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

[pcosmar]

Ghaaa!

There is one church,,and there are 7 churches.. And there are churches of Men.

And this is why I reject religion and cling to Faith.

Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Seven Churches.

for whoever has ears to hear.

 

[moostraks]

You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative. We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self. That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists. That part I don't get. If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

I think it is awesome for those of you who have found your earthly spiritual place to call home. I am perplexed as to why it is seen as so offensive that some of us have not and why it is such a point to be ridiculed. (My experience has been that my failure to accept what another person finds comforting is seen as a personal insult to their decision.) The fact that one's soul is at stake is what makes the decision to submit to another fallible human's understanding all the more critical. As it stands I am accountable for my failings and thereis nowhere to hide and no one else to blame but myself.

I do not have the liberty to freely disassociate from the government being forced upon me. If I could, I would. I doubt that I would be interested in placing myself or my family under the governorship of another fallible human being after such a divorce from the present one. The government has never been worth any of the misery I have experienced as a result of its existence. I do not need a governing agency to behave properly or to intercede on my behalf.

As such is my opinion of the benefit of government why would I not have the opinion I do of a fallible governing agency especially considering the experiences I (and others ) have had with the Church?

 

[TER]

You cede authority to interpret scripture to the church.

Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.

The church of which time period? I know TER is all into reading the church Fathers to see what some particular scripture means. Fine and dandy. I will use writings of church fathers, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and others as commentary but not as authoritative scripture.

You don't think you use them as authoritative, but you do. Your entire approach to the Scriptures and to ecclesiology comes from these men who you have chosen (or they have been chosen for you) to be your Church Fathers. I do not accept them as such because they have neither apostolic succession either through the grace of ordination nor through the apostolic teachings handed down from the early Church.

But even those using post apostolic writings as authority can find themselves coming to a conclusion about something written that disagrees with "the Church."

Saints are fallible. That is why it is the Church expressed through the catholic witness and the affirmation of the laity which determines what is theological opinion and what is the understaning which has been handed down since as far back as possible.

It's dangerous to liberty for the people of a nation to assume that what is "constitutional" is whatever 9 men in robes determine it to be at the moment. At some point people should study the constitution for themselves and evaluate if the latest ruling that says the state can do X, Y or Z really measures up to what the constitution actually says.

Individual interpretation which is apart from the mind and experience of the 2000 year Church and Her saints is much more dangerous, which is why you have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations.

Yep. And the Eastern Orthodox church takes the same comfort in a different bride. And yes, I know the two groups share the same belief WRT transubstantiation just like Protestants and RCC and EO share the same belief WRT the Trinity. Which makes the whole "We take comfort in belonging to the one true church" all the more laughable. That said, most Protestants are very much like you. They rely on what that pastor says without deep critical study as well.

No, it is different. If my priest begins to preach things that are not orthodox as handed down and defended as being the orthodox and catholic faith, then it is my duty to report him to the Bishop who is the guardian of the faith. This is not a new innovation. This is the design of the Church since the first century. You should read the writings of St. Ignatius to gain a better understanding. And it is the Holy Spirit Who has constructed it to be so, working through the Church, and the fruits of this is that to this day there is an unbroken line through the grace of ordination and centered around the Holy Eucharist going all the way back to the first century.

The church plays an important role in introducing the Christian to the Holy Spirit. But isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to take over and guide and some point? Do you believe God wants you to always be, in your words, "stupid?"

You have a very different understanding of what the Church is compared to either the apostolic Fathers or the average Orthodox today. Our very salvation is tied to being a member of the Body of Christ. There is One Body, One Bride. That is not to say that someone who is not a good baptized Orthodox Christian will not enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day, but rather, that if he does, it will be into this Body that they will be grafted onto by the mercy of God.

I trust in the promises of God to give me the Holy Spirit on a personal level and not just entrust the Holy Spirit to "the Church" whichever organization is "the Church."

Yes, we trust God can give us the Holy Spirit on a personal level, but our salvation will not only be a personal event but an ecclesiological event, as members of His Church.

