Protestant Doctrine

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

And this is what the BIBLE itself says the four marks of the true Church are.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

No, that is how Rome has read things into the Bible to appear to be in Rome's favor.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Is that why there is so much disunity between the church of Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Coptics, etc, who all claim to be "catholic"?

Is that why the SSPX has essentially split from Rome, considering it sede vacante?

Uh... Russian Orthodox are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Armenian Catholics and Copts are part of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

They aren't separate groups.

And for what it's worth, the SSPX does not consider Rome to be sede vacante. The claim adherence to Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps you're thinking of the sedevacantists?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[Tonks]

And for what it's worth, the SSPX does not consider Rome to be sede vacante. The claim adherence to Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps you're thinking of the sedevacantists?

Grace and peace,
John

True. However, they might as well be sedevacantists. They do require the SSPX "converts" to undergo rebaptism etc.

AWC-

The SSPX were birthed during the theological and disiplinary (including praxis et al) reforms that occured during VII. They formed in 1970.

 

[a_ntv]

Yes it is a perfect portrait of the universal Church of Christ, but not of the Roman Catholic Church.

not of the Roman Catholic Church, as well
not of the Calvinist Church, as well
not of the Lutheran Church, as well
not of the Anglican Church, as well
not of the Baptist Church, and so on

No Church is perfect here on the earth

 

[a_ntv]

Is that why there is so much disunity between the church of Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Coptics, etc, who all claim to be "catholic"?

Is that why the SSPX has essentially split from Rome, considering it sede vacante?

The disunitu between apostolic churches is not huge

There are differences, but really minor in comparison with Calvinist and Baptist Churches....think to Eucharistic, Penance, bishop role, Mary...

 

[ThePilgrim]

True. However, they might as well be sedevacantists. They do require the SSPX "converts" to undergo rebaptism etc.

AWC-

The SSPX were birthed during the theological and disiplinary (including praxis et al) reforms that occured during VII. They formed in 1970.

That would go against most of what I've heard about them. Do you have any citation about this?

 

[ETide]

And this is what the BIBLE itself says the four marks of the true Church are.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

IMO, the scriptures are clear as to what the church of God actually is.. although I'd be interested in what this person considers HOLY.. ie, what is your definition or understanding of holiness and how does the church fit that ?

 

[Asinner]

No Church is perfect here on the earth

Christ's Church is perfect. I am not.

God Bless

 

[Tonks]

That would go against most of what I've heard about them. Do you have any citation about this?

The last few sentences being key.

Why does the Society of Saint Pius X administer conditionally the sacraments of baptism and confirmation to those who received them in the Novus Ordo?
It is forbidden for a priest to administer a sacrament conditionally unless there is some doubt about the validity of the sacrament already received. A mere suspicion does not suffice, but any real doubt does (i.e., when there is a positive reason to think that the sacrament might have been invalidly administered), since the sacraments are so necessary for the salvation and sanctification of our souls.
In general there is no doubt as to the validity of the sacrament of baptism administered in the post-Conciliar Church, since the matter and the form are very simple and have been retained, despite the whole new theology replacing the washing of original sin (and actual sin in adults) from the soul with the nebulous social concept of belonging to a community. In general, there is no reason to doubt that the priest has the intention of doing what the Church does, even though he may have a false notion of what this is. However, it will happen from time to time, that the sacrament is administered in such a sacrilegious way as to place in doubt even the matter or form or even the intention of doing what the Church does. In such rare cases, in which even the rules of the Novus Ordo are not followed, it may be necessary to administer the sacrament of baptism conditionally in order to guarantee validity.
The bishops of the Society administer the sacrament of Confirmation conditionally when the faithful request it, that is, when they have a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the sacrament that they received, and this doubt cannot be resolved, as is usually the case. This is the case if oil other than the sacred chrism is used, or an oil other than olive oil (highly doubtful, since at variance with the divine institution of using olive oil) as is now permitted in the new rites, or if the signing with the sacred chrism and the imposition of the hand were not done at the same time, or if there is a doubt about the words used. Since there is a great variety in the words used, and since the traditional words "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" are never used, there is very frequently a doubt about the validity of the administration of this sacrament. This is the reason why the Society’s bishops do not hesitate to administer it conditionally when asked to do so. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

 

[Lynn73]

Rituals don't save souls, faith in Christ saves souls. A person can have all the rituals and rites and sacraments in the word bestowed upon him but if there isn't a real faith in Christ, it's for nothing.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

For some reason, I suppose the word "sacrament" has been tied to the RCC in the minds of many. That's why it's good for us Protestants to know our own doctrine.

