| From | Message |
Peter Forrester
Guest
5/24/2003
13:21:18
|
 Subject: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
The recent conversation has been very exciting, thanks to Shawn and Will S.
Though the status of Protestant and Roman Churches is interesting, the issue points to the bigger questions, What is conservatism? (or restoration or reform or counter-revolution, etc.) What is required for a group of human beings to restore an institution (in the broadest and deepest sense of the word) without revolutionizing, or fundamentally changing it? What are the marks of an authentic or true restoration?
Will S.'s analogies between the Reformation and the Confederate Secession and Vatican II, respectively, are excellent. They suggest, it seems to me, the two alternative understandings of conservatism.
On one hand, the Confederates certainly thought of themselves as conservators of the American idea. Armed with the words of the founding documents and the memory of the founders themselves, the Confederates were prepared to separate from the founded institutions and the current guardians of those institutions. The Confederates conceived of their work as the preservation of the American idea—of America itself.
I wonder, however, whether the American idea, the genius that brought about the founding, can exist apart from the institutions and constitutional structures which were founded. Shawn, it seems, would say yes, judging from his comment, 'the Roman church had itself abandoned primitive Christianity and the clear teaching of the Gospel.' Shawn suggests that 'Christianity' exists in some way apart from the existent Church. Of course the meaning of 'Christianity' here is obscure. Is it just an idea?
On the other hand, in the case of Vatican II, obedient Roman Catholics claim that the numerous changes, most of which were practical, but some of which were clearly doctrinal, are not in fact radical departures from the tradition of their Church. However, these Catholics cannot pretend that these changes were resumptions of ancient practices and beliefs. The current stance on non-Catholics, for example, is obviously different from everything that came before it.
Protestant and Orthodox Christians see themselves justified, albeit for different reasons, in this hypocrisy. Protestants claim that the Roman Church has merely aligned itself more with the Reformers, thus rendering irrelevant the Catholic charges of innovation. And the Orthodox claim that Catholics can no longer pretend to be the guardians of ancient practices and beliefs.
Yes--the obedient Catholic would reply--the Catholic Church has made innovations throughout its history and especially in recent decades, but those innovations have not fundamentally changed the Church or the Christianity it professes. Christianity, he would say, does not exist apart from the Church in a neoplatonic realm of ideas waiting to be expropriated by the elect. Nor is the Church bound to certain art styles or liturgical languages. Christianity is more than an idea, and the Church is more than ancient usage. And both Christianity and the Church lose their meaning when they are separated from concrete, living institutions and structures.
I think this Catholic reponse--whatever one may think about the status of the Catholic Church--suggests a good way to answer the question, What is conservatism?
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
03:39:02
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Indeed, I think there are different conservatisms, in politics and faith, which come at conserving traditions from different angles.
To return to the Protestant / Roman Catholic example, the Roman Catholic Church's conservatism is institution-based, that is, based in the historical continuity of the tradition itself; whereas Protestantism's conservatism is based on standing fast to God's Word - maintaining what the Bible teaches - and if the church has strayed from that, returning to it.
For example, the Pauline letters do not in any way forbid pastoral ministers of the Gospel to marry; it only specifies that they are to be "husbands of one wife" - which of course rules out women.
The Roman Catholic church, however, decided to, in spite of the teaching from Scripture, ban priests from marrying. This goes directly against what the Bible itself teaches. So, who is being more "conservative" in this? Those who hold to what the Bible teaches are. Anyone else, is an innovator, despite protestations to the contrary.
Even the Roman Catholic Church's reasons for only having male priests, are often argued in terms of Jesus only choosing male disciples - which, while rational, doesn't necessarily rule out female priests per se - Christ also had women followers before His resurrection, too. But traditionalist Protestantism will reject female pastors because of the clear teachings of Paul mentioned previously - "husband of one wife", that means men, not women.
Thus, we Protestants will argue, since the Bible is God's revelation to man, we must hold true to whatever it teaches, and in terms of theology and doctrine reject any reasoning that is contrary to Scripture or which was arrived at through other means, such as pure reasoning.
By the way, we Protestants certainly believe in the Church - the Church refers to the people of God, i.e. those who are Christians, and is expressed within institutions of like-minded believers gathered together as a community for worship and fellowship. Hence I don't accept the charge that Protestantism separates the faith and the Church from "concrete, living institutions and structures" - our churches are just that.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
04:10:45
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Returning to the political dimension, it seems to me that if political conservatism is merely a knee-jerk reflex of "let's keep things as they are" and/or "let's only seek change through the Grand Old Parties we've always voted for, which have been around for a long time and thus automatically are good and right and true, unlike those rabble-rousing upstarts over there", we'll never be able to change anything, because the liberals will keep moving the goalposts, then we'll just say, "Well, okay, but no further!", until the next time, ad nauseum. Like a ratchet effect, we'll only go in one direction...
We see this when, throughout the English-speaking world, parties that are ostensibly conservative end up promoting gay rights, affirmative action, insane levels of immigration, huge public spending, new social programs, increasing bureaucracy, and so on. And anyone who says, "This is wrong; we used to oppose this", and breaks away from the trend of the day, gets attacked as "extremist", "hate-filled", "bigoted", etc.
So, if "conservative" means afraid to actually challenge the negatives of the status quo, its opposition to any future changes comes off as unprincipled and irrational as a grumpy old fart grumbling about CD players, VCRs, etc. etc. And it's just as impotent, and pointless. Count me out of any such conservatism!
For me, holding on to the best of what we've learned from the past means returning to it wherever we've strayed from it. This attitude, which springs from my Protestant Christian faith, informs my political views, and how I live my life daily.
For my part, I see no difference between a denomination that comes up with doctrines contrary to the what the Scriptures teach, and end up teaching the opposite; and an ostensibly conservative political party fully supporting, say, gay rights (e.g. the Conservatives in the U.K. or the "Progressive Conservatives" in Canada [now there's an oxymoron]) - supporting an innovation over and against centuries of received political wisdom can't constitute conservatism in any meaningful sense of the word.
