Bread Worship

[Agnus_Dei]

In no way would I ever argue against Holy Scripture as authority, but it’s all too obvious looking at Protestantism what happens when Holy Scripture is interpreted “outside” the Church. Holy Scripture is only authoritative within the Life of the Church or when read within the Life of the Church.

Holy Scripture belongs in the Church and are themselves, as Scripture, a part of the Church’s life. Torn from that context they become something else, as St. Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16:

There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures​

Lord have mercy

InXC
-

 

[DHK]

In no way would I ever argue against Holy Scripture as authority, but it’s all too obvious looking at Protestantism what happens when Holy Scripture is interpreted “outside” the Church. Holy Scripture is only authoritative within the Life of the Church or when read within the Life of the Church.

Holy Scripture belongs in the Church and are themselves, as Scripture, a part of the Church’s life. Torn from that context they become something else, as St. Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16:

There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures​

Lord have mercy

InXC
-

The Holy Scripture is in my church! And when Matt considers that inspiration continues beyond the Scriptures even unto the ECF as it continues to be upheld by the church, then the logical conclusion is that I can claim inspiration also. I am just as inspired as those whacky ECF writers.

 

[Darron Steele]

In no way would I ever argue against Holy Scripture as authority, but it’s all too obvious looking at Protestantism what happens when Holy Scripture is interpreted “outside” the Church. Holy Scripture is only authoritative within the Life of the Church or when read within the Life of the Church....-

The Bible is always authoritative.

The church is not that significant as to make God's Word authoritative or not. Unlike in denominations like yours where people assert authority over the Bible, in Protestantism, the Bible gets FOLLOWED as the authority that it is.

2 Timothy 3:16a says "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). Scripture gets its authority from its ultimate Author. Just as God is Boss 100% of the time, Scripture is authoritative 100% of the time.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Who mentioned the Roman Catholic straw man? Not me."

I know. I did. I brought them up because they are the clearest example of the the what happens when what you are advocating reaches its ugly conclusion.

The Roman Catholic Cult.

"I agree that Holy Scripture and Holy Spirit are our rule of faith, I just disagree with you on the Holy Spirit acting individually -v- corporately."

Its not one or the other. Its both. The Holy Spirit guides individual believers and enlightens their understanding of Gods truth. The Holy Spirit also works through bible studies involving groups of people talking and sharing. He also works through good bible courses. He also works through bible colleges and *some* seminaries.

But, (((praise God))) \o/...He also teaches us individually and personally.

"It is the corporate action that produces the necessary degree of indefectability;..."

Then why is it that the groups that rely on that model the most are filled with the greatest overflow of blasphemy and heresy?

"the individual produces eipstemological chaos and contradictions, not checks."

Then why is it that the groups that hold fast to Gods admonitions regarding what we call "sola scriptura" do not have the overflow of blasphemies and heresies that the groups who reject sola scriptura do have?

Something to think about, dont you think?

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

The Holy Scripture is in my church! And when Matt considers that inspiration continues beyond the Scriptures even unto the ECF as it continues to be upheld by the church, then the logical conclusion is that I can claim inspiration also. I am just as inspired as those whacky ECF writers.

Sorry, I didn't realise that you'd been discipled by John and appointed Bishop of Antioch by him. My bad.

And, Mike, Roman Catholicism is not a forgone conclusion by any means of Scripture and Tradition: there's Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans who adhere in theory or in practice.

My problem with sola Scriptura is that ultimately it's sine ecclesia; if all doctrine boils down to "me Jesus and my Bible" then what happens to "when two or three are gathered together, there I Am"? What's the point from a theological POV of meeting with other Christians? If we're all equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we would surely agree on all major points of doctrine. Well, we don't, so it plainly doesn't work like that.

 

[Darron Steele]

Folks: there is only one church -- and all of us were added to it per Acts 2:47.

Now, if the "Tradition"-based approach is the correct one, I note that "Tradition"-based denominations all differ from each other. None has convinced me that their claim to be `the true Tradition' is valid. I believe all their claims are equally invalid.

The difference between "Tradition"-based approaches and Scripture-based approaches is that the latter go with an authority that is known to have existed from the beginnings of the church. There is no evidence that innovations by later church influencers labeled "Tradition" were extant in the New Testament era. I do, on the other hand, know that the written Word of God was extant and in circulation in the church in its opening century.