I wish I could say that it's just the word, but it represents a real difference in how the sacraments are viewed. For them, the "ordinances" really aren't sacraments. The "ordinances" are our work by which we show our faith, not God's work by which He confirms it. In my experience, evangelicals do not believe that grace is offered in the sacraments (yet they seem to have no problem saying that grace is conferred by altar calls and "quiet time").

 

[lmnop9876]

well, i would say that most "evangelicals" don't know what traditional reformation protestantism really teaches, and that many catholics and orthodox confuse modern "evangelicalism" with traditional protestantism.
traditional protestantism includes the Lutheran, Presbyterian, & Reformed Anglican Churches. these are mostly derived from Reformed national churches, not from small break-off sects formed well after the original Reformation. we do not reject tradition outright as many evangelicals seem to do, but accept it insofar as it is in accord with holy Scripture...
(this is from the Longer Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it is pretty much in line with the teaching of traditional Protestant Churches.)

17. What is meant by the name holy tradition? By the name holy tradition is meant the doctrine of the faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual as handed down by the true believers and worshipers of God by word and example from one to another, and from generation to generation.

18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition? All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
St. Irenæus writes thus: We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)

19. What is that which you call holy Scripture?
Certain books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed the Bible.

20. What does the word Bible mean?
It is Greek, and means the books. The name signifies that the sacred books deserve attention before all others.

21. Which is the more ancient, holy tradition or holy Scripture?
The most ancient and original instrument for spreading divine revelation is holy tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself delivered his divine doctrine and ordinances to his Disciples by word and example, but not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles also at first, when they spread abroad the faith and established the Church of Christ. The necessity of tradition is further evident from this, that books can be available only to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all.

22. Why, then, was holy Scripture given?
To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them and listening to them, although the latest of the sacred books were written a thousand and some hundred years before our time.

23. Must we follow holy tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture?
We must follow that tradition which agrees with the divine revelation and with holy Scripture, as is taught us by holy Scripture itself. The Apostle Paul writes: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15.

24. Why is tradition necessary even now?
As a guide to the right understanding of holy Scripture, for the right ministration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites and ceremonies in the purity of their original institution.
... [here is a long quote from St. Basil]

[FONT=Georgia,&quot]25. When were the sacred books written? [/FONT]
At different times: some before the birth of Christ, others after.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]26. Have not these two divisions of the sacred books each their own names? [/FONT]
They have. Those written before the birth of Christ are called the books of the Old Testament, while those written after are called the books of the New Testament.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]27. What are the Old and New Testaments?[/FONT]
In other words, the old and new Covenants of God with men.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]28. In what consisted the Old Testament?[/FONT]
In this, that God promised men a divine Saviour, and prepared them to receive him.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]29. How did God prepare men to receive the Saviour? [/FONT]
Through gradual revelations, by prophecies and types.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]30. In what consists the New Testament?[/FONT]
In this, that God has actually given men a divine Saviour, his own only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]31. How many are the books of the Old Testament? [/FONT]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]32. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews? [/FONT]
Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii. 2.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament? [/FONT]
As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus [Joshua] the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings [1 & 2 Samuel], as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena [Chronicles]; 11, the first book of Esdras [Ezra], and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]34. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others? [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]35. How are we to regard these last-named books? [/FONT]
Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.
...
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]56. What rules must we observe in reading holy Scripture? [/FONT]
First, we must read it devoutly, as the Word of God, and with prayer to understand it aright; secondly, we must read it with a pure desire of instruction in faith, and incitement to good works; thirdly, we must take and understand it in such sense as agrees with the interpretation of the orthodox Church and the holy Fathers.
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]57. When the Church proposes the doctrine of Divine Revelation and of holy Scripture to people for the first time, what signs does she offer that it is really the Word of God? [/FONT]
Signs of this are the following:
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]1. The sublimity of this doctrine, which witnesses that it can not be any invention of man's reason. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]2. The purity of this doctrine, which shows that it is from the all-pure mind of God. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]3. Prophecies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]4. Miracles. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,&quot]5. The mighty effect of this doctrine upon the hearts of men, beyond all but divine power. [/FONT]