These are this teachings of the Orthodox Church as handed down since the days of the Apostles. It is the faith we have been given, the faith which has been followed, the faith which has been defended and passed on in every generation. The comfort fisharmor and every Orthodox Christian has is that there is a concrete and historical proof to the claims of the Orthodox Church, thus our surety does not depend on our mere minds and experiences, but the mind and experience of 2000 years of Saints. We do not ignore verses from the Scriptures or centuries of events. We submit to God's plan and working of this plan through and in time. Humilty would have it no way. The way of personal interpretation while ignoring what has been revealed and defended by men and women going back to the beginning is the way of pride and false self-assurance. Entering the Kingdom requires the humility of a child. Likewise, with entering His Church. We do not pretend to know the faith better than say a St. Ignatius, but our hope is that through the same Holy Spirit Who guided him, we might enter into this communion in one faith, one mind, one spirit, and one body. I have absolutely no problems submitting myself to the authority of those men and women who have been filled with the Holy Spirit. It is an honor for me to worship around the same Eucharist and same worship as one Church.

 

[erowe1]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?

It's not that we all have that ability. It's that none of us do, no matter what office we may hold in any organization.

The meaning of the text is what it is. It was already determined when the text was written. Our job is not to give it a meaning, but to discover what that meaning is.

 

[erowe1]

Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.

Source?

 

[TER]

Source?

Every saint that I know of and have read about. Do you have anything to say which will prove me to be mistaken?

 

[TER]

It's not that we all have that ability. It's that none of us do, no matter what office we may hold in any organization.

The meaning of the text is what it is. It was already determined when the text was written. Our job is not to give it a meaning, but to discover what that meaning is.

Yes, and the surest way to discover what it means after meditating on it is to study the writings of the saints. Unless, of course, one believes they are more illuminated then them.

 

[erowe1]

Every saint that I know of and have read about. Do you have anything to say which will prove me to be mistaken?

Sure. All of the authors of the books of the New Testament and every other Christian writing at least through the second century, and I think well beyond, constantly cite scripture, and never appeal to the Church for its interpretation.

 

[moostraks]

TER, what I find incredibly interesting is how much resonated with me when I saw the explanations put forth on so many different facets of faith through the writings of the early church. It is so invigorating to find the words of others who can so eloquently put forth the comprehensions of matters I have pondered.

What seems to escape those who have found their spiritual home is the crises of conscience for those of us who have not found with surety that place of companionship on this earth. If one has a serious moral disagreement, they are accused of failing to humble themselves, which only further distances the individual from the structure seeking to impose its will upon the individual.

Going back to the political argument, it is like those of us who have a non-resistance belief who are forced to pay for things against our conscience. Now, I am not forced to comply with a religious authority as I am with the political authority. I do not know why anyone would want to have someone like me in their faith membership when it is clearly understood that I disagree with some very core tenets. Nor should someone demand I just get over it when it is something that in getting over it for the sake of another person it is causing true spiritual damage.

Some of us are having our walk in the desert right now. You aren't walking a mile in my moccasins but demanding I walk in yours when you misinterpret my motive for not submitting to a religious governing authority. I have associations with the Church as I see it alive and well in the light of others who walk in the Spirit. No one knows myself better than me and the Creator, and trust me, no one is harder on myself than I am, or the Spirit. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide wrt my faith. Be thankful for what you have found and the surety with which you may claim your place in the physical church.

I John 4:17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

You understand that errors occur and you appeal to authorities with your physical church to maintain purity of faith. However, until the disagreement is reconciled the faithful are duty bound under the governing agent.

 

[moostraks]

Yes, and the surest way to discover what it means after meditating on it is to study the writings of the saints. Unless, of course, one believes they are more illuminated then them.

Does the Spirit not still work in this world to correct error? If I touch a burner that is lit will it not burn me? If a person is earnest in their faith will they not heed the discipline of the Spirit? If they are not earnest in the faith does a governing authority matter?

 

[PierzStyx]

the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.

If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with each other? If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it?

I don't remember anything in the Bible saying you had to believe solely in it alone as a repository for sacredness to be a Christian. Seems like that would be an important point. But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.

Your other questions assume that you are correct. I am no Orthodox. But the reality is that if they or the RCC are wrong, so are the Protestant sects. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit after all. Either they're right and Protestants are wrong or they're wrong and Protestants are still wrong. Really, apostates of apostates cannot get it right, not without a new revelation anyway.

I'm an open canon myself. The Bible does not limit God's ability to give further revelation and guidance to the Earth and I see no need to limit God's ability to speak or tel Him what He can or cannot do. Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." The words of God are as limitless as He is and as continuous as His love and desire to communicate with His people.

