Orthodoxy Ping!
"I shall name you Petros and upon this rock I shall build my Church." (John 1:42/ Matt. 16: 18-19: [paraphrased])
The scriptures are recordings after the fact.
You seem to think one contradicts the other. The Bible reveals what the NT church was like. Everything about the NT church is outlined and codified by the Bible. Its practice, its worship, its government. If a Church tells me something that is contradicted by the Bible, it isn’t the Bible that is wrong.
Didn’t read the whole article (bad FReeper!!!) but I think even us Sola Scriptura types acknowledge that there was a transition period where not all the NT was published. A hundred years give or take.
During that time we basically had the apostles themselves, who no Sola Scriptura type would argue with!
So, in OT times, we had direct revelation by God to some, and the prophets for most; the gradually written OT.
During Jesus’s earthly ministry, we add the person of Jesus, and his ordained apostles.
After Jesus’ ascension, we had the OT and the apostles,the NT began to be recorded, and the Holy Spirit.
After the apostles died out we had the whole canon, plus the presence of the Holy Spirit.
So while I agree that during that period of time when the NT was not all complete, we relied on the church, that is to say, the duly ordained apostles -
that doesn’t imply to me that the NT takes a subservient role to ordained men today.
Scanned quickly - Read later. Looks very well written.
Thanks for posting.
Private interpretation, while very common in American Protestant churches, is NOT inimical to the Protestant Reformation, or to Bible-is-the-final-authority(but not the only authority...) Protestant churches. The concept of “sola scriptura” is NOT properly understood as the “bible alone has any authority,” which leads to the kind of chaotic total individualism described in the article.
As proof that “sola scriptura” (as originally understood) does NOT mean private interpretation: The magisterial Protestants at least (Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians), every one of them relied on CONFESSIONS....which describe, usually in detail, what that Church AS A BODY believes Scripture says, NOT the free-for-all the author describes (with some accuracy, I admit) found in the typical “bible alone” evangelical Church today.
One principle though, that came out of the Reformation, is that of the “perspicuity of Scripture” a phrase which simply means (counter VERY much to post-modernist thinking), CLARITY....that is that God wrote the bible in common language, and, your average person CAN understand basic, fundamental doctrines from scripture. This is why, in spite of what looks like an external chaos of doctrines, Protestant evangelical Churches tend to agree on at least 95% to 98% of doctrines....very much like the magisterial creeds of the Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglican also agree on at least 95%.
NOW, many, especially the very committed, will find in that 2% to 5% difference, the difference between heresy and life....however the fact remains that, amidst all (small “o”) orthodox Protestants, there is probably no more (and perhaps LESS) diversity of doctrine than amidst those within Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches.
The PRIMARY reason for the plurality of Churches today is simply RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, which historically (until really the advent of America), did not exist in Western Europe or the Eastern Orthodox countries—which therefore allowed those bodies to have a monopoly on Christian faith.
Well, given that Christ’s body existed throughout human history, antedating his incarnation, then the meaning of Christ’s body being the church is probably not what the author is referring to.
Only mankind is foolish enough and arrogant enough to think that he needs to improve on God’s word or to judge the content thereof
Good luck with the RCC patrols though, it seems you've already attracted some detractors. I think I'll just sit over here and wonder how long it will be before the Orthodox Christians are accused of being heretics like the Protestants and Evangelicals.
The Church came first/. Without Christ, there is no church.
A few excerpts from one of my Bible Handbooks. The caps are mine:
“Original Mission of the Church
The Church was founded, not as an institution of Authority to force the Name and Teaching of Christ upon the world, but onLy as a Witness-Bearing institution to Christ. Christ himself, not the Church, is the Transforming Power in Human Life. But the Church was founded in the Roman Empire, AND GRADUALLY DEVELOPED A FORM OF GOVERNMENT LIKE THE POLITICAL WORLD IN WHICH IT EXISTED, BECOMING A VAST AUTOCRATIC ORGANIZATION RULED FROM THE TOP.
Peter
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION THAT PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE IS FICTION PURE AND SIMPLE. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over God’s flock.” (1 Pet. 5:3)
Augustine’s “City of God”
Augustine wrote his monumental work, “The City of God,” in which he envisioned a Universal Christian Empire. This book had vast influence in molding opinion favorably to a Universal Church Heirarchy under One Head. This promoted ROME’S CLAIM FOR LORDSHIP. THUS THE CHURCH WAS CHANGING ITS NATURE, MAKING ITSELF OVER INTO THE IMAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
Imperial Recognition of the Pope’s Claim
Leo I (AD 440-461), called by historians the First Pope...HE PROCLAIMED HIMSELF LORD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, advocated exclusive Universal Papacy; said that resistance to his authority was a sure way to hell; advocated death penalty for heresy.”
There were no arguments or flame wars about "the Bible sez.........". All the Church had was Tradition; specifically, what the Apostles themselves had been taught by Jesus and what they had handed on to others.
The Church was born on the day of Pentecost. Scripture came later.
The Church came first. The new testament was written anywhere from 30 to 100 years later — my estimates.
should have put this in a Caucus....
Oh, now you’ve bloody well gone and done it! LOL.
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.
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!