Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[jmdrake]

TER, I will keep this short. Not every conversation about religion or church requires a historical dissertation. Fishamour made a very simple point that as a Lutheran he felt some other Lutherans (leaders I presume) did not have the fruits to back up their believes. I gave an example of the same problem in the Orthodox church. That should have been the discussion. Any honest person can admit that in whatever church they belong there are bad apples. I readily admit that about the Seventh Day Adventist church.

The greater problem is that you put an emphasis on pedigree. That makes it harder to accept that bad apples for what they are. It's not just a question of whether or not you love and accept the church fathers, but whether you love and accept the apostolic process in its entirety. Instead of a house built on a strong foundation, you have a chain with a lot of weak links in it.

Trying to explain the action of some clearly out of control priests by the inane suggestion that they were "provoked" by people with a booth across the street on private property containing information that any sane person would not find offensive? Sorry, but I don't need to read the church fathers to realize that's wrong. If from your reading of the church fathers you think that's right, then please do some more reading because I tend to think they would disagree with you. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. I recall you saying that St. Nicholas once punched a man for "speaking heresy." I would call that a failure as a Christian. I see no justification for that anywhere in the New Testament. And if someone showed me where Ellen White or James White (her husband, not the modern Calvinist), or J.N. Andrews or any other Adventist pioneer physically assaulted someone for that person's speech, I would call that a failure in Christianity on their part as well.

Lastly, I didn't follow your entire exchange with erowe1 about deacons, but I will add this if he didn't already. When deacons were chosen, the apostles looked for men who were already filled with the Holy Spirit. The process of ordaining deacons (or elders, or bishops) was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit. If someone didn't have the Holy Spirit already then they weren't supposed to be chosen.

I would have to disagree with many of your points jmdrake. When you actually put a little effort and read the writings of the Church Fathers about what the Church is, about the difficulties they had to encounter and deal with in their specific day and age, and the age old understanding of the episcopy and how the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a Church full of sinners and in a world which contends against them, then we might find more things to agree upon. But you choose to ignore the writings and experience of the saints of the first several centuries to justify your opinions and your Church's ahistorical and unapostolic interpretaions and traditions. If you wish to teach me about the origins of Seventh Day Adventists and the lives and writings of Ellen White, then do so, and I will submit to your knowledge and authority on the matter having assummed you have studied these things and actually read their writings and the difficulties they were going through. But when you start mentioning things about the early century Christians and the Nicene period of the Church when you are obviously lacking much knowledge about it, I unfortunately cannot place much value on it. Erowe is very misguided but at least he makes the effort to learn about the early Church and the writings of the Church Fathers. Blinded as your are with Solo Scriptura, he at least makes an effort to truly understand how the early Church worshipped and lived to learn what the apostolic faith is. Rather, you ignore this important facet and submit to the authority of Ellen White and the founders of your Church and then past judgement on me because I submit to authorities that predate her by 1700 years and a Church which has been around and can trace itself back to the very beginning. We all can say and think that it is God Who is our only authority, but God too has placed authorities over us in this world and established teachers and prophets and leaders and clergy. You have chosen your leaders and I have chosen mine.

 

[TER]

TER, I will keep this short. Not every conversation about religion or church requires a historical dissertation.

Jmdrake, the topic I was discussing with erowe for the past few pages has everything to do with historical truths. The topic was about the apostolic tradition of ordaining clergy and how this was continued by the early Church. Studying the Scriptures AND the historical writings and practices of the early Church play an important role in the discussion.

Fishamour made a very simple point that as a Lutheran he felt some other Lutherans (leaders I presume) did not have the fruits to back up their believes. I gave an example of the same problem in the Orthodox church. That should have been the discussion. Any honest person can admit that in whatever church they belong there are bad apples. I readily admit that about the Seventh Day Adventist church.

