Question for Reformed/Sola Scriptura believers

12,495 Views | 209 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Quo Vadis?
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was in a conversation with a friend of mine who accepts literally only the Bible as the sole source of Christian teaching, and while I was speaking to him he brought up Jan Hus and Calvin and Luther, and a few different comments that they made in support of his position. I haven't been able to get in touch with my buddy again but it got me thinking.

How can you reference anyone else's teaching while holding to a "scripture alone" doctrine on Christianity? Wouldn't that be just like the Catholics referring to the Church fathers just 16 centuries in the future?

I remember I was talking to a sola scriptura devoted poster from here on the politics board one time and he referenced a book he'd written on the gospels that he thought would explain the position better, and I've just now been struck by the dissonance by that statement.

"All you need is scripture, and to better understand scripture please buy my book which will detail the correct way to digest everything"

powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is the traditional reformed view of Sola Scriptura" that I have always seen:

Quote:


Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture
There is nothing in this traditional view that forbids using outside resources to deepen or enrich your understanding.

Lutherans, based on the book of Concord, do not believe that the bible alone should be relied on for all aspects of Christianity. Luther often quoted the church fathers for example. Rather, all traditions should be judged by the scriptures as that is the only way to prevent the corruption in the church at the time of the reformation.
Mostly Peaceful
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for the explanations, it seems much like with many Catholics I know, some who hold to "sola scriptura" don't actually know what it entails.

Your explanations make much more logical sense, whether I agree with them or not
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Serviam said:

Thank you for the explanations, it seems much like with many Catholics I know, some who hold to "sola scriptura" don't actually know what it entails.

Your explanations make much more logical sense, whether I agree with them or not


Your modern Baptist/non-denom certainly uses it more as Solo Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura

Those that hold to Sola Scriptura the right way still run into the problem of authority. They will ultimately have to choose which interpretation they agree with, which is problematic to me.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serviam said:

Thank you for the explanations, it seems much like with many Catholics I know, some who hold to "sola scriptura" don't actually know what it entails.

Your explanations make much more logical sense, whether I agree with them or not


When used in evangelical circles, it does not often refer to Luther's Sola scriptura but something more novel and modern.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

Serviam said:

Thank you for the explanations, it seems much like with many Catholics I know, some who hold to "sola scriptura" don't actually know what it entails.

Your explanations make much more logical sense, whether I agree with them or not


Your modern Baptist/non-denom certainly uses it more as Solo Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura

Those that hold to Sola Scriptura the right way still run into the problem of authority. They will ultimately have to choose which interpretation they agree with, which is problematic to me.


That was the basis of our argument. We were discussing the immaculate conception and he claimed it was a one off that we mistranslated the Greek of and built an entire dogma around. I mentioned that Mary's sinlessness is believed by the RC, EC, EO, OO and high church Anglicans, and the first wave reformers and he asked where it was in the Bible.

I said the Marian dogmas were the product of the same church that the Bible was a product of, and then we went round and round on how the Bible could possibly refer to itself as it was a collection of different journals, epistles, letters and exhortations; and how he could trust the early church to compile the Bible but not anything else and it always boils down to "God did the Bible, but nothing else the early church did matters"
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.


The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…

The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.

t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.



AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.


The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning "cane" or "measuring rod," passed into Christian usage to mean "norm" or "rule of faith." The Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to the definitive,…

The Orthodox Church put together a Biblical Canon for this exact purpose and had this covered 1700 years ago.

t's a creation inspired by The Church to frame what it is to be Christian. If you contradict these VERY CORE beliefs then it isn't Christian. It was not intended as a stand alone set of documents to exist outside of Church Tradition. Church Tradition in line with the Scriptures is important.






Define 'orthodox church' in a way that isn't anachronistic please.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, is a Christian Church with approximately 230 million baptized members. It is considered the second-largest Christian church and the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ and described in the New Testament. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church and the Christian faith are inseparable, and that the Church is where the Christian faith is maintained and proclaimed.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:


The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, is a Christian Church with approximately 230 million baptized members. It is considered the second-largest Christian church and the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ and described in the New Testament. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church and the Christian faith are inseparable, and that the Church is where the Christian faith is maintained and proclaimed.



You just did what I asked you not to do: take your idea of the Orthodox Church and project it back into history, taking credit for the original councils and canon codified by the undivided church. East and west split well after 1700 years ago.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

CrackerJackAg said:


The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, is a Christian Church with approximately 230 million baptized members. It is considered the second-largest Christian church and the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ and described in the New Testament. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church and the Christian faith are inseparable, and that the Church is where the Christian faith is maintained and proclaimed.