 

[erowe1]

But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.

This claim is so false that it's ridiculous. The very earliest Christian writings we have constantly cite scripture.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't remember anything in the Bible saying you had to believe solely in it alone as a repository for sacredness to be a Christian. Seems like that would be an important point. But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.

Your other questions assume that you are correct. I am no Orthodox. But the reality is that if they or the RCC are wrong, so are the Protestant sects. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit after all. Either they're right and Protestants are wrong or they're wrong and Protestants are still wrong. Really, apostates of apostates cannot get it right, not without a new revelation anyway.

I'm an open canon myself. The Bible does not limit God's ability to give further revelation and guidance to the Earth and I see no need to limit God's ability to speak or tel Him what He can or cannot do. Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." The words of God are as limitless as He is and as continuous as His love and desire to communicate with His people.

Isn't it interesting to see how similar the Mormon apologetic is to Rome's apologetic. Both Mormonism and Rome must say things like Pierstyx said: "Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."". They say this because they want to deny the Bible's authority and add new traditions of men to religion.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.

If I hear this one more time...

 

[erowe1]

Isn't it interesting to see how similar the Mormon apologetic is to Rome's apologetic. Both Mormonism and Rome must say things like Pierstyx said: "Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."". They say this because they want to deny the Bible's authority and add new traditions of men to religion.

I'm glad to be called a fool. It reminds me of this song.

 

[TER]

Sure. All of the authors of the books of the New Testament and every other Christian writing at least through the second century, and I think well beyond, constantly cite scripture, and never appeal to the Church for its interpretation.

those people you read were the very members of the Church interpreting the Scriptures (most of them ordained Bishops) in a time when Scriptures were hard to come by and the vast majority of the people (I have heared up to 94% of the population) could not read. When the later generations sought to understand the Sciriptures, they looked for the understanding as expressed by those saints before them. This is pretty standard by the end of the second century and onwards. For the first century and a half, most of the interpretations were dependent upon oral tradition from the fathers before them.

 

[erowe1]

those people you read were the very members of the Church interpreting the Scriptures

Yes. As individuals. And none of them appealed to the Church for the correct interpretation. All went right to the inspired writings. According to their own words, your view of the Church was not theirs.

 

[TER]

I'm glad to be called a fool. It reminds me of this song.

Except when it comes to interpreting Scripture, you must consider yourself quite adept considering you place your interpretation over those of the first century saints.

 

[TER]

Yes. As individuals. And none of them appealed to the Church for the correct interpretation. All went right to the inspired writings. According to their own words, your view of the Church was not theirs.

Well, I think we have a misunderstanding of the Church. The laity depended on the interpretation of the Bishops, no?

 

[TER]

TER, what I find incredibly interesting is how much resonated with me when I saw the explanations put forth on so many different facets of faith through the writings of the early church. It is so invigorating to find the words of others who can so eloquently put forth the comprehensions of matters I have pondered.

What seems to escape those who have found their spiritual home is the crises of conscience for those of us who have not found with surety that place of companionship on this earth. If one has a serious moral disagreement, they are accused of failing to humble themselves, which only further distances the individual from the structure seeking to impose its will upon the individual.

Going back to the political argument, it is like those of us who have a non-resistance belief who are forced to pay for things against our conscience. Now, I am not forced to comply with a religious authority as I am with the political authority. I do not know why anyone would want to have someone like me in their faith membership when it is clearly understood that I disagree with some very core tenets. Nor should someone demand I just get over it when it is something that in getting over it for the sake of another person it is causing true spiritual damage.

Some of us are having our walk in the desert right now. You aren't walking a mile in my moccasins but demanding I walk in yours when you misinterpret my motive for not submitting to a religious governing authority. I have associations with the Church as I see it alive and well in the light of others who walk in the Spirit. No one knows myself better than me and the Creator, and trust me, no one is harder on myself than I am, or the Spirit. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide wrt my faith. Be thankful for what you have found and the surety with which you may claim your place in the physical church.

I John 4:17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

You understand that errors occur and you appeal to authorities with your physical church to maintain purity of faith. However, until the disagreement is reconciled the faithful are duty bound under the governing agent.

Thank you moostraks. There is much I would like to say in response, but am at work right now and would like to spend more time to reply. But in the meanwhile, what do you mean by 'the governing agent'?