Know church history well but stay protestant

[disciple Clint]

Interesting view, I think it's correct for common people. Common ppl stick to their present preferences more than history because who care about dead people but their own friends? Or even the distance of a church to their house right? But those who choose that way ruined orthodoxy.

I would say that uneducated ministers ruined orthodoxy and some still do today.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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..

As a confessional Lutheran, we still have the history, culture, music, and the historic liturgies of the Church catholic; often celebrated in a more traditional manner than is usually seen in most Catholic parishes today.

 

[disciple Clint]

That describes the problem, not the solution.

There is one truth, you don’t get to choose what it is.

Abortion is right or wrong.

On every issue from baptismal method, necessity , regeneration , priesthood, massively different views on salvation, remarriage. Sacraments , Eucharist , lgbt issues, role of suffering , purgation etc etc etc , even modalism rather than trinity! (Some Pentecostals) There is almost every permutation out there.

Choosing all but one permutation is in essence choosing falsehood. Personal taste doesn’t ( or shouldn’t )come in to it.

It also illustrates the essence of the problem. Authority.
when a dispute takes place over doctrine, only the RC church claims a method to resolve it.

Calvin, Luther and zwingli had very different views on many subjects, their essential problem was sola scriptura , that there was then no way to resolve disputes other than endless schism, and in outlawing authority they also outlawed the New Testament, a product of the authority they outlawed. I also thought Luther somewhat dishonest, in disavowing the so called apocryphal books which he knew were in the septuagint: just because he disliked the theology. History shows RC didn’t add them, they were always there. Luther removed them! By what authority?

The myth of perspecuity of scripture. It clearly isn’t even so on fundamentals!

Protestants often seem United only in declaring Catholicism wrong, which rather deflects focus on the massive divisions in Protestantism.

I left Anglicanism for several reasons, one was lack of certainty over Eucharistic doctrine and practice, but equally big , it became apparent that the Anglican synod lacked unity over too many issues. How so if there is only one truth?

The question is “ where is authority” ?

That’s no disrespect to my Anglican friends, I met many holy people I admired along the way.

But the doctrinal disputes were a problem for me.

you can quote my post if you like but I have no intention in getting into an argument over which denomination is right or wrong, if you want to debate what should or should not be in the Bible we can do that.

 

[PeterJames0510]

One of the problems with church history is that somehow people equate being a disciple of a Disciple or a follower of an Apostle as somehow being magical and that this means those people are somehow "right" or "correct"; or even further is the notion that *no matter* what the Apostles said - they were always right. This sets up this CLERGY / LAITY mentality in which the CLERGY are *up here* on stage/altar with their fancy robes and hats and the people are *down there* in the pews/padded seats where they belong.

But the fact is, merely being a "disciple" of a Disciple does not mean you get a pass on your theology. We see as early as the book of Revelation (whether you date it to 96AD as a futurist or earlier to 67 AD as a preterist) that heresy crept in. We see from Galatians, heresy crept in ... same with Colossians and some argue 1 John - that gnostic heresies or other heresies subtly came into the church. We don't even have all the writings of the apostles, like the letter to Laodicea - whatever that was.

The point is, one's proximity to the Apostolic Age, in my opinion, does not immediately make one's theology perfect. One must read the Bible for themselves and go to the denomination they feel closely represents the teachings of the New Testament. History stands as a guide against where truly terrible doctrines fell. There too, however - remember that history is written by winners. Before immediately discounting someone as heresy, make sure to check out what they *actually* said versus what was written about them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If one wants to claim continuity with the ancient Church, then I think there are only a few Protestant options. Anglicanism and Lutheranism are the best candidates even if I think their connection to the historical Church is tenuous. Anglicanism's especially so.

There's is still a better claim than Baptists or other parts of the Protestant world which eschewed most if not all tradition in the desire to follow their reading of the scripture. For instance, there isn't really an emphasis in Pentecostal Churches that they are part of a historic movement and people. They live in the moment, purely off the spirit and their reading of the bible.

 

[Mountainmike]

you can quote my post if you like but I have no intention in getting into an argument over which denomination is right or wrong, if you want to debate what should or should not be in the Bible we can do that.

My question is at right angles to that.

The problem is Not what is in the bible, but what it means, the lack of perspecuity, and the lack of mechanism in post reformation churches to give a definitive judgement: net result endless schism on every major disagreement.

 

[Mountainmike]

As a confessional Lutheran, we still have the history, culture, music, and the historic liturgies of the Church catholic; often celebrated in a more traditional manner than is usually seen in most Catholic parishes today.

Mark - one thing I was surprised about was an ( I think Missouri synod ) Lutheran on journey home discussing the Eucharist , appearing both to acknowledge transsubstabtiation & Eucharistic adoration. I hadn’t realised there was flexibility to do that, or whether he was “off piste.”, or in an off piste parish.

 

[disciple Clint]

My question is at right angles to that.

