Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds by Fr. John Whiteford
AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?
Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.
(Excerpt) Read more at archangelsbooks.com ...
No one sane would suppose that every pope was, as you say, "pristine." Amazing to you as it might be, Catholics do not consider *any* pope from St. Peter to Benedict XVI to be without sin. Indeed, the fact that the papacy has survived all these centuries *in spite of* the unworthiness of some of its holders is often cited as a negative proof of the protection of the office, if not the office holder, byt eh Holy Spirit. And, by the Church's reckoning, a large percentage of these men truly approached sanctity, while only a relative handful were notoriously sinful. A large number fall somewhere in between, no doubt.
Nevertheless, none of these men, good or bad, *founded* the movement known as the Catholic Church. Christ Himself did that. And He cleansed the first pope, St. Peter, via the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. One presumes a general lack of serious sinfulness on St. Peter's part from that point on.
Supposing for the sake of argument that God would want to redirect the basic nature of His Church 1500 years after He founded it, one could presume that He would at least pick someone of manifest holiness to do so, or, at least cleanse him in similar fashion to St. Peter's circumstances. Luther and the other "Reformers" show no special qualifications in this regard. And THAT is the difference that negates the implications of your post.
To expand on what I wrote in #86, the secular humanists seek the total destruction of Christianity. They are totally unconcerned with the variety and differences of denominations, they seek the end of Christianity. I often wonder why so many will ignore this obvious fact.
Evangelicals and Catholics have long been allies in the pro-life movement; perhaps it is time that more people realize that as far as secular humanism goes, abortion is just the tip of the iceberg.
catholic/protestant bash each other over our faith threads.
almost as much fun as the evo threads.
No. No serious Catholic believes that every non-Catholic, even if of another variety of Christianity, is going to Hell without exception. We take Romans 1 & 2 seriously enough to suppose that some people struggle for the Truth with the lights that God gave them, even while laboring in ignorance of it through no fault of their own. In effect, Catholicism gives the benefit of the doubt, to a certain extent, to those who labor, as Pope Pius IX described it, in "invincible ignorance" of the truth. Thus, understanding the mercy of God, and knowing that He is *not* a monster who creates souls that He knows from all eternity have ZERO chance of salvation, we believe that, within some limits, those who sincerely believe that they are acting in good faith, even when, objectively, they are not, MAY be saved regardless. The ordinary means of salvation is through baptism into His true Church, but, as they say, while God is the Author of the Sacraments and the Grace they bestow, He is not bound by them.
You should be glad that the Catholic Church is actually more aware of God's mercy than most other Christian bodies today are. Most, nearly all, of the "Bible-believing" bodies out there *specifically* deny the possibility of salvation for any non-Christian (often, ignorant of their own Christian history and patrimony, lumping Catholics into this mix). Effectively, they thereby make God a monster, since, in this schema, He knows these people are damned without hope. Catholics don't do that.
Nevertheless, we *do* hold that it is necessary to be Catholic once the truth of the Faith is made manifest to the soul of any individual. To reject Truth in its fullness is, after all, to reject Christ, who IS Truth. To the extent that it is clear that most sincere Protestants reject the Catholic Faith out of the very "invincible" ignorance of cultural prejudice that Pius referred to, it is also clear that God doesn't reject these souls out-of-hand. But they, just like everyone else, need to be - somehow - in a state of Grace at death. One legitimately wonders, though, from the Catholic understanding of things, just how hard it is for non-Catholics to perdure to the end in that state of Grace without benefit of the sacraments instituted by Christ as a primary means of obtaining that Grace! The simple answer is that we do not know, and entrust such souls to the mercy of the God who knows all hearts.
From our point of view, then, while non-Catholics MIGHT be saved, it is in spite of, not because of, their beliefs. Meanwhile, we consider it highly advantageous for our own prospects of salvation to be recipients of those sacraments which lead to the path of holiness in this life and eternal life in the next.
It's interesting to me that the conversation keeps turning to the Catholic Church.
You've obviously never participated in any of the threads about the Blessed Virgin Mary. You should try some of the discussions about whether the first chapter of Luke actually means what it says, you will discover that this is one of several portions of the Bible that some of the sola scriptura crowd want to interpret as meaning ANYTHING other than what it says. You can even find out that everything the early Protestant reformers (Calvin, Luther, Wesley) believed about Mary was wrong. You will also find that any discussion about Mary will invariably keep turning to the validity of the Papacy.
Supposing for the sake of argument that God would want to redirect the basic nature of His Church 1500 years after He founded it, one could presume that He would at least pick someone of manifest holiness to do so, or, at least cleanse him in similar fashion to St. Peter's circumstances. Luther and the other "Reformers" show no special qualifications in this regard. And THAT is the difference that negates the implications of your post.