Have I ever not admitted that there are bad apples in the EOC? Why are you therefore making the implication that I am not an honest person? Why even bring that up? This is a distraction to the topic of this thread. Does it bother you so much that Fisharmor has found his home in Orthodoxy that you need to stir up distracting things like what two priests did to a SDA booth in Russia? Have I not agreed with you that what they did was wrong? Have I not explained to you that they were disciplined by their Bishop? Then why harp on it? Yes, I think what the SDAs did WAS provocative. Doesn't mean they deserved the treatment they received. But all of this seems like a sideshow distraction to possibly instill doubt into Fisharmor or to justify your beliefs which counter to the historical truths you wish us to ignore. Perhaps you should study more historical dissertations so that you might come to find how much different your Church's teachings are from the teachings handed down by the Apostles which the Church Fisharmor has joined has faithfully maintained.

The greater problem is that you put an emphasis on pedigree. That makes it harder to accept that bad apples for what they are. It's not just a question of whether or not you love and accept the church fathers, but whether you love and accept the apostolic process in its entirety. Instead of a house built on a strong foundation, you have a chain with a lot of weak links in it.

This frankly is quite remarkable a statement you make here. Because as I see it, it is you who do not love or accept the aposotlic process in its entirety and have a house built on an extremely weak foundation, namely the personal interpretations of Ellen White.

Yes, there are weak links in the chain of the OC, but the Holy Spirit keeps the chain secure in spite of that. With the SDA, there doesn't even exist a chain! There is instead a new religion started about 150 years ago teaching things that have no link at all other then Ellen White's Solo Scriptura interpretations! Where is the chain or the link to many of her teachings in the second century? Or the third? Or the fourth? What is different from her and say Joseph Smith in this regard? But perhaps that is why you don't like to discuss or study historical facts because they demonstrate truths you are unwilling to accept?

Trying to explain the action of some clearly out of control priests by the inane suggestion that they were "provoked" by people with a booth across the street on private property containing information that any sane person would not find offensive? Sorry, but I don't need to read the church fathers to realize that's wrong. If from your reading of the church fathers you think that's right, then please do some more reading because I tend to think they would disagree with you. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. I recall you saying that St. Nicholas once punched a man for "speaking heresy." I would call that a failure as a Christian. I see no justification for that anywhere in the New Testament. And if someone showed me where Ellen White or James White (her husband, not the modern Calvinist), or J.N. Andrews or any other Adventist pioneer physically assaulted someone for that person's speech, I would call that a failure in Christianity on their part as well.

Again, a distraction. It is reported that St. Nicholas smacked Arius in the face for speaking blasphemy at the First Ecumenical Council. In his righteous indignation and zeal to defend the divinity of Christ, he lost his cool and smacked the greatest arch heretic of the fourth century. I guess we can ignore the remaining truths about his holy life and call him a failure! Well, I still think him to be much greater Christian than Ellen White in spite of this incident you are fixated upon and often bring up. I know St. Nicholas was not infallible. I also know him to be one of the greatest Christian saints of all time.

Lastly, I didn't follow your entire exchange with erowe1 about deacons, but I will add this if he didn't already. When deacons were chosen, the apostles looked for men who were already filled with the Holy Spirit. The process of ordaining deacons (or elders, or bishops) was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit. If someone didn't have the Holy Spirit already then they weren't supposed to be chosen.

Except the explanation is quite clear in the Hoy Scriptures that the laying of hands transfers the Holy Spirit. So too with the examples of the early Church through the first centuries! Ooh, those pesky facts again!

Because of your Protestant upbringing, lack of study of the theological writings of the early Christians, and poor understanding of sacramental theology, you do not understand how a person who was already 'filled with the Holy Spirit' could be ordained and receive the Holy Spirit in ordination. Their being graced by the Holy Spirit through baptism, Chrismation, and living holy lives did not make them officially acknowledged clergy in the Church. Their ordination was sealed and realized by the work of the Holy Spirit, and apparently the Apostles taught and practiced that this required a physical act of laying of the hands. There involved a rite of ordination. Not that the Holy Spirit cannot work upon a man otherwise, but rather that this was the process which was pleasing to God and instructed by His Apostles and carried on after the time period of the book of Acts was finished. Now you can say until the cows come home that 'this process was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit', but the historical proofs, the traditional practices and teachings of the 2000 year old Church, and the Scriptural examples you all ignore prove you to be incorrect.

