|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Many Protestants rightly criticize the ancient churches of various errors. Ancient bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople, taught things that are considered today by many Protestants to be false. Those people made things up, and taught them as God's Truth.
Of course, they weren't wicked people who wanted to spread lies and oppose God's Truth. They were ordinary people who really believed that the things they thought were true, that they were following God's word and they gave their best self in pursuit of Christ.
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
In my understanding, various Protestant groups pop in and out of existence as the centuries pass. Many Protestant churches have vanished with the passage of time, others were born, some were changed, and this goes on and on. Ideas that Protestants of a few centuries ago held as dear are now forgotten, and new ideas keep appearing. There have been suggested various theories about what it means for Christ to be Savior, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God, or what Church is supposed to be, or how man gets saved.
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?
I'm asking this question, because people sometimes say to me on the Ship: "the theories you once believed as real might have turned out to be wrong, but there are other theories that work. Why aren't you choosing them instead?"
My problem is not with the lack of working theories. Heck, I can make up many such theories about Christ myself that preserve his divinity, but why change one made up teaching for another?
I'm laying my cards on the table, and I'd appreciate a civil discussion.
[ 29. December 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
What cards are you laying on the table?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I've got to run, but here's my tuppence-worth.
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession. Of course that has no reference to an office but to a message, the gospel message. The 'good deposit' of 2 Timothy 1: 14 which is then passed on in 2 Timothy 2:2.
This 'apostolic message' is found in the pages of the NT. Anything else is up for grabs. Therefore, as society changes, there is plenty of room for change ... indeed semper reformanda.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm with Jonny here.
If it can be proved from the Bible, or seems overwhelmingly likely from the Bible, then it's worth hanging on to.
If it's genuinely ancient (like pre-Constantinian) and not in the Bible - threefold immersion, sign of the cross, etc, then it's probably worth hanging onto unless there's a very good reason to drop it.
If it only appears much later than that, chances are it's primarily a cultural response and can be dropped freely, though it's still worth understanding the reason for it and seeing if that's a good reason for doing something equivalent.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
"Eccelesia Reforma semper Reformanda", "The Reformed Church is always Reforming".
I don't believe that God's revelation to us of his Will ever truly complete. By that I mean that our understanding of it is always a work in progress. We learn new things, we encounter new experiences, we revisit old ideas in a new light, we debate and re-examine doctrine. It's never a case of "Do X, Say Y, and Get Saved."
Johnny S is correct is saying that the core deposit is the Gospel. The lens with which we see it though changes. That is life.
Most Protestant churches have no problem debating theology. The Reformation Fathers were serious scholars and that idea has continued to today. Churches like mine with Presbyterian polity are very democratic and conciliar. Debate is how we work things out. Dissent is part of the process.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
If it's all just 'theory' to you, then there is no point even wondering if it's true. There is no proof of anything because faith is only logical if you accept certain a priori concepts as given. If you have no direct experience of the given, then you have no basis for discernment.
Seek out the truth in your own heart, not in other people's theories.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
We don't. In fact, given what we believe to be true about human fallibility, we are most certainly wrong about something, the trick is figuring out what.
Protestants, just like Catholics and Orthodox, are struggling to discern truth. We do so using similar tools-- the Bible, reason, history, our experiences of God and the world. Through spiritual practices like prayer, contemplation, what the ancients call "indifference". Different groups w/in Christianity may give differing weights to these tools, most give greater weight of course to Scripture. We interpret and apply Scripture differently based on our assumptions about Scripture and the various weights we give to the other tools. But all of us are doing the same thing-- doing our best, prayerfully and, one hopes humbly, to discern truth and God's will. When we choose one tradition, none of us assume that tradition has gotten absolutely everything right. Rather, we choose the one we believe-- again, prayerfully, humbly-- that's got it "least wrong". The only reason to "switch" belief systems (and I hope no one is pressuring you to do so) is if you, through whatever combination of tools and spiritual practices are meaningful to you, come to believe that some other Christian tradition has gotten it "less wrong".
But ultimately we trust that our life in Christ is not dependent on the scrupulous infallibility of our knowledge and doctrine. We expect that in the final day we will find places where we were wrong and you (Catholic or Orthodox Christians) were right. Or where we were both wrong. God can be surprising that way. We place our allegiance in Christ, we do our best to discern his leading, and we trust his grace when we get it wrong.