In short, in my opinion, knee-jerk, unthinking, blindly-loyal-no-matter-what, institutional conservatism, in faith and in politics, is no conservatism at all.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/25/2003
14:27:22
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Joe Sobran on the uselessness of the dominant strain of movement conservatism:
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030508.shtml
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
5/26/2003
11:05:05
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
“Protestantism's conservatism is based on standing fast to God's Word - maintaining what the Bible teaches - and if the church has strayed from that, returning to it.”
The form of conservatism you speak of made sense in the fifteenth century and makes even more sense today when many so-called Christian leaders and even whole denominations flagrantly contradict the Bible. By “made sense” I don’t mean to invoke historicism and dismiss Protestantism as “true for its time and place.” But I wonder whether the composition and growing availability of the Bible during and after the Reformation period has given the Bible a status it didn’t have originally. (The following may sound polemical; it isn’t meant to be. I encourage a spirited response, if only for my sake, as this issue has troubled me for a long time.)
In the first century Christ gathered around Him disciples and established what by the power of the Holy Spirit would become the Church; Christ did not write or even command or suggest the composition of Scriptures in addition to those inherited from the Jews. By the end of the first century most of the letters and gospels that make up the New Testament were written, along with dozens of spurious writings that had varying degrees of influence on different parts of the Church. At the end of the fourth century a council of bishops met in Carthage to set the canon of Christian Scriptures, that is, to decide which writings could be taken as God’s word. The council’s decision led to the New Testament shared by all Christians, and to much of the Old Testament (the council accepted the “apocryphal” books).
This situation suggests to me that the Church enjoys a kind of precedence when it comes to the Bible. I don’t mean that the Church can decide the Bible means whatever it wants, but that the Bible can’t be viewed as above the Church, as the rule by which the Church is measured and in some cases condemned. The “word of God” is certainly above the Church, but I don’t think the “word of God” is equivalent (when it’s mentioned in the Scriptures) to the Scriptures alone, and certainly not to the Scriptures of the New Testament. (When Paul mentions the “word of God” I don’t think he’s talking about the letter he’s writing or those he has already sent.) That’s what I meant by questioning Shawn’s distinction between “Christianity” and the Church. The Church, it seems to me, isn’t formed by people who have first been exposed to the Bible and “Christianity”; rather it ought to be the context in which the Bible and “Christianity” get their all-important meaning.
Of course this amounts to a rejection of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura, and requires one to view the Church as more than “like-minded believers gathered together as a community for worship and fellowship.”
I’d be most appreciative if you would offer an account of Sola Scriptura and especially how it relates to the origin of the Christian Bible and the creeds that classical Protestants accept as true.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/26/2003
23:52:36
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
My understanding is, Protestantism views the early church as having been guided by the Holy Spirit in the formulating of the creeds, and in organizing the Biblical canon; however, we don't believe that the early church was 100% infallible in so doing (i.e. it didn't follow the Spirit 100%, which is their fault, not God's), and on the basis of various evidence (internal contradictions, historical errors, etc.) Protestants have ended up rejecting a number of books traditionally considered by Roman Catholics as part of Scripture (we refer to these collectively as the Apocrypha). I'm afraid I don't know all the details of how, when, and where Reformational Protestant councils met and hashed out the details, and exactly how the process occurred. But I've read some of the Apocrypha along with some commentaries that were included with the edition I read, and I understand the jist of why various books were excluded, being considered by the Reformers to not in fact be divinely inspired Scriptures (not the Word of God).
So, I guess our understanding, as Protestants, of the canonization of Scripture, is that the Church shouldn't be viewed as infallible (being composed of fallible humans), and that, given, from our perspective, that it didn't assemble the Canon perfectly on the first occasion, we shouldn't view the Church as possessing any sort of authority whatsoever over Scripture; rather, we do view the Scriptures themselves as the Word of God, against which the Church is to be measured. (Paul was referring to the Old Testament when he used the terms "Scripture" and "Word of God", which observant Jews learnt and even memorized - "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee" - [Ps. 119:11 (KJV)]; suggesting that the Jews certainly, under the Old Covenant, possessed a familiarity with the Word of God back then that is little different with our post-Gutenberg familiarity with both Testaments today - I don't think the Bible's status today is greater than it was in the Old Testament era, though in between that status had been lost for many centuries, what with the Roman Catholic Church keeping the people in the dark by not having the Bible available to any great extent prior to the invention of the printing press, and often only in Latin, not in the languages of European peoples. This lack of technology (not the Church's fault), combined with their culpable, deliberate refraining from translating the Scriptures into European spoken languages, allowed the Church to easily hide its errors and discrepancies (from what Scripture taught) from the people, and thus gave them a lock on power, until the Gutenberg press was invented, for which we Protestants are truly grateful.) We of course view the New Testament now as being equally authoritative as the Old Testament. (Why? Because it is the fulfilment of the promises of the Old Testament.)
[Perhaps I should elaborate a bit on our understanding of the Church. The Church is, in our understanding as Reformational Protestants, the Chosen people of God, just as the nation of Israel, under the Old Testament, was the Chosen people of God at that time; now it has shifted, and includes both people whose ancestors were Jewish and people whose ancestors were Gentile, but all of whom, regardless of what may have been in the past, believe in and on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and in His death and resurrection, and its justifying and sanctifying power. So it isn't, per se, as I may have unwittingly suggested, a collection of like-minded people who have decided to gather together because of a common interest; rather, it is the collectivity of the people whom God has gathered together, across all time and space, from the beginning to eternity. On Earth, it is manifested visibly in institutional form, but it really is the people, not the organization(s), or the buildings worship are held in (though we also use the word "church" for these).]
