quote:

---

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history

---

Even if we don't count precursors in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and only go from Luther, we are talking almost 500 years.

---

quote:

---

And of course Christians are inheritors of the Jewish tradition of faith going back thousands of years before that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse?

---

quote:

---

An epistle of straw!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
OK, the Waldenisans are even older. But althought hey later allied themselves with the Protestants they originally had a quite seperate history and their distinctive doctrines were not really the same as the later Protestants - they really come from the same stable as the Franciscans. Peter Waldo was into holy poverty, common life. pacifism and so on.

---

quote:

---

II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James

St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".

St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.

St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).

St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
What I was taught in Confirmation Class about Paul vs James and Faith vs Works still seems good sense to me, and I quote it here, from C B Moss's The Christian Faith, SPCK 1964. Moss was an Anglican theologian of the Tractarian school, strong on the Scriptures and the Fathers but distinctly antipathetic to Rome. The whole of this book is to be found on line:

Project Canterbury, C B Moss, The Christian Faith

quote:

---

II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James

St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".

St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.

St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).

St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Roughly what Scotianus said - I think I read something very similar in one of John Stott's IVP works, so Tractarians and moderately con evos in agreement on this...........................

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
....... The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alliebath:
…………..I see a problem in always trying to reconcile such differences, as between the view of ‘James’ and Paul. I do not think this syncretistic view point is helpful, especially on a thread alooking at Protestantism. We can just as simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same, just defining their words differently. I do think it will do………….

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Waldenses?

..............Some of them survived in Italy. After Napoleon thety began to come down out of the mountains and started orgainising Protestant churches in Italy. I'm not sure on this bit but I have a vague idea (mainly from contradictory websites) that like most Protestant denominations they got more liberal and less Calvinist in the 19th century. They are now allied with the Methodists (not that there are a lot of them in Italy...) and together make up the largest homegrown Italian Protestant denomination (not that that is saying much at all - there are individual congregations in some other countries that outnumber them)...........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Jesus seems to have had fairly clear ideas about works:

"Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but every one that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven."

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

"The second {commandment} is like, namely this: that you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

I don't think it's possible to separate right thought from right action. I also think this is a potential red herring in distinguishing Protestant from (Roman) Catholic or (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

An epistle of straw!

---

Don't you just love Martin Luther.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:

Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.

---

The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.

I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.

One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working.

As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:

Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.

---

The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.

I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.

One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working.

As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

---

Fair enough... In the US, however, one of the largest denominations in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is a very strong anti-intellectual element in these churches.
 

---

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
Going back to the OP, the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved. This is the pivotal point, the fundamental difference between Protesants and others. This leads directly to other central truths; for example, the full sufficency of Christ's sacrifice for our conversion, justification and glorification, in fact for everything to take us from death to perfect life; and that all the glory for our salvation, and for everything else, belongs to God. It also implies Protestant worship, where the ability to worship is itself given to us by God, not invented by ourselves, and where true worship is trusting upon, acting in accordance with and expressing the aforementioned teaching.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I'm amazed the thread has got this long without anyone mentioning Augustine...
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The way I see it, if the "the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved", then either Protestantism isn't saying much in it's essence, since this has already been accepted by the universall church from the beginning and has been proclaimed at the council of Orange, or we end up with the heresy of Calvinism, were God is portrayed as a monster for saving some and condemning others.

So, I have to ask, when you say "by grace alone" you mean it in the orthodox context of the council of Orange, or in the context of Calvinism? And if you use it in Orange's context, then why Reformation happened and it's fruit need to exist still?
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes, this is what I thought too, but let's see what Protestants think, because Zwingli said that we differ from Protestants on that, so there may be something I don't see.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.

---

What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."


 

---

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :
 
I strongly suspect even if there had been a party the two groups would have violently disagreed on the One True Cake; as such history would have taken its course much unchanged (except maybe fruitier).

On a less flippant note, surely the way that most people experience the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism is in the style of worship; and the importance given to certain rituals or observences. These may have some echo in doctrine - but 90% of any given congregation will only partially understand this. The question to ask to help understand other churches is "Why do you do ___?" immeadietly followed by "So why don't I/we do ___?".
 

---

Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.

---

What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church

---

Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
The OP asked especially what modern Protestants believe. It offered Justification by faith alone' as one defining issue. However, is it the only or even the main characteristic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Orthodox reject both papal infallibility and indulgences, so this is not what makes Protestantism unique. But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

---

I'm a Protestant but I would object to this use of reason. I would start with Scripture and insist that reason must fit in with what is found there.

ETA: Luther was scathing about this use of reason, as his debates with Erasmus show.

---

I think there is a probably a biggish difference between very northern european and other ways of using and respecting reason. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind..." means that they respect the fact that God has given us the opportunity of thinking about beliefs, including scripture teachings. It goes on to the point where some people get unbelieving in specific places that others accept.

On a different definition/history of protestantism, one of the deepest roots (not Australian ) is the reading and studying the bible in their own language, and not always being taught what to believe, but making their own minds up - again leading to positive and negative results in behaviour and belief.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.

So, I propose we discuss some points through this thread.

Let me start the discussion by quoting the epistle of James (2.24), where it is written

quote:

---

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

---

How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ericksdahl:
Luther also points out that many of the acients (though I have not done enough research to know who he refers to) rejected James outright. So he is not alone in his regarding James as not as important. If traditon is important to you then Luther is not acting alone. Nothing is wrong with the idea that works are important. What is being objected to is the idea that works are the base of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
...
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?

---

quote:

---

Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

---

quote:

---

If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?

---

quote:

---

Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

---

quote:

---

Two points here. First, not putting James in the canon because they were ignorant of the epistle's existence does not mean that they rejected it. Unless you can find evidence where they specifically rejected it.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, works might not be the base of salvation, they are the base of the Judgement to come though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Eusebious talks about people not knowing James, and therefore not adding his epistle to the canon. This is why he says that the authenticity is questioned, because not all ancient authors seemed to know that epistle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?

---

Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.

Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

Speaking for myself, the Bible is our best and earliest witness to the Word of God, Christ. Other people will obviously go further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
I know that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," according to RC and EO teachings, but when the church is defined as the communion of all believers irrespective of human constructions, that goes out the window.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
[QUOTE]If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

---

Fasting is good - but remember Isaiah 58.6:
"Is this not the fast which I choose,
To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free
And break every yoke?"
Of course, this doesn't exclude 'normal' fasting.

'Mother'? Jesus refused to use the term about Mary, except on the cross when he told John that Mary was now his mother. The first record of anyone trying to fulfil your 'prophecy' was slapped down by Jesus himself - Luke 11.27-28
The term Mother of God is blasphemous, really. Besides, Mary was and is a devout Jewess, don't expect her to happy with anything even vaguely similar to worship. If you want to make a Jewish mother happy, go on about how wonderful her son is.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
As the creeds say, conceived of the Holy Spirit.... born of the Virgin Mary.

Mother to God, certainly. Mother of God.... I'd not say.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Some identifying points of Protestantism:

Personal salvation - ie not relying on church rites to save you. It is a personal acceptance of Christ's forgiveness through faith that brings salvation.

No need for a priest. A Protestant would assert his freedom to approach God in prayer and worship without the mediation of a priest. Even in sacramental worship there is no need for a priest.

Scripture. The Bible is the written word of God through which all further revelation is filtered. The Protestant does not discount the notion that the Holy Spirit still speaks and teaches, only that nothing he says will contradict the written revelation. Much of what protestants disagree with in the RC church is the stuff that either contradicts Scripture, goes beyond what Scripture teaches or even replaces the work of various members of the Trinity.

The veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception, her bodily assumption, her mediation, her status as co-redemptix, her status as Queen of Heaven. These are massive issues for many Protestants. Not only are they beyond and contradictory to Scripture, they are also a usurpation of the Lordship of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit.

Ritualism etc. The Protestant sees these as unnecessary and in some cases harmful religiosity and downright superstition. Jesus railed against the Pharisees for their external trappings that became the centre of their spirituality.

The Mass. Well, it's still there in the 39 Articles: It's a blasphemy. I don't know whether I would use that term, but I would say it's not at all what the New Testament teaches about the Lord's Supper. It's divisive, it's exclusive, it robs the Holy Spirit of his divine work, it reduces the blood of Christ to mere ritual and suggests that forgiveness, salvation and sanctification is literally in the hands of a human priest.
 

---

Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi -
RE sola scriptura and Protestant protests (hardly har har) against traditional beliefs and practices:
These are a natural part of the protestant movement, they have to be in order for Protestant churches to claim legitimacy. In order for Protestantism to have legitimacy, it _must_ believe in sola scriptura. They must be able to point to something unchanging and say, "there is Truth".
Clearly protestants don't adhere to the beliefs and practices of the early church, if they did their worship would be consistent. Because it is not, we know that they either don't know what the beliefs and practices of the early church were, or they know and choose to ignore them. Tnis in spite of the oft-stated Protestant desire to return to the early church. That so many seek that goal and find so many different destinations shows that there is no arbiter of Truth in the picture, no standard by which to judge whose interpretation of scripture is accurate, no one to speak with ancient authority regarding the practice of finding salvation on the narror path, etc.

Gregory
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Hi -
RE sola scriptura and Protestant protests (hardly har har) against traditional beliefs and practices:
These are a natural part of the protestant movement, they have to be in order for Protestant churches to claim legitimacy. In order for Protestantism to have legitimacy, it _must_ believe in sola scriptura. They must be able to point to something unchanging and say, "there is Truth".
Clearly protestants don't adhere to the beliefs and practices of the early church, if they did their worship would be consistent. Because it is not, we know that they either don't know what the beliefs and practices of the early church were, or they know and choose to ignore them. Tnis in spite of the oft-stated Protestant desire to return to the early church. That so many seek that goal and find so many different destinations shows that there is no arbiter of Truth in the picture, no standard by which to judge whose interpretation of scripture is accurate, no one to speak with ancient authority regarding the practice of finding salvation on the narror path, etc.

Gregory

---

quote:

---

The fact is there is no one early church style or practice. As far as early church beliefs, well it's what's in the New testament.

---

Evidently not, because there is little agreement. Ask 100 protestant leaders this question, and see how varied the answers are: "Christ said that the path and gate were narrow, how narrow are they, and what is the best way to find the path and remain upon it?"

The desire for a return to these beliefs is basically a stripping away of those things not found in the NT as in the list I have already posted.

In Acts, authority figures in the Church met and decided, for the Church as a whole, that Jews and gentiles would not be treated differently, and their edict was carried out. There was authority in the earliest days of the Church, and when the Apostles died they had to pass this authority on, which is why the Church exists. St. Paul's epistles, referring to an existing Church and a single truth (one that many will turn away from, "having itching ears"), were all the voice of authority of the Church speaking in an attempt to get everyone on the same page.
From there things grew organically, and universality of belief and practice were affirned in the same councils which debated and selected the books of the Bible.

The fact that there are numerous styles of Protestant church has a lot to do with history, the prevailing culture at the time of their founding, and the fact that there is not one pattern of church leadership in the NT. What you will find however is a distinct lack of priests.

What you will find is authority, and repeated admponitions to put pious men in positions of authority. The Bible does refer to Prebyters, and St. Clement, referred to by name by St. Paul in the Bible, referred to himself as the third Bishop of Rome. If having Bishops and priests constitutes serious error, the Church fell fast indeed.

Gregory

[put in quote code]

[ 31. October 2005, 15:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Hi Mudfrog -

Quote:
The fact is there is no one early church style or practice. As far as early church beliefs, well it's what's in the New testament.

Evidently not, because there is little agreement. Ask 100 protestant leaders this question, and see how varied the answers are: "Christ said that the path and gate were narrow, how narrow are they, and what is the best way to find the path and remain upon it?"

The desire for a return to these beliefs is basically a stripping away of those things not found in the NT as in the list I have already posted.