Isn't that what you do as well?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Custard: There's quite a bit in the OT that is "clearly a cultural comstruct" - almost anything relating to women, for instance.
We "Protestants" have managed to dump a lot of those as well, just as the RCs and Orthodox have.
Tangenting off, back to the OP: why were the Protestants separated out? ISTM that the RCs have changed some of their positions over the centuries as well, and I imagine it is possible that some Orthodox views aren't exactly as they were in the time of Constantine.
That's the problem with all that stuff that happened in the last few centuries - people travelling around, finding that their views aren't all perfectly acceptable wherever they go. Time we put a stop to actually meeting People Not Like Us, innit?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession.
How defined? That doesn't sound like "most Protestants" in my experience.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What cards are you laying on the table?
Well said. Laying one's cards on the table means admitting things that could be to one's detriment, especially as regards one's motives. All I see in the OP is attack and request for self-incriminating information.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
On the whole I come at the question from the other end; having found God real within my own tradition, I have no doubt that He is at work in that tradition, and the evidence of changed lives that I see is the proof of that to me. Given that, as long as my own church doesn't crumble under my feet as a result of adopting beliefs that are wholly unacceptable, it is unlikely (never say never) that I will abandon it. On the other hand that doesn't mean that I am not willing to learn from the insights of other traditions... ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Po
Shipmate
# 2456
|
Posted
El Greco, I think you are really asking about absolutes.
Heb 5:14 speaks of, “the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” (NASB) The implication is that we should reach a point where we can discern right and wrong for ourselves—without need of dogma or church authority, or even Biblical authority.
If we have this discernment we can change with the times: the shifts in practice you have pointed out may well have been mature reactions to changing circumstances, rather than evidence of Protestant inconsistency.
This is a Christianity that knows what really matters—and what matters isn’t church dogma or doctrine or specific practices. What matters is love. That’s the one absolute that counts.
--------------------
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is selfishness.
Posts: 797 | From: LA (Little'ampton) | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
"If you continue in my word you are my disciples indeed. And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free." - from somewhere in the gospels.
Buried in there is an epistemology that says your spiritual state enables or hinders your knowledge of the truth. Hence that other famous passage: "my sheep hear my voice".
Knowing God is the deepest, most all-encompassing personal knowledge there is. You yourself are the instrument through which you see God ... or not.
All that said, Protestants weigh what they hear elsewhere against what they hear while reading the scriptures.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject
I was taken to a Protestant church from birth. Put it this was, I was baptized at 28 days old, so sometime close, anyway.
From my point of view, I could ask why you reject our way of thinking? Which is to say that assuming that someone else is 'rejecting' your way of being a Christian belies the fact that you think it's the Right Way to Be a Christian.
What I 'really' believe: we will all have a belly-laugh with God when we meet him about how wrong we all were. My way is made up. Your way is made up. God is a forgiving person and does not have OCD.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
Well said. Thanks for expressing it so well. I am going to plagiarise it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Many Protestants rightly criticize the ancient churches of various errors. Ancient bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople, taught things that are considered today by many Protestants to be false. Those people made things up, and taught them as God's Truth.
Well, of course.
quote:
Of course, they weren't wicked people who wanted to spread lies and oppose God's Truth. They were ordinary people who really believed that the things they thought were true, that they were following God's word and they gave their best self in pursuit of Christ.]
Martin Luther, Zwingli and the rest of those beer guzzling fools for God.
quote:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?]
I make up quite a few truths for myself...like I am not fat but I look like Halle Berry and strut my stuff. I also tend to make up a bit of stuff about what Scripture says until I look deep enough. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. Unless I am not shoving it down your throught, what does it matter? Just like thinking I am hot stuff even if the truth is that I am not, if I am happy, why are you stressing out over it? Or do you think I am not doing enough to be "saved" by the "church" (whatever church you deem that to be?)
quote:
In my understanding, various Protestant groups pop in and out of existence as the centuries pass. Many Protestant churches have vanished with the passage of time, others were born, some were changed, and this goes on and on. Ideas that Protestants of a few centuries ago held as dear are now forgotten, and new ideas keep appearing. There have been suggested various theories about what it means for Christ to be Savior, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God, or what Church is supposed to be, or how man gets saved.?]
