Replies

The key to this comment is what is meant by the word protestant. It is derived from the word Protest. a protest is not a total repudiation of a body of belief.
So you are correct that such a stand lets us pick what truth is revealed in the church fathers, while repudiating what is not truth.

Second area, there is a standard needed for the Protestant to determine truth and discern it among the church fathers. it is for this reason that without Sola Scriptura there is only relativism and infinite progression of interpretation (as per some elements of Roman apologetics, interpreting...contrary to Roman teaching...what pronouncement of what Pope was ex cathedra, and what was not).

Third area: i have my reservations, seen in my earliest posts on this thread, about the presumption of the discussion quesions...seems we needed to prove or disprove rather than presume. This is a prelude to make the next point.

Fourth point: We must, when the one accepts that the bible is the word of God, and therefore authoritative, put aside what observations we make that appear to contradict that revealed word. On earlier posts we have a gaurantee that there will be a remnant according to the election of grace defined and proven based on both OT citations, and NT applications by the apostle Paul. There is indeed a pure church, we name it the invisible church. It is pure in the sense that it's redemption and translation are sure, in a like manner as the election of the individual is sure, but not neccessarily yet.

Final Point: As previously posted, is is not that God has ever stopped speaking and working (through word and sacriment), it is that man is of a disposition to supress that knowlege. The natural revelation passages in Romans 1 don't just apply to unregenerate man, we all are presently under the depravity of our nature by sin, and act in the same manner (to a lesser degree, as the Spirit infuses empowering grace to the believer).

i hope this clears some issues W, if not, please forgive the verboos statement for naught. i do agree that we did drift too far off topic for the thread, and i fear, lost some people, for my part in this matter i offer apologies, and ask forgiveness.

Fourth point: We must, when the one accepts that the bible is the word of God, and therefore authoritative, put aside what observations we make that appear to contradict that revealed word. On earlier posts we have a gaurantee that there will be a remnant according to the election of grace defined and proven based on both OT citations, and NT applications by the apostle Paul. There is indeed a pure church, we name it the invisible church. It is pure in the sense that it's redemption and translation are sure, in a like manner as the election of the individual is sure, but not neccessarily yet.

I absolutely believe God has always preserved a remnant in every age. I'm just not sure I can promise anyone that none of them ever attended a Roman church, especially the churches of the early centuries, the time of the church fathers.

In stating my opinions, I in no way backed away from sola scriptura. I was noting a remarkable change: members of the Roman church displaying an increasing instinct to turn to the Bible as an authority of worship and theology.

The way I see this as being a significant difference might be laid out as an example. We all know the devotion to Mary and the practices associated with Mary in the RC church. But as Rome first allowed and now encourages its flocks to read the Bible, they can hardly help but notice for themselves that the Word only relates that she was a virgin and would be called blessed by all generations. Now, it seems to me that if we assume our Roman friends are intelligent, they're going to be less likely to turn to Mary or the Roman saints in prayer for intercession than to turn to Jesus. And I think we still want them to turn to Jesus, don't we? The NT is pretty void of any praying to Mary or to saints and the Word speaks with an incomparable authority spiritually. As Protestants, we must believe this.

And this matter of Mary's role is just one of many things that may change if enough RCs are reading their bibles. There are a number of other similar matters. Do I think that this will make RCs leave their churches? Not necessarily. I generally expect a more independent and personal view on scripture as a guide to spiritual life and that individual RCs may start to look at their reading of it as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters. The theology of the hierarchy may become far less important in coming decades.

Isn't that what we Protestants said we wanted most all along? Look at what Luther and Calvin and the others wrote. So if I'm still hoping for the same thing, I'm not in such bad company, am I?

So RCs reading the Bible is not a bad thing. Actually, even though I disagree with their conclusions, I rather enjoy seeing RCs quote scripture to support their theology instead of reciting a list of pope-x-said-this-and-saint-augustine-wrote-that which is what we traditionally expected from RC sources.

It's a significant change, I think. We'll have to see how it develops and if it spreads around the world in RC churches.