The reason the Word of God is held above the Church, is that it is just that, literally the Word of God (transmitted by the Spirit through humans, but nevertheless the Word of God), infallible and inerrant, unlike humans, of which the Church is composed. We can measure our faithfulness to God's standards by comparing our doctrines and practices against what God has revealed to us in Scripture. Hence Protestantism, in upholding the Bible as superior to any thoughts and words and traditions of man, is highly rationalist, more so than any creed that claims to venerate Scripture, but then formulates doctrines and practices that are antithetical to what is taught in Scripture, thus demonstrating their deception and falsehood. This is the basis of our rejection of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and yes, any so-called Protestants who teach anti-Biblical teachings, such as the denominations that have female pastors, that teach gay rights, abortion, etc. The Protestant way is faith and reason, over and against "mystery" religion, mysterious, mystical blind error-filled traditionalism of Rome and Constantinople (and also over and against modern neo-paganism, neo-Gnosticism, materialism, and Protestants-In-Name-Only who've eliminated all their doctrines and just go along with whatever the world teaches).
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:14-17 (NIV)]
Notice that it is the "holy Scriptures" which make one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, not "traditions", not "Church teachings", not "the writings of Church fathers", etc. No, it's God's Word alone - Sola Scriptura. (In fact, for Timothy and others at the time he lived, who had heard firsthand testimonies of those who'd known Christ and/or witnessed the events of the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures being referred to were the Old Testament Scriptures, which foretold Jesus' coming; any 1st century Jew familiar with the book of Isaiah would have easily seen how Christ's life, death and resurrection fit the prophecies of Isaiah. Now, of course, it is "all Scriptures" that are God-breathed, and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", as the KJV puts it. All Scriptures, incl. the ones which have recorded what the disciples experienced and witnessed firsthand, are what we need - and are all we need, in order to know how to be saved. Then it's just a matter of putting it into action, through believing in and on Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross at Calvary.)
|
Will S.
Guest
5/28/2003
04:31:37
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"I’d be most appreciative if you would offer an account of Sola Scriptura and especially how it relates to the origin of the Christian Bible and the creeds that classical Protestants accept as true."
I neglected to state how Protestants view the creeds. We honour them and cherish them - that is, the ones sometimes called the ecumenical creeds, such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed. We do so (honour and cherish them) because of their expression of Scriptural truths, not as some authority more important than Scripture. Our usage of them in no way violates the principle of Sola Scriptura, because they have a subordinate position to the Word of God itself, merely reflecting and summarizing what the Word teaches, not being a rival source of teaching to that from the Word.
The same is true with our various confessions, which are specific to the different traditions within Reformational Protestantism, from Lutheran to Reformed to Presbyterian, to Calvinistic Anglicans, etc. These are based on the various understandings of Scripture within each tradition, and again, are held to be subordinate to Scripture, merely summarizing what each tradition believes the Bible teaches.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
5/28/2003
21:45:36
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks for your words on the Church as Protestants conceive of it, and on the place of the Scriptures in that Church.
If I understand you correctly, classical Protestants believe that the early Church, while guided by the holy Spirit, wasn't infallible; an example of its fallibility being the erroneous inclusion of the so-called apocryphal books of the Old Testament (like 1 and 2 Maccabees, which relate the story of Hanukkah), an error detected by the principal reformers.
Why do Protestants, then, trust the Scriptures if a group of fallible men decided which books were true--especially since they were apparently wrong about some of their decisions? Why aren't the Scriptures considered as fallible as the men who canonized them? And if it's essential for Christians to have a personal familiarity with the Scriptures, why would Christianity begin a millennium and a half before requisite technological conditions (i.e., the printing press) existed?
The quotation from the letter to Timothy, where "all" the Scriptures are called God-breathed and able to prepare us for salvation, must certainly include books from the Old Testament. But it's not at all clear that it also includes, as you suggest, "the ones which have recorded what the disciples experienced and witnessed firsthand." Timothy (and Paul, for that matter) did not have access to a copy of the New Testament, which came into being only after the fact.
|
Will S.
Guest
5/29/2003
01:23:15
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Protestantism sees the books of the New Testament as being just as much the Word of God as the Old Testament books. In the same ways which God had men assemble the books of the Old Testament, and the Jews and the Christian church have both believed in them, in like manner do we believe the Holy Spirit must have acted in leading men to assemble the New Testament canon. Why it happened on the timetable it did, and why various errors of the Roman Catholic church were allowed to continue with little significant challenge until the time of the Protestant Reformation, I don't know, but God does; it's all part of His plan - He set and determined the time for everything that has been, that is, and that will be.
We trust the Scriptures even though they were assembled together by fallible men, because we trust that God was guiding the men who were doing so; they weren't doing it all alone, by mere reasoning arriving at their decisions of what to include and what to exclude. What's more, we don't consider the Scriptures themselves to be fallible; so between that and the fact that we hold that God is 100% sovereign, fully in control, and guides His people, we can have confidence in the selection of the men who assembled the canon, just as we would trust in the men who assembled the Old Testament - they, too, were the people of God. We trust in God above all, and because we hold Him to be omniscient and omnipotent, we can be assured that He is working out everything according to His divine plan.
"And if it's essential for Christians to have a personal familiarity with the Scriptures, why would Christianity begin a millennium and a half before requisite technological conditions (i.e., the printing press) existed?"
It wasn't necessary for God's people to have the printing press in the Old Testament, and it follows, from the Protestant perspective, that it wasn't necessary for God's people to have it until the time when it was invented; but since then it has been a blessing. God is in control of history, even though we are also simultaneously responsible for our own actions - such is the Reformed Protestant understanding. (I'm not very knowledgable about Lutheranism's teachings on this point specifically; I know that they, like us Reformed, hold that God is the one who saves (not men), by His grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone; that we only need Scripture to learn how we must be saved, and that in everything, the credit and glory is due to God alone.)