No shit Sherlock Holmes! It's elmentary Dr. Watson! Protest groups form and stay together sometimes even more than 30 years! Many split off and fight over petty things like are drums hindering people's worship? Are choruses the work of the devil? Are slideshows satan's tool or a useful one we'd better get used to? Is it okay to twitter or are those demon devices clicking away? Yes, I know of a church that encourages twitter use during it's sermons. Near Seattle.
quote:
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?]
Because they are the way God has revealed Himself to us (those He choose to be in Protest Groups) as opposed to those in the Plot of Orthodoxy. Or kissing the ring of the Mitre Tiara. I think my Protest Group is right and they are WRONG btw.
quote:
I'm asking this question, because people sometimes say to me on the Ship: "the theories you once believed as real might have turned out to be wrong, but there are other theories that work. Why aren't you choosing them instead?"]
I looked at the the Plot and I looked at Tiara lovers. I did consider this enough to freak out and almost walk away from my Protest Group as my fearless leaders had some quarrels amongst themselves and broke my heart. I really did. But I came back to my religion...after I found that what comforted me through my heavy trials was mainly God's Word and I read the writings of heretics like John MacArthuer Jr., Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Joshua Harris & Ray Stedman to name a few freaks. I just found a new Protest Group to join.
quote:
My problem is not with the lack of working theories. Heck, I can make up many such theories about Christ myself that preserve his divinity, but why change one made up teaching for another??"]
Because we think we have the truth since the Reformation. And yes, we sometimes even look at some writings before it. (Well, my particular Protest Group does anyway).
quote:
I'm laying my cards on the table, and I'd appreciate a civil discussion.
You think you have a full house but I just see a bunch of jokers here. So I made some jokes. But ah, my TRUTH is buried in here.
BTW, one of the Orthodox Plot took me to task on my own facebook for just casually talking about lent (that I am giving up social media for Lent). He actions came off so pious, one of my friends got really worked up over it wanting to kick his ass. I think he realized later I had actually peaked in to his very church (where he goes) and sat in the beginning's Ed class (where they teach you TRUTH = Tradition + Bible instead of TRUTH=Bible+youtube sermons and twitter files explaining the Bible. Fortunately, I have met enough of the Plot conspiracy people from the shp and also some of my friends converted to know that he was just being an ass...and later on he kind of halfheartedly apologized.
I think we all makes asses out of ourselves from time to time when it comes to the TRUTH as we see it. But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You were casually talking about Lent? OMG I thought I knew you. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The immediately obvious fallacy in the OP is equating the age of the group with the age of the idea.
In some cases, groups have appeared precisely because they are looking to go BACK to an idea that they think an established group has departed from.
Luther didn't pin his theses to the church door because he wanted to strike out on a consciously new path. He did it because he thought the church had lost sight of the old one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
Nice screed Dutch, it was good to see your theological basis and thinking.
For me, I would change the last sentence to 'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
I was talking about the leg-lengthening thread to my long-time jogging partner yesterday. He helps run what passes for our church and is in full-time christian ministry™ with another organisation. His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding" ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding"
A statement which probably more accurately assesses Church (whether one thinks one's 'it' or not), both institutionally and personally, than any number of doctrines and dogmas of the past 2,000 years. Seriously.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
After all, it's not like we care about the people around us enough to want to share the peace that we've found; it's just for us and the rest of the world is going to have to struggle on... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
Nice screed Dutch, it was good to see your theological basis and thinking.
For me, I would change the last sentence to 'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
Both of those are good. May I offer a third variation...?
The more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more people will come and ask us.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
I believe in the one, holy, apostolic, heavenly church to which all true believers belong. As a Protestant minister in the Reformation tradition I will only believe and teach the doctrinal convictions which I - along with my brothers - hold to be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from, Holy Scripture. This is because I believe in the supreme divine authority, inerrancy, sufficiency and consistency of Holy Scripture - which is the word of God who does not lie - in all matters of faith and conduct for salvation.
There are doctrines of the church, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or purgatory or indulgences, which are neither self-evident from scripture nor of necessary consequence derived from Holy Scripture. I reject those doctrines 1) without fear of heresy, 2) for fear of error.
As has already been said on this thread, Protestants believe in the perpetual Reformation of the church by Spirit-empowered submission to God's word written and by fidelity to the unembellished or augmented gospel of Jesus Christ as we have it in those Scriptures. I would therefore reject any tradition of the church that stands either in direct contradiction to the scripture (indulgences, salvation by works) or cannot be proved as a necessary soteriological consequence from those Scriptures (the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Christ, sacramental confession).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patdys:
[qb] The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel.
