Posted on 05/09/2011 10:59:18 AM PDT by Bokababe
.....The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following this principle would achieve Christian unity.
To my surprise, this “common sense” approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but rather to a spiritual free-for-all!
Those who most strongly adhered to believing “only the Bible” tended to become the, most factious, divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each claiming to be “true to the Bible” and each in bitter conflict with the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability, evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of women, and ecumenism. The list is endless. In fact any issue at all could-and often did-cause Christians to part ways.....
(Excerpt) Read more at journeytoorthodoxy.com ...
Yes, perhaps, but on the other hand, the "only the Bible" folks don't have much a history of killing off their opponents. Maybe that's because there's always a "leveling" going on due to disputation. It's more democratic, which increases open disagreement, but also reduces the power of any one group.
In my own experience, I have seen church splits (which are not as common as some would paint), but why, when it comes down to it, is that inherently bad? We are still one in Christ and still pray and care for one another and would die for each others right to their opinion.
What the more heavily church-organization-oriented denominations have going for them is that they tend not to be very interactive within their congregations. If you don't have discussions, you avoid disagreements and therefore schisms. But unity in Christ is about the hearts, the souls, the other person, not about organizational charts, or bricks and mortar.
There is actually an awful lot of cooperation that happens between evangelical churches in my city. Some of them "split" organizationally in time past, and most maintain some aspect of their distinction. But differentness does not inherently divide.
You have to attend where the basics are adhered to, but also where you can best contribute and best receive. And that varies from place to place. Father Bernstein made his choice, and that is good, so long as he does not put his organization ahead of Christ. That's where things can get really ugly.
While what FR. Bernstein says about "Bible only" chaos is 100% true. However--my experience has been that for some reason whenever Protestants come to see this and convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they almost always become evolutionists and higher critics, as if evolutionism and higher criticism were essential to a rejection of "sola scriptura." Why is this?
I suppose it's one of the inevitable fruits of incarnationism--though Fundamentalist Protestants seem to have avoided it.
Actually, when a letter was written to a particular “group” or city it was addressed to “The Church in....”.
From the beginning there was one body, one faith.
Because these church splits create the illusion that the Truth handed down to us by our Lord, Jesus Christ is relative, up for grabs, and can be decided by human democratic vote. Without perhaps intending to, it says, "Our Lord taught us whatever we say He taught us, just because we collectively say so." You can get just as much human democratic agreement on "global warming", but that doesn't make it true.
It's one thing for churches to split based on arguments over division of administration, but yet another thing for it to split based on differences in theology. What if both sides are wrong in a theological debate? Then you are left with just more promotions of heresy that beget more misery in a world that already has enough misery.
Just now completed reading it all. My own journey was helped immensely by the reading of other former “Bible only” Christians who walked the path before I did.
This essay has well covered many of the objections that had to be answered. For me, it all seemed to turn on getting a glimpse of the absolute awesomeness of the Incarnation. Once that was planted in my mind and I began to learn the correct teaching on the Incarnation (as far as the understanding can take one), then the problems with the Mother of God had answers, along with all the other objections to icons, Confession, Communion, the proper place of Holy Scripture, etc.
I believe that many sincere believers do believe as I did, at least at some level - that is that God put on a “man-suit” for a period of time to fulfill a mission to earth.
We may say the words, that “He was tempted as are we, yet without sin..” but deep down, I know I held on to a belief that His humanity was somehow not like mine. Once that idea was smashed, everything had to change and the claims of the ancient, holy catholic and apostolic church made sense.
Glory to God for all things.
Christ is Risen!
You are misinformed. Sola Scriptura does not mean you NEVER seek others' opinions.
But it DOES mean those opinions need to be subordinated to the Word of God.
As is true for Moses, Abraham, Noah.
The had faith in God's righteousness rather than their own and are in Heaven because of it.
Because the one and only foundation for arguing for pure Creationism and against The Theory of Evolution, IS Sola Scriptura.
If you notice, I deliberately said "the theory of evolution" and not just "evolution" or "the facts of evolution", because Darwin's idea that things happened by accident and in an Unguided way are not scientifically provable. To prove it, Darwin would have to scientifically prove that there is no God, which Darwin didn't and can't do. That's why it's still called the Theory of Evolution and not the Facts of Evolution.
