Scripture vs. History

[Mary Meg]

Jason, I don't think there's any need to be so antagonistic.

Again, I challenge you to PROVE that these so called traditions and or history is on the same level of authority as Scripture in regards to it being divine.

I've never claimed that they were. My post was about using those sources as historical documents, not any kind of divine authority.

Personally, I think this is not about the evidence, but you are simply going by your distaste of Protestantism.

I am a Protestant. I was raised in the Baptist church. My whole family are Protestants, and I love them. I am having some serious doubts about Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation. And yes, I find the Reformation itself distasteful -- not the glorious and heroic period of faith and grace I was led to believe, but an ugly time of upheaval, division, destruction, even war. Jesus prayed that "we might all be one," and I don't think the continued schism of the Reformation is anything to celebrate. All that said, I am still a Protestant.

Please keep in mind that I do not believe in Protestantism or Catholicism, Orthodox churches, etc.

You've been pretty insistent in defending Protestantism and attacking Catholicism here.

 

[Mary Meg]

More and more I'm realizing why I have a difficult time with these sorts of conversations, and I think I've been able to pinpoint what it is. Most of the time these sorts of conversations end up involving all of us--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant (doesn't matter) entering into the conversation largely with a narrative that effectively divides the history of the Church into two halves, Before Protestantism and After Protestantism. The Catholic and Orthodox way of doing this is largely to assert that before Protestantism things were good and after Protestantism things got bad; whereas the Protestant way of doing this is largely to assert that before Protestantism things were bad and after Protestantism things got good.

Yes. I don't think either is necessarily true. There was certainly a lot of corruption in the Catholic Church "before," a lot of things that were falling short. But there were a lot of good things in Catholicism, throughout its many centuries. And I certainly don't think that after Protestantism, everything got bad -- there are certainly a lot of good things in Protestantism and coming out of Protestantism (I happen to think I'm one of them -- by that, I mean my family's heritage of faith).

But one thing that's undeniable is that after Protestantism, things got broken.

And the problem with this Before Protestantism/After Protestantism narrative is that it ultimately sees what happened in Western Europe in the 16th century as some kind of interruption in the long story of the Christianity, rather than as another part of the long story.

I think it was an interruption -- a fundamental disruption -- the severing of large swaths of Christendom from a Mother Church into myriad new traditions. I know you insist there was no discontinuity, that your Lutherans were actually continuing the same catholic tradition, but no honest historian argues that. There is the dawning of a "Lutheran tradition" and a "Reformed tradition," etc., traditions that ceased to have real interaction with the Catholic tradition for many generations (apart from war and persecution).

So instead of really taking the time to see what happened in the 16th century as part of the larger narrative of the Church in history, it really does just boil down to arming ourselves with our flags and heading into battle, often over things that we have long since forgotten.

If we're being truthful, that's exactly what they did in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

What were the political issues of the time? What were the ecclesiastical issues of the time? What were the theological issues of the time. What actually IS the conversation even about anyway? This seems to all get swept under the rug and any actual dialogue dies before it begins.

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I'd like to have that conversation.

 

[FireDragon76]

What I actually didn't realize before I started looking into Christianity is that the earliest Christians didn't have Scripture. They didn't have the Bible to reference. Even after, once the canon was decided on, the vast majority of Christians didn't have copies until much later.

The earliest Christians did have the Scriptures as a community. Jesus himself uses these same Scriptures.

Being Protestant actually does not require owning a Bible or even being literate. The Lutheran or Anglican perspective is not that we should all be little Bible scholars necessarily, but that the Scriptures are the ultimate norm for faith.

 

[-Sasha-]

The earliest Christians did have the Scriptures as a community. Jesus himself uses these same Scriptures.

Being Protestant actually does not require owning a Bible or even being literate. The Lutheran or Anglican perspective is not that we should all be little Bible scholars necessarily, but that the Scriptures are the ultimate norm for faith.

What I meant is that they didn't have this (mostly) standardized set of what is and isn't considered Scripture. As for the people preaching, they had a multitude of sources they could draw from which aren't now included in the Bible. As for the everyday people, they didn't have a Bible at home to check what they were hearing against, they depended on what was being passed on to them from other people. And in terms of the OT, earlier Christians included more several books than most churches today do, even after the Canon was decided by Councils. While today we can (mostly) agree whether a story or single verse is or isn't Biblical (with the exception of Books included by Catholic and Orthodox, but excluded by most Protestants), there existed no such scenario for the early Christians.

 

[-Sasha-]

Oh, and Happy Easter to the Western traditions!