The problem is Not what is in the bible, but what it means, the lack of perspecuity, and the lack of mechanism in post reformation churches to give a definitive judgement: net result endless schism on every major disagreement.

Is that just an overstatement and a broad brush treatment of the subject?
Do you have specifics or are you just trying to make the point that since the Catholic Church has the magisterium, it has the only correct interpenetration of the Bible. Correct interpenetration of the Bible is not the exclusive province of the Catholic Church and some of the things that are claimed as tradition, which the Church accepts as equal to Scripture, are not substantiated by historical facts.

 

[Albion]

Mark - one thing I was surprised about was an ( I think Missouri synod ) Lutheran on journey home discussing the Eucharist , appearing both to acknowledge transsubstabtiation & Eucharistic adoration. I hadn’t realised there was flexibility to do that, or whether he was “off piste.”, or in an off piste parish.

Lutheranism doesn't accept Transubstantiation, a Medieval twist on the doctrine of Real Presence.

 

[disciple Clint]

Lutheranism doesn't accept Transubstantiation, a Medieval twist on the doctrine of Real Presence.

Lutherns=consubstantiation Catholics=transubstantiation

 

[Mountainmike]

Lutheranism doesn't accept Transubstantiation, a Medieval twist on the doctrine of Real Presence.

Spare me the dogma.

Here is a real life Missouri Synod? Lutheran Rick fee speaking of transubstntiation. Not so clear cut as you thought.

Anasthasius ( of the Arian heresy)said exactly what catholics believe in the year 373 so not mediaeval then.

“So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….”

ambrose of Milan 378
“Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood of Christ”

Cyril of Jerusalem 348
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.”

and so on.

what was bread is now flesh. Metaousiosis.

 

[Albion]

Spare me the dogma.

Then you shouldn't have mentioned that dogma if this is how you feel.

Or at least if you chose to do so, had gotten it right. Real Presence and Transubstantiation are different dogmas.

 

[Mountainmike]

Lutheranism doesn't accept Transubstantiation, a Medieval twist on the doctrine of Real Presence.

On a wider point , you do realise do you Albion, that those who argue as you do are what pushed me out of Anglicanism.

I ask reasonable questions. And did back then.

Either you believe the gospel according to cranmer is inerrant, so believe what the articles tell you to do. ( you say not)

or.

You personally examined each question and arrived at anglican views.
In which case you have a cogent argument why john20:23 is not referring to a delegated power to forgive sins, ie sacrament of confession
.( in which case you should be able to defend cranmer)

But on that you like all others I asked had no answer.
Now is the time to defend your faith!

In all the time I asked such questions , I never got a straight answer, just the usual insults against Catholicism, the misrepresentations
( like you just did with transubstabtiation)

I concluded Anglicans had no answers, and when they did answer it was rarely one voice.

It pushed me to those giving me answers : catholics!
When someone says “ is the body” not “ contains the body” not “ core sides with the body” , I believe them: all the early fathers. Metaousioisis.

Anglicans don’t even have a consistent view on it. From corporeal to pneumatic, even symbolic I heard expressed.

 

[Mountainmike]

It’s nothing to do with how I feel. It’s a real life missouri synod Lutheran disagreeing with you, about what you say he believes!
I would rather hear his dogma from him!

Then you shouldn't have mentioned that dogma if this is how you feel.

Or at least if you chose to do so, had gotten it right. Real Presence and Transubstantiation are different dogmas.

 

[Albion]

On a wider point , you do realise do you Albion, that those who argue as you do are what pushed me out of Anglicanism.

No, I don't know that, nor am I awfully concerned that you apparently didn't understand Anglicanism while you were a member. Roman Catholicism has a different feel and structure, and some people need that.

 

[Albion]

It’s nothing to do with how I feel. It’s a real life missouri synod Lutheran disagreeing with you, about what you say he believes!

But he didn't disagree with what I explained to you.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, I don't know that, nor am I awfully concerned that you apparently didn't understand Anglicanism while you were a member. Roman Catholicism has a different feel and structure, and some people need that.

I understood it well enough to ask questions that were always deflected or dodged as you do.

last chance.
Either john20:23 delegates power to forgive sins ( ie sacrament of reconciliation)

or you have another explanation. What is it?
Cranmer doesn’t explain, he just decided on a whim to Remove it.

 

[Albion]

Start a thread on Anglicanism specifically, and we'll do our best to iron out what's been confusing you.

 

[Mountainmike]

But he didn't disagree with what I explained to you.

At 4:28 in the video he uses the word “ transubstantiation” that he was taught in LCMS Sunday school. I prefer to hear from him about the doctrine he was taught.
You didnt even look at it, did you?

it’s patently obvious you don’t have an answer to John 20:23. Neither did any other Anglican I met. It seems they preferred to accept as authority the non canonical gospel according to cranmer than check what the articles say. They are denonstrably wrong in places. I’m not confused at all.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

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!

In what way it's more consistent? consistent relative to what? tradition?