I don’t doubt you are all better Christians than me!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Faith does not come by hearing church history but faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

 

[Albion]

I asked a fair question.

Sorry. You asked several and they appeared to me to be rhetorical questions. Of course, the reason I accept the Articles is because I believe them to be correct, regardless of who wrote them.

They are quite moderate, theologically speaking, criticizing the eccentricities of the Medieval Roman Church rather than beliefs that have spanned the centuries. Two sacraments of the Gospel, for instance. The Apocrypha to be read for various reasons but not to establish any doctrine. Against Purgatory, indulgences, and so on.

By what authority do you put cranmers or your opinions ahead of those appointed to “ bind and loose”?

I don't

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

Is that supposed to be a joke? Coming from a Roman Catholic, that is!

Cheers.

 

[Albion]

Likewise for you, and we will make sweet music wherever we are.

Okay!

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.

You may be thinking of someone else. I haven't been a choir member in any church for, oh, thirty or so years.

Anyway, I am heartsick, just as you are, at the effects of the pandemic and the decrees of government upon the life of the church.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It isn't a matter of "rich in history". Its a matter of the founder of a church clearly demonstrating that He was God, by constantly doing things only God could do. If a particular founder is unable to do so, then He is not God, and whatever he founded is therefore a mere tradition of men, in line with the thousands of other traditions of men that exist.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It isn't a matter of "rich in history". Its a matter of the founder of a church clearly demonstrating that He was God, by constantly doing things only God could do. If a particular founder is unable to do so, then He is not God, and whatever he founded is therefore a mere tradition of men, in line with the thousands of other traditions of men that exist. What does "stay Protestant" mean? Protestantism isn't one thing, but a huge collections of manmade churches, each of which conflicts in its teaching with the thousands of others. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so untruth is obviously rampant in this manmade tradition that exists in open violation of the stated will of God concerning His followers, which was and still is "that they all may be one, even as I and My heavenly Father are one".

 

[Chi.C]

From the annunciation Jesus was declared a davidic King.
He reinforces that link eg riding a donkey as Solomon has done.
The mother (not spouse) of davidic kings was called queen in OT.
So Mary is a davidic queen, which as we see from OT is an honorary title. Jesus’ kingdom is heaven so “ queen of heaven”

Further we see in Solomon’s time “ the queen was given a throne, he bowed to her, and said I will do whatever you ask of me” so intercession. We see at Cana, but also Jesus says “ what have you to do with me now, my time has not yet come” ( ie later). But he obliges his mother’s request ianyway. Jesus’s time has now come.

So the question is not whether it is supported in scripture, it is whose interpretation do we take? Where is authority?

Seems complicated. Formalities and legalities more associated with a state than a church. Informative discussion, though. Thanks.

 

[chad kincham]

It’s somewhat fascinating that those almost 2000 years closer to the history than you are think the chair of Peter mattered.

The Greek Orthodox Church was there, and they say Linus was the first pope, and Peter never was.

I’ve also proved from scriptures alone, that Peter was never in the Roman Catholic Church.

One example of many: Peter was the apostle sent to the Jews, so wasn’t part of the gentile Church of Rome - which is why Paul, the apostle sent to the gentiles, wrote the NT book of Romans, instead of Peter.

 

[chad kincham]

I think you must be reading somebodies interpretation of history, not the reality of it.

And you’re reading someone’s revisionist history.
The RCC has never recovered from the horrible corruption that led the Roman Catholic priest Martin Luther to protest the corrupt doctrines.
They were so corrupt that high church offices were bought and sold, and they were so far from biblical doctrine that they ordered anyone caught with a non Latin Bible be put to death.

 

[Mountainmike]

The Greek Orthodox Church was there, and they say Linus was the first pope, and Peter never was.

I’ve also proved from scriptures alone, that Peter was never in the Roman Catholic Church.

One example of many: Peter was the apostle sent to the Jews, so wasn’t part of the gentile Church of Rome - which is why Paul, the apostle sent to the gentiles, wrote the NT book of Romans, instead of Peter.