But Christ didn't simply rise from the dead as a private person with whom Christians have a private personal relationship. He rose as teh public head of the church, so that in his rising all believers are joined to one another and together corporately participate in Christ's risen life. In this respect your first sentence is seriously, seriously erroneous.
[ 11. February 2010, 08:28: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?
Hi Andrew, been a while! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Talking personally, I don't want people to follow my ideas, I want people to follow Jesus - and trust him that the rest of it will all be worked out.
I'd expect that your response to that would be that we barely know who Jesus was reliably. Which is fair enough if he was just a man from history. But if he really is still alive, and in some way God, then it's my opinion that being a Protestant, or a Catholic, a Muslim or whatever has very little to do with it, and that we can trust him to reveal who he is in his own way. He's the one who said "ask, seek, knock".
I don't think Christianity was ever meant to be a rigid set of beliefs - it's about reconciliation with God through his Son, about relationship. So individual doctrines can be debated, changed, and refined, but the whole remains.
Mr Nooma, Rob Bell, gives a helpful (in my view) illustration. The first is a theology which is a brick wall, with each doctrine an individual brick. Take one or two bricks out the bottom, and the wall falls down (which I'm sure you'll agree happened to you). The second is a theology which is a trampoline, with each doctrine one of the springs. Take one or two out, and the trampoline still works. I think a theology based on the second is much more realistic.
Oh, and what Custard said ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession.
How defined? That doesn't sound like "most Protestants" in my experience.
I think almost all Christian groups have their anchor in a Apostolic Succession, they just define it in very different ways. Very simply:
The Catholics define it through Rome,
The Orthodox define it through Tradition,
The Protestants define it through Scripture,
I think all three have merits, and maybe it's not a case of either/or (it's obviously much more nuanced than the above in reality anyhow). We're all working to the same goal, being true to what Jesus, then the Apostles taught. We're just getting there through different routes.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Custard, I'd be wary of regarding Constantine as some kind of seminal watershed moment in Church History and rejecting everything non-pre-Constantinian. What about the Trinity, for example?
Other than that, I agree with what the other Prots have said: for us, Scripture is the chief standard - if it contradicts Scripture, then it's wrong, if it ain't in Scripture then at best it's adiaphora and we can have lots of happy or not-so-happy speculative debates about it. That's not necessarily to discount Apostolic Tradition, just that that Tradition must pass the Vincentian test and that, ultimately, Scripture trumps that Tradition as and when push comes to shove.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more people will come and ask us.
Yes, but Jesus called us to be 'fishers of men' - which is not an image of people standing around waiting for the fish to come to them. And the image is the use of nets - not even just fishing lines. It's too easy to be willing to wait for people to come to you - at the margin there needs to be more active engagement.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Yet, the protestant churches have also given rise to a significant movement that doesn't see Scripture as authoritative in the same way that Numpty and Matt are talking about. The liberal tradition within these bodies view the canonical scriptures as containing essential truths but as being neither comprehensive as to all truth, nor as to be taken as prescriptive in regard to all practice and doctrine. Numpty would no doubt simply regard this liberal stream within protestantism (including Anglicanism) as heretical, but that doesn't negate the fact that this liberal tradition exists and has in some quarters been gaining ground since the C19. Hence, it's not as simple as characterising protestantism with a unique attitude regarding the primacy of canonical scripture.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But I don't think that was what the OP was asking.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Matt, I think the liberal tradition would reject the validity of the OP's question, IOW it's asking the wrong question. If the Church is a "prophetic" institution it is thus an adaptive, evolving one whose understandings of theology and praxis likewise evolve. Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding"
A statement which probably more accurately assesses Church (whether one thinks one's 'it' or not), both institutionally and personally, than any number of doctrines and dogmas of the past 2,000 years. Seriously.
I've always had this permanent nagging doubt about the Church. I actually think that Jesus might be surprised to find us treating certain parts of the Gospels and Paul's letters as Holy Scripture. He might even be surprised that we're not all Jews. Reformed Jews, maybe, but...
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Matt, I think the liberal tradition would reject the validity of the OP's question, IOW it's asking the wrong question. If the Church is a "prophetic" institution it is thus an adaptive, evolving one whose understandings of theology and praxis likewise evolve. Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
Why?
Let me explain what I mean.
