Questioning my Protestant heritage

[truefiction1]

Lots and lots of time is spent in Church, for most Orthodox Christians. This is our local schedule for this upcoming week (Holy Week thru Pascha). Our Easter is one week later than yours is this year.

Palm Sunday, April 21 -9:20 AM – 3rd and 6th Hours

-9:40 AM – Blessing of Palms and Willows

-10:00 AM – Divine Liturgy

+Holy Week+

Holy Monday, April 22 -6:00 PM – Bridegroom Matins

Holy Tuesday, April 23 -6:00 PM – Bridegroom Matins

Holy Wednesday, April 24 -9:00 AM – Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

-6:00 PM – Unction Service

Holy Thursday, April 25 -9:00 AM – Vesperal Divine Liturgy

-6:00 PM – Matins of Holy Friday with the reading of the Twelve Passion Gospels

Holy Friday, April 26 -9:00 AM – Royal Hours

-3:00 PM – Vespers with Procession

-7:00 PM – Matins of Holy Saturday with Procession

Holy Saturday, April 27 -1:30 PM – Vesperal Divine Liturgy

-11:30 PM – Nocturns with Paschal Procession

Holy Pascha -12:00 AM – Paschal Matins and Divine Liturgy followed by the

Blessing of Paschal Foods in the Church Hall

-11:00 AM – Paschal Vespers with Procession

Bright Monday, April 29 -9:00 AM – Paschal Divine Liturgy with Procession and the Blessing of the Four Corners of the Church

Bright Tuesday, April 30 -9:00 AM – Paschal Divine Liturgy

Bright Wednesday, May 1 -9:00 AM – Paschal Divine Liturgy

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'll have to research these. But it doesn't look on the surface that these are all the same sorts of things.

Anyway -- a schismatic group splitting from a larger group is bad. But when the larger group remains largely coherent, that's something different. This applies to Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican at least to a certain extent. I don't know about Lutheran. How do Lutherans view all the national churches, and all the denominations? Many of them are crazy-out-the-ears liberal, aren't they? Do conservative Lutherans still consider themselves "in communion" with them?

It really is not about looking to some church history to find the truth. Church history (while I am sure can be helpful to a degree, it is not the same as the Bible). It is comparing the Bible with what people are doing today and seeing if it matches up. The Bible is the Word of God and that is what we place our faith in. If people are doing something not in the Bible, it is best to steer clear of them. Jesus says, "He that ...receiveth not my words, ...the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48). Jesus did not say, He that does not receive this particular church and it's traditions, they will be judged on the last day. Jesus says he that does not receive His words will be judged by that very word on the last day. So it's the Bible (with the words of Jesus that we have to follow), and not the traditions of men or some church denonimation.

For what if that first group (you think is maybe correct) was not doing things correctly to begin with? Does one man who breaks away from that group and goes down another road of incorrectness make the first group valid and correct? Surely not. Both groups can be in error. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Jesus says "narrow is the way" and Jesus says "FEW be there that it." The Bible talks about how in the last days, men will have a form of godliness and that they will be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Jesus asks the question that when He returns, will He find faith on the Earth?

Again, I would encourage you to not jump to join any church. I would ask you to instead study the Bible with the help of the Lord and if you feel like looking into different churches out of curiosity... do so only to see if what they are doing.... is lining up with the Bible. Be skeptical. For if we follow others blindly who are not following Jesus as described in the Bible, what are we going to say to Jesus if we truly did not do what He said but we did what some other group wanted us to do? That's the problem in following others versus following Jesus alone (according to the Bible).

I mean, I get it to some degree. It is more of a lonely road to follow Jesus in what He says alone. Nobody likes it. But what are we not willing to do for what Jesus has done for us? Jesus died for our sins, do we not owe Him everything?

 

[FireDragon76]

I'll have to research these. But it doesn't look on the surface that these are all the same sorts of things.

Anyway -- a schismatic group splitting from a larger group is bad. But when the larger group remains largely coherent, that's something different. This applies to Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican at least to a certain extent. I don't know about Lutheran. How do Lutherans view all the national churches, and all the denominations? Many of them are crazy-out-the-ears liberal, aren't they? Do conservative Lutherans still consider themselves "in communion" with them?

I don't think the ELCA is "crazy out the ears" liberal. We have a range of perspectives. I like listening to the Lutheran Hour the same as many LCMS Lutherans, even though I'm in the ELCA. Most of the actual hostility you see on the internet is not reflective of real-world experiences. We don't have formal fellowship with each other, but Lutherans do cooperate across synodical/denominational lines at times and we read each others theology.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can't speak for all Lutherans but I am Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We are not in communion with these national church bodies. We believe these church bodies are in error and have strayed from the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. So when you hear about the Lutheran World Federation know that group does not represent more conservative Lutheran church bodies.