You just did what I asked you not to do: take your idea of the Orthodox Church and project it back into history, taking credit for the original councils and canon codified by the undivided church. East and west split well after 1700 years ago.


Silly game…not playing.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrackerJackAg said:

AGC said:

CrackerJackAg said:


The Orthodox Church, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, is a Christian Church with approximately 230 million baptized members. It is considered the second-largest Christian church and the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ and described in the New Testament. Orthodox Christians believe that the Church and the Christian faith are inseparable, and that the Church is where the Christian faith is maintained and proclaimed.



You just did what I asked you not to do: take your idea of the Orthodox Church and project it back into history, taking credit for the original councils and canon codified by the undivided church. East and west split well after 1700 years ago.


Silly game…not playing.


The EO don't get sole credit for creating the Bible. Figured with all you talk about church history you'd know it better. The only 'game' here is exploring how much you know about the church history you spout. You have a new convert vibe with your ego.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serviam said:

The Banned said:

Serviam said:

Thank you for the explanations, it seems much like with many Catholics I know, some who hold to "sola scriptura" don't actually know what it entails.

Your explanations make much more logical sense, whether I agree with them or not


Your modern Baptist/non-denom certainly uses it more as Solo Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura

Those that hold to Sola Scriptura the right way still run into the problem of authority. They will ultimately have to choose which interpretation they agree with, which is problematic to me.


That was the basis of our argument. We were discussing the immaculate conception and he claimed it was a one off that we mistranslated the Greek of and built an entire dogma around. I mentioned that Mary's sinlessness is believed by the RC, EC, EO, OO and high church Anglicans, and the first wave reformers and he asked where it was in the Bible.

I said the Marian dogmas were the product of the same church that the Bible was a product of, and then we went round and round on how the Bible could possibly refer to itself as it was a collection of different journals, epistles, letters and exhortations; and how he could trust the early church to compile the Bible but not anything else and it always boils down to "God did the Bible, but nothing else the early church did matters"

Romans 3:9-12

No One Is Righteous

[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10] as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."


Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


I don't know but seems anachronistic to me....
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrico2727 said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


I don't know but seems anachronistic to me....



You mean monarchs calling councils of bishops from across the known world to address heresy? No that's pretty historically accurate.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)


Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)


Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.


I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)


Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.


I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?


I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)


Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.


I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?


One of my favorite examples of Petrine primacy is from the council of Hippo in the late 4th century. They reference the canon of the Bible as needing to be confirmed by the "Bishop across the sea" which is pretty self explanatory if you look at a map

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.


This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?


There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.


And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)


Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.


I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?


I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?
Really like your post.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


We had councils (though convened by monarchs rather than the bishop of rome)…I thought that went without saying? That's my entire point. We did decide things before the schism and we did it without aquinas and without agreeing on mechanisms for a great many things (penal atonement v christus victor, or both and more?). We had what today we'd call parochial letters (the epistles) that were circulated and accepted as canon.

I didn't leave out the EO, I short handed it. I did say that the Roman church used to follow this structure earlier but since the papal revolution its changed considerably with new offices and functions, law, etc.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


We had councils (though convened by monarchs rather than the bishop of rome)…I thought that went without saying? That's my entire point. We did decide things before the schism and we did it without aquinas and without agreeing on mechanisms for a great many things (penal atonement v christus victor, or both and more?). We had what today we'd call parochial letters (the epistles) that were circulated and accepted as canon.

I didn't leave out the EO, I short handed it. I did say that the Roman church used to follow this structure earlier but since the papal revolution its changed considerably with new offices and functions, law, etc.


You call it a papal revolution, but can easily be seen as a revolution against Rome. Much like our theology progresses, the firm definition of whatever issue always follows the challenges to the norm. The bishop of Rome always had primacy. His authority had to become more clear as it became challenged more vigorously. No different than Marian doctrines. They had to be elevated to dogma because of the attacks against it. It wasn't just made up out thin air. Or the real presence in the Eucharist.