That could be because the “ Roman Catholic “ Church, is not a description it uses of itself, someone else called it that at the time of schism. Till then it was “ the Catholic Church”

The scriptures Instituting Peter as head of the church, chief pastor, bearer of keys with power to bind and loose are some of the clearest in the bible. Paul was never appointed any of those things. The exegetical hoops used by evangelicals to try to avoid that obvious conclusion defy lexical belief. The question then is not whether Peter had primacy , he clearly did: and all accepted that, but the nature and extent of powers.

Your “ proof” proves one thing only, that sola scriptura in absence of history or tradition leads to as many doctrines as people. It even frustrated Luther. “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine” he lamented, the consequence of the very Pandora’s box he opened!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I know this was light hearted and I hate to drop weight on a light comment; but the Bosphurus was well chosen by Constantine for it's military defensibility. Rome on the other hand is very hard to defend. Since Constantine moved his capital, Rome has been sacked 21 times. Constantinople would last another 1000 years without falling, though it was sacked during the Fourth Crusade by crusaders.

I am sorry to continue this digression, but there are other factors involved. Rome's position was quite strong too, at least the original position based on the Capitoline and the other 6 hills. Rome was a natural city, one that grew up as an obvious local centre and crossing of the Tiber. It is well watered, anchored on the broad Tiber and surrounded by its 7 strongpoints. After the Gauls took Rome in the 4th century BC, it was not sacked again till the Gothic sack of 410 AD. Even a great general like Hannibal judged it too strong to attempt to take.

Any position is only as strong as the will to hold it. While Rome was the great city and political centre, it held. Even in the great Civil Wars of the Roman period, people seldom forced Rome, as the fights occured outside it - noted exception to prove the rule in Sulla. Further, look at how effectively Belisarius could hold Rome with a skeleton army in the Gothic wars. The problem was that Rome started sprawling beyond the hills and over the river, and when the political centre had moved to Mediolanum and Ravenna in the late Empire, its practical importance was less than its symbolic one. Rome was sacked so much because it was always heavy in symbolic importance as the mother of Italy and seat of the pontiff, but weak on practical soldiers or strategic hinterland to hold it.

Constantinople is well sited, true. Its issues though is that its defence is mostly anchored on the Bosporus and Golden Horn, making it susceptible to naval assault. It didn't fall because for most of its history, it was the centre of a great Empire - first the East Roman (Byzantine) then the Ottoman. It bought itself free of the Huns, Avars and Pechenegs, but almost fell to the Arabs if not for Greek fire. The fourth Crusade could force it once they penetrated the Golden Horn, and similarly it fell in 1453 after the Genoese were forced from Galata across it. The only reason it lasted so long in the last century prior, was the brilliance of its defenders and effects outside their control, such as Tamberlaine. If Constantinople was as symbolically important and as lightly defended as Rome was, it would also have been sacked multiple times.

Rome of the Servian walls is very defensible, though the Aurelian walls are less so - though not bad. If they had been kept up and manned, as Constantinople's Theodosian walls were, it would be an entirely different story. Constantinople needed sea walls as well, and to keep Galata and the chain over the Horn, to be held though. Facing mostly non-naval enemies, the extraordinarily thick land walls were generally sufficient until a political compromise could be reached, or an army gathered. But Rome isn't that poorly defensible, and Constantine moved his capitol to the east for other reasons: The Western capitol had been moved to other positions since the Tetrachy (Mediolanum and Lugdunum) and Constantine's centre of power was in the West, so he needed to keep an eye on the recently conquered, but richer, Eastern dominions. Moving it again made sense, and Byzantium with its fine harbour and sitting near the Danube (historically the Danubian legions were most wont to declare new Emperors) and able to respond to Persia, with a secure grain supply from Egypt.

 

[chad kincham]

That could be because the “ Roman Catholic “ Church, is not a description it uses of itself, someone else called it that at the time of schism. Till then it was “ the Catholic Church”

The scriptures Instituting Peter as head of the church, chief pastor, bearer of keys with power to bind and loose are some of the clearest in the bible. Paul was never appointed any of those things. The exegetical hoops used by evangelicals to try to avoid that obvious conclusion defy lexical belief. The question then is not whether Peter had primacy , he clearly did: and all accepted that, but the nature and extent of powers.