As far as the issue of schism I think it comes down to being honest. When I was in the Roman church I often heard homilies from priests that attacked both scripture and RCC teaching. And I was in what was thought to be a "conservative" diocese. It was obvious there were those that opposed church teaching and were looking for ways to subvert said teaching from within. My thought is these folks need to be honest and realize they have already committed schism in their hearts by trying to subvert church teaching. It is a lie to say that you are a member of a communion when you do not believe what your communion teaches. To be clear I am talking about the essentials of the faith like Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scriptures and the forbidding of praise bands and so on. (ok, I made up the last one). I am not talking about adiaphora. As bad as schism is in my opinion it is better to be honest and separated due to theological reasons than united in institutional unity and ignore the theological differences.

Yes, in some places the RCC is extremely liberal. Rome is in transition right now and there's a great deal of potential confusion about what direction it goes in. Lots of different forces at play.

BTW, the same is true in the Orthodox church to a lesser degree, though the differences are mostly regional in this country.

@Mary Meg,realize there is no perfect church. There's always more to do to serve God in the place you are in right now. Don't be in a rush. If your parents were Baptist and that's what you are raised in, appreciate what is good and true there before you decide to go for a completely different approach that might leave you an orphan.

 

[FireDragon76]

In which case, at least in my experience, I've yet to meet many--if any--Liberals in the sense of the old German Liberal school of thought from any Lutheran synod. I'd largely argue that oldschool German Liberalism is effectively dead, it's been dead in the water for a while now. It, like much of the Enlightenment, died in the shadows of the horrors of Auschwitz and Dachau.

-CryptoLutheran

It's dead but there are still some "zombies" floating around, according to Pastor. But I think the younger generation is taking the Christian tradition more seriously. The vicar we used to have in particular didn't truck to that sort of religion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Theological liberalism is a bit broader than that......

I guess a definition of what is meant by "liberal" would be necessary then.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

I guess a definition of what is meant by "liberal" would be necessary then.

-CryptoLutheran

They probably lump 19th century liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, dialectic theology, and liberational/contextual theology all together.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hi. I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church that my something-great-great-grandparents helped found. It's not really a great place for dynamic preaching or worship -- it's just my family and a few other families, sharing the love and Gospel of Christ. I love it for that, and in some way, it will always be home...

But as I've gotten older and learned things (maybe too much for my own good), I've started to have doubts and questions about a lot of things. I studied a lot of Christian history in school and Bible and theology and classical languages, and through all of that I've grown to feel a lot closer to the Early Church...... and honestly I've started to feel like it doesn't look all that much like my church today.

I know the Protestant narrative very well... that the Catholic Church was corrupt, had fallen away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ, and needed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation to come and bring us back to the true Gospel. And I've mostly been happy with my church and my upbringing and everything, just now I am wondering...

So I'm not sure I even know how to ask the questions I'm asking... How do I approach these things? Are there answers, and how can I find them? Where do I go from here? Or do I stay put?

Good and great Christians -- So I've come to admire a lot of great people from the history of Christianity -- saints. That means they were holy people who are surely now enjoying God's glory in eternity. But my Protestant background tells me that no one is holy... But surely people go to heaven, right? Surely people can grow in sanctity and become more Christlike... I've seen that with my own eyes, and isn't that the point?

But if I admire Christians from the first dozen Christian centuries -- it turns out I'm admiring people who believed very differently than me, who believed in things like baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus... Does that mean they were less than Christian, for believing something beyond what's revealed in the Bible? Should I even admire them? As much as I admire them, I'm afraid these people would have told me I'm not a Christian since I don't believe those things.

My Protestant background tells me that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some point in history. When? If I accept that these great saints -- it is what I want to call them -- were true believers, despite believing different things than me, then don't I also have to accept that the faith they had was true? And that the Church that was teaching them was teaching the true faith? At the very least, that it wasn't as wholly corrupt at that time as the Protestant Reformation would have me believe it became -- to the point that breaking from it and starting over was warranted? That it must have gone off the rails sometime later? The problem is, the more people I admire, and the closer they get to 1517, the more I start to wonder if anything really could have gone off the rails very far...

(Don't even mention that I might admire Catholic saints after 1517... )

This is getting long and I haven't even gotten to half the things in my head... but I'll have to put a period here and maybe post again sometime.