And to address your "can we be comfortable with differences where scripture is silent?" My answer is yes to a degree, but the degrees have become significant. Take something like contraception. Due to Roman hierarchy, we can know definitively that it is a mortal sin while basically every other denomination has failed here. One says sin worthy of hell despite the "synodal" approach calling for it to be green lit. The rest have failed to uphold it due to the many varied approaches to the topic. To me this is a perfect example of how the many can stray but the Church as a whole will not. Only one structure was able to stand firm. Now we're seeing it with gay marriage. More and more denominations are falling and will continue to fall because they have no final authority to rule on it.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


We had councils (though convened by monarchs rather than the bishop of rome)…I thought that went without saying? That's my entire point. We did decide things before the schism and we did it without aquinas and without agreeing on mechanisms for a great many things (penal atonement v christus victor, or both and more?). We had what today we'd call parochial letters (the epistles) that were circulated and accepted as canon.

I didn't leave out the EO, I short handed it. I did say that the Roman church used to follow this structure earlier but since the papal revolution its changed considerably with new offices and functions, law, etc.


You call it a papal revolution, but can easily be seen as a revolution against Rome. Much like our theology progresses, the firm definition of whatever issue always follows the challenges to the norm. The bishop of Rome always had primacy. His authority had to become more clear as it became challenged more vigorously. No different than Marian doctrines. They had to be elevated to dogma because of the attacks against it. It wasn't just made up out thin air. Or the real presence in the Eucharist.

And to address your "can we be comfortable with differences where scripture is silent?" My answer is yes to a degree, but the degrees have become significant. Take something like contraception. Due to Roman hierarchy, we can know definitively that it is a mortal sin while basically every other denomination has failed here. One says sin worthy of hell despite the "synodal" approach calling for it to be green lit. The rest have failed to uphold it due to the many varied approaches to the topic. To me this is a perfect example of how the many can stray but the Church as a whole will not. Only one structure was able to stand firm. Now we're seeing it with gay marriage. More and more denominations are falling and will continue to fall because they have no final authority to rule on it.


Outside of the people who follow the bishop of rome it is a reasonable title for what happened when you restructured your church with the silence of the east under ottoman rule. And it's precisely why you should be more open and considerate of the other older traditions - you went off on your own track, consolidating power and changing doctrine as you saw fit in your area of the world. The problem is that you were not (and are not) the only Christian church with apostolic succession; to reconcile and seek communion these things would have to be walked back. A tall task indeed for those with a thousand years of belief and catechesis in their traditions.

Notice the appeals are always about a singular authority based on the practice of your current tradition, rather than the historical practice of the church and scripture.

Edit: I want to add, neither anglicans nor the east clamor for a singular authority to direct truth and settle doctrine that I've heard (and I've listened to hundreds of hours of ancient faith radio). Neither feel the need for a systematic theology and both accept mystery to various degrees. We're clearly very different traditions and only appear similar to someone who's Baptist or evangelical, otherwise Anglican's are closer to rome (which makes sense with our history). The RCC is facing the same issues as everyone else with modernity and a singular authority isn't saving you with Francis in charge. We have an abundance of threads about bishop Strickland (who I respect) and TLM; where is this confidence there?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I think you see a massive gap, where I see some small quarrels that could be assuaged by reasonable men. Take the philioque. There have been patriarchs in the East that have seen room for compromise. It's just not mainstream enough to catch on, because as you've pointed out, there are many bishops involved and not all are willing to be on the same page. You see it as consolidating power. I see it as preventing any one diocese from staying separate in their theology. It even appears in some cases that reconciliation cannot be reached because some patriarchs desire to retain their current power rather to see a united Church again.

The tenants of the faith need to be uniform. I don't see how one can get around that. How can one be ok with one diocese calling a particular action a sin and others saying it is not? How can one be ok with saying Mary's role is XYZ and the other says different? As you point out, we're much closer on things like baptism and the Eucharist than we are to modern baptists, but under your view I still struggle to see we can say baptists are wrong at all. Sure we can point to church history and tradition, but there is no authority to definitively say they are wrong. Once enough agree with the modern Baptist teaching versus the traditional Catholic one, you just have a church split. There's just no way maintain a unity with this model and no way to truly determine who is correct.

I see the authority being given to a "head honcho" to be an absolute necessity. Seems Jesus did as well. I don't need my tradition to tell me this. All I have to do is look at what has happened to Christianity since the reformation to know that authority is required. It's common sense. And I would disagree this is based on my tradition and not scripture/history to begin with. The primacy of Rome has always been around. I believe scripture is clear on Peter's role as well, and his successors retained that privilege, but I know this will simply be beating a dead horse by trying to argue it. I believe in a "first among equals" in a sense, but at the end of the day, just like in marriage, if there needs to be a final vote on a contentious topic, an individual with that final vote must exist.