Such human presumption will often be ... wrong ...1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
I haven't followed this conversation very closely but if I may interject Protestants do not disregard the traditions. We hold them in lower esteme than the scriptures. So in that regards they are NOT the SOLE rule of faith. We often look to the early creeds of the church for guidance or even build our own creeds based upon others.
That being said, as stated by the early church fathers, scriptures are the only writing inspired by God and is the only thing not subject to error. All other church writings are not inspired. Writings and creeds contain errors-but where? (Let's ask the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics if they agree on the Nicene Creed.) You must go back to the scriptures to see if "these things were so".
Technically you could have "one" denomination believing one thing but if the passage of scripture was misinterpreted all the followers of that position would be in error. So it matters not if you have one group or many groups-they could all hold errors and be equally wrong. For example, the belief that one could buy their love ones out of purgatory was an "official" doctrine of the Church. If Freepers would have been around then many RCCers would be arguing with us that you have the right to purchase a love one out of purgatory because Saint So-n-So said it to be so.
There are many Protestant denominations simply because people look at scripture and creed differently. Personally I think this is the way God designed it-almost like the tower of Babel-so that we would not think we are so wise. Of course, I think the vast majority of Protestants, Catholics and EO are in error so what does it matter. Perhaps I'll start the Church of the HarleyD's.
And, btw, your argument seems to be in error. ;O)
It is a truly uncommon thing in Scripture to find any man, entrusted by God with the *initiation* of any movement or project envisioned by God in His plan of salvation (eg: Abraham, Moses, David, the Apostles), who was not radically changed in his outlook with regard to a quest for holiness whilst in this life. They were not *perfect*, but they aspired to approach perfection, given the awesome responsibility entrusted to them. How does Luther's life, subsequent to October 31, 1517, especially reflect his continuance of the pattern?
Your understanding of indulgences seems to be very superficial, at best. The doctrine of indulgences is supported by the Catholic Church to this day. The method, employed by unscrupulous individuals, of equating a monetary payment with the efficacy of the indulgence, was condemned by the Church. That sorry aspect of things, never universally practiced in any event, was condemned as an error in discipline, not doctrine. The doctrine, once purged of this excrescence, was and remains a biblically sanctioned practice based on the power of the keys to bind and to loose from sin.
It is a truly uncommon thing in Scripture to find any man, entrusted by God with the *initiation* of any movement or project envisioned by God in His plan of salvation (eg: Abraham, Moses, David, the Apostles), who was not radically changed in his outlook with regard to a quest for holiness whilst in this life. They were not *perfect*, but they aspired to approach perfection, given the awesome responsibility entrusted to them. How does Luther's life, subsequent to October 31, 1517, especially reflect his continuance of the pattern?
Actually, many of those of which you speak ... David, Moses, Solomon, etc. ... biggest failures came late in their lives.
Their best days were, often, ... the days of their young adulthood.
***The issue is that there are potentially thousands of disagreeing Christian groups that claim to be based upon the Bible alone.***
Yeah, but that is not the Calvinist Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura at all, but the anti-Reformation doctrine of Solo Scriptura. We TRUE Reformers and Protestants haven't abandonded our history and tradition at all. The only group of people to have abandoned history and trudition in favor of Solo Scriptura are those who have determined that Rome was wrong and the Reformers are wrong so we will just strike out on our own with our own private opinions of Scripture.
We true Reformers rejected the false claims of Papal infallibility.
We true Reformers rejected the Catholic jaunt into the false doctrine that the Church produced the Bible.
We upheld the infallibility of no man.
We upheld that God gave us the word and that the church derived it's authority from the Bible.
This article, in reality is not even addressing our Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura at all. Even YOU haven't properly identified the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
What you and this article are addressing is the doctrine of Solo Scriptura (as I have said many times) and what Reformed author Mike Horton identified as the teaching that the laity "were to use the Bible as a wax nose to be shaped by private, subjective opinion."
We true Reformers merely took the evangelion, which had been kept prisoner by the Roman Catholics and gave it to the masses with the instruction that it was their own responsibility to read, understand, and obey God's word WITH the rest of the church, not without it.
"By what right doth the pope forbid God to speak in the English tongue? Why should not the Sermons of the Apostles, preached no doubt in the mother-tongue of those who heard them, be now written in the mother-tongue of those who read them?" ~ Tyndale
Apostle of England.
Blessed Martyr of God.
Silenced by the Popes in Rome.
LOL. Save me a pew. 8~)
It might be useful to add that indulgences are *not* a permission of some sort to engage in future sins with "immunity," as many falsely suppose. ALL that they do is remit, in whole or in part, the temporal punishment (in purgatory) due to sins that have already been forgiven in the confessional. They presume sorrow for the sins committed and confessed, and a firm intention to avoid those sins in the future. Lacking either of those requirements renders the indulgence null-and-void. We cannot play games with God, whether money changes hands or not! ;-) No Catholic, even minimally catechized, would suppose otherwise.
Make that the REFORMED Church of the HarleyD's. ;O)
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.