 

[FireDragon76]

What I meant is that they didn't have this (mostly) standardized set of what is and isn't considered Scripture. As for the people preaching, they had a multitude of sources they could draw from which aren't now included in the Bible. As for the everyday people, they didn't have a Bible at home to check what they were hearing against, they depended on what was being passed on to them from other people. And in terms of the OT, earlier Christians included more several books than most churches today do, even after the Canon was decided by Councils. While today we can (mostly) agree whether a story or single verse is or isn't Biblical (with the exception of Books included by Catholic and Orthodox, but excluded by most Protestants), there existed no such scenario for the early Christians.

Being Protestant isn't about being a Restorationist, necessarily. We accept that doctrine and practices develop, we don't expect modern churches to be identical to ancient churches. Of course people in the past did not have ready access to Bibles, but that's not the point of sola scriptura as an operating principle.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am a Protestant. I was raised in the Baptist church. My whole family are Protestants, and I love them. I am having some serious doubts about Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation. And yes, I find the Reformation itself distasteful -- not the glorious and heroic period of faith and grace I was led to believe, but an ugly time of upheaval, division, destruction, even war. Jesus prayed that "we might all be one," and I don't think the continued schism of the Reformation is anything to celebrate. All that said, I am still a Protestant.

If you were lead to believe an overly romanticized portrayal of the Reformation, that's unfortunate, but you also should not be too hasty to dismiss it altogether. It might be necessary for you, just as it was for me, to delve into the broader span of Christian history to understand why the Reformation was practically an inevitability.

Believe it or not, at one time in life I was in exactly the same position as you are, reaching very similar conclusions about the Reformation, so I journeyed east for several years. But in the end I found the eastern church not to match up with the hype I had been exposed to, and it also came with a great deal of baggage as well.

 

[-Sasha-]

Being Protestant isn't about being a Restorationist, necessarily. We accept that doctrine and practices develop, we don't expect modern churches to be identical to ancient churches. Of course people in the past did not have ready access to Bibles, but that's not the point of sola scriptura as an operating principle.

I don't think I mentioned sola scriptura. I have never been Protestant, and don't have a full understanding of what by Scripture alone means in practice. All I meant to convey is that prior to my looking into Christianity, I just implicitly assumed that the Bible was always around for Christians and it was interesting to realize that not only was this was not the case, but that even today All Christians don't use one standard set of Books in their Bibles. For example, if I were to quote from the Wisdom of Sirach in order to give Biblical backing to one of my claims, most Protestants would have the ability to declare this as not being Scripture, and discard my claim on that basis if we could not find a corollary in a Book which they did recognize.

 

[Mary Meg]

It might be necessary for you, just as it was for me, to delve into the broader span of Christian history to understand why the Reformation was practically an inevitability.

I know that one of the main reasons the Reformation happened the way it did was because of the political instability in Europe -- it was a powder keg waiting to explode. Do you really think the reform of Christ's Church should be shaped and defined by the demands of power-hungry dukes and kings? That what came out of this was inevitable?

 

[FireDragon76]

I know that one of the main reasons the Reformation happened the way it did was because of the political instability in Europe -- it was a powder keg waiting to explode. Do you really think the reform of Christ's Church should be shaped and defined by the demands of power-hungry dukes and kings? That what came out of this was inevitable?

I'm not the judge of history. I will leave that to a higher authority.

 

[Mary Meg]

I'm not the judge of history. I will leave that to a higher authority.

But apparently you're comfortable being a judge of the Reformation?

 

[FireDragon76]

But apparently you're comfortable being a judge of the Reformation?

I'm personally invested in being a western Christian in a mainline Protestant denomination, and I appreciate being one as well. That includes appreciating the history. It doesn't mean I ignore the dark side of it, but I'm not going to pretend there's something ennobling about what basically amounts to self-loathing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh, and Happy Easter to the Western traditions!

I hope you have a blessed Holy Week too.

We had our first Easter Vigil at my congregation yesterday evening, and we celebrated our 60th anniversary on Palm Sunday. So it's been a very good Easter season.

 

[Mary Meg]

I'm personally invested in being a western Christian in a mainline Protestant denomination, and I appreciate being one as well. That includes appreciating the history. It doesn't mean I ignore the dark side of it, but I'm not going to pretend there's something ennobling about what basically amounts to self-loathing.

You said you thought the Reformation was "inevitable." Why do you think it was inevitable? And do you think it's inevitable that it took the shape it did?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

Leave the that church. You must be true to what you understand, what makes most sense to you.

 

[eleos1954]

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?

It's all about Jesus ... follow His life ... He is our example ... so look for a church that closely follows His example. History is interesting and informative ... however .... it is Jesus teachings in the Word of God that we are to use to guide us always.

