FIFYQuote:
And the only basis for your argument that your particular church is either a critical or a really, really important part of salvation is becauseyour churchthe scriptures says so.
FIFYQuote:
And the only basis for your argument that your particular church is either a critical or a really, really important part of salvation is becauseyour churchthe scriptures says so.
Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.JJMt said:
Protestants believe in the catholic church, too, of course, but catholic with a small "c". It's part of the Apostles Creed, which virtually all Protestants affirm.
But bottom line, you don't think members of the RCC are Christian, but you believe that EO are because, essentially, the EO says that. And everyone else who studies the scriptures and the early fathers, earnestly and honestly seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, but comes to a different conclusion than you is not only wrong, but not a Christian, even though they believe in Christ and practice their faith to the best of their abilities, as aided by the Holy Spirit?
1. For starters, it's not scriptural. 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of Scripture is subject to a personal interpretation. He says it to emphasize that the validity of his words to his flock come from his personal experience with Christ and the Holy Spirit. In short, the guardianship of the meaning and interpretation of scripture belongs to the Church, specifically in the office of the episcopate. St Paul tells St Timothy (who was a bishop) that he needs to be diligent so that he can rightly handle the word of the truth. The apostles rendered a judgment on the keeping of the law among the gentiles in a council. We have a manuscript here.JJMt said:
For the RCC and EO folks reading and contributing to this thread, you guys have a point that one of the necessary results of the Protestant perspective, especially the evangelical perspective, is that each person is his or her own authority on interpreting the Bible. But doesn't that lead to the following questions:
1. What's wrong with that?
2. Doesn't an organized Church sometimes get it wrong? And isn't a huge, bureaucratic organization like the RCC (and possible the EO?) much more difficult to correct when it does get it wrong?
3. Doesn't an overwhelming emphasis on orthodoxy and huge, bureaucratic churches also lead to a spiritual death on the parts of the masses who live in countries dominated by such churches? Hasn't history shown that to be true, that is, in most RCC and EO countries Christianity is only a thin veneer on most people who are, in reality, Christians in name only? Isn't the evangelical church one of the few bright spots in Christendom in terms of spiritual vitality and growth? Can't that itself be a sign of God's blessing and the work of the Holy Spirit? (somebody earlier stated that many evangelicals are leaving for the RCC and Orthodoxy, whereas numerically the opposite is true. RCCs, at least, are leaving the RCC for evangelical churches by the thousands.)
4. On a practical, real world level, is there really that much difference? Many of the RCC members I know approach RCC doctrine as sort of a smorgasbord. They take what they want and reject what they don't. How is that different from the evil that you see in evangelical Protestantism?
k2aggie07 said:
Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.
As I wrote in the post, if you read what St Peter wrote, he is saying it in context of justifying his authority to remind them, to be their overseer. He says no prophecy of Scripture, not general prophecy. And this is clear because he continues that there will be false prophets. What makes them false? Because they have a false and personal interpretation of scripture. St Paul's rules for church discipline aren't in the same context.JJMt said:
Thanks.
To reply to your response to question 1, Peter was clearly speaking about interpretation of prophecy, not interpretation of Scripture. Paul also lays out specific rules for the exercise of the spiritual gifts, including prophecy.
To your answer to #2, the leader of the RCC has often clearly been in error, even gross error. And the RCC itself was often in gross error. Orthodoxy did not save the church from error, and it took hundreds of years and dozens of lives for the RCC to change.
And the history of Europe when it was under the monopolistic domination of the RCC was not a pretty picture. Widespread spiritual growth was not the norm, even among the priests (especially among the priests?). The results of a controlling authoritarian religious structure did not have positive results.
But I will readily agree that the RCC has a much richer tradition, especially an intellectual tradition, than does Protestantism. Many Protestants recognize this. A prof at Wheaton, I think, named Nall has written on that. Of course, as you note, the RCC has a 1600 year head start, and hopefully the Protestants will catch up. At the present, though, there is only a small (but growing) segment of Protestantism with intellectual interests.
Have your heard of or read books by Tom Howard? He is an evangelical who converted first to the Anglican Church and then to Roman Catholicism (and has a very famous sister named Elisabeth Elliot who has remained an evangelical, as best as I know). Nevertheless, he still has very warm and glowing things to say about the Evangelical church. The decision on which practice to follow may not be binary. That is, the EO may be exactly where God has called you, but perhaps it may be a mistake to critically judge those for whom God may not have made the same calling.
If you'll review my post about church unity you'll see that the concept of a multi-faith invisible church -- a "big tent" approach -- is not supported by Holy Scripture. There is one faith, one baptism, one Church, one Body.tehmackdaddy said:k2aggie07 said:
Protestants are faced with one of two claims. They either believe their particular sect to be the universal church, to the exclusion of the others, or they become nominalists and believe that there is no single universal church but all churches have some truth, and God will sort it out -- basically, the invisible church means there doesn't need to be a universal church at all. If they worry about it at all, which I think most don't.
Protestants believe the invisible church IS the universal church being that God's grace is not limited to a man-made institution.
The difference being that the RCC and EOC claim their institution is the universal church AND that God's graces exist outside of it while the Protestants don't make the same claim about sole authority.
Quote:
Otherwise why mention a prohibition on personal scriptural prophecy interpretations?
Furlock Bones said:
this thread has strayed quite far from the original issue of why the reformers decided the Mass/Divine Liturgy whatever you want to call it needed to be changed after 1500.
no one has yet to give a real answer to that. i understand the reformation and what they were attempting to do. i just don't see a real answer as to why the worship service needed changing.