The liberal tradition in Protestantism might see certain ideas of other traditions as made up. God punishes people? No, this is something some people made up, it's not true. God condemning the non-Christians simply because they are non-Christians? No, this is made up. The institution of the papacy? Sorry, not divinely ordained, but made up by humans. Demons? They don't really exist, but people made them up. Miracles? There is a huge metaphorical or even mythical importance in them, but they are not actual historical facts. And so on, and so forth.
Let's say that they are right. That all those ideas are made up by humans, pious humans of course, but who still made those things up, despite their good intentions.
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Unless I am not shoving it down your throught, what does it matter?
You are right. It doesn't matter to me. Which is why you won't see me trying to dissuade people from their convictions IRL. However, since this is a discussion board, I thought I would initiate this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe in...
[snip, long list of Numpty's beliefs]
My question remains. Why aren't your beliefs made up? Because you have the bible as your reference point? But history shows that different people interpret the bible differently.
You sound as if you hold some kind of infallibility for your beliefs, and you rationalize that because you assume you believe as the bible teaches, but this is just a big assumption on your part.
[ 11. February 2010, 12:06: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Straw-man parody of liberal Christian beliefs... You are right. It doesn't matter to me. Which is why you won't see me trying to dissuade people from their convictions IRL. However, since this is a discussion board, I thought I would initiate this discussion.
Wow, I almost believed for a short while that Sand-rew was interested in actual dialogue.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
El Greco, apart from the fact that you seem to have quite an odd view of 'Protestants' (it might help to know something about 'protestants' before you assume what they think), but you also seem to be looking for a singular truth yourself. I very much doubt that you will find anyone here who can convince you of a singular truth, but maybe you just want an argument rather than to be convinced by someone (?). But there are also a number of problems in looking for a singular truth which 'Protestantism' doesn't actually have. I don't even think that science has it either, so I'm inclined to think that your quest is looking for an unattainable 'holy grail' that no one on this planet will be able to hand to you in the neat little package you seem to want.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
So Andrew, the people who believe the whole bible are arrogant and the people who don't believe it all are imagining things. Is there a third way? Are you the sole occupant of that enlightened third way?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159
|
Posted
Can I throw the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in to the mix. In case you are not familiar with it, it is "tool" that assists with theological reflection. Wesleyan Quadrilateral
This recognises that
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
all play a part.
--------------------
Benny Diction
"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn
Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The liberal tradition in Protestantism might see certain ideas of other traditions as made up. God punishes people? No, this is something some people made up, it's not true. God condemning the non-Christians simply because they are non-Christians? No, this is made up. The institution of the papacy? Sorry, not divinely ordained, but made up by humans. Demons? They don't really exist, but people made them up. Miracles? There is a huge metaphorical or even mythical importance in them, but they are not actual historical facts. And so on, and so forth.
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
When I look at the Bible, it seems important to differentiate between what Jesus taught and what people in the early church wrote. Jesus could never have taught that people would go to Hell for not being Christian - this is the doctrine that the Church developed. If you look back at what Jesus taught, the validity of this teaching is questionable and, indeed, many prominent theologians, and not just Protestant ones, would argue that non-Christians will not automatically go to Hell.
Institution of the Papacy? The Protestant view is that Jesus' last(ish) words to Peter do not really constitute divine instigation of the Papacy as we have come to know and love it.
So, even if one stays with the Gospels, there are problems. The facts that accounts differ may actually prove a degree of authenticity - can we use other evidence to work out what really happened? Does it help if we consider what people in the first century CE may (or may not) have thought about the difference between literal and non-literal forms of truth?
And what about the dilemmas created by Jesus' status as fully human and fully divine - does that mean we make allowances for the fact that his knowledge and understanding must have the same limitations as any other person of that time?
Miracles? Not all Protestants deny miracles by any means. Like many, but by no means all, I think the healing miracles may be true, because I believe that the psychosomatic element of illness is underestimated by our culture. However, my guess is that Peter dreamt about Jesus walking on the water and someone somewhere got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Finally, let's think about the Virgin Birth. If you believed, as people did then, that the mother's only contribution to the procreative process is to provide the womb, which is merely the ground in which the seed grows, then you are going to have a different understanding of the implications of Virgin Birth from someone who knows that humans are composed out of genetic material contibuted by both parents. This means our understanding of the Virgin Birth has changed - the difference is in how different groups have responded to that change.
