FivePointCalvinist said:
No, of course not. The thing I was trying to make is that my beliefs, as a Protestant Christian, are subject to the Holy Scriptures alone as the sole infallible standard of faith. The sacred writings of the Fathers, the Reformers, etc, are useful inasmuch as they expound upon the Scriptures, but the Scriptures alone are said to be sufficent to equip the man of God unto every good work. Rome and Constantinople err inasmuch as they make, in effect, the Scriptures to be subordinate to "holy tradition", as they require that the Scriptures be interpreted thereby.
Not knowing all they teach, I could not say what Rome or Constantinople believes. I personally don't know anyone that puts scripture below anyone's teacher of those scriptures. One thing I've noticed in these chats is when anyone brings up Rome they actually mean "the Pope". And usually when it comes up about people following the Pope, it comes from someone like a
Calvinist or a
Lutheran or a descendant of Menno Simons or Richard Campbell or etc...get the picture? Even in the "bible alone" churches the teachings come from someone at some time or another, wouldn't you agree FivePointCalvinist? So it's okay to follow the teachings of someone you believe interpreted the scriptures right, but not okay to follow the teachings of someone you don't agree with?
I was brought up in a "sola scriptura" church. At the age I began to have concrete thought concerning that, I began to wonder where the pastor got his interpretations of the scriptures he would expound on if he did not adhere to any previous teachings. You yourself obviously follow the teachings of Calvin, yet you say it was not "revealed" to him but he simply interpreted the scriptures "the correct way"...according to who? God? Did God personally tell you this? Or did it make sense to you and how you interpreted the writings the same way that some read the church fathers before Calvin and agree with them?
"Kinda like PaladinValer's asinine interpretation of Romans 1?
"
I don't know what he wrote. I wouldn't presume to call someone's interpretation asinine...unless they told me to wear some different type of underwear that could protect me in a plane crash or told me the Pope is the antichrist or harlot of Babylon. Now that's asinine. Having met Pope JPII in 1983, I can assure everyone that is a false teaching.
"None of the Reformers had any revelations from God other than what He caused to be written down in His Holy Word. This alone is the infallible rule of our faith."
I could be wrong, as I said earler I'm not booksmart on all of this...
but didn't Martin Luther's revelations come to him in a thunderstorm one night?
And John Calvin wrote his teachings secluded in a house with tons of children.
As a foster parent who has 6 to 8 children in my home at any given time, I would first question his sanity
I've been interrupted 16 times just trying to write this...
Your use of the word "infallible" takes me once again back to the Pope. That's really what most protestants have against Rome, isn't it? The idea of the Pope's infallibility. I question that too brother. But I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The bottom line is that the reformists believe Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, whoever, are the ones that interpreted the scriptures right. And some of us believe the ones before them interpreted them right, according to God and the scriptures.
I'll leave you with this however. If you are ever in my area, you are more than welcome to come to my church. We can partake of communion together in a very old fashioned "high mass" way...with incense and all that (in English). You'll hear prayers for those of all Christian churches...and words that are from the Nicene and Apostles Creed. We certainly won't try to "convert" you, but we will give you some pretty bad weak coffee and some of Granny Parsons excellent homemade apple pie later!
Peace be with you.