"The quotation from the letter to Timothy, where "all" the Scriptures are called God-breathed and able to prepare us for salvation, must certainly include books from the Old Testament. But it's not at all clear that it also includes, as you suggest, "the ones which have recorded what the disciples experienced and witnessed firsthand." Timothy (and Paul, for that matter) did not have access to a copy of the New Testament, which came into being only after the fact."
Paul and Timothy and the other New Testament writers didn't have all the New Testament, true, but since the Bible is the Word of God and not of man, God was the ultimate author, and so even if the human writers couldn't fully appreciate the work they were involved in, they were carrying out God's will. Even if they didn't appreciate that the Scriptures they were referring to in their writings also included their writings.
"Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the LORD" - Psalm 102:18 (NIV)
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/07/2003
09:38:17
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
In my last message I objected to your use of “All Scripture is God-breathed” and “able to make you wise for salvation” to support the principal of Scripture Alone.
First, that passage from Paul to Timothy doesn’t claim that Scripture ALONE is NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT to make us wise for salvation, only that Scripture possesses the power to prepare us for salvation. It’s much more radical, and a much looser reading of the text, to suggest that we ONLY need a copy of the Bible to learn everything necessary for salvation. Paul doesn’t include anything there to denigrate the role of tradition, as understood by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Second, and more importantly, the Scriptures mentioned by Paul and other early Christian writers are the books of the Old Testament, not their own writings. If their own writings are in fact “God-breathed” the passage above cannot be cited to prove it; nor can one say that they’re in the Bible and “the Bible is the Word of God and not of man, God was the ultimate author.” Such a statement assumes what it’s trying to prove--namely that the New Testament should be considered along with the Old as the infallible word of God. One would need to find internal, biblical evidence that the books themselves of the New Testament are “God-breathed,” and that they are NECESSARY and also SUFFICIENT for salvation. I’m not faulting for you for failing to find such evidence; I’m not sure it exists.
The passage quoted from Paul to Timothy only proves that the Old Testament is “God-breathed.” Any parallels between the Old Testament and the New, while perhaps suggestive of a deep connection, cannot be taken for granted. Making connections by means of statements like the following is very dangerous: “Even if they didn't appreciate that the Scriptures they were referring to in their writings also included their writings.” Are we to believe that Paul’s words to Timothy about Scripture secretly anticipate the far-off council which would declare those very words Scriptural? Doesn’t that plainly twist the plain sense of Paul’s words in favour of the Scripture Alone theory? Such creative readings of the biblical text remind me of contemporary theologians who try to find Scriptural support for gay rights and feminism. They too maintain that Paul and the other writers didn’t mean what they plainly wrote, or (worse) that God didn’t mean what they plainly wrote.
In the end I think it’s futile to try to establish the infallibility of the Scriptures on the Scriptures themselves. We ought to turn, it seems to me, to “the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), which preserves and continues the very structures that were involved in the canonization of the Scriptures. And we ought to see the Church as founded by Christ and guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. From the infallible Church come the infallible Scriptures.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/07/2003
09:41:26
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
“Protestantism sees the books of the New Testament as being just as much the Word of God as the Old Testament books. In the same ways which God had men assemble the books of the Old Testament, and the Jews and the Christian church have both believed in them, in like manner do we believe the Holy Spirit must have acted in leading men to assemble the New Testament canon. Why it happened on the timetable it did, and why various errors of the Roman Catholic church were allowed to continue with little significant challenge until the time of the Protestant Reformation, I don't know, but God does; it's all part of His plan - He set and determined the time for everything that has been, that is, and that will be. “
God knows and determines everything—I agree. And I also agree that the books of the New Testament are as divinely inspired and infallible as the Old Testament books. However, the consequent questions, it seems to me, are the following: How do we know this? Where did the Church get THESE books? Why do we trust the determinations of the Church?
Perhaps it’s worth noting that the council of bishops that set the New Testament canon also set the Old Testament canon which is still accepted by Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and which the Reformers in part jettisoned. It may also be worth noting that the council knowingly rejected the Jewish canon and instead adopted the Old Testament books included in the Greek Old Testament, also called the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the so-called apocryphal books, and stands out as the version of Scriptures cited by Paul and the other New Testament writers.
This raises the question, why should anybody trust that the New Testament is infallible if the men who set the canon were mistaken about the Old Testament? Furthermore, it raises doubts about the very power of the Holy Spirit.
If we agree that the biblical canon was incorrect until the fifteenth century, and yet that the Holy Spirit ”must have acted” in its formation, it appears that either the early Church successfully thwarted the intentions of the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit meant to deceive the Church for a thousand years. Both cases are unacceptable. The first denies the sovereignty of God, and the second denies His goodness and faithfulness.
Could it be that the Holy Spirit guides the Church “into all truth” (John 16:13) and taught it “all things” (John 14:27)? That the same Spirit guaranteed the infallibility of its decisions regarding the Old and New Testaments? That the Church in fact was never mistaken about including the apocryphal Old Testament in the canon? That the same Spirit continues to guide the Church, led by the direct successors of those early bishops?
|
Will S.
Guest
6/11/2003
00:43:11
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"First, that passage from Paul to Timothy doesn’t claim that Scripture ALONE is NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT to make us wise for salvation, only that Scripture possesses the power to prepare us for salvation. It’s much more radical, and a much looser reading of the text, to suggest that we ONLY need a copy of the Bible to learn everything necessary for salvation. Paul doesn’t include anything there to denigrate the role of tradition, as understood by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."
The passage in 2 Tim. 3 says "from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." We as Protestants take "are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" to mean that the Word of God contains all that we need to know in order to know (a) that we are lost and (b) that we need to be saved and (c) how to be saved; that is, we understand "are able to make you" to mean, by way of implication, "are by themselves able to make you". This is our interpretation; obviously Protestants and Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox disagree with it - hence one of the fundamental differences between the Protestants and the other two main Christian traditions. I don't think it is a loose interpretation of the text; I think it's implicit in the statement; obviously we disagree.