If the church you attend is not teaching what Jesus taught ... then keep searching. Always study on your own as well.

2nd Timothy 3

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

"Does this approach deny sola scriptura? "

Rely on the scriptures ... they are God-breathed.

Follow the Lamb. God Bless.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your post describes the quandrary that was the start of the journey that led me back to Rome.

A few things to consider.
1/ There was no new testament in any cohesive form in the early church. There were many books, some later accepted canonical , others were not. The first canon was demonstrably rejected by the church at Rome. The decision of canon was taken by the church, and not setteld for a couple of hundred years. It did not drop out of the sky.

2/ The concept of tradition is not an addition to scripture, it is the entireity of the faith handed down through the successors to the apostles. The scriptural word translated as tradition is the greek "paradosis" it means handing down. Which is why Paul tells you to "hold true to tradition we taught you" and is why Iraneus points at tradition and church authority to decide true doctrine.

3/ Tradition carries the meaning of scripture. You cannot choose any meaning for scripture compatible with the words without endless disagreements as the protestant churches have found. Even on basics from baptism, eucharist, sacraments. clergy, moral issues , remarriage, even god head, end times. YOu name protestants disagree on it, precisely because sola scriptura doesn twork. Luther despaired of the monster he created saying "it is the greatest scandal, every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

4/ So the first church was certainly not sola scriptura - which was a concept that only appeared at the time of the reformation. It is only very recently people could read or afford a bible!

5/ Jesus did not say read this or write this, he appointed apostles and said "teach this" and "do this" so most of the apostles did not write. We also see how succession occurred as new succession was appointed by apostles. And it is why the bible says "how can they teach if they are not sent?"

Very importantly he gave to the apostles jointly and peter alone the power to "bind and loose". Which means give infallible interpretation of doctrine. That is the power wielded in council, which is how you know your new testament is sound. Because of the power to bind and loose. It is also why scripture says "the foundation of truth is the church" (notice it does not say scripture)

The church does have authority. So then you must ask which church? And it has to have been around from the beginning.

6/ Jesus also said the power of hell would not prevail against his church, so if you look for apostasy in the true church you will not find it. Despite peoples attempts to say (for example constantitne) writings of such as anasthasius show noithing actually changes.And to look for Jesus's church,

You must start with those that existed in early times, and churches that also accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome (as indeed noted in councils). You can argue the nature and extent of it. Not the fact of the primacy.

7/ Finally to the fathers. Accept the fact that the first of them were actually taught by apostles. Now read such as ignatius to smyrneans. He and polycarp taught by john the apostle. He describes a eucharist of the real body (Justin Martyr says "real flesh"0valid only if performed by a bishop in successin or his appointee.

Clearly John knew what John 6 meant, and was commissioned by Jesus to teach it, we are assured the gates of hell will not prvail against Jesus's church. We know from history that christians were considered cannibals because of the eucharist. So history and tradition clearly show true meaning.
Which negates many reformationist churches at a shot. They cannot make up their own meaning.

So history and tradition are critical as is authority

8/ The word of God is a three legged stool. Tradition (the faith handed down) and authority of church (from bind and loose) and last of the three but not least is scripture, because the new testament was the last leg to appear.
Without all three you do not have the word of God , only words. Tradition and authority give meaning to scripture, and resolve the disputes.

9/ Notice mischevious statements from some protestant groups.
They say "we do not accept where tradition contradicts scripture" What they actually mean eg some lutherans - is they do not accept when traditioin - the true faith handed down - when (they say) it contradicts their own groups view of what scripture means, which is a very different question.. They should be looking to tradition and authority to find the meaning of scripture instead!. Iraneus is vociferous about the importance of tradition.

As newman said "To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - and so it was for me.

Watch some of the journey home series by Grodi, or such as "reason to believe" books by Madrid. A lot of short stories. See the testimony of hundreds even thousands of ministers and theologians who came back to Rome because of study of history.

Even such as Marys honorary title of queen and power to intecede for us is there if you know where to look in scripture. But theres the thing. The fathers who decided the creed and canon believed it! And you must put your faith in their judgement, or you would not have an authoritative new testament.

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?

 

[Mary Meg]

.

 

[bling]

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?

These are all good questions, but keep in mind the following:

We are not committing our lives to some words on a page or a “book”, but to Christ Himself.

A Muslim will hold up the Quran as “proof” and say “follow the Quran which is God’s exact words”, but the Bible is just one tool for the Christian and not really for the non-Christian to become a Christian.

We are to follow Christ/God who are Love in itself.

It is what Christ would do in your personal situation at this specific time which matters and you personally have been given the indwelling Holy Spirit to help you “know” what you can do, which can be a lot of good stuff with your time.