In Acts, authority figures in the Church met and decided, for the Church as a whole, that Jews and gentiles would not be treated differently, and their edict was carried out. There was authority in the earliest days of the Church, and when the Apostles died they had to pass this authority on, which is why the Church exists. St. Paul's epistles, referring to an existing Church and a single truth (one that many will turn away from, "having itching ears"), were all the voice of authority of the Church speaking in an attempt to get everyone on the same page.
From there things grew organically, and universality of belief and practice were affirned in the same councils which debated and selected the books of the Bible.

The fact that there are numerous styles of Protestant church has a lot to do with history, the prevailing culture at the time of their founding, and the fact that there is not one pattern of church leadership in the NT. What you will find however is a distinct lack of priests.

What you will find is authority, and repeated admponitions to put pious men in positions of authority. The Bible does refer to Prebyters, and St. Clement, referred to by name by St. Paul in the Bible, referred to himself as the third Bishop of Rome. If having Bishops and priests constitutes serious error, the Church fell fast indeed.

Gregory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is why there are no Protestant priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is why there are no Protestant priests.

---

Mudfrog,

But surely you recognise that all Christians hold the priestly office? It is in that sense that I understand (as a protestant) that no hierarchically ordained priest is necessary to celebrate the sacrament. If you and I were to share a meal, praying following Christ's example and engaging in godly discourse, is that not as much a Eucharist as the formal celebration in church?

---

quote:

---

It is a myth that each Protestant denomination is totally different in beliefs to the others. Look, for example, at the EA statement of faith. This unites all Protestants in thast membership - even Anglicans!
The idea that only the Catholic church has an agreed set of central doctrines is incorrect.

---

quote:

---

As far as NT priesthood is concerned, I was not speaking about authority. Of course there is authority - and much of it is centralised. What I was saying is that there is no evidence of sacramental priesthood - a class of ritual-performers. The priesthood came in much later, after the NT. Apostleship, yes. Elders, yes (How many Roman Catholic churches have Apostles and Elders I wonder?). But a sacerdotal prieshood? No. Not even in the lists of offices and gifts given by Paul will you find the gift or ministry of priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But I don't think it's impossible to imagine a St Martin Luther, great orthodox Augustinian reformer of the RCC, if things had gone just a bit differently at an early stage.

---

quote:

---

"Hi Mudfrog,

You say,
It is a myth that each Protestant denomination is totally different in beliefs to the others. Look, for example, at the EA statement of faith. This unites all Protestants in thast membership - even Anglicans!
The idea that only the Catholic church has an agreed set of central doctrines is incorrect.

This simply isn't true, unless you are willing to point at groups like JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. and say, "you cannot be Christians".
As to the fundamental beliefs, this is where the rubber hits the road. If the general dogma of salvation is agreed upon and is correct, "Follow Christ", then how is it that the path is narrow? If the dogma is universal, that can't be the narrowing factor, it must be the actual walking of the path. If the road is obvious then walking it must be hard, otherwise the path and gate cannot be narrow. So, how does one walk that path?

That is the central question of our existence if you accept that Christ was a miracleworker. And to that question we would find all kinds of different answers from Protestants."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I am very sad but I have to rebuke those that derailed the thread into a fight of personal theological opinions. This is not in the spirit of the original post. Please refrain from posting in this thread and go somehwere else to make your wars, OK?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
See the mess in quotes? Mudfrog and Sophia's Questions have completely messed with the quotes. The thread has become very hard to read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Please, stop making assumptions. There is no central authority in Orthodoxy. Why are you saying these things? Have you any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Secondly, this is not a protestant debate, so your arguments cannot be used here. This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better. By confusing me, you are not going to solve the problems of your churches. So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

---

But how will you understand historical developments and moder Protestants without understand that robust debate is part of who we are?
 

---

Posted by Ags (# 204) on :
 
andreas,
please calm down a minute. I don't think the thread has been derailed (yet!) I have been reading it with fascination. As an Anglican (CofE) I would always have described myself as Protestant- having been brought up to think that Roman Catholics were misguided at best & I'd never heard of the Orthodox Church till I came to these boards! However my Prot 'label' sits a lot less securely these days, which comes mainly from working with a lot of Catholics & from reading postings by you, Josephine, Fr Gregory et al.
I think you'll find that Mudfrog is a Salvationist , therefore belonging to a Christian organisation which has neither priests nor sacraments. He's hardly going to argue in favour of them if he doesn't 'do' them in real life, is he?
As St Seraphim so wisely said, go with the robust debate. A host will soon step in if things get too personal.

And my take on the 'justification' question? By faith, of course.
But without works to show for it, a pretty meaningless justification!

Ags.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ags:
As an Anglican (CofE) I would always have described myself as Protestant- having been brought up to think that Roman Catholics were misguided at best & I'd never heard of the Orthodox Church till I came to these boards!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Please, stop making assumptions. There is no central authority in Orthodoxy. Why are you saying these things? Have you any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Secondly, this is not a protestant debate, so your arguments cannot be used here. This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better. By confusing me, you are not going to solve the problems of your churches. So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Ags (and people),

I'm sorry I was not calm. However, there is a sharp contrast between the two pages of this thread. I feel sorry that the second page does not have the clarity the first page has.

To sum up:

A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. [i.e. that God inspires / gives birth / whatever-verb-you-want faith in each person and each one of us can either live in faith or reject it. All good things come from above, because God is the source of all gifts.] So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.

---

I agree with that as a Lutheran Protestant. Remember there are many shades, flavors and types of Protestants. Many will say that Lutherans are too close to Catholic for their comfort.

quote:

---

B. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics have gone a long way since the epoch of the first Reformers. [surprisingly, the Orthodox remained the same.]

---

Because there has not been a lot of interaction between the Orthodox and the West. BTW I have read the letters that Melancthon wrote to the East. It has been a while and I was hoping to find them again and refresh my memory. As I remember (and I am fallible ) at first there was a response from the East but there must have been an unease with Luther's ideas and there were some sticking points that could not be overcome. My impression was that it yurned yo a cold reception quickly... no doubt that is coming from a biased view.

quote:

---

C. The scriptures are viewed highly by all traditions, so there is nothing unique in Protestantism as far as that is concerned. However, Protestants have made an arbitrary decision to put it above everything else. [I don't know what this means, since Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices do not contradict scriptures.]

---

quote:

---

D. The responsibility of the individual believer is stressed, but then again so does the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

E. There is no central authority, just like in the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

F. There are many controversies and debates that lead to schisms, unlike the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.

G. Luther could judge which books are really scriptures and which aren't.

---

quote:

---

Is this a fair summary so far?

What should we do next? Any suggestions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.

---

quote:

---

C. The scriptures are viewed highly by all traditions, so there is nothing unique in Protestantism as far as that is concerned. However, Protestants have made an arbitrary decision to put it above everything else. [I don't know what this means, since Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices do not contradict scriptures.]

---

quote:

---

D. The responsibility of the individual believer is stressed, but then again so does the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

F. There are many controversies and debates that lead to schisms, unlike the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

G. Luther could judge which books are really scriptures and which aren't.

---

quote:

---

A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. [i.e. that God inspires / gives birth / whatever-verb-you-want faith in each person and each one of us can either live in faith or reject it. All good things come from above, because God is the source of all gifts.] So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Luther speaks of our inherent unworthiness, the sins we do without intention or the sins we do purposefully? Because if he speaks of our unworthiness, I cannot but agree with him and praise God Lord for his ineffable love. If he speaks of the sins we do without intention I cannot but agree with him, and thank God because He is faithful and forgives us for these things. But if he speaks of the sins we do purposefully, then things change for me. I will thank God for showing us repentance as a way of forgiveness, and of His ineffable love and forgiveness, but unless we repent and change our way of life, how can we be righteous? So, in what sense is Luther using the word "sin"? Is he saying that we can both sin on purpose and at the same time be righteous on account of Jesus?

---

quote:

---

And I certainly don't think that those who don't know Him, will be judged as unjust on that day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Mudfrog, after over 700 posts, you should know how to use UBB code for quotes. If you don't, get yourself over to the appropriate thread in the Styx and learn.

Sophia's Questions, at the top of every post there is a series of icons. If you click on the one showing paper and pencil above a particular post, you will get a "post a reply" window with the UBB code for quotes surrounding that post. You can also use the button for quote code under "Instant UBB code" below every reply window. There is a thread for practicing use of UBB code in the Styx.

RuthW
Purgatory host

---

Don't get sniffy.
I'm not the only one who has cut and paste on these boards. I know full well how to use the pen and pencil icon for quotes, but on the post in question I didn't want to quote the entire post.
Does it REALLY matter?
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
aside to Mudfrog... you don't have to quote the whole post even if you use the quote icon - you can just delete the bits you don't want. I do it all the time.

PS Great thread by the way Andreas. Only someone like yourself with your background could think of attempting to understand Protestantism in all its diversity in one go, but its proing very interesting to see what we do indeed see as the distinctive features of what for us is just 'normal Christianity'.

[eta PS - to make my post relevant to the thread and not just to Mudfrog!]

[ 31. October 2005, 21:44: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
proving not proing
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Someone in a previous post -- a couple of people, actually -- mentioned a certain squeamishness in self-identifying as a Protestant.

That's how I feel. I prefer to think of my tradition as catholic, evangelical and reforming . Catholic in the sense that we affirm the apostolic witness, faith statements and worship praxis of the historical Church; evangelical in the sense of proclaiming the good news of God's unqualified, redeeming, reconciling "yes!" to us in the person of Jesus Christ; and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does it REALLY matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I prefer to think of my tradition as catholic, evangelical and reforming . Catholic in the sense that we affirm the apostolic witness, faith statements and worship praxis of the historical Church; evangelical in the sense of proclaiming the good news of God's unqualified, redeeming, reconciling "yes!" to us in the person of Jesus Christ; and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.

---

quote:

---

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.

---

quote:

---

The selling of forgiveness as in indulgences contradicts scripture.

---

quote:

---

In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.

---

quote:

---

C: the central "act" of most protestant services is that of the teaching and speaking from the word, whereas the Orthodox and RC have Mass at the centre. Most protestants would say that Orthodox and RC teaching and practice does contradict the scriptures.

---

quote:

---

Orthodox and Roman Catholic interpretation of their own practices do not contradict their interpretation of the scriptures. This is not necessarily the same thing. Orthodox and Roman Catholic use of images indisputably contradict the second commandment, but you have a higher authority than the ten commandments.

---

quote:

---

To be fair, as you have been stressing the novelty of Protestantism, you might compare its first 500 years to the first 500 years of Orthodoxy. Free of controversy, debate and schism? Perhaps not entirely.

---

quote:

---

and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.



{fixed quote code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes, as a Protestant moving away from the truth of the Church of Rome, I worry greatly about those scriptures.

---

Ha Ha! I just knew someone would say that.
But that's not why I asked the questeion - honest!

What I was trying to suggest - and this is not necessarily the only interpretation (which is why I asked the question) - was that it IS possible for the church to be in error. It was right back in the first century. If it were not so then Christ would not have spoken to the churches in such a damning way.

"I have this against you" - is it possible that for 1500 years Christ never said this to the Roman Catholic Church and now when he says it, it's only to the Protestant churches?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I suppose this is where (I can hardly believe I'm trotting this out) indefectible rather than infallible would get brought in.

Seriously though, perhaps that is the foundation of protestantism; rather than any specific doctrine.... the idea that the church might be in error, and needs correcting from time to time. (Normally by way of schism, but let that be....)
 

---

Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy.