Your “ proof” proves one thing only, that sola scriptura in absence of history or tradition leads to as many doctrines as people. It even frustrated Luther. “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine” he lamented, the consequence of the very Pandora’s box he opened!

I expose the bogus interpretation by the corrupt Roman sects revisionist history as part of its power grab, here:

Let’s expose the constant litany of revisionist history perpetrated by the RCC.


The revised history of the RCC, is that Jesus gave Peter the preeminence over all the apostles, that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and built the church on him, that Peter was the first pope, and that every subsequent pope holds the seat of Peter, via apostolic succession.


This is false, from A to Z - and all that’s needed to disprove the above claims, is the Bible.


Jesus told the apostles that none of them would be above the others - Peter was not given preeminence:


Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him,and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Peter didn’t think he was anything but a fellow elder:


1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


Jesus did not tell Peter that the church would be built on him:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Jesus spoke of two different rocks: Peter is Petros in the Greek - small rock - and the rock the church is built on is Petra - bedrock.


In the Greek Jesus said: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.


The language God chose for the New Testament to be written in, explicitly states there are two different rocks there.


The church isn’t built on any individual apostle or prophet:


Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Built on the foundation of apostles, PLURAL, and prophets, PLURAL - not on Peter alone.


In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter keys (authority) and the power to bind and loose - but 2 chapters later, when He met the other apostles, Jesus gives the same power of binding and loosing to them, too, in Matthew 18:18 - so Peter has no special authority beyond what the 12 shared.


Peter was not a Bishop, or Pope in the Roman church - ever.


Linus was the first bishop/pope of the Roman church, according to the Orthodox Church.


Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is found in the NT in the Jerusalem church, the Jewish Christian church - not in the gentile Roman church.


Scripture says Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews (to the circumcision), so Peter would not be the head of a gentile Roman sect - and wasn’t.


Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospelof the circumcision wasunto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.


That’s why Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, wrote to the Roman church, and was instructing it in his epistle, instead of Peter.


Paul calls those in the Roman church, gentiles - in case someone wants to claim that the Roman church isn’t a gentile church.


Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among OTHER Gentiles.



And when Paul visited Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Peter was not in Rome being a pope.

 

[Anthony2019]

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.

Does truth change? I don't think so, but our experience does.
To illustrate...
As a nurse, I have a copy of a First Aid manual and the Medicines Formulary on my bookshelf at home. I have to keep purchasing new versions of these books to keep my skills up to date. From time to time, the content of these books is revised to keep abreast with current knowledge, best practice and modern ways of working.
The principles of first aid and medicine are always essentially the same. The human body does not change. Neither do the laws of nature.

Fundamentally God does not change, neither do his laws. The scriptures will never change and neither will the message of the gospel.

But the church comprises of human beings who have always been subject to change. Throughout history God's people have learned through trial and error. None of us are infallible and always have something new to learn.

 

[Francis Drake]

I know this was light hearted and I hate to drop weight on a light comment; but the Bosphurus was well chosen by Constantine for it's military defensibility. Rome on the other hand is very hard to defend. Since Constantine moved his capital, Rome has been sacked 21 times. Constantinople would last another 1000 years without falling, though it was sacked during the Fourth Crusade by crusaders.

Ah my friend, but if Drake can sail into the Spanish harbour of Cadiz, and set fire to the Armada fleet before it even sails, I am sure he would rise to the challenge of sailing through the Bosphorus without fear!

Just take a look at Drake's prayer below, and you will see his attitude to life on the ocean wave!

 

[Mountainmike]

Sad.
Now study history instead.
And the Greek words you seemingly misunderstand.
peter refers to himself as episkopoi in 1 peter 5:1

I expose the bogus interpretation by the corrupt Roman sects revisionist history as part of its power grab, here:

Let’s expose the constant litany of revisionist history perpetrated by the RCC.


The revised history of the RCC, is that Jesus gave Peter the preeminence over all the apostles, that Jesus made Peter the head of the church and built the church on him, that Peter was the first pope, and that every subsequent pope holds the seat of Peter, via apostolic succession.