 

[erowe1]

Except the explanation is quite clear in the Hoy Scriptures that the laying of hands transfers the Holy Spirit.

No it isn't. And this should be clear by the fact that in all your trying, you haven't been able to turn up a shred of evidence for this.

As you admitted before, there are various occasions in which hands were laid on people. There's one case where it was done in appointing certain people to wait on tables (which you refer to as ordaining deacons). There's one instance where it involved the Holy Spirit entering the people hands were laid on.

But the instance that you call the ordaining of deacons did not involve any transference of the Holy Spirit. And the instance that did involve transference of the Holy Sprit didn't involve any appointment of anyone to anything.

There's no conceivable way to make the transference of the Holy Spirit into some grand unifying theme of all laying on of hands.

 

[TER]

2 Timothy

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, a beloved son:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

No it isn't. And this should be clear by the fact that in all your trying, you haven't been able to turn up a shred of evidence for this.

The evidence is from the teachings of the Church, which is the bulwark and foundation for the truth, not what erowe's reading comprehension or wisdom tells him.

As you admitted before, there are various occasions in which hands were laid on people. There's one case where it was done in appointing certain people to wait on tables (which you refer to as ordaining deacons).

LOL! The entire history of the Christiantiy including the Reformers like Martin Luther understood that this verse describes the ordaining of deacons. This fanciful conjecture on your part of saying that these seven were simple waiters instead of ordained deacons flies in the face of the history of the Church. But what do you care! The Church of erowe thinks otherwise!

There's one instance where it involved the Holy Spirit entering the people hands were laid on.

No my friend. That is the instance where it is spelled out for people like you who doubt the power of the laying of hands. For the rest of the Christians, it was understood what it meant in the laying of hands. I wish the New Testament writers mentioned it in every instance so that you might believe and understand, but unfortunately they didn't. Luckily we have the Church to provide us the correct interpretation and understanding. Unluckily for you, you have already established yourself as the ultimate authority of your Church.

But the instance that you call the ordaining of deacons did not involve any transference of the Holy Spirit. And the instance that did involve transference of the Holy Sprit didn't involve any appointment of anyone to anything.

Says so you (against the testimony of the Church Fathers)

There's no conceivable way to make the transference of the Holy Spirit into some grand unifying theme of all laying on of hands.

Well, actually, there is. Unfortunatley the book of Acts finished too soon in the history of the growing Church and did not clearly explain it enough for you to understand. That is the problem of Solo Scriptura. I thank God He established a Church which can fill the gaps and give the true meaning and traditions.

 

[erowe1]

No my friend. That is the instance where it is spelled out for people like you who doubt the power of the laying of hands.

Are you talking about Acts 8:17?

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

That's the only passage where laying on of hands is connected with people receiving the Holy Spirit, and it has nothing at all to do with ordaining anyone for any office.

 

[erowe1]

Says so you (against the testimony of the Church Fathers)

Which Church fathers say that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved transferring the Holy Spirit to those 7 men, whom that very passage explicitly says were already full of the Holy Spirit before that happened?

 

[TER]

Are you talking about Acts 8:17?

That's the only passage where laying on of hands is connected with people receiving the Holy Spirit, and it has nothing at all to do with ordaining anyone for any office.

Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit! That is progress erowe! Keep working at it!

"Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands."

Here St. Paul is addressing Timothy which Church tradition reveals was made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul in the year AD 65. The Church understands the gift of God St. Paul is referring to is the Holy Spirit in the grace of ordination as episkopos of the city. What erowe thinks means very little frankly to me, but I am happy to see he is progressing! Baby steps!

 

[TER]

Which Church fathers say that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved transferring the Holy Spirit to those 7 men, whom that very passage explicitly says were already full of the Holy Spirit before that happened?

Ooh! A fishing expedition! I'll go put on my boots!

Actually, on second thought, why don't you go fishing without me. Perhaps you might learn something.

 

[erowe1]

Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit! That is progress erowe! Keep working at it!

Are you deliberately lying? Did you not just a couple posts ago quote me saying that there is one passage where the laying on of hands involves transference of the Holy Spirit?