---

[tangent]I don't know where you got these ideas about the Catholic Church - but they are misconceived if not outright wrong. You have also seriously misrepresented the sacrament of reconciliation in the inaccurate term "confessional penance".

quote:

---

---

Brother, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
Aside from mis-labeling penances, you didn't say how what I said was in error. If you know much about Orthodoxy, you know that it is unchanged. The same cannot be said for Roman Catholicism, and the juridical nature of many of its practices and beliefs reflect the western mindset.
Since you mention confession, am I not correct that the RC church asks believers to make specific penance for specific sins? And does this not tend to encourage, in some people, the idea that doing something specific grants one forgiveness? That may not be the _actual doctrine_, but it is how it manifests.

quote:

---

---

You'll find that this:

quote:

---

Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

quote:

---

---

also holds true for the Catholic view of salvation.

quote:

---

---

In a theological sense in many respects, yes, but certainly not in all, and not much at all with regard to the spiritual growth involved in the faithful Christian life. The RC church has cut its believers off from many of the life-giving disciplines of the Church, from daily prayer to fasting. Fasting encourages the development of discipline, and encourages self-denial and an understanding of how attached we are to the things of this world. When we deny ourselves in small things such as food, it becomes easier to deal with the larger challenges of our spiritual life. As the RC church slowly relaxed the historical fasting rules to the point where they no longer exist in any meaningful sense, were they doing RC believers a service? This and other things are an example of the willingness of the RC church to change with the times. Does fasting encourage self-denial and discipline or not? If it does, as Christians have always believed, why did the RC church abandon it?

quote:

---

---

You're free to make whatever attack on Catholicism you like - but do try to support what you say. [/tangent]

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

What I was trying to suggest - and this is not necessarily the only interpretation (which is why I asked the question) - was that it IS possible for the church to be in error. It was right back in the first century. If it were not so then Christ would not have spoken to the churches in such a damning way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I suppose this is where (I can hardly believe I'm trotting this out) indefectible rather than infallible would get brought in.

Seriously though, perhaps that is the foundation of protestantism; rather than any specific doctrine.... the idea that the church might be in error, and needs correcting from time to time. (Normally by way of schism, but let that be....)

---

quote:

---

Of course the church needs correcting from time to time.
St Paul, writing to Timothy said,
"All scripture is given by ispiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

---

St. Paul was referring to individuals. You will find no place in Scripture where the Church will be said to be in error, or that it will fall away from the Truth, but there are countless references to groups and individuals doing so. The next chapter has St. Paul saying that we must exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. What doctrine? Yours? Mine? No, the Church's doctrine, a specific, definable doctrine. Why must we do so? Because in spite of our best efforts, as St. Paul says, many would fall away from the Truth. What Truth? Yours? The Pope's? Mine? St. Paul is talking about the truth being a specific thing, from which people can fall away. So what is it? It can't be our individual interpretation of scripture - that has led some to grave and obvious error, so how many smaller errors accumulate? And can they affect our salvation? Why risk it when it isn't necessary? If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC (Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates) to Mormons, can it really be a reliable path to truth? What would an objective, outside observer say? For that matter, seeing a consistent theology and spiritual life in Orthodoxy, and new and varied approaches everywhere else, what would an objective observer say when asked, "Where has the truth about the meaning of the Bible and the path to salvation most likely been preserved?"

It's not an idle question. We believe because we all know in our hearts that we are created beings, and whether we are ready to recognize it or not, our true hearts desire is to be with our Maker. And so we set out in search of....... what? Do we make an objective search for Truth? Do we even countenance the possibility that there exists a preserved Truth about The Creator's communications with humanity?

If we don't entertain that last idea, we have decided that we are ants in a farm, or that God is less compassionate than the average one of us. Consider: Created out of love, we exist to love our Creator and one another. Would a loving Creator make it possible for the Truth about our our origin, purpose, and destiny to be known to us? Would he confront us with thoughts such as these, without making it possible to for us to know what they really mean to us, in concrete terms that truly make us responsible for our salvaton?"if thy hand offend thee (causes you to sin), cut if off", and "Narrow is the gate and narrow is the way, and few be that pass." Among many others.

One can look at those statements of The Creator's and decide the "few shall pass" means less than half. Or one can decide that 'yes, I am finally convinced that I am immortal', and begin to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling." How much more fear do we feel, when we finally take our salvation seriously, if we are unsure of the path we are walking? This is what encourages the search for Truth with a capital T.

It's no coincidence that this desire takes root and grows in the fertile soil of the foundational Christian virtue, humility.

**
That millions of committed Protestants are earnest believers cannot be doubted. I rejoice when I see one of them baptized into Orthodoxy. It doesn't mean an end to the study of Scripture, but rather an opening of the doors to another world, the world of the Church Fathers, past and present, and also to the full understanding of Scripture as elucidated in their library of works, hundreds of thousands of pages. Their world is one of unity of thought and action, and they are always looking back to the beginning for guidance. In the writings of 4th century fathers, the time of the Apostles was referred to as the time of the "Ancients", or "in antiquity".
The entire aim of the Apostolic Church, from the beginning, has been the un-erring preservation of the Truth of the faith, and its life-giving Sacraments, for the faithful.
I make the next statements and insert the smilies with a spirit of friendly humor, having argued this all before:
All of the churches established by St. Paul are (or were, before being destroyed in war) Orthodox.
Orthodoxy has been the faith in the cradle of Christianity since the beginning. Think about it.

[fixed code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:21: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Stevetom wrote:

quote:

---

Orthodox and Roman Catholic use of images indisputably contradict the second commandment, but you have a higher authority than the ten commandments.

---

What you are arguing is that the issue of icons and artwork was decided incorrectly by the last Ecumenical Council, that the iconoclasts were correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

St. Seraphim said,

quote:

---

---

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.

quote:

---

---

Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

---

What I said was scripture was essential for a Protestant, not that it was the only thing. In fact many Protestant churches do use tradtion (ok, maybe only 100 years of it ) to back up what they read and interpret in the Bible.

And such a view does lead to there being all sort of odd, if not heretical practices being used. But history has shown that the same thing did occur in the RC church. (Something that I personally don't believe is happening today IMHO).

As far as there being only one road to Christ, I've always had problems with that view. There may be only one road for me, but that road may be different for someone else.

Can you tell me that if you and I were to both, say, go to Jerusalem we would take the same route? Probably not. Are there routes that we both could take that wouldn't be direct, but would get us there eventually? And there are routes that I know I could take and become good and lost. What is important is for me to keep my eyes on where I am going and if I become lost to seek directions and sometimes I only know I'm lost when someone asks me why I'm not going the right way (ask my husband on that one!)
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
This issue is ultimately about epistemology and the knowability of Absolute Truth. Protestants, either consciously or unconsciously give a nod at least to the role of some kind of church tradition but insist that this must be subordinate to Scripture. All well and good, but that begs the question "Scripture as interpreted how and by whom?"

Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years until some obscure friar called Luther will come along to put it all right again and then the gates of Hades will not prevail against it which is rather bad news for all the people who will try to be Christians in the meantime but stuff them, they don't count, that's why it will be called the Dark Ages"?

[ 01. November 2005, 10:53: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Couldn't it be that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow linked to the covenant of grace? What I mean is that God will attend his word with eternal truth when and where there are people in receipt of his covenant faithfulness. After all, the interpratation of Scripture is impossible without the tri-une indwelling of God at a corporate level. Now of course just what that corpus looks like and where that corpus is located is another discussion. But I'd be inclined to say that the corpus unto which God's covenant faithfulness causes him to attend his word with truth are the elect of God. In other words, the communion of saints throughout time, or those known fully to Christ alone. I can see no reason whatsoever why those 'elect' have been both within and without the institutional visible church since the very beginning.
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Hi again, Sophia's Questions. I'll try to answer yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
truly make us responsible for our salvaton?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC <slight snip> to Mormons

---

quote:

---

[qb] even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.

---

quote:

---

if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
This issue is ultimately about epistemology and the knowability of Absolute Truth. Protestants, either consciously or unconsciously give a nod at least to the role of some kind of church tradition but insist that this must be subordinate to Scripture. All well and good, but that begs the question "Scripture as interpreted how and by whom?"

Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years until some obscure friar called Luther will come along to put it all right again and then the gates of Hades will not prevail against it which is rather bad news for all the people who will try to be Christians in the meantime but stuff them, they don't count, that's why it will be called the Dark Ages"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, but there be the rub; your words "I think"; who are you and who am I to be able to say that that is what that particular Scripture means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

---

Yes, that seems right.

There is also the very strong Protestant tradition ( ) that "the Bible is its own interpreter". In other words, that seeing as the whole thing is God's book and God does not self-contradict, the whpole Bible is telling different parts of the same story. So when there is some doubt or dispute it it legitimate - neccessary - to back up opinion from many parts of Scripture.

Of course this can lead to using dozens of isolated phrases taken out of context from all over the Bible to illustrate or reinforce sme point. (But if it was good enough for the apostle Paul its good enough for us...)

Its not that Protestants think that the Bible is some sort of embodiment of divity, a Christian Koran, (OK - to be honest some do - very few, but there are people who conflate the Bible as the word of God with Jesus as the uncreated word - but its not common). It is that we recognise that churches and traditions disagree with each other. And so obviously we cannot totally trust any of them without some sort of backup from God. When there are two, or twenty, traditions; six, or sixty, churches; all claiming slightly different things you need some measuring stick to compare them to. Scripture seemed to the Reformers to be a more direct line to Jesus Christ, a closer witness, sidestepping centuries of "Chinese whipsers", revealing the truth of God unsullied by warring and corrupt heirarchy.

In the historical circumstances of the Reformation it could hardly have been otherwise. The Christian church had been fighting itself (literally) for centuries. No sooner had the Avignon "captivity" ended than the great Schism began, and that followed by the persecution and (rather successful) rebellion of the Hussites (in which God showed himself to favour John Ziska's artillery above the Duke of Austria's catholic cavalry). The Pope of the time was selling indulgences not only to fit out St Peter's or the Sistine, but also to pay for his wars - wars in which he rode out armed. Where else were the reformers to turn but Scripture?
 

---

Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
[

quote:

---

The selling of forgiveness as in indulgences contradicts scripture.
quote:


Indeed, and it took much less for the four other co-equal patriarchates to excommunicate the church at Rome for heresy.
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy. And as a general note that is often lost in these kinds of discussions, Orthodoxy is not about tradition and ritual first, rather it is about cultivating the divine within us, come closer to the "likeness" of God, after which we were made.

---

quote:

---

eriksdahl later said,
quote:


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
And if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, in what regard is it to God's benefit to see fractures and a diffusion of different beliefs within Christianity? It is not, so part of that guidance would be in regard to the preservation of the Truth as He imparted it, both what He imparted and what it means for each of us.

---

And yes we have that guidance - most obviously in Scriptures They are the fence that marks the edges of the narrow road. So we shoudl have an eye for them when the teachings of men lead us off the road.

quote:

---

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himself as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons.

---

quote:

---

All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved.

---

quote:

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How does today's Christian tell which is the good guy and which the bad? The Protestants at least have a coherent answer to this question - the Church is Christ's, the Bible is a record of eyewitnesses to the saving events of God's intervention in the history of the Jews and of the life of Jesus Christ, so we can see which of the competing churches most matches that Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How does today's Christian tell which is the good guy and which the bad? The Protestants at least have a coherent answer to this question - the Church is Christ's, the Bible is a record of eyewitnesses to the saving events of God's intervention in the history of the Jews and of the life of Jesus Christ, so we can see which of the competing churches most matches that Bible.

---

But how? And whose interpretation of the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A lot of the Bible doesn't need interpreting.
(Granted that a significant amount does).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

---

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

---

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

Mudfrog (or Mudfoot as he's been called here) defines Protestantism as inclusive only of Churches which accept certain creeds. This makes it easy to then assert that all Protestants believe similar things, like creeds. Circular definition and proof. I love it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.

---

OK, my Muddy friend, how do you deal with this quote from Ron Sider, taken from Evangelism and Social Action [note to Hosts - if I err in posting this, please forgive and delete ):-

“Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote Luke 4:16ff to demonstrate faithful Christians, like Jesus, should be “filled with the power of the Spirit” and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelisation cite Luke 4:16ff…to show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will present Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others. The different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom. Medieval Catholicism, on the one hand, tended to identify the kingdom with the institutional, visible church. Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a social-economic-political reality that beings can create through politics – whether democratic politics in the social gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some liberation theology. Many 20th century evangelicals understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the souls of believers…Other conservative Christians (in the dispensationalist tradition of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible) have seen the kingdom as entirely future.”