If we're all equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we would surely agree on all major points of doctrine

NONE of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16-7, written in the New Testament era, says that the "Scripture" is that.

We have redefined "doctrine" to mean church group religious tenets. If one reads 1 Timothy 1:3-10, s/he would see that "doctrine" refers to overall living. In every single instance in the KJV or ASV that I have seen, "doctrine" refers to something that has relevance away from church assembly. As Christians, we all agree on the "major points of doctrine."

The problem is within 1 Timothy 1:3-10, at the portion that says "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion" (NASB). 2 Timothy 2:23 has “refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels” (NASB). Guess what? Too many in the church have abandoned "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" and gone into "speculations" and "fruitless discussion" with the result of "quarrels." Going with just the Bible, doing just as it says, would actually heal the division in the church.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Accidental duplicate. Sorry. ]

 

[DHK]

Sorry, I didn't realise that you'd been discipled by John and appointed Bishop of Antioch by him. My bad.

John? I know of him well. I have his first epistle memorized. I have his other two epistles and his Gospel and his Book of Revelation thoroughly studied. Therefore I am his disciple, moreso than most of the ECF.
I don't know about the "Bishop of Antioch," but I do know of the one that was sent from Antioch. He was the Apostle Paul, the author of 13 books of the NT. I am willing to guarantee that Paul has taught me more than he has taught the ECF. You see I have access to all of his epistles, all at the same time. I also have a concordance both in book and in electronic form with a search engine to help. I have study aids that their imagination couldn't even dream of. Paul has taught me well. And so has John.

My problem with sola Scriptura is that ultimately it's sine ecclesia; if all doctrine boils down to "me Jesus and my Bible" then what happens to "when two or three are gathered together, there I Am"?

Your disdain for sola scriptura shows up in that simple statement which is a quote from Scripture taken out of context. If you believed in sola scriptura, as the Bible commands (to study the Bible as if it were our final authority), then you would know that Mat.18:20 was a verse referring to church discipline, and not to the core of a church or to church fellowship.

What's the point from a theological POV of meeting with other Christians? If we're all equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we would surely agree on all major points of doctrine. Well, we don't, so it plainly doesn't work like that.

How could we agree with you, when you don't want to believe what the Bible teaches in the first place (at least it seems that way). For example:
1. You dismiss sola scriptura even though it was the standard method of instruction in the OT.
2. You dismiss the literalness of the Flood even though Jesus believed it.
3. And I am not sure about creation, but I would assume you would believe the same about creation.

Your propenisty to give into the ungodly conclusions of "Higher Criticism" which have no other agenda in mind but to destroy the Bible is evident.
So you are right. How could we agree. Even using sola scriptura we could never agree with presuppositions like the above.

 

[Darron Steele]

John? I know of him well. I have his first epistle memorized. I have his other two epistles and his Gospel and his Book of Revelation thoroughly studied. Therefore I am his disciple, moreso than most of the ECF.
I don't know about the "Bishop of Antioch," but I do know of the one that was sent from Antioch. He was the Apostle Paul, the author of 13 books of the NT. I am willing to guarantee that Paul has taught me more than he has taught the ECF. You see I have access to all of his epistles, all at the same time. I also have a concordance both in book and in electronic form with a search engine to help. I have study aids that their imagination couldn't even dream of. Paul has taught me well. And so has John....

Further, unlike most of the "Early Christian Fathers," I bet you actually listen carefully to John and Paul, and are willing to study their writings in detail. Among most "Early Christian Fathers," I bet even if they had your resources, they still would have given comparatively little attention to John and Paul.

Proximity does not make an inattentive bystander more useful than a witness to an event. Better a witness 20 meters away watching an event than a person present 2 meters away but paying attention to anything but the event and caring little about it.

A pupil who sits in your lectures, but has every intention of disregarding what you teach at the earliest opportunity, is not a student. S/he may claim to be one if s/he thinks it can advance a private agenda when you are `out of the way,' but s/he is still not a student because s/he has no intention of adopting your teaching.

Many of the "Early Christian Fathers" were more interested in propogating their own speculations and opinions than in learning from John and Paul. Within just 200 years, they had an institution that was much more complicated than the simple church John and Paul helped lead.