Further, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."; if Scriptures make the man of God "thoroughly equipped" for every good work, i.e. if they illustrate how we are to live in such a manner that the word "thoroughly" was considered appropriate to use, this word "thoroughly" implies that they do so completely, and so no other source is necessary.
I might remind you, as you doubtless noticed in the Restoration vs. Conquest thread, that classical Protestants by no means consider tradition unimportant; indeed, we believe very much in tradition; we simply consider it subordinate to Scripture, and reject anything that is contrary to Scripture, traditional or new.
"Second, and more importantly, the Scriptures mentioned by Paul and other early Christian writers are the books of the Old Testament, not their own writings. If their own writings are in fact “God-breathed” the passage above cannot be cited to prove it; nor can one say that they’re in the Bible and “the Bible is the Word of God and not of man, God was the ultimate author.” Such a statement assumes what it’s trying to prove--namely that the New Testament should be considered along with the Old as the infallible word of God. One would need to find internal, biblical evidence that the books themselves of the New Testament are “God-breathed,” and that they are NECESSARY and also SUFFICIENT for salvation. I’m not faulting for you for failing to find such evidence; I’m not sure it exists."
I see what you're suggesting here, that, unwittingly, I have fallen into the logical fallacy of "petitio principii", or "begging the question", in asking one to assume what I am attempting to assert, which would require that one already accept the conclusion I have arrived at. Indeed, I cannot argue with such a suggestion; it would appear to be so. Perhaps another Protestant poster to The Struggle Continues! might be able to answer your very astute observation with an example I haven't thought of, and can't at present think of. (Any takers to Peter Forrester's challenge?)
May I point out, however, that Protestants see themselves, as believers, as being the Church, and being guided by the Holy Spirit, in the same manner that Roman Catholics see their Church as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, we feel as comfortable in proclaiming that we have received the truth as Roman Catholics feel that their Church has received the truth. Hence, despite some clearly major differences in theology, it seems to me that Protestants and Roman Catholics both have a fairly similar understanding of how God guides His Church - i.e. through the action of the Holy Spirit - the main disagreement is on what and/or who the Church is.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/11/2003
01:36:04
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"Making connections by means of statements like the following is very dangerous: “Even if they didn't appreciate that the Scriptures they were referring to in their writings also included their writings.” Are we to believe that Paul’s words to Timothy about Scripture secretly anticipate the far-off council which would declare those very words Scriptural?"
I'm certain Paul may well have thought his words to Timothy to only refer to their current context (the Scriptures existing to that date, i.e. the Old Testament); however, I see no reason why they can't also simultaneously mean something else which God intends them to mean (the New Testament, too). Since, as a Reformed believer, I hold that man has free agency and is 100% responsible for the actions he takes and the choices he makes, but that simultaneously God is 100% in control of the world and history, that God is sovereign, I believe God somehow, in a sense we cannot understand, works His will using and/or in spite of our intentions, as He pleases. Thus from my perspective, God can easily use the words of the human writers of His Word to mean more than what they intended.
"Doesn’t that plainly twist the plain sense of Paul’s words in favour of the Scripture Alone theory?"
As per my above argument, I wouldn't say that it twists the plain sense of Paul's words; but rather that it gives them an additional meaning.
"Such creative readings of the biblical text remind me of contemporary theologians who try to find Scriptural support for gay rights and feminism. They too maintain that Paul and the other writers didn’t mean what they plainly wrote, or (worse) that God didn’t mean what they plainly wrote."
Ah, but there are clear, specific Scriptures one can cite against gay rights and feminism; if a "theologian" claims to believe the Word of God, but ignores the clear teachings of the Word of God on the matter, and uses "evidence" which contradicts the very source he is claiming to hold authoritative, then he either discredits, in the minds of his audience, the entire Word of God (if they see it as internally inconsistent and contradictory), thus undercutting his own authority to make theological pronouncements; or, comparing his teachings against the clear words of Scripture, his audience can see that is he who is ignoring the source he claims as authoritative, and that he is thus a liar (or at best, a self-deceiver trying to also deceive others).
By contrast, I'm not in any way denying the plain meaning of the text of 2 Tim. 3; I indeed reaffirm it; I simply believe it can also mean something else, which doesn't contradict the original meaning (since it doesn't oppose it, but only expands it to include the New Testament). Hence I think this is very different from the idiotic, self-contradictory, intellectually dishonest pronouncements of liberal theologians today on matters pertaining to sexuality and the place of women in society.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/11/2003
02:03:47
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"This raises the question, why should anybody trust that the New Testament is infallible if the men who set the canon were mistaken about the Old Testament? Furthermore, it raises doubts about the very power of the Holy Spirit.
If we agree that the biblical canon was incorrect until the fifteenth century, and yet that the Holy Spirit ”must have acted” in its formation, it appears that either the early Church successfully thwarted the intentions of the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit meant to deceive the Church for a thousand years. Both cases are unacceptable. The first denies the sovereignty of God, and the second denies His goodness and faithfulness."
I don't believe that God's permissiveness in allowing men to ignore the guidance of the Holy Spirit and fall into their own folly in any way diminishes God's sovereignty or power.
As a Christian, I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in me, which guides me, and informs my conscience in the way in which I should go. However, this doesn't mean that I can't ignore my God-guided conscience and sin, and I certainly do sin, not being perfect until the next life. This is what Paul talked about in Romans when he lamented, "That which I want to do, I do not; that which I do not want to do, I do..."
As Protestants, we believe the Holy Spirit justifies and sanctifies us, but that we're not perfect in this life; only when we are resurrected in the next life are we then perfect, and sinless. We hold that it is God who chose the mechanism of this process, and so it doesn't diminish God's authority or power in the least.
I see no reason why this couldn't also apply to men as they were setting up the Biblical canon; to the extent that they put in the right books (i.e. ones that weren't removed later), they were acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit; to the extent that they erred, they were giving in to their own folly, not being deceived by God but by themselves.