So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

---

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

---

I would hope we wouldn't have to actually go through with this exercise, but surely you can see that any of us could request one passage (3 to 4 verses) of any Gospel that is self-evident, and upon your response, show the differing interpretations.

Needs no interpretation?!? Watch out for naivete, Muddy. It stings.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.

---

OK, my Muddy friend, how do you deal with this quote from Ron Sider, taken from Evangelism and Social Action [note to Hosts - if I err in posting this, please forgive and delete ):-

“Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote Luke 4:16ff to demonstrate faithful Christians, like Jesus, should be “filled with the power of the Spirit” and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelisation cite Luke 4:16ff…to show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will present Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others. The different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom. Medieval Catholicism, on the one hand, tended to identify the kingdom with the institutional, visible church. Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a social-economic-political reality that beings can create through politics – whether democratic politics in the social gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some liberation theology. Many 20th century evangelicals understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the souls of believers…Other conservative Christians (in the dispensationalist tradition of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible) have seen the kingdom as entirely future.”

So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So the (traditional!) Protestant claim is that the study of scripture is exactly what guards us from following our individual whims (or cultural, or collective ones) and gives us some confidence that we are in that great tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

---

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.

---

quote:

---

The obvious interpretation of a passage is usually the right one.

---

quote:

---

I fail to see how anyone can read the passage you quoted and not see how easy it is to say "Christ read a passage about the Good News, applied it to himself and then fulfilled it as demonstrated in the rest of the Gospel."

---

quote:

---

As I said, sometimes you can obscure the simple meaning by interpreting it too much - and in a way that was never intended.

---

quote:

---

An example of this was how the Church has interpreted the parables. There is only one meaning to each parable and it's a broad brush stroke; but the church has often allegorised absolutely every detail ad infinitum so it's way above the original meaning. It's ridiculous and often obscures the simple meaning Jesus was intending.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
EG, the healing of blind Bartimaeus. It's an event, a healing. It happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)

---

All of them. And a lot more. An eternal an omniscient God can easily arrange for one sentence to mean different but appropriate things to millions of readers
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(a) why is it 'obvious'?
(b) how do we apply it today?
(c) why should I trust your so-called 'obvious' interpretation over any other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

---

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.

---

quote:

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

---

I'm wondering what constancy you're referring to, especially since over the years the RCC has adopted many of Luther's suggested reforms.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)?

---

In fact the more I think about it, the more spurious this prooftexting seems.

There is nothing in these words by way of everlasting covenant.
Perhaps they promise that in the 250 years of Roman persecution ahead the movement would not be destroyed. Possibly even that if the movement ever went off the rails it would be restored or rise up again.

But that, throughout the millennia, there will forever be organisation in institutional continuity with the first church, and that it will be the same church of Jesus despite all corruption, crimes against humanity and the utter moral degradation of its leaders - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? (italics mine, js)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Let me just clarify.

Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation because they are so dense and mystifying - and these interpretations are just myriad with no real right or wrong - Revelation for example.

Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation because they might be hard to follow or they are highly theological - the Epistle to the Romans, for example.

Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation because the surface reading, whilst not rocket science, are obviously 1st Century Jewish and without interpretation the truth is lost on western 21st Century minds.

Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation just by way of explanation and interest.

Some passages - mainly historical narrative - CAN be interpreted to give a spiritual meaning. ie, what does this passage mean to me?

Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history - however, an interpretation CAN add to the adequate surface meaning and shed extra light.

Some passages are interpreted by their own context and are explained right there and then. The interpretation is there for all to see - Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.
 

---

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history - however, an interpretation CAN add to the adequate surface meaning and shed extra light.

Some passages are interpreted by their own context and are explained right there and then. The interpretation is there for all to see - Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let me just clarify. Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation [...] Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation [...] Some passages - mainly historical narrative - CAN be interpreted to give a spiritual meaning [...] Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history

---

quote:

---

Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

---

If only it was We've had people on these very boards claiming scriptural justification for the unprovoked invasion of other countries. And others who are complete pacifists and say it is wrong even to defend your own country.
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

---

Yes, that seems right.

---

quote:

---

My point was:
1) The second commandment forbids the use of images.
2) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Therefore
3) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) do not follow the second commandment.

In exactly the same way, almost no Christians obey the commandment about the Sabbath. For this they have explicit sanction in the NT. Image worship has the sanction of tradition.

I make no comment about the rightness or wrongness of either. I'm just saying just that when Andreas says there is no difference between Orthodox and Protestant attitudes to the Bible because Orthodox practice does not contravene the Bible, one would be using quite peculiar definitions of all of those words for his statement to be true.

---

quote:

---

If one of the Eastern churches claimed that something they did was a tradition handed down from the time of the apostles, I would have to acknowledge the claim as possible. However, since I *know* that the Bible (and the Didache etc) has survived since the time of the early church, I would want to check the tradition against scripture -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

St. Seraphim said,

quote:

---

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.

---

Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

---

---

What I said was scripture was essential for a Protestant, not that it was the only thing. In fact many Protestant churches do use tradtion (ok, maybe only 100 years of it ) to back up what they read and interpret in the Bible.

quote:

---

I didn't mean to infer that you rely upon the Bible only. All churches have traditions, and St. Paul told us to hold fast to them.

---

quote:

---

Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

As far as there being only one road to Christ, I've always had problems with that view. There may be only one road for me, but that road may be different for someone else.

---

quote:

---

And there are routes that I know I could take and become good and lost. What is important is for me to keep my eyes on where I am going and if I become lost to seek directions and sometimes I only know I'm lost when someone asks me why I'm not going the right way (ask my husband on that one!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Couldn't it be that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow linked to the covenant of grace? What I mean is that God will attend his word with eternal truth when and where there are people in receipt of his covenant faithfulness. After all, the interpratation of Scripture is impossible without the tri-une indwelling of God at a corporate level. Now of course just what that corpus looks like and where that corpus is located is another discussion. But I'd be inclined to say that the corpus unto which God's covenant faithfulness causes him to attend his word with truth are the elect of God. In other words, the communion of saints throughout time, or those known fully to Christ alone. I can see no reason whatsoever why those 'elect' have been both within and without the institutional visible church since the very beginning.

---

quote:

---

Can we really be responsible for our own salvation, though? This protestant would say that we are saved soley by grace, so whatever choices we make, the ultimate responsibility for us being in Heaven rests with Jesus on the cross, for the free gift of salvation that God offers. Yes, we may have the responsibility to take that gift, but whether or not we choose to take it still depends on whether or not God offers it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates

---

That's a very Orthodox view. Try telling a Roman that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC <slight snip> to Mormons

---

But Rome has its Tradition and infallibility, and Mormons have their book of Mormon and golden specs. Neither of those groups is sola scriptura.

---

quote:

---

To attempt an answer to your response to Quantpole, I'd ask what liturgy the Church used before the 4th century, before Sts Basil & John's day? Does God actually care about what precise liturgy we use, anyway? I for one really don't see why He should care whether we sing Kyrie e Leison, Depths of Mercy or Shine Jesus Shine, whether we use Eucharistic prayer A, B or C (I'm sure they all say the same thing) or whether we pronounce "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" or "Dying you destroyed our death, Rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus come in glory". They all say much the same thing. Should He not be pleased? Graham Kendrick is a part of the ongoing tradition of British hymnwriters, his talents grew organically within the church as much as anyone else's.

---

quote:

---

I must admit that your response to my post confused me rather, so if you could post it again more succinctly I'd be gratified. I'll try to answer it as well as I can, though.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

SQ had said,

quote:

---

even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.

---

Now you say (still not sure of the system, but I opened a can of worms, and haven't made it to styx for training, sorry)

---

The basic message I get here is that though we may know we have to follow Christ, protestants are not doing so, for some reason. Why do you see us as not doing so? What is the fault?

---

quote:

---

If salvation is by faith, surely putting our trust in Jesus is enough, as he will then work on our hearts and show us how to follow him?

---

quote:

---

Plus, we have the scriptures that we are sure haven't changed since, ooh, about 100AD to guide us on our way, and Christian friends to help us. Is not being in the Orthodox church enough to count us as "not on the road"? Looking back at what Jesus told His disciples then, from documents that are of verifiable age, He never mentioned a church of any name, but he did give instructions on how to follow Him. If I can use these to do so separately from Orthodoxy, surely that shows that Orthodoxy is not a requirement for "following the road", and so you shouldn't disqualify the protestants who are acting like you but merely not part of your church as "standing by the side of the road"?

---

quote:

---

if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow

---

quote:

---

Because as you said, truly loving our neighbour, giving up some of our pleasures for him, (and not smacking my little brother round the face when he's annoying, and forgivign the guy who recently ran into me in his car) is hard to do. The gate is narrow because Satan still exists in the world, and he won't let temptation go away. We have all the information we need to follow God,

---

quote:

---

it's just the willpower and strength that's lacking. If we really ask Him for help, He'll provide us with all that we need, it's just that for most people, we don't even really want to be made pure, it's too painful.

---

quote:

---

In your second paragraph, you talk about Truth alot. Why is it capitalised, may I ask?

---

quote:

---

Is it because you believe the remaining patriachates to hold the one, unerring truth? How can you be so sure? When did God promise that? You said it was impossible for the whole church to err, but looking at the bible, it has already happened. Take Jesus, for example. I can remember possibly two pharissees who were not against him, and the establishment of Judaism had him murdered. So much for the preservation of Truth. Less than a century later, Paul wrote, when he wrote to "the church in Corinth" and John wrote, when he wrote to the seven churches, not to "yeah, the methodist church, just up the road from St Mark's" but to the church in it's entirety in one place. That was an age without fast transport, and most people would never stray far from their home town. THe churches he wrote to were the entire Christian life to most of the people involved. That was the entire church faltering. In Germany in Luther's day, how many people would ever get as far as Greece? Catholicism WAS The Church.

---

quote:

---

I could be a protestant living by myself on a desert island. All that is required is me and God. You seem to be saying that an organised church structure, well, one particular church structure, is required. Is God really mean enough to deny Himself to people who for insurmountable reasons can't be part of any structure?

---

quote:

---

Oh, and JWs are as far from my beleifs as they are from yours. Muslims aren't Orthodox either, but that doesn't make them protestant.

---

quote:

---

When Jesus spoke about the church on earth, he was not guaranteeing an indestructable, infallible or impervious to error group. If he did, what would you have said to the churches in Asia Minor that no longer exist?

---

quote:

---

The fact is that, through all its years of error, weakness, schism, faithlessness, triumph, success, reformation and renewal, the Church, the Body of Christ has done remarkably well to preserve the Gospel message and maintain the cause of Christ.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

eriksdahl later said,
quote:


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

---

quote:

---

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himself as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons.

---

quote:

---

Nothing's gained by mincing words. The teachings of the JWs (& at least some Unitarians - its hard to be sure what they believe because one meets so few of them) are clearly Christian, but Christian heretics. Disbeleiving the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. As such they have less in common with most mainstream Protestant teaching than that does with Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. Their origins lie in Protestant christianity but htey have diverged very far from it. Seventh Day Adventists are a Protestant church, yes. They have some teachings the rest of use find weird or heretical but I don't think they belong in the same company as the others you mention. The Mormons, whatever they say about themselves, are not recognisably a Christian church. Their teachings are no more Christian than those of the Muslims. In fact less, Christianity and Islam agree with each other on more things than they agree with Islam.

---

quote:

---

All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

OK, the origins of JWs are within Protestantism and their practices are in many wasy like those of Protestant churches, so yes, they are culturally Protestant. But the origial Arians were culturally Orthodox. Would it be fair to blame today's Orthodox for their errors?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved.