For your ETA: Francis has given me great hope in the Catholic Church. I feel he would gladly toss out many of our teachings if he could, but he is bound by the teachings of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Even he has said gay men can't be married, can't be in the clergy, that trans ideology is satanic and women can never have a place in liturgical practices. I don't see this is literally any other denomination right now outside of individual evangelical non-denom churches. The German bishops can spout all their nonsense, but it will never become teaching, and this gives me peace. Even when truthful bishops, like Strickland, are unnecessarily punished and the Latin mass is constricted.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:



I think you see a massive gap, where I see some small quarrels that could be assuaged by reasonable men. Take the philioque. There have been patriarchs in the East that have seen room for compromise. It's just not mainstream enough to catch on, because as you've pointed out, there are many bishops involved and not all are willing to be on the same page. You see it as consolidating power. I see it as preventing any one diocese from staying separate in their theology. It even appears in some cases that reconciliation cannot be reached because some patriarchs desire to retain their current power rather to see a united Church again.

The tenants of the faith need to be uniform. I don't see how one can get around that. How can one be ok with one diocese calling a particular action a sin and others saying it is not? How can one be ok with saying Mary's role is XYZ and the other says different? As you point out, we're much closer on things like baptism and the Eucharist than we are to modern baptists, but under your view I still struggle to see we can say baptists are wrong at all. Sure we can point to church history and tradition, but there is no authority to definitively say they are wrong. Once enough agree with the modern Baptist teaching versus the traditional Catholic one, you just have a church split. There's just no way maintain a unity with this model and no way to truly determine who is correct.

I see the authority being given to a "head honcho" to be an absolute necessity. Seems Jesus did as well. I don't need my tradition to tell me this. All I have to do is look at what has happened to Christianity since the reformation to know that authority is required. It's common sense. And I would disagree this is based on my tradition and not scripture/history to begin with. The primacy of Rome has always been around. I believe scripture is clear on Peter's role as well, and his successors retained that privilege, but I know this will simply be beating a dead horse by trying to argue it. I believe in a "first among equals" in a sense, but at the end of the day, just like in marriage, if there needs to be a final vote on a contentious topic, an individual with that final vote must exist.

For your ETA: Francis has given me great hope in the Catholic Church. I feel he would gladly toss out many of our teachings if he could, but he is bound by the teachings of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Even he has said gay men can't be married, can't be in the clergy, that trans ideology is satanic and women can never have a place in liturgical practices. I don't see this is literally any other denomination right now outside of individual evangelical non-denom churches. The German bishops can spout all their nonsense, but it will never become teaching, and this gives me peace. Even when truthful bishops, like Strickland, are unnecessarily punished and the Latin mass is constricted.


Understand your criticisms but I think you live in a glass house. A thousand years of splitting and doctrinal changes has trained you to view scripture in that way (east west, reformation, CoE, old Catholics, etc.) and given you tradition and catechesis to enforce it. Just like every other ancient rite.

There's obviously some irony in lamenting that other bishops won't humble themselves before the bishop of Rome to unite the church when it's your tradition alone that elevates him so far above (primacy and first among equals is not the same as the power of office given to him, though we agree on the concept you define in this response).

If all bishops were on the same page, would we have needed councils? These are not new issues and were solved this way before. If someone goes rogue you follow the process of discipline and break communion (really this isn't a deal breaker, that a bishop goes rogue). I don't view Baptist theology as correct or perfect, and the Eucharist and baptism are absolutely stumbling blocks to unity with them. Absolute power doesn't bring them into the fold, though; in the roman context it merely gives you license to expel others. In a liturgical context though baptists aren't the stumbling block to Eastern and western unity. I don't say the Filioque when we recite the creed but I have license to do that at my church because of my heart in it.

The RCC has the same problems as everyone else. What good is your central authority when it punishes the most devout by abolishing Latin mass? When it restricts Strickland but father Martin has free reign? Biden and pelosi receive communion still, yes? What happens to these bishops who don't enforce your ideas of sin? No my friend, it has not saved you from the same forces that come for us all.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I guess my focus is on official teaching. Certainly people are going to mess up, priests are going to lead people astray, and even popes will allow their personal ego to get in the way of what is right or wrong. But the teaching itself has an authority that other denominations do not have. You can tell me that it's my upbringing all you want. That's fine. I believe I'm getting there through human reason. Why would Jesus establish a Church without a way to work out the difficulties to come?