 

[erowe1]

Ooh! A fishing expedition! I'll go put on my boots!

Actually, on second thought, why don't you go fishing without me. Perhaps you might learn something.

Why would a fishing expedition be needed? You just asserted that my claim about Acts 6 went against the testimony of the Church Fathers. If you already know that to be the case, as you would have to in order to say that, you should be able to tell me which fathers without having to look.

Were you really just making things up?

 

[TER]

Are you deliberately lying? Did you not just a couple posts ago quote me saying that there is one passage where the laying on of hands involves transference of the Holy Spirit?

What was the gift of God which St. Paul gave Timothy by the laying of hands? A shiny watch?

 

[TER]

Why would a fishing expedition be needed? You just asserted that my claim about Acts 6 went against the testimony of the Church Fathers. If you already know that to be the case, as you would have to in order to say that, you should be able to tell me which fathers without having to look.

Were you really just making things up?

No. It's just that I have no interest doing your homework. You should do the homework though. It might be good for you.

 

[erowe1]

No. It's just that I have no interest doing your homework. You should do the homework though. It might be good for you.

Gotcha. So you made that claim pretending to know it to be true, when in fact it was entirely baseless.

As for me doing homework, I never pass up a chance to learn something new about early Christian literature. So I will check this out and get back to you.

 

[erowe1]

What was the gift of God which St. Paul gave Timothy by the laying of hands? A shiny watch?

The text doesn't say. Nor does it say anything about Timothy being a bishop/presbyter or deacon.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit! That is progress erowe! Keep working at it!

"Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands."

Here St. Paul is addressing Timothy which Church tradition reveals was made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul in the year AD 65. The Church understands the gift of God St. Paul is referring to is the Holy Spirit in the grace of ordination as episkopos of the city. What erowe thinks means very little frankly to me, but I am happy to see he is progressing! Baby steps!

But the text doesn't say that. Your tradition says that. And what did Jesus say about the traditions of men?

 

[TER]

Gotcha. So you made that claim pretending to know it to be true, when in fact it was entirely baseless.

I see your reading comprehension problems are not just limited to the Scriptures. I am not pretending and neither what I am saying is baseless. That is you infering because I don't want to do your homework.

As for me doing homework, I never pass up a chance to learn something new about early Christian literature. So I will check this out and get back to you.

Hallelujah! I knew this labor of love I put up with you would eventually pay off!

 

[TER]

The text doesn't say. Nor does it say anything about Timothy being a bishop/presbyter or deacon.

I see. Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh? You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say. Tragic. I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus. You keep guessing...

 

[Sola_Fide]

I see. Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh? You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say. Tragic. I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus. You keep guessing...

How do you know that your church teaches the truth if this practice is not found in the word of God?

 

[Ronin Truth]

How do you know that your church teaches the truth if this practice is not found in the word of God?

That sacred infallible human institution tells him so. (And also what's to be in the book).

 

[erowe1]

I see. Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh? You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say. Tragic. I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus. You keep guessing...

Can you quote me ever once claiming to be a follower of Sola Scriptura?

It's safe to say that it wasn't a shiny new watch. But, no, it doesn't suck to be honest. I feel no obligation to write into the text something that isn't there. I accept that if it were necessary for Paul to spell it out more specifically the, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he would have. I do know that Timothy was a believer who was already active in ministry before he joined Paul in Acts 16. I also know that Paul says a lot about the Holy Spirit giving spiritual gifts, which are not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit himself. I also know that Paul sometimes talks about imparting some spiritual gift (as in Romans 1), where the idea seems to be more vague referring to ministry in general, and given other passages of that epistle can't possibly be talking about transferring the Holy Spirit to them.

It's also perfectly clear that Paul is not talking about Timothy being the bishop of Ephesus, since the pastoral epistles, like every other book in the New Testament, use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably, and refer to there being a multitude of holders of this office in Ephesus.

You keep claiming that everything you believe is what the Church teaches, but when pressed on that, you never seem to be able even to show that that's the case.

Doe the Church claim that this passage in 2 Timothy is about Paul transferring the Holy Spirit to Timothy? Can you back up that claim and provide sources?