Here on earth at least, I do not think God created us to be like Storm Troopers or clones. There is diversity in the Catholic Church, just as there is in all traditions. Which is to say, there are points of disagreement and differences among different people within all traditions. And I would argue the RCC did evolve and went off the rails at a point, though that does not mean everyone within the RCC went off the rails. I think the point and time where the RCC started to go off the rails would probably be around the time of the introduction of the papacy. Even some Catholics might agree, not all Catholics are Papists. Just a few thoughts, not really looking for arguments or debate. Look into these things, you seem to be the type interested in research which is good.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It’s challenging, I agree. The joke goes that to study Church history is to cease being a Protestant.

Weird, the jokers must have ceased learning about the importance of Church history to Protestant Church historians like Philip Schaff for instance.

Some of the first and second century Church writings were written by people who knew the apostles or were even students of theirs.

And Protestants have not and did not reject their writings, neither are they considered infallable or inerrant on the same level as Scripture, and I do not think the ECF advised or desired us to either.

And those first and second century writings sound rather Catholic.

Protestant Churches accept the Apostle's Creed as authoritative, but not as Scripture.

So if these writers are in error, did they learn their errors from the apostles?

Because you are Catholic and writing on theological matters therefore your writings are inerrant? You have to assume a doctrine of inspiration at all times, a doctrine of inspiration I do not think the ECF themselves would accept. So the question is kind of like a Catholic taking a math test and getting a couple of problems wrong, did they learn their errors from the Apostles? Well no, neither is the person an apostle, nor is illumination assumed, neither inspiration to the extent of the apostles, nor are their writings considered canon.

 

[Concord1968]

I guess a definition of what is meant by "liberal" would be necessary then.

-CryptoLutheran

Or, people could just read the article I linked as forum rules prohibit a candid discussion of Liberal/Modernist theology.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Weird, the jokers must have ceased learning about the importance of Church history to Protestant Church historians like Philip Schaff for instance.

Whaa?

And Protestants have not and did not reject their writings, neither are they considered infallable or inerrant on the same level as Scripture,

You're creating a bit of a false dichotomy here. Those writings are indicative of what was normative belief in the first and second centuries. In particular, people who were taught by apostles believed those doctrines. Those doctrines went virtually unchallenged all through Church history.

These traditional Christian doctrines came from somewhere. To all outward appearances, it looks like these doctrines came from the apostles. So I see no reason not to believe them.

and I do not think the ECF advised or desired us to either.

Several of the Early Church Fathers declared anybody who rejected the very doctrines which most Protestants reject to be anathema.

So the question is kind of like a Catholic taking a math test and getting a couple of problems wrong, did they learn their errors from the Apostles? Well no, neither is the person an apostle, nor is illumination assumed, neither inspiration to the extent of the apostles, nor are their writings considered canon.

Through your entire post, you have attempted to make some kind of appeal to the authority of Sacred Scripture.

Bear in mind, this contrived and insipid doctrine of "sola scriptura" is your limitation. Please don't try making it mine, thx.

 

[FireDragon76]

Weird, the jokers must have ceased learning about the importance of Church history to Protestant Church historians like Philip Schaff for instance.

Schaff was from the German Reformed tradition, which has had very little influence on American religion, especially since the Protestant mainline declined in the 70's and 80's.
Schaff's religion is not well represented in the British-American evangelical world that the typical Baptist or Presbyterian is going to encounter. You're more likely to find remnants of it in mainline Protestant churches now days, in fact, such as the UCC (which actually is descened from similar churches). And Schaff was very much influenced by the spirit of his age as well, through Romanticism and Hegelianism (he had almost a post-millenialist optimism, and could not forsee the disaster of WWI or WWII).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Schaff was from the German Reformed tradition, which has had very little influence on American religion, especially since the Protestant mainline declined in the 70's and 80's. Schaff's religion is not well represented in the British-American evangelical world that the typical Baptist or Presbyterian is going to encounter. You're more likely to find remnants of it in mainline Protestant churches now days, in fact, such as the UCC (which actually is descened from similar churches). And Schaff was very much influenced by the spirit of his age as well, through Romanticism and Hegelianism (he had almost a post-millenialist optimism, and could not forsee the disaster of WWI or WWII).

From what I read, he was a Protestant who influenced the German Reformed tradition, his son was a Presbyterian.

 

[FireDragon76]

From what I read, he was a Protestant who influenced the German Reformed tradition, his son was a Presbyterian.