Knowing Christ is experiencing Christ living through you helping others and that will be totally consistent with scripture.

The New Testament is not some rule book neatly listing out the rules for you are to follow, so there is some “subjectivity” to it, but what ever you think might be “alright” has to be an expression of an unconditional, unselfish Love for other and God.

This does not mean you quit studying scripture, because scripture supports what you should be doing without telling you specifically what to do. It tells you what others did and why for the most part, but you do not have to do it exactly that way to be right.

As far as the “Church fathers” goes. Read Rev. 1-4 and you will see 5 out of 7 churches with really big issues and this is before the first century ended. These early scholars came with many preconceived ideas and were not included in scripture by the Holy Spirit for good reason.

Christ did not leave us with the apostles, Church fathers, scholars or just human reasoning, but we each have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us and we also have scripture to support us. He knows the truth and you have Him, but He will not allow you to abuse Him, He is there to help you help others and not to provide a list to give to other for them to follow.

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?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, I don't think there's any need to be so antagonistic.

Well, I am passionate about defending the Word of God and fighting for the truth.
So please do not read what I write as being personally antagonistic towards you.
I am only standing up for what I believe is true and good to the building up of the faith. I am commanded by God to hate that which is unrighteous (or not of the truth), but to love all people (including my enemies). Granted, I consider you as a sister in Christ, and not as an enemy.

I've never claimed that they were. My post was about using those sources as historical documents, not any kind of divine authority.

I believe history should only be used as a means to help support Scripture as a supplementary thing, and not as means to build doctrine, or faith, etc. Many seem to think otherwise and they appear to put it on the same level as Scripture (like their looking to creeds, etc.). For me: The Word of God is so much more than history. I also cannot trust history like I can the Word of God. Maybe that historical document is accurate, and maybe it is not. So I don't waste too much time on historical documents written by men. There are so many treasures in God's Word, I don't want to waste my time digging in some other place that man has made. I know there is power in the Word of God and that His Word is holy and divine in origin. I consider His words to be God breathed as per 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

I am a Protestant. I was raised in the Baptist church. My whole family are Protestants, and I love them. I am having some serious doubts about Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation. And yes, I find the Reformation itself distasteful -- not the glorious and heroic period of faith and grace I was led to believe, but an ugly time of upheaval, division, destruction, even war. Jesus prayed that "we might all be one," and I don't think the continued schism of the Reformation is anything to celebrate. All that said, I am still a Protestant. You've been pretty insistent in defending Protestantism and attacking Catholicism here.

No. I am actually against Protestantism.
Again, I am a non-denominational Christian who believes in:

(a) The Trinity,
(b) Sola Scriptura (Bible alone),
(c) God's grace (by faith) + Works of Faith = Salvation (Which is an Anti-Protestant belief).

For I am in opposition to Protestantism because they believe that "Faith" means a "Belief Alone" when James 2:18 does not define "faith" in that way. Protestants do not believe any sin will separate them from God because they believe they are saved by having a belief alone on Jesus. However, while I believe we need to have a belief in Jesus to be saved, I don't believe in Sola Fide, or Faith Alone (i.e. a Belief Alone without works of faith) (Which is one of the five Solas of Protestantism). For one of the reasons for the break away from the Catholic church by Luther was in the fact that he did not believe that "works of faith" did not play a part in the salvation process (unlike Catholics). Yet, I am also strongly against Catholicism, Orthodox churches, etc., as well (Because I am against adding traditions to God's Word). Also, their history is not what you think it is. The thing is that there has to be an unbroken line of Christians in existence that were not popular or who may not have been recorded who existed outside beyond the war between the Catholics and Protestants. In other words, within history there was a third line of believers in existence who were not Catholic or Protestant that were not involved in their mess. Is it documented? I don't know. Maybe. Even if there is no documentation, this third line of believers (who were not Catholic or Protestant) had to exist separate from their war. For God's Word does not return void (See: Isaiah 55:11). The whole problem here is that the whole Protestant reformation sounds like the Protestants did not exist until after Luther protested. Hence, why they call themselves protestants (seeding their origins with him). I also do not agree with Luther's statement to "sin boldly," as well. For Luther said, I quote:

"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day" (cited in Hendrix, Martin Luther, 121-122).​

This statement by Luther makes my stomach turn. Lutherans have tried to explain his words away here, but Lutherans do actually believe that no sin can separate them from God as I read on several of their websites. This confirms that they are saying not to worry about sin and that you can sin and still be saved. Meaning, they are saying that they can turn God's grace into a license for immorality (Which is condemned in Jude 1:4, Hebrews 3:12-13, Hebrews 10:26, Romans 8:13, and many other verses in the Bible).