 

[D28guy]

Darron Steele posted...

"Many of the "Early Christian Fathers" were more interested in propogating their own speculations and opinions than in learning from John and Paul. Within just 200 years, they had an institution that was much more complicated than the simple church John and Paul helped lead."

Very very true.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Now, if the "Tradition"-based approach is the correct one, I note that "Tradition"-based denominations all differ from each other. None has convinced me that their claim to be `the true Tradition' is valid. I believe all their claims are equally invalid.

Fair point, although there is a sufficient degree of consensus up to 1054 to draw from; sola Scriptura only allows for that up to c100AD and is insufficient, as witness the fragmentary nature of free church Protestantism

The difference between "Tradition"-based approaches and Scripture-based approaches is that the latter go with an authority that is known to have existed from the beginnings of the church. There is no evidence that innovations by later church influencers labeled "Tradition" were extant in the New Testament era. I do, on the other hand, know that the written Word of God was extant and in circulation in the church in its opening century.

Other way round, if anything: the Church existed for a significant amount of time before the NT was enscripturated, and for over 300 years before it was canonised. In the intervening time, there was Apostolic Tradition which we now was around very early on, since St Paul refers to it.

NONE of us are inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16-7, written in the New Testament era, says that the "Scripture" is that.

So, when you read those Scriptures, the Holy Spirit within you snoozes gently??!

We have redefined "doctrine" to mean church group religious tenets. If one reads 1 Timothy 1:3-10, s/he would see that "doctrine" refers to overall living. In every single instance in the KJV or ASV that I have seen, "doctrine" refers to something that has relevance away from church assembly. As Christians, we all agree on the "major points of doctrine."

The problem is within 1 Timothy 1:3-10, at the portion that says "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion" (NASB). 2 Timothy 2:23 has “refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels” (NASB). Guess what? Too many in the church have abandoned "love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" and gone into "speculations" and "fruitless discussion" with the result of "quarrels." Going with just the Bible, doing just as it says, would actually heal the division in the church.

Except it plainly doesn't, as each inividual believes s/he has a God-given right to interpret the Bible for him/herself.

 

[Matt Black]

Further, unlike most of the "Early Christian Fathers," I bet you actually listen carefully to John and Paul, and are willing to study their writings in detail. Among most "Early Christian Fathers," I bet even if they had your resources, they still would have given comparatively little attention to John and Paul.

Proximity does not make an inattentive bystander more useful than a witness to an event. Better a witness 20 meters away watching an event than a person present 2 meters away but paying attention to anything but the event and caring little about it.

A pupil who sits in your lectures, but has every intention of disregarding what you teach at the earliest opportunity, is not a student. S/he may claim to be one if s/he thinks it can advance a private agenda when you are `out of the way,' but s/he is still not a student because s/he has no intention of adopting your teaching.

Hardly likely in the case when the lecturer appoints the pupil as his successor in the lectureship.

Many of the "Early Christian Fathers" were more interested in propogating their own speculations and opinions than in learning from John and Paul.

Really??! And you know this how, exactly?

Within just 200 years, they had an institution that was much more complicated than the simple church John and Paul helped lead.

Again, how do you know that?

 

[D28guy]

Agnus,

it’s all too obvious looking at Protestantism what happens when Holy Scripture is interpreted "outside" the Church.

Yes, it is obvious. We do not have monolithic "gestapo" like Teaching Magesteriums filled with people who are "white washed tombs" filled with "dead mens bones" "lording it over" the lowely masses as they turn simple new covenant christianity into a counterfiet "church" filled with paganism, heresy, idolaty and goddess worship. And I'm not just refering to the "Romish" branch that is inflitrated with those problems, either.

Holy Scripture is only authoritative within the Life of the Church or when read within the Life of the Church.

Except for those times when the scriptures indict and condemn "The Church" for her many blasphemies and idolatries. Then...for obvious reasons...the scriptures are not in any way authoritative. At least not in the view of the "Magesterium", who have brainwashed the lowly masses into believing that they are incapable of interpreting the scriptures themselves, with the Holy Spirits enlightening.

Their job security depends on keeping their people away from studying the scriptures apart from "the gestapos" interpretations.

Like a famous singer once said...