The theological basis for no longer defending pure Creationism (Sola Scriptura), is that even the early Church Fathers never looked at Genesis as a literal textbook. They looked at Genesis for the God's "Why's" and "What's" for Creating us and Creating the earth, never as some scientific engineering manual for how it all came to be.
When coming from a Fundamentalist background, having defended Creationism for a very long time, is it so surprising that they'd search for a proper Biblical context for an understanding on this issue? When Orthodoxy gets Roman Catholic coverts, they often engage in searching for the historical context of the the role of the pope and the married priesthood.
I think that this happens because when people convert, it doesn't mean that they left their friends and family behind. They know that those friends and family are probably going to challenge them on these issues and they want a proper understanding of it, because it's a difference between where they are now and where they came from.
What if your subjective interpretation of the Bible differs from the Fathers and Doctors? Whose interpretation trumps in that case?
The Word of God is frequently twisted into contradictory meanings. How do you know which meaning is correct?
Already discussed several times on this thread. See above.
History and experience should demonstrate that it is easy to follow one's own mind in the wrong direction. There can be, at most, only one true opinion and the others all false. When you observe various conflicting opinions, do you simply read a few experts and then use your own mind to decide which opinion is correct? If you pass on such an opinion, how do you know that you are not one of those false teachers?
The only sensible and consistent means of determining biblical truth, is to accept that interpretation most well established in sacred tradition. "Let novelty give way before antiquity..."
Truly He Is Risen! Glory to God!
Once that idea was smashed, everything had to change and the claims of the ancient, holy catholic and apostolic church made sense.
I was born into Orthodoxy, but it was in a church that spoke languages that I didn't understand (Church Slavonic and Serbian). So I wandered around for a long while in my twenties, going from American church to church in search of where I belonged, because at least they spoke English. (Proving something I later read, "God has children, but he has no grandchildren". )
Then one day, after exhausting all those other resources that never really hit the nail on the head to me, I picked up a book by Timothy Ware called "The Orthodox Church" and things started changing. Because Timothy Ware (later Bishop Kalistos Ware) said aloud what I'd always been thinking, something to the effect that, "Either Christianity is all some half-right, half-wrong fairy tale where the truth about God and Our Lord Jesus Christ is all up for grabs and you make it up as you go -- OR there is a Church that has been around since Pentecost and that teaches what Christ really taught us, with nothing added and nothing taken away."
That was the click in my brain that opened the lock. From there, it was easy for me, because it brought it down to there only being two possible choices -- The Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, and it was only a matter of studying theological history to find out which it was. I ultimately concluded that Bishop Ware was right, it was The Orthodox Church. The role of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church had changed their teachings too much over the centuries for it to be the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today.
That doesn't mean that it's easy being Orthodox, especially in a culture that is on a different annual cycle which celebrates with food & drink when we are to be focused on fasting and prayer. But it is certainly far less confusing and confused theologically, so the road is much more straight and narrow even if it does have some "boulders" in the middle of it.
No. I've also already addressed this point.
How do I know their interpretation was subjective? However, if someone can prove to me from scripture that what I believe is wrong, I would be happy to change. You cannot prove, at all, that Christ in that portion of scripture meant to elevate Peter to “Pope” status. If fact, other scripture argues against it plainly and clearly.
How do I know their interpretation wasn’t subjective? However, if someone can prove to me from scripture that what I believe is wrong, I would be happy to change. You cannot prove, at all, that Christ in that portion of scripture meant to elevate Peter to “Pope” status. If fact, other scripture argues against it plainly and clearly.
The had faith in God's righteousness rather than their own and are in Heaven because of it.
************************************************
Agreed, point still stands that the thief and paralyzed man's salvation was under different period then those saved after Jesus’ death & resurrection, but in the end they still required the blood/grace of Jesus for their salvation, just because one specific verse does not mention it or all the requirements does not rule out that requirement.
The requirement for attaining salvation has always been and always will be exactly the same.
Ceremonies change with culture...requirements for salvation do not.
Where? I read your posts and did not see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.