http://tserkovnost.org/catechism_filaret/catechism_filaret-1.html

 

[JJB]

pjw, why would you look to an Orthodox cathechism for reformed theology?

The Belgic Confession is the oldest doctrinal standard within Christian Reformed Church. That is why I chose it in my OP. It was originally written in 1561 by Guido deBras, who was martyred in 1567 so that you and I can live out our faith outside of the RCC.

 

[JJB]

I wish I could say that it's just the word, but it represents a real difference in how the sacraments are viewed. For them, the "ordinances" really aren't sacraments. The "ordinances" are our work by which we show our faith, not God's work by which He confirms it. In my experience, evangelicals do not believe that grace is offered in the sacraments (yet they seem to have no problem saying that grace is conferred by altar calls and "quiet time").

What do you think of the Belgic Confession's definition of the sacraments? Articles 33 and 34?

 

[cygnusx1]

I've been to this church to, it doesn't even have sacraments, they have something called ordinances? Go figure.

my kind of church

 

[Metanoia02]

my kind of church

Whatever floats your boat. There are plenty to chose from.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

What do you think of the Belgic Confession's definition of the sacraments? Articles 33 and 34?

I am in full agreement with it.

 

[Metanoia02]

I am in full agreement with it.

I realize you only believe in only two sacraments because you think that is all Scripture warrants. But in your understanding of sacraments do you believe the God has ordained certain elements of the temporal world to convey grace. Such and those of the Lords Supper and water in Baptism. There is also some spoken formula like that od a trinitarian baptism.

I guess the question is, outside of Scripture do you think God conveys his grace to those who are married with God as their witness. Do they receive special grace to live a out thier marriage commitments? Or would this be an ordinance that conveys no grace.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I realize you only believe in only two sacraments because you think that is all Scripture warrants. But in your understanding of sacraments do you believe the God has ordained certain elements of the temporal world to convey grace. Such and those of the Lords Supper and water in Baptism. There is also some spoken formula like that od a trinitarian baptism.

If I understand your question correctly, then yes, I believe God works through physical elements like ink and paper, preaching, water, bread and wine.

I guess the question is, outside of Scripture do you think God conveys his grace to those who are married with God as their witness. Do they receive special grace to live a out thier marriage commitments? Or would this be an ordinance that conveys no grace.

Here again I am not sure if I understand the question. I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of Scripture." However, I do believe that in this Christian vow and covenant, God may grant grace for the couple to live out their commitments. Yet I do not believe that marriage is a means of grace, that it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and I do not believe that it is an act of God whereby He gives us Christ and His benefits for the nourishment of our faith. And these are what the sacraments are said to do in the Belgic Confession. In other words, it does not do the same thing that the Word and the sacraments do.

Belgic Confession, Art. XXXIII: "We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith; which he hath joined to the Word of the gospel, the better to present to our senses, both that which he signifies to us by his Word, and that which he works inwardly in our hearts, thereby assuring and confirming in us the salvation which he imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the signs are not in vain or insignificant, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment. Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments which Christ our Lord hath instituted, which are two only, namely, the sacrament of baptism, and the holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ."

(By the way, I took that from the 1561 Confession, not the 1619).

 

[Metanoia02]

Here again I am not sure if I understand the question. I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of Scripture."

What I mean is that for something to be sacramental (having the characteristics of a Sacrament), it must be explict from Scripture.

Other then that you have answered my question.