I'm trying to give you a "heads up," not win a debate. You are seeking a church, right? If so, you need to search out the answers for yourself, which I hope you will do. That way you wont be skeptical simply because of the person who brings them to you.Can you cite some sources, then, to back that up?
I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either.I'm trying to give you a "heads up," not win a debate. You are seeking a church, right? If so, you need to search out the answers for yourself, which I hope you will do. That way you wont be skeptical simply because of the person who brings them to you.
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.
I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either.
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?And if we survey the Reformation Churches, the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches all have secondary authorities in the form of statements of faith, Confessions, etc.
Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.So as it turns out, Sola Scriptura, does not entail a rejection of tradition, rather it is a different hierarchy of authority in contrast to the RCC.
I've never said I see the Church Fathers as infallible. And from what I've read, the "Roman" Catholic Church doesn't either. There is a lot in the Church Fathers that Rome doesn't see as binding, authoritative, or even compelling. So there is a difference between what they call capital-T "Tradition" and the Church Fathers as writers.
The "white spaces" of the New Testament are found in the pages of the Old Testament.the relationship and it's interaction between Father and His chosen are found in the written history of the Relationship Yahweh shows between him and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, the prophets, etc. hope this helps.So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?
In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:
The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.
There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.
But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.
So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.
For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.
So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.
So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?
So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?
I would really like to read this. Can you show me?Furthermore Lutherans went through great pains to prove our position was was not an innovation during the Reformation.
The problem I see is, as I said above, reading it backwards. Starting from your traditional assumptions and then reading Scripture and deciding it conflicts. How do we know what lens to interpret Scripture through? If we're interpreting it through a lens that's already colored by tradition, how can we know that our lens is even correct? Especially in the Protestant case where there was a conscious denial of the tradition of the past and the "reboot" of tradition from what seems to be new assumptions.We do however reject a tradition if it conflicts with Scripture.
But looking at from the first- and second-century perspective, it seems like Luther was quite a toker himself.What you may be objecting to are the folks who as I say, "roll and smoke their own theology". Lutherans object to this as well.
But MM, the Catholic concept of Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition IS that the Church Fathers spoke infallibly.I'm not trying to debate either, just honestly asking you to support the thing you said, that I am wrong in my understanding that there's a difference between the Church Fathers and capital-T "Tradition" in "Roman" Catholic doctrine. I feel like you're imagining an antagonism between us that I certainly don't feel and I wish you didn't either.
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?
Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?
Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
Yes, but all those things are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents. I'm talking about first- and second-century century documents. Shouldn't they have more weight, in answering questions about the Early Church?
Well I'm doing my best to start at the beginning, trying not to even look at the Catholic Church today. Trying to understand the second-century Church's idea of hierarchy and authority. And it looks like a different idea than they came to in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
No, it's not. Can you find me something that says this? I think you're fundamentally getting it wrong.But MM, the Catholic concept of Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Sacred Tradition IS that the Church Fathers spoke infallibly.
Yes, and this technical point is important. The things they hold to be authoritative or "infallible" are reported or witnessed by the Church Fathers, but definitely not everything the Church Fathers wrote or said.What is infallible is technically put on the theoretical Traditions, but it is what the CFs wrote or said that is the stuff of that Tradition, by and large.
That appears to be where I'm at, for now.So, why not just stay in your present denomination, Mary?
Yes, but my concern is, what do I do when those scientific means suggest that the church I'm at doesn't really appear to agree with the Christianity of the Early Church? Is it acceptable to hold a faith that appears to have been "muddled out" sixteen centuries after the fact?My point is akin to your several points, and that is: God didn't deliver His Message to us in decisive, necessarily clear-cut, nor comprehensive terms, terms that would exclude the need for us to also further use the 'brains' that He's given each of us, allowing us to find out more about our world through more or less scientific means.
Yes, and this technical point is important. The things they hold to be authoritative or "infallible" are reported or witnessed by the Church Fathers, but definitely not everything the Church Fathers wrote or said.
So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?
Why should a church in 21st century America resemble in every way a church in 2nd century Asia minor? Shouldn't there be some room for cultural expression and liberty? We should never ignore history or throw it out as useless. But why should something be infallible simply because it is old? The only infallible source of truth is God's word.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm referring directly to a claim you've repeatedly made and I've asked you to support (and you haven't).Please do not junk up this issue by making a point out of the Church Fathers not being considered authoritative when commenting on the weather or something else off the subject.
Yes, but my concern is, what do I do when those scientific means suggest that the church I'm at doesn't really appear to agree with the Christianity of the Early Church? Is it acceptable to hold a faith that appears to have been "muddled out" sixteen centuries after the fact?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?