He criticized Princeton and Revivalism both, which in this country turned out to be a kiss of death. The Reformed tradition in America long ago set sail for fundamentalism, the Social Gospel among liberals, and sensationalism rather than the high-church religion he advocated.

I believe he actually would have more in common now days with European state churches that what happens in American religion, for the most part.

 

[Mary Meg]

In fairness, I don't think she's using the term "liberal" in it's political sense, but rather in it's theological sense Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

Yes, you are right, I was referring to theological liberalism.

 

[Mary Meg]

This might be true if the only relevant issue were presbyterian polity versus episcopal polity. Many Calvinists (including Calvin) are not totally opposed to an episcopal system. They just believe that presbyterianism is what is taught in the NT and works out better in a fallen world. Bishops are great when you have godly bishops. But they are terrible when they are ungodly.

So why not anoint godly bishops? Were they so cynical that they thought they could improve the Church through godly presbyters, but those presbyters couldn't be godly bishops? Didn't power end up being concentrated in Calvin anyway in Geneva? How's that for ἐπισκοπή?

This is only true if you come in with an assumption of what Christian unity must look like. I seriously doubt that Christian unity must look like what Rome thinks it must look like. I don't believe that denominationalism is opposed to Christian unity. Denominationalism is a good way to express diversity and freedom of worship while at the same time being broadly unified with other Christians.

Paul tells us what it's supposed to look like: "I appeal to you ... that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). Jesus prayed that we be "One, as He and the Father are One" (John 17:21) -- that is, completely indivisible. Whether this looks like Rome or not, Protestant denominationalism and diversity is certainly not being "united in the same mind and judgment." There are probably several hundred churches in my city, most of which have no fellowship with each other, and there can be no pretense that they are "united."

 

[Mary Meg]

I can't speak for all Lutherans but I am Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We are not in communion with these national church bodies. We believe these church bodies are in error and have strayed from the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. So when you hear about the Lutheran World Federation know that group does not represent more conservative Lutheran church bodies.

This is what I suspected.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

He criticized Princeton and Revivalism both, which in this country turned out to be a kiss of death. The Reformed tradition in America long ago set sail for fundamentalism, the Social Gospel among liberals, and sensationalism rather than the high-church religion he advocated.

I believe he actually would have more in common now days with European state churches that what happens in American religion, for the most part.

In addition to authoring a multi-volume History of the Christian Church, Schaff authored a collection of Creeds of Christendom, both have been reprinted by Hendrickson in multi-volume sets. He also served as an editor for a Bible dictionary, and a massive Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, not to mention an overseer for the American edition of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. He also served as President of the Committee which translated the American Standard Version of the Bible. He was a giant among Protestants, a real scholar, certainly nothing like the internet hacks of today. I find it distasteful for any Protestant to portray him negatively, extremely distasteful to be honest.

 

[FireDragon76]

So why not anoint godly bishops? Were they so cynical that they thought they could improve the Church through godly presbyters, but those presbyters couldn't be godly bishops? Didn't power end up being concentrated in Calvin anyway in Geneva? How's that for ἐπισκοπή?

Paul tells us what it's supposed to look like: "I appeal to you ... that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). Jesus prayed that we be "One, as He and the Father are One" (John 17:21) -- that is, completely indivisible. Whether this looks like Rome or not, Protestant denominationalism and diversity is certainly not being "united in the same mind and judgment." There are probably several hundred churches in my city, most of which have no fellowship with each other, and there can be no pretense that they are "united."

Calvin actually didn't have that much power in Geneva, Geneva was ruled by a town council, I believe. I think they actually kicked him out, in fact, before he learned to temper himself under Martin Bucer's guidance. Bucer was a significant Reformed theologian in his own right, he was almost a mediating influence between Lutherans and the Reformed, in fact.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes... I know that. But still seems a long gulf away from where I am now. How do I get there from here?

Hi Mary Meg, I would suggest reading Luther's small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession. I'm a Confessional Lutheran, and knowing the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, it is very likely that there is a Parish not very far from where you live. Our Church does not believe in "raiding" membership from other Churches, but are very friendly and open to answering questions and welcoming guests. Our Seminaries in both the US and Canada are among the best in the world, and our Clergy spend many years immersed in God's word.

You mentioned the early Christians; our confessional Churches accept the validity of the first 7 ecumenical councils; up to and including the Second council of Nicaea.

Traditions and practices vary from parish to parish, but the core doctrine of the Church is constant, as it is anchored in Scripture; in God's Holy Word.

A Blessed Easter to you!

Mark