Again, I don't know the reasons for God's timetable in correcting men's errors; I know He may let men continue in them for a time before correcting them. For example, in the Old Testament, in the account of David and Bathsheba, God waited a considerable time before taking David to task for his sin of adultery; long enough for the affair to end up resulting in, for all intents and purposes, murder (by David sending the husband Uriah to the front lines in the fighting where he knew he'd likely die, and did). Samson, in the book of Judges, was allowed to live a life of gross sexual immorality for quite some time, as well as other breakings of his Nazirite vows (e.g. touching a dead animal), only being punished when he'd broken the last of his vows, having his hair ending up cut. And so on - God corrects sin on His timetable, which may or not be what we'd agree with. The same may be true with correcting man's theological errors.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/11/2003
22:12:10
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"As Protestants, we believe the Holy Spirit justifies and sanctifies us, but that we're not perfect in this life; only when we are resurrected in the next life are we then perfect, and sinless. We hold that it is God who chose the mechanism of this process, and so it doesn't diminish God's authority or power in the least.
"I see no reason why this couldn't also apply to men as they were setting up the Biblical canon; to the extent that they put in the right books (i.e. ones that weren't removed later), they were acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit; to the extent that they erred, they were giving in to their own folly, not being deceived by God but by themselves."
We are wholly in agreement on the fallibility (in this earthly life) of the individual believer, regardless of his sanctity. I wonder, however, why you consider the Church as a fallible individual writ large, or as a mere aggregate of fallible individuals. Doesn't the Church seem fundamentally different from a group of persons or a people? When Paul calls the Church the mystical body of Christ he seems to suggest that the Church in some way exists apart from or in spite of its members; and it's not at all clear that fallibility characterizes (along with other characteristics) the mystical body of Christ.
Our consistent disagreement, I think, hinges on whether the Church is an aggregate of individual human beings, or a whole greater than its parts, which is to say the individuals composing it. I'm of course ascribing the former position to you and the latter to me. (Forgive the crude distinctions.)
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim that fallible human beings didn't establish the Scriptural canon. As successors of the first bishops (i.e. the apostles), the members of the council of Carthage acted as the guardians of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, when they decided which books were true. The Church as Mystical Body of Christ established the Scriptural canon. In such a case there couldn't be an erroneous decision since Our Lord Jesus Christ promised that hell wouldn't prevail against the Church, and that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church all things and guide it into all truth. The Church has never taught a doctrinal falsehood; it's an impossibility! We have Christ's word.
That's not to say that sinful members of the Church, individually or collectively, couldn't commit atrocities or become morally lax; I'd agree with Luther that Leo X was a scoundrel. But they never altered, nor do they alter today, the teachings of the Church. The Church persists in spite of the sinners who claim to be part of it.
Of course, if the Church is nothing more than a group of mostly like-minded fallible individuals, then the Church can make mistakes. Besides contradicting the promises of Christ, such a situation would be perfectly confusing. If the Church made a mistake about the Old Testament, how would you know it was correct about the New Testament? Presumably the persons making decisions also had a conscience through which they thought God was showing them the way in which they should go. Were late-medieval Germans just smarter?
Lastly, I'm reluctant to speak of "God's timetable in correcting men's errors." There is of course precedent and reason to speak of a timetable and correction and even education--the Israelites being the pre-eminent correctees. But the New Covenant was revealed with the fulness of time; once for all. Are you suggesting that God's revelation wasn't complete in Christ and that the New Covenant as understood by the early Church was superseded by another Covenant a thousand years later during the Reformation when the true Scriptures were revealed to Luther and Calvin?
And in any event, how can you balance Scripture Alone with a belief in the fallibility of the Church? Why do you think the current Bible is canonically correct? Members of the Jesus Seminar want to make even more revisions; how do we know they aren't the vanguard of a further revelation of God, even superseding the revelation to the Reformers? It seems slippery.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/11/2003
22:19:18
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"despite some clearly major differences in theology, it seems to me that Protestants and Roman Catholics both have a fairly similar understanding of how God guides His Church - i.e. through the action of the Holy Spirit - the main disagreement is on what and/or who the Church is."
Absolutely! I'm thankful for this exchange because it cuts through the tedious and ultimately futile bickering between Catholics and Protestants over this-and-that while the fundamental question for any serious "dialogue" between the camps is that of the nature of the Church.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/13/2003
01:04:44
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Indeed, the differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy), more or less boil down to the differing understandings of who and what is the Church.
Classical Protestantism holds that the true Church, or the Invisible Church, is not a human institution, but a collectivity of all of God's Elect, i.e. those whom He has chosen for Himself, across all ages, times and places; transcending all such temporal, earthly limitations.
However, there is also the Visible Church, which is the earthly institution of people who profess to believe and their children; not all of them may be believers, however.
Thus the Invisible Church, in my opinion, is to be distinguished from the Visible Church; it is the Invisible Church whom the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (i.e. sanctification of all believers), and against whom the gates of Hell will not prevail - that is, none of the people of God will be lost.
However, being fallible individuals while still on Earth, believers can be mistaken, and mislead the institutional, earthly Church; what's more, the presence of unregenerate, hypocritical non-believers in the Visible Church can further negatively influence the institutional Church. One only need consider how Paul, in his letters, had to correct the many errors of the churches of early New Testament times.
Look up the terms "visible church" and "invisible church" in Google, to learn more about Protestantism's teachings on the matter, if you're interested.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/13/2003
01:06:37
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"Lastly, I'm reluctant to speak of "God's timetable in correcting men's errors." There is of course precedent and reason to speak of a timetable and correction and even education--the Israelites being the pre-eminent correctees. But the New Covenant was revealed with the fulness of time; once for all. Are you suggesting that God's revelation wasn't complete in Christ and that the New Covenant as understood by the early Church was superseded by another Covenant a thousand years later during the Reformation when the true Scriptures were revealed to Luther and Calvin?