---

Quite the opposite. Centering our faith and practice around the reading and teaching of Scripture can actually us from wandering far from God's guidance by chasing after the heretical innovations of preachers and teachers - whether Protestant or Orthodox or Roman.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

---

But as you said it is the small-c individual churches that have gone wrong from time to time, not the Church of God, the Bride of Christ. And those small-c churches that err include Orthodox as well as as Protestant churches. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

---

If so, fullness of Truth is unavailable to us, because we cannot agree upon it. And the Bible refers to the Church as glorious plant grown from a mustard seed, there is no mention of death, or derailment, or rebirth. Christ's Truth, once imparted, is with us forever and is accessible to us forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

---

Well, then I'm afraid we can have no mutual understanding. The most important thing to Christ as he stated was to love God and to love your neighbor. All the Prophets and the law could be summed up in this. Have you ever considered that perhaps you are deviating from Christ's commands, according to his word?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth?(italics mine, js)

---

I believe in a God who raised man from the dead, I believe in a God who spoke and bang the universe started to unravel, I believe in God whose main premise is that he loves people, I believe in a God that is intelligible, I believe in a God that wants to speak to us, I believe in a God who likes love stories, and surely if this God touched lepers and spoke to outcasts and shared Truth, likewise I put my trust in Him and I don't have to be afraid of error not because I'm perfect or have perfect revelation. But I'm not afraid to make mistakes because the God who made the Universe is capable enough to help me. If you have any questions, you can ask him about that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Your characterization of the use of icons, artwork, etc. as "image worship" is the same argument used by the defeated iconoclasts, and it is grossly inaccurate. If the Church thought that the use of icons encouraged believers to be put anything ahead of God, the Church would not use icons. If you want to know about them please ask, I would be glad to tell you what I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions

Welcome to SofF and I hope you find these boards helpful and illuminating. In that spirit, may I offer you a bit of advice?

In common with lots of others, I suspect, I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to learn how to enter quotations properly in the messages you post. Duo Seraphim has already asked you nicely and, in an attempt to make your messages intelligible, has spent what I imagine is a significant amount of time editing them. That is hardly fair on him. Unintelligibly posted messages - or ones which are difficult to read - are not fair on the rest of us - and defeat your desire to communicate effectively, which is hardly in your best interests either.

I am sure your opinions on Protestantism are worth reading - but it is very difficult to be sure!

You will find the Practice Thread in The Styx. It is the first thread on that board. There are examples there of all the main facilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

---

quote:

---

I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.

---

Would you mind if I asked you...what is your goal?
Why do you want to learn more about what Protestants believe? Do you have a inner spiritual battle? Or do you simply think we are so far-gone wrong that you want to study us?

I ask as somebody who is struggling with my own belief system right now - I may be a Calvinist Reform-leaning Christian - but I am open minded to respect others traditions and learn from them. I do not feel fit to contribute to these threads right now that you started but I am enjoying the replies. (SteveTom, I usually hate this emoticon...but I will use it for your replies on this...well done. Patience of saint. )

I would like an answer to this if you are able to. You have started a series of threads digging into Luther's Children and so I am curious.

It was my birthday on Halloween and I will say "Birthday Power!" if that will persuade you.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear duchess

Happy Birthday!

These threads are the result of something Trisagion said a few months ago. He said that I don't know much about Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and I shouldn't be quick to judge (or words to that extent). I think he is right. This is why I started these threads, to get to know Protestants and Protestantism more. I want to get a better understanding because of a hope I have. I hope that the things we have in common are far more important than the things that keep us apart.

In the past few days I learned that Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants share an understanding that all good things come from above, and that man cannot achieve anything good on his own. This basic agreement, from my point of view, is fundamental. It is also shocking, because of all the prejudice hundreds of years created. It seemed as if we differed on that important issues, but it turned out that appearances were indeed deceptive.

Andreas
 

---

Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Surely we will all have a different journey if we decide to follow Christ. But the road is the same. The contours, the signposts, the difficulties, the destination. The Creator would not leave it up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves. The road and the walking of it must be known to us if we are the creations of a loving God...This kind of thinking is not fruitful. How can a narrow road be compared to a variety of circuitous routes? It also reduces the object of our existence - salvation - to just another destination. It is the only destination worth reaching, and as I noted in an earlier post, if we were truly convinced that we are immortal and that our life in Christ can be prone to error (look around), then we would be earnestly searching for truth, and would not rest with a "road" to salvation until we were certain that we were right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I don't know if these later ones are intelligible or not, I won't post anything else until I figure it out. Thanks for the - again kindly delivered - advice, and my thanks to Seraphim for cleaning up after me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code] [/QB]

---

quote:

---

But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

You quote my entire post - where the hell in there do I say that "the use of icons is image worship"?

Where do I say it is wrong?

You are responding entirely to things I never said, and ignoring what I did say.

What I said could not possibly be said more clearly, so I'll just say it again:
The second commandment forbids the use of images.
Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Christians have an authority higher than the Ten Commandments.

If you are able to read that and respond to what it says, please do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, I'll deal with more issues later, but right now I have to go out, so I've only got two things to say:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

---

Have you ever heard of a guy called Leo X? Tell me that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

From what I gather, you are saying that simply reading scripture on your own and trying to determine it's truth is the cause of all individual church's errors, but that trusting in the Church and its tradition is the only way to avoid the heresies inherent to individual scriptural interpretations, etc.

Is that correct? If not could you point out how I've misrepresented you in 50 words or less?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

---

I believe that the purpose of my life is being able to be with Jesus and my Heavenly Father in Heaven. There is only one way to set myself on the path to Heaven (by accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and trusting in his mercy), but the route which I travel is the one that He and I have found, are on, and will find in the future. If I am lost, then my seeking Him and His Truth will bring me back onto the path. If it appears that my path is not the straightest, it may be so that I might meet people and help people along their way to Heaven and Him. To me all that matters is that I find my way Home, not how long it takes or how many pit stops and scenic tours I take along the way. What does matter to me is that I make it. I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code]

---

That's actually a very good question!
Most importantly - I don't believe that I can reliably interpret scripture. Given that I can see other people making obviously stupid mistakes, and the doctrine of original sin excludes my own perfection, it is prudent to assume that I am misinterpreting scripture. Not could be - am.
However - how is blindly following another human going to solve that problem? It merely means that *they* make mistakes, and then I have to interpret what they say - adding another layer of error. It's like copying a cassette tape repeatedly - each copy will be worse. By going to the original, I delete 2000 years worth of stuff ups.

---

quote:

---

Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries? The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).

The consensus of the first millenium? No such animal.
There is a consensus in the early church. I've read many of the writings of the church fathers. Clement's plea to the Corinthians inspires awe: his humility, love and holiness shine through every word. I am grateful to my RC friend who passed on the claim that Clement claimed to rule the church, without him I might never have known about Clement. But having read the letter, I know that Clement didn't claim to rule the church, didn't even claim to oversee all of Rome. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch (although a nutter)wrote letters which are very edifying - and once again the claims (and quotes!) supporting Rome domination simply aren't there. Any time someone claims that so-and-so supported Rome's authority, demand to see the text. I've *never* known the claim to be true.
There is another 'consensus' later on, based on the Donation of Constantine. This blatant forgery was accepted as genuine by Rome for a millennia, and books that disproved it were banned. Finally, Rome now acknowledges it as a forgery. That's good, but if the denomination has been lying and/or gullible for most of it's history, why should anyone believe anything just because Rome says so? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

---

Interesting! What level of authority does the Orthodox church claim in doctrinal disputes? I was under the impression that they felt that a church council was required to make such decisions.
Given the national divisions of the Orthodox churches, I'm somewhat surprised that England didn't go Orthodox. I'd love to see more dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox! It'd be bound to turn up interesting stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off.

---

Yes, and from what? If we say, 'from the Bible', then when two groups disagree on what the Bible means, which one has fallen away from the Truth, and how can we know? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.

---

What you are relying upon is your understanding of Jesus. As are the universal salvationists, and the annhilists, and the JWs.
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so. Consider the supposedly inviolable American Constitution. People poured out rivers of blood, sweat, and tears in an effor to secure self-governance, and established a governing document which today has been twisted beyond recognition in many cases. That's less than 200 years later, with some of the most brilliant minds and strong hearts defending it. The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:
Mudfrog, have you any idea what a pain in the tits it is to have to scroll through 700 words of quote to get to your 5-sentence reply?

If you want people to read the quote you're replying to, edit it drastcially. If not, don't post it. Please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.

[...]

The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

---

Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.

---

quote:

---

A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
The term Mother of God is blasphemous, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
[Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries?

---

quote:

---

The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).

---

quote:

---

And your statement about 'Mother of God' is a denial of Christ's divine nature.

---

quote:

---

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.

quote:

---

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

---

How do Protestants reply to this anathema?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Find me a reference in Scripture where the entirety of the Apostolic Church erred, or was said to be capable of erring....

<snip>

....when we rely upon ourselves, we err, but that does not extrapolate to the God-guided Church, which has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity, defending against _wrong_ interpretations of Scripture.

When we submit to the authority of the Church, we are not acknowledging the truth as delivered by one man or even a council, but the consensus of the faith from the beginning, punctuated and beautifully elucidated in the writings of the hundreds of holy Fathers of the Church, many of whom died martyrs, most of the rest died as saints, someone whose humility, love, and loving obedience are so evident that they are manifestly Christlike.

---

quote:

---

IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD.—THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A
DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.

There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first contains ...

The concluding part contains a refutation of the
second Council of Nice, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
And it's not worship. Greek latrevein means to recognize someone as God. We don't confess icons to be God. Worship is not the verb to be used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."

ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
again, small c churches. The central trunk of Orthodoxy is both unchanging and eternal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Hi again SQ.

I'll answer some of your points. Not all of them, as then this debate would be far too hard to do in one thread, and I think that we actually agree more than first appearences show regarding justification, for instance.

As I said before, when John wrote to the churches in Laodicea and Sardis (Revelation 3) they weren't merely 'local' churches that were erring. They weren't a body of believers that, though they may err, could be corrected by looking at the other body of beleivers just up the road. They were the only church that anyone without significant time and money would ever see, in that century. It didn't matter one jot that another church in Athens or wherever was doing fine, because any normal poor person from Laodicea would never ever have travelled to Athens. As far as they were concerned, they were the whole church. They were erring.

---

quote:

---

You missed my point about Leo X, I beleive, or else you're trying some form of logical coverup

---

quote:

---

(by the way, yes, that's the right guy). Leo X denied the existence of God, but sold forgiveness from him. I can find neither of those supported in the bible. John XII engaged in devil worship and turned the Vatican into a brothel. I can find support for neither of these in the bible. THese guys, as far as it appears to me, were most definitely not sola scriptura. This is not a chance to advertise how great Orthodoxy is. It is not a chance to denigrate either the RCC (and that isn't my intention in this post, either) or protestants. This is not an opportunity to go off on a tangent, or talk about Martin Luther, or anything like that. Please tell me, in simple, logical steps, why Leo and John's many crimes were the result of sola scriptura.

---

quote:

---

Regarding your gedankexperiment about giving 1000 island dwellers bibles, of course only a few of them would come back to you with anything even resembling Christianity. Only a few people in the world, relatively speaking, are Christians. The road is narrow. The bible contains a lot to digest, and not everyone's prepared to take that step.

---

quote:

---

Finally, you still haven't answered a point I made a while ago. You say that the whole church cannot err. Let's say that's true for a minute. If the church is not any human construct, not any local church (and yes, that includes a church with the adjective "Eastern" before its name) but the worldwide, invisible communion of believers. How can you know that protestantism itself is actually the process by which not-the-whole-church errs? What if both the RC and EO are in error, and protestantism is the faithful remainder by which the church does not wholly fall? You say God promised that the whole, global church would never fall, but then apply that to one part of Christendom, rather than the whole of it. Why?