So this is not abou tme saying that I am right and "they" are wrong. I am merely talking about what my best understanding is and reserving the right to follow my best understanding, rather than follow someone else's best understanding (which I may not understand) simply because they tell me they're right and tradition proves it. I believe the Holy Spirit is at work in the world, now and always, and that means tradition does not get to have the last word.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
This statement places you outside of Protestantism. It also suggests to me that you are talking about the NT Scriptures, not the Bible, unless of course you are using the word "Church" to include ancient believing Israel. Either way I think you are using the word created in a very different way that I would as a Protestant. I would concur with you if you are using the word create in the sense that Christians - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - authored, promulgated and canonised the New Testament Scriptures. However, I would also suggest that Scripture creates the church inasmuch as the Spirit-empowerd proclamation of what Scripture says "creates" Christians (i.e. the Church).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I'm not sure if the OP is asking about the ultimate authority of teaching in protestant churches, i.e. what constitutes magisterium; or if El Greco is really posing a broader and more fundamental philosophical question as to what constitutes the basis for a level of confidence in perceived reality generally -- how we "know" what we "know" or how we "know" it to be true. I'd say that questions pertaining to religion are simply a subset of that broader question.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm not sure if the OP is asking about the ultimate authority of teaching in protestant churches, i.e. what constitutes magisterium; or if El Greco is really posing a broader and more fundamental philosophical question as to what constitutes the basis for a level of confidence in perceived reality generally -- how we "know" what we "know" or how we "know" it to be true. I'd say that questions pertaining to religion are simply a subset of that broader question.
Exactly. The OP presupposes an absolute divide between reason and revelation. Some Protestants - having used reason to conclude that some parts of tradition were unhelpful - yet continued to believe that there was a revealed faith worth preserving.
ISTM it is this fractal relationship between reason and revelation that bothers you, El Greco. Some Christians veer more toward revelation as authoritative, some toward reason, but it is never as neat a dividing line as might be wished. Yes, it is an awkward line, which is why Christians argue all the time about where it should be. But why should it be absolutist and binary - either one totally believes in revelation or utterly rejects it in favour of reason?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I believe in the supreme divine authority, inerrancy, sufficiency and consistency of Holy Scripture
That's a tradition too, created by a bunch of people in the 16th century. Historically speaking, all traditions, including Orthodox Tradition, were created by a bunch of people at some point. The problem is, how to choose the right one? It never ceases to amaze me how we try to justify the convictions we hold about our own choices, given that final proof remains as elusive as ever.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
We choose a particular model, template or approximation based on a variety of individual proclivities and predispositions, including aesthetic preferences, superego factors, socialisation, adaptive functionality, etc (not to imply that these are mutually exclusive categories; indeed they're likely to be overlapping to varying degrees).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
We choose a particular model, etc
That is certainly one way of describing our thought processes in secular terms, but I was thinking more about they way we justify our choices publicly, as opposed to the personal, private reasons which may condition our choices.
For example, I may justify my choice of Orthodox Tradition on historical grounds, but it may have been an unexplainable experience during the Liturgy which clinched it for me - unexplainable to others, that is, and unlikely to convince them if I did reveal it.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe in...
[snip, long list of Numpty's beliefs]
My question remains. Why aren't your beliefs made up? Because you have the bible as your reference point? But history shows that different people interpret the bible differently.
You sound as if you hold some kind of infallibility for your beliefs, and you rationalize that because you assume you believe as the bible teaches, but this is just a big assumption on your part.
No, I believe in the infallibility of the Apostles' teaching as recorded in the NT Scriptures. I also believe that there is only one correct interpretation of those teachings. The church's task - when divergent interpretations arise - is to strive to find the correct interpretation, not settle for fatalism or relativism. People here seem to be struggling with the idea that there is only one correct interpretation. They prefer either to go for a fatalistic 'everyone is wrong' (El Greco) or a relativistic 'everyone is right' (random others).
Of course, my saying that there is only one correct interpretation will draw the accusation of arrogance. I know that. But it's worth remembering that I'm talking about a hermeneutic principle and not necessarily making a claim to have reached the correct interpretation in every respect. On the contrary, whay I'm saying that nothing other than Scripture - including 2000 years of tradition, the extrinsic fruit of human reason, or even personal religious experience - can have the deciding vote when it comes to doctrine in the church. The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles. And the church should not cease in her endeavour to discover the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