And in any event, how can you balance Scripture Alone with a belief in the fallibility of the Church? Why do you think the current Bible is canonically correct? Members of the Jesus Seminar want to make even more revisions; how do we know they aren't the vanguard of a further revelation of God, even superseding the revelation to the Reformers? It seems slippery."
The Word of God is complete; there are no new prophets; that is, there is nothing left for God to fulfill and thus for Him to send men to tell about such coming; all prophecy was fulfilled in Christ's birth, His ministry, His death by crucifixion, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, and His sending of the Holy Spirit to believers, and His promise to return, to judge the living and the dead. God established this New Covenant; there is no other.
The Reformers were not, therefore, prophets, but rather men whom God raised up to re-proclaim truths about what has been done (rather than some new thing to come), and how we should live and worship, that had been lost - as I believe Shawn said in the other post, it was a reformation away from the doctrinal errors of the institutional Church, and a restoration of the Church as it ought to be constituted, in terms of theology, government form, etc.
The books of the Apocrypha are unreliable because certain historical errors in their texts show them to be fabrications, not written at the times purported, or by the people purported to have written them, etc. For more information, I recommend reading an introduction to the edition of the Apocrypha that came out in the early 20th c. (1930s, I believe); the introduction was written by Edgar Goodspeed.
As for the Jesus Seminar, they are an entirely different kettle of fish. Despite what you may think of Protestantism and Protestant beliefs, you may have noticed that despite the major theological differences, classical Protestantism affirms Christ's divinity, the Holy Trinity, and affirms everything held in the historic creeds - the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed - as consistent with the teachings of the Bible, and thus to be believed and taught. So no innovations on all the major points - only in the view of what and who is the Church.
The Jesus Seminar, by contrast, denies all the teachings that both Protestants and Roman Catholics hold in common in these matters; they question whether or not Jesus said the things the Gospels have testified as His words and teachings. They take votes together yearly or so in their conferences on what they, as a group of liberal theologians, feel Jesus said or didn't say; they then hold press conferences announcing that they, suddenly, have stumbled upon some great shocking news that escaped the notice of everyone else down through history - that Christ didn't actually say this or that - and they have the gall to claim that they found this out through extensive research and application of the Scientific Process. The media falls for this every time; their gullibility is incredible...
Anyway, my point is, the Jesus Seminar's methodology and motivations are entirely different from that of the Reformers, not merely in degree but in kind... No comparison.
|
Will S.
Guest
6/14/2003
00:53:52
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
When I was revising the second last posting, and forgot to remove the phrase "in my opinion" (it's not just my opinion; this is the general view of Protestantism; that was in reference to a statement I was going to make but changed); that paragraph should read as follows:
Thus the Invisible Church is to be distinguished from the Visible Church; it is the Invisible Church whom the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (i.e. sanctification of all believers), and against whom the gates of Hell will not prevail - that is, none of the people of God will be lost.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/14/2003
10:01:22
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
I am familiar with the Protestant concept of visible and invisible churches. There's something analagous in Catholicism with its belief that while nominal Christians are obliged, for example, to attend Mass, etc., it's not expected that everybody who calls himself a Christian or even sits regularly in a church is in a "state of grace" (i.e. saved), or will be received into heaven.
And institutionally there's something analagous. As you may know many Catholics, including priests, especially in English-speaking countries, live in open disobedience to the teachings and teachers of the Church. This disobedience involves everything from the divinity of Christ to homosexual sex to women in the priesthood. Despite all this, however, the Catholic is obliged to believe that "the Church" isn't really affected, and that the Church continues to teach the truths it received by the Holy Spirit from the apostles.
Augustine, in the famous controversy with Donatus, taught, and it was accepted by the Catholic Church, that the sinfulness of ordained ministers (i.e. deacons, priests, bishops) doesn't invalidate sacraments, since sacraments are objective realities. There's something similar going on with Church; the incarnate God and His Father sent the Spirit to teach the Church all things and to guide it; and there's nothing its members can do to corrupt it. We may be the bones and sinew of the body of Christ, but a man is more than bones and sinew.
The cases of Paul correcting particular churches (e.g. the Church in Corinth) would be like the Church in Boston being corrected by the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Church per se, the Church Universal.
In short, I agree about the need to distinguish between a visible and invisible church, or a nominal and real church. But I wonder why the distinction needs to be so radical as to dismiss and call into question the "institutional church." Such a low view of the concrete Church almost seems like a slur against the Incarnation, like the response of persons offended that God would meddle with material realities.
It sounds like new-age-ish promotion of anti-organized-religion "spirituality" over the true spirituality of the cross, with its blood and splinters.
"He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, becasue the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 Jn 5:6-8)
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/14/2003
12:09:02
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Doesn't Paul's metaphor of the Church as the body of Christ suggest that the concrete, "institutional church" could be the real Church, even with its failings and increasing persecutions and agonies? The first body of Christ seemingly failed on the cross and yet now, transformed and transfigured, reigns as king at the right hand of the Father. Death didn't mean for Christ that His body was wasn't really part of Him; why would the perceived failings or sufferings of the institutional Church as body of Christ mean it isn't the real Church? The doctrine of the Church almost seems inextricably linked to the doctrine of Christ; is He true God and true man? Or is He just God pretending to be a man for a little while?
|
Will S.
Guest
6/15/2003
03:28:34
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
"In short, I agree about the need to distinguish between a visible and invisible church, or a nominal and real church. But I wonder why the distinction needs to be so radical as to dismiss and call into question the "institutional church." Such a low view of the concrete Church almost seems like a slur against the Incarnation, like the response of persons offended that God would meddle with material realities.
It sounds like new-age-ish promotion of anti-organized-religion "spirituality" over the true spirituality of the cross, with its blood and splinters."