---

quote:

---

One last thing. As I write this, you posted six times before me, and you have been informed before that that's bad manners. Please work out what you want to say, all of it, before you post, so your multiple posts don't take up the entire page.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

---

And here are two:

1. The Protestant reformers never saw themselves as coming up with the true interpretation of the Bible for the first time. They believed they were restoring the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures, after centuries of corruption by the medieval RCC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]
Of course the theology of the church hasn't changed. Martin Luther didn't want to change the Biblical foundation of the creeds, he wanted to remove the overgrown weeds from the Truth so that it could be seen again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:
2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?....

---

I don't know if this is a serious question of not. In what way are any of the above anything more than the beliefs of a splinter or strayed flock? They were in consensus within their own heresy?
If you're looking for consensus, look to the theology to which the Arians, Nestorians, Montanist and others reconciled themselves after the issue was decided by a universal council of Bishops representing the entirety of the Christian world.
Or look to the Nicean/Constantinoplian(?) Creed and its 1600 year history. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

---

Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.

A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.

[...]

The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

---

OK, I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.

---

quote:

---

And, to make matters worse, I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the great councils either. And I suspect that the liturgy and practices of the Egyptian and Armenian churches - supposedly monophysite heretics - have changed about the same amount since then. Maybe less. So if I was forced to choose churches on the grounds of historical continuity with, or resemblence to, the Great Church of ancient times, I could not distinguish between the Copts or Constantinople.

---

quote:

---

In fact I don't think the doctrines and practices of those churches are entirely unchanged since the time of the schism with the western European churches. Although the liturgy is perhaps less changed than in the west, I am almost willing to bet it is changed.

---

quote:

---

So your argument doesn't wash. As a Christian faced with a real choice of which church to be a member of, the idea that the Orthodox have preserved the unchanged Truth throughout history doesn't help me at all. Because how do I know it is true? All I have is your word for it! And I also hear the Copts and the Romans and the Anapbaptists and the Restorationists and even some of the blunter Presbyterians telling met that it is false! How can I be sure?

---

quote:

---

To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
.....any earnest, objective person, with no pre-conceived ideas about these things, and with a humble heart, can find the Truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.

---

I think the usual argument regarding the supremacy of Orthodoxy is emering here; and it's not new to most of us.

Of course, some aspect of what anyone says will be new to some people..... but we could all claim that justification for long-windedness.

I wonder if you could join the call to hell with Mousethief? Would be an interesting contrast......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It seems to me, in a setup which was persecuted in England, full of individualism (had to be to survive the persecution), and prone to the cult of the personality coming from the individualism, the question is not why so many have come and gone, but why do any survive?

---

quote:

---

The God-guided Church has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity?!? Alas, my friends, I believe we have come again upon the Circular Definition Proof (CDP, as perhaps we should begin referring to it).


Definition 1: The God-guided Church is only made up of those who have retained the Orthodox theology from the beginning.

Definition 2: Any who are said to err are excluded from the God-guided Church on the basis that the church has proclaimed that they have erred.

Conclusion: The Orthodox Church is the God-guided Church, and as such is incapable of erring.


It's a ridiculous argument. I challenge tradition and consider my own interpretations of Scripture not because I see myself as the Sole Proprietor of Truth™, but because I believe that honest dialogue between people with differing opinions will arrive more closely at the truth, taking into consideration the great history of tradition, councils and ideas, than those who simply sit and refuse to question for the sake of some false sense of continuity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
If veneration was so important in the NT church can you give me any passages in the Bible that teach us how we should carry out these acts of veneration properly? Or where the church was corrected for not carrying out veneration properly?

---

quote:

---

So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?

---

quote:

---

Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."

ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm

---

In my mind we have two sides here, one is saying that these are a good way to worship God. And another that points to the Bible and says that we are not to worship things that are manmade.

A responding question is what of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncomfortable in the extreme with icons and wonder why people are "worshiping" pictures? Am I to just tell them that they are wrong when they are trying their best to follow the scriptures?

---

quote:

---

Again the text says that we are to follow the scriptures. Am I to put the teaching of the council above them? If so, then when am I supposed to know when someone is in error?

---

quote:

---

[shrugs] Then why bother learning or discussing anything? Just wait and see whether one's own demonination survives - if not, you'll shift elsewhere, and if so, it's probably orthodox. This belief encourages apathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

---

You are, and it's a good point. How are Councils discerned from amongst the many councils?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.

quote:

---

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

---

How do Protestants reply to this anathema?

---

quote:

---

This is the kind of junk I am talking about. Preserving the Truth means simply killing, condemning or throwing out any person who disagrees with your understanding of things. Because that keeps people from falling away -- blind acceptance of unchallenged dogma, bred through fear and rigid discipline.

---

quote:

---

I remember Jesus last words... "Behold, I am with the Church--that's with a big "C" remember--always, so if you need to know what the Truth is, you can find it at the Church. And by all means do NOT think for yourself about it. Dear God what kind of disaster could that cause?!?"

That and, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through the Church, who maintains sole possession of this way, truth and life."


It really boils my blood, to be honest.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

"But," the little Protestant angel with the fluffy tail sitting on my other shoulder says, "but, you have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Read them..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?

---

No, being Anglican is a way of being Protestant. Which is to say "Reformed Catholic", the words meaning the same thing. The patently absurd claim that the CofE is not Protestant is not to be taken at face value - who could believe it literally? - but is a rhetorical stance within the Church of England that attemtps to make certain views of what that church is, or should be, normative. And as such is a very, very, Protestant way of behaving.

And every week I read these boards convinces me more and more of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.

---

If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.

---

quote:

---

If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture.

[QUOTE][QB]
Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.

---

quote:

---

All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.

---

quote:

---

I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.

Probably very few do.

Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.

Probably very few do.

Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet the ultimate outcome of the "just me and Jaysus and the Bahbull" approach ("soul competency" is one term for this, I think?) seems to be a situation in which there are as many theologies as there are theologians, which does seem (to this very jaded observer) to be as close to post-modernism as makes no never-mind. If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?

---

quote:

---

If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?

---

What happens in the postmodern is that people stop caring about the truth, and stop fighting about it - because they don't believe that there is Truth any more. There is absolutely nothing postmodern about Protestantism - which is why postmodern Protestant churches are divesting themselves of all that made them modern - often without realizing it.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I have to admit, Psyduck, that you show more alacrity for defining post-modern than I if you can so accurately dissect from it modern.....

Perhaps I should abandon the term. I was using it in it's flippant, insulting term; rather like the use of "PC" I suppose.....

My own view is that one can be committed to a community of believers, the wisdom of those older, wiser and gone before.... including tradition, the bible.... and one's own reading of the bible, and one's own judgment.

I don't suppose it is as clear cut as "The Church" and "Tradition"..... (well, clearly it isn't).... what can be said for it, is that "It's what there is".

I see indications in the bible that we should judge prophecy for ourselves.... I see indications that "Sola scriptura".... me, my Jesus and my Bible as you so eloquently put it, Mousethief....... indications that this requires interpretation and is not constant...... yet I find myself unable to believe that a single edifice, the Church, has been preserved from error.

I know I still don't get the infallible/indefectible stuff.... humour me, please..... but the history, and the present, make this a real leap of faith for me.

I once believed that the Bible was inerrant; after much mental gymnastic, I've finally given up the ghost there.... I suspect I would go through the same loop with the church were I to try and believe it.

So the mishmash of guidance I describe is what there is left; somehow trying to balance so that no one influence is relied on in totality; since no one can be relied on to be inerrant.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Psyduck Indeed, the fundamentalist concept of soul liberty does produce a plethora of interpretations of Scripture; however, each one is asserted vigorously to be Absolute Truth(TM), which is all very Modern - what it doesn't do is admit of any kind of relativism within that plethora which would be post-Modern, quite the opposite.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
What happens in the postmodern is that people stop caring about the truth, and stop fighting about it - because they don't believe that there is Truth any more. There is absolutely nothing postmodern about Protestantism - which is why postmodern Protestant churches are divesting themselves of all that made them modern - often without realizing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.

---

This is what I too believe.
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If you really believe that, why do you sift through theology, picking and choosing what pleases you to believe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
short version:
Popes read bible, decide to ignore Church theology, start their own religion, leads to Protestantism, that splinters to what we have today where Mormons will argue ceaselessly that they are Christians. Whether they are or are not is not the point, the point is that pliable theology makes them possible.

---

quote:

---

There are a slew of reasons why the idea of the Church as the entirety of believers is an impossiblity. The most obvious answer is that it provides no consistent answer about how to walk the narrow road. So it cannot contain the Truth about salvation on the narrow road because that Truth cannot be objectively identified. Here's another: This idea of a corporate church was unknown prior to Protestantism.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.

---

No, brother. All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marinaki:
Work commitments do not permit me much time for discussion - but somethings to consider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?

---

"Exodus 26:1. In God's commands to Moses concerning the tabernacle, given just a few chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, is this instruction: "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman." A similar command with respect to the Ark of the Covenant instructed Moses to have two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat. God said, "And there I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel" (Exodus 25:22)...
From the very earliest years of the Church, Christians used such symbols as the cross, the fish, the peacock, the shepherd, and the dove." from "No Graven Image"

Time to tear up the family photo album! Not to mention knock down the Statue of Liberty and all those other statues around of politicians!

What you say! God doesn'r prohibit these images - just the 'worshipping' of them. Well, do the Orthodox worship images? If you kiss a photo of a a family member are you worshipping the photo, or expressing affection for the family member? In the act of doing so, are you making the photo - or even the person depicted in the photo - an idol to replace God? I think not.


More on Icons

I realise that for many Protestants - especially of a Calvinist or Presbytarian persuasion - I may as well be an alien from outer space talking about icons in Church, and it may really sound like a foreign language!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.

---

quote:

---

Which writings of the time of the Apostles that I haven't read would you recommend?

---

quote:

---

If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture.
Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.

---

quote:

---

Are you claiming that the western European churches were not Orthodox before 1054? When do you think they ceased to be Orthodox then? Were they ever Orthodox in your view?

If you think they were Orthodox before 1054 (or at any other time) then you cannot say that your side inlcudes "all of Church history prior to 1054" because their side also includes at least some of it. That shared history with the Roman Catholics - also shared with Moravians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists and all the rest of them - includes just about all the major theological doctrines of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

What you are saying only makes sense if you already believe that one group of churches is really somehow The Church and all the rest are fakes. But it cannot possibly help someone who does not believe that come to that belief. How could it? Pretty obviously the Church now has many, many instances on earth, all worshipping differently from each other. So at the very least almost all of them nmust have changed their practice. None of them seem to resemble the earliest churches very closely.

---

quote:

---

I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature.

---

quote:

---

All those truths are held in common by (nearly) all Christians. Protestants as much as Orthodox. So believing them, or submitting to them, is no reason for someone to join one church rather than another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.

Probably very few do.

Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Protestantism is about rejecting traditional religious authority (and authorities) in the name of Truth. And Truth is actually as modern a concept as you could wish for. Capital-T Truth is the way things are, which can be grasped by reason, and used to subvert traditional authority.

---

quote:

---

I know I still don't get the infallible/indefectible stuff.... humour me, please..... but the history, and the present, make this a real leap of faith for me.

I once believed that the Bible was inerrant; after much mental gymnastic, I've finally given up the ghost there.... I suspect I would go through the same loop with the church were I to try and believe it.

---

quote:

---

So the mishmash of guidance I describe is what there is left; somehow trying to balance so that no one influence is relied on in totality; since no one can be relied on to be inerrant.

---

quote:

---

You're being extremely presumptuous there, and not a little rude. I do my best to find out what's true. I'd rather know the truth than something to stroke my desires anyday, and my desire tends to be to get to the bottom of things.

---

quote:

---

No, you're still missing the point.Leo X et al were NOT sola scriptura, by any stretch of the imagination. That should be obvious since SS was a slogan of the reformers, who really didn't like them. Just because RC leadership decided to stop looking at their past, but for a little bit still read the bible fairly regularly, does not mean that it was because of the reading the bible that they erred. They dumped most of that pretty soon afterwards. One could argue that it was looking too much to themselves, when they should have been reading the bible more, that meant they went astray.