This is false, from A to Z - and all that’s needed to disprove the above claims, is the Bible.


Jesus told the apostles that none of them would be above the others - Peter was not given preeminence:


Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him,and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Peter didn’t think he was anything but a fellow elder:


1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


Jesus did not tell Peter that the church would be built on him:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Jesus spoke of two different rocks: Peter is Petros in the Greek - small rock - and the rock the church is built on is Petra - bedrock.


In the Greek Jesus said: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.


The language God chose for the New Testament to be written in, explicitly states there are two different rocks there.


The church isn’t built on any individual apostle or prophet:


Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Built on the foundation of apostles, PLURAL, and prophets, PLURAL - not on Peter alone.


In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter keys (authority) and the power to bind and loose - but 2 chapters later, when He met the other apostles, Jesus gives the same power of binding and loosing to them, too, in Matthew 18:18 - so Peter has no special authority beyond what the 12 shared.


Peter was not a Bishop, or Pope in the Roman church - ever.


Linus was the first bishop/pope of the Roman church, according to the Orthodox Church.


Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is found in the NT in the Jerusalem church, the Jewish Christian church - not in the gentile Roman church.


Scripture says Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews (to the circumcision), so Peter would not be the head of a gentile Roman sect - and wasn’t.


Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospelof the circumcision wasunto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.


That’s why Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, wrote to the Roman church, and was instructing it in his epistle, instead of Peter.


Paul calls those in the Roman church, gentiles - in case someone wants to claim that the Roman church isn’t a gentile church.


Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among OTHER Gentiles.



And when Paul visited Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Peter was not in Rome being a pope.

 

[Mountainmike]

Does truth change? I don't think so, but our experience does.
To illustrate...
As a nurse, I have a copy of a First Aid manual and the Medicines Formulary on my bookshelf at home. I have to keep purchasing new versions of these books to keep my skills up to date. From time to time, the content of these books is revised to keep abreast with current knowledge, best practice and modern ways of working.
The principles of first aid and medicine are always essentially the same. The human body does not change. Neither do the laws of nature.

Fundamentally God does not change, neither do his laws. The scriptures will never change and neither will the message of the gospel.

But the church comprises of human beings who have always been subject to change. Throughout history God's people have learned through trial and error. None of us are infallible and always have something new to learn.

Truth does not change, so choosing a church because it aligns beliefs to yours is a false choice. All see the world through a lens of tradition, like blue sunglasses make the world seem blue. So Anglicans align to the 39 articles - the gospel according to cranmer - certainly not canonical - and see scripture through that lens.

I gave a clear example in John 20:23 . The literal sense is the power to forgive or retain sins, which must be delegated so a channel to God for forgiveness , ie sacramental.

the truth of that cannot evolve. It is true or false.

But Anglicans ignore it because of the articles.
I’ve yet to hear a cogent alternative meaning.
I am greeted with silence when I raise that example.

So the greater question is : if I disagree with cranmers arbitrary removal of the sacrament of reconciliation, where is authority to challenge that in the Anglican Church? It even admits that it’s councils are fallible, so a council verdict could not change it. In short there is no authority, so the articles stand as a quasi infallible book. A pair of sunglasses through which Anglicans look. The Anglican “ tradition” clearly man made by cranmer!

There are many statements in articles which are directly refutable in scripture! Like relics are there with unarguable potency in the bible, denied by Cranmer.

Catholics are different in stating up front they carry meaning through tradition, the faith handed down, with authority to bind or loose passed by Jesus to resolve disputes. Others all have tradition,they just don’t admit it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Seems complicated. Formalities and legalities more associated with a state than a church. Informative discussion, though. Thanks.

Jesus everywhere looked to show fulfillment of OT in the NT.

That’s why he links himself to davidic kings at the annunciation, and riding a donkey as Solomon had done.

So you cannot write off the OT as an irrelevance. It matters.

Mary is also the ark of the new covenant. Which matters if you look at the NT, revelations had no chapters when written, so the woman “ clothed with the sun” rev12. directly follows reference to “ behold the ark of the covenant.” Rev 11