"Nice job if you can get it, and you can get it if you try"

Sadly,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Really?? So if, based on your own study of the Scriptures, you reached the conclusion that infant baptism and baptismal regeneration were the correct way to go, your local Baptist church would be quite happy with you proclaiming that from their pulpit?

And, since you persist in bringing up the RC strawman time and again (I'm Anglican for the three thousandth time!!), how come the Pope grants a plenary indulgence to all Catholics who study their Bibles for half an hour each day?

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"And, since you persist in bringing up the RC strawman time and again"

I know full well you are Anglican. As I have shared with you before, (do you read all of my posts to you?) the Catholic Church is the worst example of the deadly consequences of turning from Gods sola scriptura admonitions, so it gets mentioned a lot.

But from my studied observation the Orthodox probably have 90 percent of the same idolatries and blashpemies, except for their goddess worship which *might* be worse than the RCC.

And there are many ultra liberal protestant organisations that are as bad, and in some ways worse, then the RCC...such as the Episcopal group over here, and groups like the Unitarian Universalists.

If the Anglicans on your side of the pond are in as bad a shape as the Episcopols over here...may God have mercy on the Anglicans, and I would highly recommend that you flee them...unless of course you are staying in so you can witness from within. But I have never had that impression. Rather, you seem to be like minded.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

***Accidental duplicate post.***

Deleted

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



I know full well you are Anglican. As I have shared with you before, (do you read all of my posts to you?) the Catholic Church is the worst example of the deadly consequences of turning from Gods sola scriptura admonitions, so it gets mentioned a lot.

Right. Which is why we had the Reformation of the Church in England from 1547.

If the Anglicans on your side of the pond are in as bad a shape as the Episcopols over here...may God have mercy on the Anglicans

No, they're not, and most Anglicans are not. In fact, there's a good chance that TEC could be booted out this year.

Rather, you seem to be like minded.

Not with TEC, I'm not!

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

When you told me a while back that the Anglicans are your version of our Episcopals, I assumed that meant they were very similiar.

With what you have shared now, could you clarify things.

What is the Anglicans view of the following:

1) Sola Scriptura

2) Justification by faith alone

3) The way the Catholics/Orthodox treat Mary

4) The "real presence" in the Lords supper bread and wine

5) The "authority" of the clergy

Thanks,

Mike

 

[mrtumnus]

Originally Posted by D28guy
Matt,



I know full well you are Anglican. As I have shared with you before, (do you read all of my posts to you?) the Catholic Church is the worst example of the deadly consequences of turning from Gods sola scriptura admonitions, so it gets mentioned a lot.

Right. Which is why we had the Reformation of the Church in England from 1547.

Actually I thought the reason you had the Reformation of the Church of England was so Henry VIII could move on to his next wife.

 

[Matt Black]

Gladly. Following your numbering:

1. As a starting point, we have the 39 Articles and in particular for the purpose of #1, art 6:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

So far, so good, you might say. Yet it is also a feature of Anglican epistemology that we place a high reliance on Tradition and the role of the Church also. This is at least hinted at in arts 20 and 34, albeit with Church Tradition subordinate to Scripture:

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
[/FONT]

Reference is also made in the next article to Cranmer's Homilies, which contain large portions of patristic quotes:

XXXV. Of the Homilies.
The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of the people.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the Names of the Homilies.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Of the right Use of the Church.
2 Against Peril of Idolatry.
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
4 Of good Works: first of Fasting.
5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
6 Against Excess of Apparel.
7 Of Prayer.
8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer.
9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
10 Of the reverend Estimation of God's Word.
11 Of Alms-doing.
12 Of the Nativity of Christ.
13 Of the Passion of Christ.
14 Of the Resurrection of Christ.
15 Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
17 For the Rogation-days.
18 Of the State of Matrimony.
19 Of Repentance.
20 Against Idleness.
21 Against Rebellion.​

[/FONT]



​

2. Largely sola fidei & sola Dei gratia, the latter being at the more Calvinist end of the spectrum officially, but with some important qualifications re works, similar to those held by many Lutherans. Again, the articles and homiles assist in distilling this out:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

[/FONT]

Cranmer's Homilies on salvation, 'lively' faith and good works shed further light on the subject; Cranmer, following James largely, contrasts a purely intellectual faith with an active faith producing works

(to be continued)