---

quote:

---

A lot of the contrasting theology that you claim to have come from the bible, I'd say hasn't done so in its entirety. A lot of the contrast is brought about by people approaching the bible with their own agendas, and people with agendas aren't going to leave Tradition alone either (do you prefer a different word to Tradition?). SS is very much less malleable than you make out.

---

quote:

---

As for Mormons, stop blaming that on protestantism, or popes, or anything. Those guys from Salt Lake City are pretty crazy (yes I did say that) and you can't do much about crazy people. You'll get them in whatever situation.

---

quote:

---

By the way, by what ticket is your church universal?

---

quote:

---

So you're saying something must be true because it takes the difficult questions away? You want a clear cut, spoonfed answer about what to do, so if something provides you with that, it must be true? In that case, you have more in common with the Alabama New Testament EeVanGelical Bible church of Jesus Christ than you think.

---

quote:

---

]No, SQ. There are many churches out there, and sinful humans have a tendency to change things over the course of two thousand years. The burden of proof lies on you to show that your church is the one and only that hasn't change. Ken knows significantly more than I do, and I'd say I know more than most of the people I know who aren't vicars or theology graduates or whatever. As he says, examining whether the EO church has changed significantly more than the others in the past umpteen hundred years would be a near-impossible task, to do it in any meaningful depth. If he doesn't fancy the task of seriously examining your church from a thousand years ago to see if it's changed since then, why should any ordinary believer do it, let alone a non-believer?

---

quote:

---

I would also say to Sophia's Questions - historical precedent does not wash (these churches that are dug up may well have been apostate for example) - if icons were so important for the Church would God not have included some direction with regards to icons. God felt it important to point the way of salvation, baptism, communion, in His word why not give a couple of verses at least to how to venerate icons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

<snip>
This is a question of faith. When Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, and that a comforter (the Holy Spitit) would come to guide it, he clearly meant for it to receive divine protection and guidance. That Orthodox belief and practice, once affirned by the universal church, has not changed, should be proof to any objective observer that something aside from fallible individuals is guiding it.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

So let's have an example, please. Give me an example of a theological Truth that has been unearthed since the reformation, or an Orthodox truth that has been found in error. Then, if you please, explain to me how these new truths are known to be true, and who identifies them as such for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
You don't even have to believe that the Church is inerrant to benefit from it

---

quote:

---

Conflict exists, but Orthodox don't apply their agendas to Scripture, they accept the Church's understanding of it.

---

quote:

---

Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox

---

quote:

---

We don't sit with our hands in our laps, nodding dumbly as our spiritual fathes intone about the dogmas and doctrines of the faith. We ask why, and they answer, and we ask why to that, andso on

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
What happens in the postmodern is that people stop caring about the truth, and stop fighting about it - because they don't believe that there is Truth any more. There is absolutely nothing postmodern about Protestantism - which is why postmodern Protestant churches are divesting themselves of all that made them modern - often without realizing it.

---

No. Postmodernists believe there is Truth. It just cannot be known by us, who can never decide which truth gets to be elected to the office of Truth™.

This Ship, as well as Protestantism as a whole, are both pretty good arguments for the postmodernists' case.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Sophia's Questions:

And please do not post six times in a row. Read the whole thread before replying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but weren't the first Christians in the British Isles up until around the Council of Whitby actually Celtic Christians with a different date for Easter and everything?

They were put down by the incoming Catholic blokey - Augustine, wasn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Baptism - it has deep meaning. Does the one doing the baptizing say anything about that deep meaning? Do the faithful play any part in their own baptism - do they acknowledge its sigificance in any what whatsoever as part of the sacramental celebration that ushers in their new life? The Bible does not tell us. But neither does it tell us not to, and what harm? Particularly if explained in a consistent way to all? It is a chance for others to see a person born anew - why hide the meaning of its significance from those present who are unbaptized?

---

quote:

---

Thus the Orthodox Church holds Baptism to be as necessary for infants as for adults, since they, too, are subject to Original Sin and without Baptism cannot be absolved of this sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think we will agree to disagree on icons - I think you trust your tradition and I will adopt a "sola scriptura" view on icons. If it helps you get closer to God then that can only be a good thing. It is just not my glass of whisky.

---

quote:

---

<Snip>
The original statement in Matthew 16 is a prophetic sign of final victory. The picture is of the church plundering Hell, not of Hell attempting to plunder the church. <snip>

---

quote:

---

We cannot, because you are enclosed in your own understanding of Truth. Truth is mediated to you on the authority of the Orthodox church. If any of us outside Orthodoxy challenge a received Truth, you can simple argue "By what authority do you say that?". And if our authority is not the Orthodox church, you can deny the truth of any such statement because it is not properly authorised. So your general position is logically circular. That does not make it wrong. It just makes it quite difficult to have any meaningful dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences.

---

quote:

---

If a Protestant reading this disagrees with that statement, ask yourself: How did I arrive at my present state of theological belief? Likely, you will answer in part, “the Bible.”

---

quote:

---

You adhere to your beliefs about salvation, knowing there are others, because you have decided they are correct.

---

quote:

---

If one defines Ultimate Truth as the fullness of Truth about what was revealed to us about our origin, purpose, and destiny, as it was understood by the Apostles, if we were created in love, it exists. If there is such an UT, then its hallmark is consistency.

---

quote:

---

In the end, the only way out of the argument for Protestants is to say that even if the OC has preserved the Apostolic faith, it's not necessary to follow any given theology, or path to salavation, much less be a member of a certain church.

---

quote:

---

That is really the crux of the discussion: what is Ultimate Truth? I maintain that the meaning of what the Creator communicated to us is known in its fullness, others, by virtue of their own set of theological beliefs, maintain that it is one of any number of things: an individual truth known only to each of us and God, an evolving Truth, or that it is relative, in most regards, through space and time. They are definitively denying the possibility that Ultimate Truth exists by having no authority to rely upon as the arbiter of Truth except for what they have decided to believe from a smörgåsbord of churches and theological choices.

Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences. They decide which church to attend, how long to stay with it, and how much of its dogma to accept. And their understanding of the Bible is their understanding of the Bible, nothing more. Not because of the purity of their knowledge or their faithfulness, but because of how the understanding is arrived at. The means define the end in this case. They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.

---

quote:

---

I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.

---

quote:

---

v13
nullifying the word of God for your tradition which you handed down. And many such other similar things you do.

---

quote:

---

Sophias Questions
what is sin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
I have been following this thread with interest, but I am skipping the contributions of the outrageously long and multi-posting Sophia's Questions.

Ms Questions, please cut it out.

K.

---

quote:

---

And I repeat my assertion. Given the sinful nature of man, and his tendancy to change things over two thousand years, we should start by assuming that any construct of humanity will have changed over that period

---

quote:

---

Then why did you say there are areas where you have problems with the church's reasoning, but submit to it? How can you do that if it's not inerrant?

---

quote:

---

I do not pick and choose what it pleases me to beleive. I search for what's true. I use all the historical and scientific evidence available to me for whatever the particular question is.

---

quote:

---

You also have several options. Believing everything the EOC says is only one option, and I'd say you possibly take it because it's attractive; it's a relieving of responsibility.

---

quote:

---

You keep on talking about the RC being "excommunicated". As I have said before, this is one sided. I haven't looked into Catholic history, but I'm sure they make some claim about their being the ones who 'excommunicated' you. Something splitting in half, and each side anathemizing the other, does not make it obvious that one side was right.

---

quote:

---

You have just shown what your agenda is, right there. It is to make Scripture support the EOC.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and I can think of two more reasons why, as you claim, your church hasn't changed. 1) you conly count the writing from 323 onwards valid, that weren't deemed 'heretical' at the time. You therefore throw out anything that didn't agree with the so called consensus, reducing the wide range of belief to a narrow one. You say that this shows how unified the church fathers were, and continue to throw out any heretics who don't agree with your selection of the church fathers' writings. And so on ad infinitum.

---

quote:

---

2) Throughout its history, the EOC has contained alot of people like you, who would prefer to abdicate responsibility to a more powerful church, rather than work things out for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Until 1054, all Christians were Catholic. Prove otherwise. Again, it depends on viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

I think we will agree to disagree on icons - I think you trust your tradition and I will adopt a "sola scriptura" view on icons. If it helps you get closer to God then that can only be a good thing. It is just not my glass of whisky.

---

quote:

---

I am interested in your understanding of baptism as you raised this - I have interestingly no qualms about infant baptism as such (being brought up in the Church of Scotland) - what I am interested in is what happens to infants who die without being baptized? ie in my understanding of orthodoxy this means that their original sin is not absolved -

quote:

---

Thus the Orthodox Church holds Baptism to be as necessary for infants as for adults, since they, too, are subject to Original Sin and without Baptism cannot be absolved of this sin.

---

see here for full article

ie what does absolution mean to the Orthodox

---

quote:

---

I also understand that this is a Russian Orthodox site and the more I understand about Orthodoxy is that there are different "flavours" from those that have ecumenical tendencies to those who are as it were "isolationist" - so I appreciate asking different strands may get different answers or is there one answer?

---

quote:

---

Baloney. I believe lots of things I would really rather not believe.

---

quote:

---

I am not nearly so arrogant as to have decided my beliefs are "correct." I'd be surprised to learn that having "correct" beliefs about salvation has much to do with actual salvation.

---

quote:

---

How dull. Why should Truth be unchanging? Why can't it be dynamic?

---

quote:

---

No, there's another way out of the argument, which is to point out that you've made some over-general and untenable claims about Protestants.

---

quote:

---

They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.

---

quote:

---

Actually I was a little amused at the idea of the Gates of Hell "attacking"!

---

quote:

---

snip Here is the part of your reply that seems to me to be the crux of your position.

---

quote:

---

What you have done is to assume a general understanding amongst Protestants on the basis that they do not accept, as the source of prime authority, the authority which you accept - and as a result, their faith must be individualistic. That is illogical. It is common ground amongst all the Christian families that faith is to be worked out in communities.

---

quote:

---

So your belief that Protestantism in necessarily individualistic is unfounded. The issue is the extent to which we are becoming more Christ-like within these communities. That is crucially dependent on the extent to which koinonia is a reality in our midst. Do we communicate? Do we share communion? Are we generous in our contribution? Do we distribute generously, not just within our community but within the wider world? Are our relationships with God and one another a living reality, not just some surface association? All this is this work of the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin, reveals Jesus, teaches and reminds us of all things.

---

quote:

---

So we claim Jesus as Lord and seek to live under his Lordship now. And we do not claim (at least most of us!) that this corporate approach to faith is limited to our own understanding of how Christ should be grown in us.

---

quote:

---

For me, the diversity of Christian understanding and families is not a relativising thing. Protestants are in themselves diverse. Diversity is first and foremost a sign of rejoicing, that there are others responding to the "high calling". In a world where every snowflake is different, diversity is built into creation and it is certainly built into human beings.

---

quote:

---

It is second, a source of pain that our diversity leads to disunity and conflict. I join with Jesus in the long prayer, that "we might all be one". This is not just some end time reality for me. But I hope for a greater one-ness now. It's one of the reasons I post on these boards. Another is that, in the 8 months or so I have been doing this, I have actually learned a great deal from others - and have a better understanding of other Christian families than I did.

---

quote:

---

Of course I accept that from your POV we are not properly authorised in any of this. We are "bastard children". Well, maybe we are. But that does not prevent us from being children of God. And recognising that you are too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PS

Sorry Sophia's Questions - I got your name wrong. Too busy checking the rest of the post to spot it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Interestingly enough Jesus himself condemned tradition (of the pharisees). Mark 7 v 8,9,13

quote:

---

v13
nullifying the word of God for your tradition which you handed down. And many such other similar things you do.