It was always expected that pastors and even popes could be wicked and do wicked things. It's the teaching authority that I think is required. Yes, councils were almost always the process through which teachings were defined, but it's not always so. And even then there is no certainty that the council did a good job. Similar to the lambeth conference in 1930. I think that was a major mess up. Hence a figure head, with advisement and consent of fellow bishops, is there to help rule on the matters that are most pressing and can be done so with authority and in line with tradition. It provides uniformity of official TEACHING, even if many practice the opposite.

Maybe that doesn't matter much to some. It definitely seems easier for others to live in the gray than it is for me, so maybe that is my weakness. But it certainly isn't from my tradition and catechesis. I was very poorly formed until a few years ago. This is just common sense to me, and seems to align with the scriptures leaving Peter in charge, as well as church history. And I will readily admit it's personal to me because there are several teachings on morality and Christian obligations that I would rather ignore. It's only through submission to Church teaching that I try to persist. There are many others churches I could go to, even some of the more traditional strains of Protestantism, that would allow me much more latitude.

BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


We had councils (though convened by monarchs rather than the bishop of rome)…I thought that went without saying? That's my entire point. We did decide things before the schism and we did it without aquinas and without agreeing on mechanisms for a great many things (penal atonement v christus victor, or both and more?). We had what today we'd call parochial letters (the epistles) that were circulated and accepted as canon.

I didn't leave out the EO, I short handed it. I did say that the Roman church used to follow this structure earlier but since the papal revolution its changed considerably with new offices and functions, law, etc.
The RCC don't change anything but rather clarified things when it was necessary. I feel like this is the same discussion that comes up again and again and everyone has their own truths about THE Church Christ founded on earth and his instructions to his apostles and their heirs and how they carried on those traditions (which wasn't a written word for a while). So the traditions were the teachings. As the faith grew, the Church and its structure had to grow to accommodate the growing faith. The doctrines of the faith were never changed but were clarified when there was confusion or if a heresy evolved that required things that were always understood be stated. Like the Immaculate Conception, it was not necessary to explicitly state some things that all in the faith believed...until people started to question it and the teaching had to then be explicitly stated. It was a new doctrine being added....it was a clarification that prior to any dissent wasn't necessary.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BluHorseShu said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

AGC said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

You did not answer my question.

"I don't know" is a valid answer


Assuming you're asking in good faith, rather than waiting to criticize over doctrine or with ad hominem, one that comes to mind that exists with that structure is episcopalians. The greater anglican communion follows that as well. Eastern churches are organized similarly.

Structure isn't what saves, in any event, so why look to centrality? All traditions are downstream of change. Anglicans can't undo the English reformation and modernity seeps into our church as well.


I am asking in good faith.

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


We had councils (though convened by monarchs rather than the bishop of rome)…I thought that went without saying? That's my entire point. We did decide things before the schism and we did it without aquinas and without agreeing on mechanisms for a great many things (penal atonement v christus victor, or both and more?). We had what today we'd call parochial letters (the epistles) that were circulated and accepted as canon.

I didn't leave out the EO, I short handed it. I did say that the Roman church used to follow this structure earlier but since the papal revolution its changed considerably with new offices and functions, law, etc.
The RCC don't change anything but rather clarified things when it was necessary. I feel like this is the same discussion that comes up again and again and everyone has their own truths about THE Church Christ founded on earth and his instructions to his apostles and their heirs and how they carried on those traditions (which wasn't a written word for a while). So the traditions were the teachings. As the faith grew, the Church and its structure had to grow to accommodate the growing faith. The doctrines of the faith were never changed but were clarified when there was confusion or if a heresy evolved that required things that were always understood be stated. Like the Immaculate Conception, it was not necessary to explicitly state some things that all in the faith believed...until people started to question it and the teaching had to then be explicitly stated. It was a new doctrine being added....it was a clarification that prior to any dissent wasn't necessary.


The problem is that your history is public and played out for us all to see: that's why we run it back with these discussions. Claims to be the one church when others also have apostolic succession aren't convincing. Making 'clarifications' in isolation isn't an authority you have over the orthodox or anglicans that existed just as long and in communion with you for a thousand years or more. In fact, the councils were convened so that we'd all be on the same page rather than having something exactly like the RCC happen.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.