boatbums:
You have articulated a Reformed view, which is a view that did not exist until the 16th century. Philip Schaff, the German Reformed Church Historian, who was among the 1st Protestant Church Historians to go back and examine the Church Fathers makes the point. If one believes that from the Time of Christ and then the death of the last apostle, that Christian Doctrine was absent till the 16th century, I find that totally heretical in that it goes against Christ and the Incarnation that he came and passed on the faith to the apostles and that faith was handed on and as Christ said, I will be with till the end of the ages and I will send the Holy Spirit to you to lead you to all truth. That occurred at Pentecost. So from basically from the death of St. John the Apostle, nobody had a source of orthdodoxy.
This line of thinking is similar to the Marxist, in that they hate “History” for to them, History has been shaped by Western Culture and Christianity. Therefore, it has produced a culture bias that goes against the marxist view that “We [a set group of marxist elite]” can shape the future into what “We [a set group of marxist elite” think it should be. In other words, History is shunned and the future is “what the marxist say it is in terms of morality, social virtures, law, family, etc”.
Now, not that I am suggesting that Reformed Christians are marxist. No, but the underlying principle is not dissimiliar in that both the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and modern secular individualism/marxism, etc are both rooted in the rationist thought that came out of the 16th century and was a direct consequence of the Protestant movement.
Packer can make that claim all he wants, I think he is an Anglican who is Reformed in his theology. I don’t even need to go any further than the Anglican Community that at the Doctrinal level [Individuals in any confession may embrace said Church’s doctrines at different levels, that applies to Catholics as well] is split among several factions, Reformed, Evangelical, those similar to the Methodist, those that are similar to the Unitarians (think Espicopalians in the U.S.] and those with more Catholic leanings [referred to as Anglo-catholics, many of which have recently come into full communion with Rome].
Now, I do agree with you that Jewish Beliefs were not monolothic, that is correct, but that doesn’t translate into thinking that Christ, who was the 2nd Person of the Trinity and thus was God’s Eternal Word, came into the world to leave humanity with no objective doctrine. That to me flies in the face of Incarnational Theology.
Christ became Incarnate to reveal the Truth of God [Truth/True and Love are the 2 words Christ used the most in the Gospels] thus I can’t accept that Christ when he founded a Church [St. Matthews Gospel states that He did, Mt. 16:18-19 and St. Paul refers to as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, c.f 1 Timothy 3:15] decided to leave those followers who came after the Apostles grasping at straws to determine what is orthodox Doctrine.
Ulitimately, all of those Protestant groups you cite embrace some in total, or some in degree, the confessions of the 3 Main Reformed Protestant groups, Anglican [39 articles], Reformed [Westminister] or Lutheran {Aubsberg] and each of those where shaped by the theology of the authors, in the case of the Anglican it was Crammer then later Parker who shaped the final 39 articles, the Westminiser is JOhn Calvin and the Augsberg are Martin Luther.
Now, despite what A.J. Packer states, none of these are in agreement on the Justification [100%], Sacraments [100%}, Liturgy and Worshp [100%] and that is just the start. Yes, they all uphold to some degree sola Scriptura but that has not led to a Doctrinal consistency at the Confessional level, again, not withstanding that in any Protestant Confession as well as the Catholic Church, you will find individuals at various ends of the spectrum in terms of how much of said Confession they embrace.
Even though the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have not been in Full COmmunion since the 11th century, it is remarkable how similar they are in Doctrine and Liturgy [say 99%]. the Only thing really still a major stumbling block is the nature of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as even the Orthodox concede Rome did have a Primacy in the early Church, now what is the nature of it and how it is exercised is the major question there.
They embrace the Councils and Creeds [thus Holy Tradition] in the same fashion as the Catholic Church and maybe more so thus It is the Church and 1) Sacred Scripture and 2) Sacred Tradition that are one unified reality in that they all flow from Christ. It is the protestant position of sola scriptura that is the historical novelty and that is the reality whether you or any of the other Protestant guys/ladies here will acknowledge it.
Totally heretical? But what of the novelties developed, then many times later rammed through various councils with the claim the Holy Spirit was behind the process? The fruit produced in 1870 was quite sour. The various Orthodox of the brethren to the East took offense at that one. Many bishops in the Latin church took offense too, though were eventually pressured to bend, facing the choice of submitting to decree, or become "Old Catholic". Since personal positions, office & mens' livelihoods were on the line, the stubborn & proud seem to have gotten their way, by hook, crook, & slide (subtle substitutions, both of precise phrasings, and implied meanings) causing a few notables whom opposed the process & it's eventual result, to need abandon their own previous understanding of both the Word, and "Tradition" itself! It's becomes apparent that it's always been that way (to limited but SIGNIFICANT aspect) the more carefully into history one looks.
Looking back merely to 1870, there is this analysis from an Eastern brother which closely examines details of the process concerning papal supremacy, over & above that produced of previous councils, was finalized (calcified?).
The process itself was appalling. The Vatican Dogma
Rationist thought a consequence of the Reformation? Yes, to an extent. Reason & investigation opposed to bowing before sola ecclesia, which itself is not the firmest of foundations, "evolving" as it can shown to have...
At the same time, it was much the Hellenistic "rationist" process long applied to scriptural understandings, which lead to all the man-made embroidered finery associated with interpretations of the texts themselves, producing such things as Purgatory & Indulgences (with all their extended meanings) the abuse of the latter being much a justification for challenging the then status quo in the first place.
So don't think! Surrender rational thought, if it lead anywhere but to bowing before Romish dogmatic proclamations, crafted under the loose mantle of "infallibility" which is found to be much like the hide of living animal, which scurries away when fully confronted, claiming then itself to be only strictly limited. IT IS NO WONDER MUCH OF THE WORLD IS IN REBELLION. They have been given yet another excuse for it, which is today quite difficult to overcome, by anything other than the Word, promised to not return to Him void.
Tradition must follow scripture. Not the other way around. Works (actual good works) follow, spring to life in the freedom of being cleansed of sin. That the cleansing is to occur repeatedly in process, can be seen in the foot washing Christ Himself humbled himself to perform. We of course should do likewise, for one another, not casting fears upon one another that the original sacrifice was not enough to seal us unto him (simply for reason of having dirty feet, from walking through the dust from which we were formed) with our baptisms signifying our own deaths to our own previous lives. For now, those of us whom have been born of Him & sanctified of Him, need only our feet washed...to better enter in to join Him at His Supper which we must partake of, or He will have no part with (in?) us. That food, is what gives us life, draws us closer to Him.
Is what I say here not lawful? By letter, spirit, and tradition? I speak of proper order of operations, putting not the cart of our own response, before the power of His own pull of ourselves to Himself (the Father) by Christ His only begotten, broken for us, so that we may live.
This is where the difference truly lay, between much of the way the process is spoken of, a "which comes first" then "what can follow". Our own efforts simply cannot suffice. It is ONLY Him in us, living within us, that brings the proper fruit, the works which will withstand the testing fires of His judgement. Romans chpt 7
That is backwards. Shall we once again need show here Patristric Fathers whom indicated that scripture itself must be foremost & final test of doctrine? that can be easily enough done. For the umpteenth time.