---

I see where Christ placed tradition with respect to the word of God.

---

quote:

---

Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

per Westminster Confession of Faith (if The Duchess can quote the WCoF I can)

That is to say falling short of the Law or breaking the Law.

---

quote:

---

A couple of other thoughts I would throw into the melting pot -
Which came first the redemptive work of Christ or the Church? On that basis which should come first in our understanding? How do we define the other, with respect to which came first.

---

quote:

---

I believe Constantine made the state religion Christianity. At which point I am sure multitudes of pagans were drafted into the church, bringing with them some of their ceremonies and practices. So how can we trust what is true after that point? (Especially mindful of what Jesus said, with respect to traditions of men as mentioned at the top of my post.)

---

quote:

---

I ask again what is absolution and what happens to those infants that die and have not been baptized?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Then I guess you aren't going to address my reply?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
There are lots of bright people posting here about this, and the fact that no one has offered evidence of a change in Church theology and practice is no reflection on their intelligence or knowledge, because the information does not exist. If the OC belief and practice is not a continuation of the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians, the evidence of it is lost to history.
You aren't born with this knowledge, so yes, it helps to believe it before you are going to do anything about it, but the first step to believing is learning about something.

---

quote:

---

From Sophia's Questions:

I recognize an adherence to church tradition, even if not ancient, is the standard with most Christians. For one thing, most believers don't communicate about it as we are doing, they are content to trust their leaders in most regards. But unless it's a cradle religion, Protestants choose their church because ____________ (fill in the blank with something important to the person in question).
If you talk with many Orthodox converts, you will find many will say that they did not choose the Church, rather, once they learned of it and studied it, they felt they had no other choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness, Digory, we really don't know if those practices were widespread; or if they were instituted in particular situations; or even if they were attempted in error. There's little evidence for them being a formal practice of the early church; if indeed, there ever was such a thing.

---

I agree, M. The point then being that I don't really care if a church that emerged at one point or another is exactly the same as it was 1,900 years ago. That doesn't make it right, true, or give it a monopoly on Truth. It was developed by humans, and it was already, even at that point, at odds with some of the practices of the earliest churches found in Acts.

So was the church described in Acts erring since it was not in line with the current (which equals the original) Orthodox teachings and practices?

-Digory


PS Not speaking out against you, Mdijon--I understood your point. Just doing a bit of "fleshing out the argument" at your suggestion.
 

---

Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Sophia's Questions,

I'm still not quite sure about the specific point I raised. Whether you want to withdraw your generalised criticisms of all protestants as being, individuall, arbiters of Truth. On that specific issue, I read you as having made a concession or two. I think it would help if you would concede your over-statement, even just as a piece of rhetorical overkill. Please reconsider.

---

quote:

---

Here are some comments on your suggested "sin experiment."

I have in my possession Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Way" which contains, inter-alia, this observation on sin.

" ...nothing compelled man to sin. Eve was tempted by the 'serpent' but she was free to reject his suggestions. Her and Adam's original sin consisted in a conscious act of disobedience, a deliberate rejection of God's love, a freely chosen turning from God to self."

Given that I believe we all share that original sin, I think Kallistos Ware's definition is very good.

---

quote:

---

In the church where I worship regularly, it tends to get put this way. "The centre of SIN is 'I'."

Literally, the NT Greek HARMARTIA means a missing of the mark. A reasonable summary would be that sin is the most comprehensive term for moral obliquity.

---

quote:

---

So I think I see sin essentially as an autonomous assertion of self. That is the first cause. This act of rebellion leads in turn to many "missings of the mark", many acts of moral turpitude. We call these sins and, as a matter of fact, have differences of opinion about both lists of sins and whether they have been committed. On this issue, judgementalism is discouraged.

---

quote:

---

I think the definition you provided mixes in Orthodox understandings of image and likeness and is more a consequential definition, rather than a first principle. So I prefer Kallistos Ware's definition to yours - and assume it is Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

From the Sermon on the Mount, I conclude that sin - understood as rebellion - occurs first in the mind, somewhere around the point of assertion of autonomy. When it moves from an original notion to a firm wish, or desire. There is some muddiness at that point about the difference between sin and temptation. It is not sinful to struggle before submitting, else Christ sinned at Gethsemane (which I do not believe).

Habitual sinful behaviour may be unthinking, not obviously a result of conscious assertion of self on each occasion, but a result of a previous "lost battle".

---

quote:

---

There are also the issues of ignorance or incompetence, on which I have no clearly worked out theology, other than a general belief that we are saved by Grace, through Faith, and it is a gift of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I haven't conceded the argument about Protestants choosing the various elements of their faith and Christian life because it is manifestly true. There are dozens of kinds of both preached with regularity, and the answers to fundamental questions are answered differently, so there is much on the table from which to choose. And that is what happens, choices are made because they answer the perceived needs of the chooser.
If you are saying that because such truths as 'Christ saves, but our active participation in our salvation is necessary' are generally held shows a lack of choosing, in cases such as these there are no other choices if one is to be considered a Christian.
In regards to any issue where there is disagreement, Protestants manifestly choose what to believe for themselves from among the differing ideas. How is this not a factual statement?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
There are lots of bright people posting here about this, and the fact that no one has offered evidence of a change in Church theology and practice is no reflection on their intelligence or knowledge, because the information does not exist. If the OC belief and practice is not a continuation of the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians, the evidence of it is lost to history.
You aren't born with this knowledge, so yes, it helps to believe it before you are going to do anything about it, but the first step to believing is learning about something.

---

Your tone is extremely patronizing. Putting that disclaimer in your sig doesn't give you permission to write however you like, and it's going to get you called to Hell.

---

quote:

---

You keep asking for evidence of a change in Church theology. Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist. Perhaps. Please produce evidence for me that you and I have never watched the same television show at the same time. Or evidence that the lunch you eat today has not been spit in by someone else. Produce EVIDENCE that none of the books in my library have ever been touched by a German named Frank.

My point is purposefully ridiculous. Yes, perhaps it is "easier" to produce one exception, but the fact that the information needed to point out this exception is inaccessible does not designate that the exception does not exist.

---

quote:

---

That being said, what exactly are you using as your Guide to the Early Church -- with which to compare the EOC to?

---

quote:

---

Does the Orthodox Church, as a practice, encourage its members to sell all of their land and their house and donate all of the proceeds to the church to be distributed to those who are in need?

---

quote:

---

Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?

---

quote:

---

Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, require all of its members to share all of their possessions with all other members?

---

quote:

---

To compare a church to the church of the Apostles, you'd think you'd have to demonstrate all of these practices. Take a look at Acts 2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

From Sophia's Questions:

I recognize an adherence to church tradition, even if not ancient, is the standard with most Christians. For one thing, most believers don't communicate about it as we are doing, they are content to trust their leaders in most regards. But unless it's a cradle religion, Protestants choose their church because ____________ (fill in the blank with something important to the person in question).
If you talk with many Orthodox converts, you will find many will say that they did not choose the Church, rather, once they learned of it and studied it, they felt they had no other choice.

---

Then for someone like me, is not finding a church that honestly listens to me and helps me find my path to Christ not important?

That's why I am where I am. For me my church is where I have to be, I have no other choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?

---

Indeed.

To disprove SQ's contention that one particular denomination has never changed and all the rest have all we need to show is that the early church had any practices no longer followed.

Which is pretty easy really. For example, I believe the Orthodox Church has the 3-fold orders of bishops, priests & deacons, orgainised around territorial dicoceses? (Well, supposedly, in most of the world of course they are organised around ethnic dioceses with Russians, Serbs, Greeks, Arabs et.c going to doifferent churches)

Now its quite clear that that was not the system in the very earliest church, when the first apostles were still living. But its also pretty clear that it did not come about everywhere even in the second or third generations of Christians - in some places and times bishops were the same as priests, the overseer and the elder were the same person. In others the presbyter was the representative and agent of the bishop, and appointed by the bishop. In others the elders were selected by the people of the church they served.

Deacons were a quite different set of people. There were also other orders and ministries, such as prophets and pastors - who may or may not have been the same as the elders. Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?

Apostles and bishops were free to marry. Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?

Women were (unarguably) sometimes prophets, at least sometimes deacons (almost certainly) and quite probably elders (evidence very disputed on this). Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness, Digory, we really don't know if those practices were widespread; or if they were instituted in particular situations; or even if they were attempted in error. There's little evidence for them being a formal practice of the early church; if indeed, there ever was such a thing.

---

I agree, M. The point then being that I don't really care if a church that emerged at one point or another is exactly the same as it was 1,900 years ago. That doesn't make it right, true, or give it a monopoly on Truth. It was developed by humans, and it was already, even at that point, at odds with some of the practices of the earliest churches found in Acts.

So was the church described in Acts erring since it was not in line with the current (which equals the original) Orthodox teachings and practices?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

It's not a factual statement because there are so many Protestants who do not do this. The reasoning of your argument is contradicted by the real practice of many Protestants.
Snip

---

quote:

---

They are in that church because they are as convinced about the rightness of that church as you are about the rightness of your church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that? But the Reformation wasn't a natural evolution, it was (in many instances) a clean break with the past. The two don't really compare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I guess this hinges on the nature of Apostolic truth, which all Christian churches seek. If it varies, then your folks are right to be Baptists because they think it's right. If the truth varies, they are just as right as anyone else who is a member of a different church with different beliefs, because there is no "right" and "wrong"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox, so for more than half of the history of the faith, it was the universal church of all Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that? But the Reformation wasn't a natural evolution, it was (in many instances) a clean break with the past. The two don't really compare.

---

Er...you can't evolve and not change. SQ's contention appears to be that the EOC is unchanged from that of the 1st century

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox, so for more than half of the history of the faith, it was the universal church of all Christians.

---

Oh, come on! Surely you've heard of at least one of: the Nestorians, Thomasites, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, the Ethiopian church, the Celtic church, (plus whatever the guys in Cyrenaica called themselves, ditto the Sudan). And those are just the independent churches I can think of off hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If you want to read the above as patronizing you can do so, that was not my intent and I think you are choosing to do so. This is a subject that stirs emotions because it addresses the very basis of our beliefs, so things can easily be taken out of context. I think the answer was in response to Ken's argument that the OC must have changed.

As for being called to hell, I will go anywhere that I can defend the faith as understood by the Church, so call away.

---

quote:

---

...it is possible that Christ did not work miracles, it may have been a joint fabrication on the part of the Jews and 'Christians' – that is what many post-modernist non-Christians believe, saying that the Bible is a fabrication. Many early works of other Church fathers exist, and they are recognized as authentic by the same people who determined which of the letters attributed to NT writers were legitimate and would be included in the Bible. And they testify to a consistency in the understanding of Christian theology and living.
That is the history of it. To believe otherwise is literally to believe in a conspiracy encompassing all of Christianity, for there is no record of it. Even Christianity's opponents are silent about the conspiracy. It's a fantastic idea that defies belief. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That being said, what exactly are you using as your Guide to the Early Church -- with which to compare the EOC to?

---

There is no guide to compare it to, the EOC understanding is the same understanding as the early Church, so it is the guide.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To compare a church to the church of the Apostles, you'd think you'd have to demonstrate all of these practices. Take a look at Acts 2.

---

If so, there isn't any evidence that the wealth-sharing practice was widely done outside of monastic communities, so though it is indeed the ideal, the Church through time has evidently understood that it was too much to demand of every believer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
But they weren't Orthodox, so they don't count as proper christians, so they can't be measured in the "number of Christians who weren't Orthodox". I love that argument.

//Yeah, I know I said I was out of here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions,

snip Kallistos Ware's statement re original sin provides us with a good model for what sin is. It did not change my own understanding as I demonstrated from "the centre of SIN is I". I think your criticism was nit-picking.

---

quote:

---

I think your responses demonstrate that you simply have a problem with the diversity and variation which is an inevitable feature of the 2,000 year history of the church. My approach is a recognition that we all came from the same root and to look for common ground.

---