"Doesn't Paul's metaphor of the Church as the body of Christ suggest that the concrete, "institutional church" could be the real Church, even with its failings and increasing persecutions and agonies? The first body of Christ seemingly failed on the cross and yet now, transformed and transfigured, reigns as king at the right hand of the Father. Death didn't mean for Christ that His body was wasn't really part of Him; why would the perceived failings or sufferings of the institutional Church as body of Christ mean it isn't the real Church? The doctrine of the Church almost seems inextricably linked to the doctrine of Christ; is He true God and true man? Or is He just God pretending to be a man for a little while?"
As a Protestant, I don't at all consider Paul's metaphor of the Church as the Body of Christ to "suggest that the concrete, "institutional church" could be the real Church", as you put it.
Protestantism does not view the early churches of Paul's day as being part of the institutional church of Rome, as that wasn't organized explicitly until some centuries later.
Hence we see the Invisible Church as predating the Visible, institutional church, and the two intersecting, but not being fully identical, as previously stated.
I'm sure you would agree with me that, whatever its merits, Anglicanism started out merely because Henry VIII wanted a divorce; the Pope wouldn't grant it, so he said, "Fine", and started his own tradition. In other words, it all started for selfish, political reasons. Well, for us traditionalist Protestants, Roman Catholicism's founding as an institutional church was equally political, and all too human.
We do not reject that the Church is the Body of Christ - we aren't anti-flesh gnostics, neo-Manichaeans, or New-Agers, by any means, nor do we divide His simultaneous human and divine natures - but we identify that Church solely as believers, not as the Roman Catholic institution. Our faith is in Christ; not in institutions.
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/16/2003
20:45:04
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Two points stick out in your response:
(1) "we see the Invisible Church as predating the Visible, institutional church, and the two intersecting, but not being fully identical."
(2) "for us traditionalist Protestants, Roman Catholicism's founding as an institutional church was equally political, and all too human... Our faith is in Christ; not in institutions."
It seems that first you oppose the "institutional church" because it historically follows the "Invisible Church." But then you follow up by objecting in principle to the equivalence between the Church per se and the "institutional church." In other words, you conclude by rejecting the possibility of such equivalence.
My overarching questions are: What do you mean by “institutional church”? And why can’t it be the real Church?
In regard to (1) it seems that I’d need more information about the differences between the “Visible” and “institutional” churches sufficiently to answer. That said, I have no doubt that the early Church described in the Bible is governed according to a hierarchical structure, which is evident in the gospels, where meaningful distinctions are constantly made between the “crowd,” the “disciples” and the “apostles.” And after the founding of the Church, there are the general Christian population, deacons, elders (priests) and overseers (bishops). The offices are passed on by the laying on of hands; and not haphazardly, but so that the recipient of the office can trace his “lineage” back to the apostles themselves. Indeed, even the lowliest Christian can trace his spiritual “lineage” back, through the man who baptized him, to the apostles.
Besides the hierarchical structure, the early Church also displays an obvious, visible unity, as evidenced by the council described in Acts where “The apostles and elders met to consider [the] question” of whether gentiles ought to be circumscribed. As we know from the previous discussion, the same arrangement settled the question of the Scriptural canon in Carthage three centuries later. Therefore, in spite of local congregations and groups of congregations, the early Church has a visible unity that transcends localities. And that unity isn’t merely a unity of bodies. In Jerusalem, “the apostles and elders met to consider this question,” and “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them.” Peter’s word, seconded by Paul, Barnabas and James (and the Holy Spirit, no doubt!), settles the question. Did some of the “apostles and elders” leave inwardly unconvinced? Maybe. But they obediently accept Peter’s decision. Thus, the early Church exhibits a visible, concrete and doctrinal unity.
That kind of unity is an institutional unity. The early Church as described in the New Testament is an “institutional church.” I don’t know why that strikes some Christians as a “stumbling block” and “foolishness.”
“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’
“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them: ‘Does this offend you?’” (Jn 60-61).
|
Will S.
Guest
6/17/2003
13:06:20
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
By "institutional church", I am referring to the Roman Catholic Church, a denomination which still (as far as I know) claims to be the only true church, and the only path to salvation (unless I am mistaken; that hasn't changed, post-Vatican-II, has it?). A denomination I see as an institution founded by men, and therefore fallible (and indeed gravely fallen; see any of my or Shawn's postings on Protestants' reasons for rejecting the Church of Rome); one which you see as founded by God, and therefore infallible. The differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism really do seem to be centred mostly on the differing views of what and who is the Church.
I think we've reached a conversational impasse here, and henceforth are unlikely to do much more than go around in circles. So, although I have indeed enjoyed and learned from our conversation on this thread, I think we're both sufficiently devoted to our respective beliefs, you as a Roman Catholic, and I as a Protestant, that we're not likely to reach any meeting of the minds; nor will either of us convince the other to change his mind. Therefore, I don't see the value in continuing my participation in this thread, and so unless I have some unexpected great epiphany, this is my last posting in this thread. The last word is yours - unless someone else decides to comment, I suppose, though so far no-one else has appeared to have any interest in so doing; our conversation has been completely two-way.
Thank you very much, for a stimulating, challenging, and thought-provoking conversation!
|
Peter Forrester
Guest
6/17/2003
19:50:55
| RE: Restoration...or Conquest II
IP: Logged
Message:
Perhaps we have come to an impasse, though I remain interested in the differences between the "institutional" and "invisible" churches. And I also remain interested in learning about the kind of Church which Protestants envision in the beginning before it was changed "by men" into the Roman Catholic Church; and in how that pre-Romanized Church decided questions like the biblical canon and the trinity, the nature of Christ, etc.--decisions which Protestants (at least the classical kind) explicitly and of course implicitly accept. I can't help seeing the objection to the "institutional church" and the "visible church" as rooted in a gnostic distrust of materiality, and ultimately in a distrust in the incarnation.
But you're right, in any event, this has been a helpful interchange which has shined light on the crucial difference between Catholics and Protestants. Thank you.
|
|
|