The Great Protestant Fallacy

[Matt Black]

David, let's go through your list:-

I know that we are on "shaky ground" with what-if situations, but my personal opinion is that the Reformation would still have been needed whether or not the schism of 1054 had occurred. I readily admit to being no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but from what I have read, it is very similar to Roman Catholicism, and greatly different to the churches of the Reformation. For example:

Both believe in prayers to and for the dead.​

Not quite. Both believe that dead Christians ie: not any old dead people are as capable of praying for us as live Christians and therefore they will ask a departed Christian to pray for them, much as I might ask you to pray for me. The Orthodox don't have the concept of Purgatory are so are less inclined to pray for departed Christians than are Catholics.

Both have the bible plus tradition as their authority.

Check. So does everyone else if they're honest.

Both have seven "sacraments", including confession to a human "priest".

Check. The Magisterial Reformers preserved the two 'dominical sacraments' (Baptism and communion) and regard these as sacraments rather than mere ordinances in the main; Anglicanism does the same but some Anglican churches from the top end of the candle (informally) have confession to a priest.

Both have a human priesthood, distinct from the priesthood of all believers.

A visible priesthood, complementary to the priesthood of all believers. In accordance with the practice of the Church from time immemorial.

Both believe that baptism is necessary to salvation.

Check, in most cases, the exceptions for both being 'baptisms of desire' eg: catechumens, the Thief on the Cross, and 'baptisms of blood' ie: martyrdom. Again, consistent with early Church practice

Both practise the veneration of statues and icons.

Orthodoxy doesn't venerate statues, Catholics do, as do some Anglicans. Cp latria, hyperdulia and dulia. I could say more about 'graven images post-Incarnation' if you like.

Both see value in monasticism.

Yes. And?

Both believe in transubstantiation.

Bzzt! Wrong! Catholics do since the Lateran Council of 1215 but Orthodox, whilst they like Anglicans and Lutherans believe in some kind of Real Presence in communion, have regarded all attempts to define how Christ is Really Present to be vain suppoisitions; they regard TS as an 'overdefinition' of RP by medieval western scholasticism eg: Aquinas
​

Regarding "the Creed thrashed out at Nicaea I and Constantinople", yes, it is in the Book of Common Prayer, and in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable to evangelical Christians today. But of course, it makes no mention of the sort of things I listed above (bible plus tradition, seven sacraments, confession to a human priest, etc.) Here it is as in the 1662 BCP (Matt probably knows this, but to avoid confusion, "very" means "true", and "Catholick" there means "universal", not Roman Catholic"):

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.
​

No mention? Really? What about "one baptism for the remission of sins"? Sounds suspiciously close to baptismal regeneration to me. And "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", whilst not referring to Roman Catholicism, means a tad more than just 'universal': in its context (4th century), it means the Catholic-Orthodox Church which has preserved Apostolic Succession.

 

[Bro. James]

A little leaven

"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins..."

This reiterates the groundwork for infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, an ancient heresy--never practiced by New Testament Churches even through today. This is the major doctrine which separates the true from the pseudo. It goes back to Cain. One cannot be saved by works. Baptism is a work of man. Receiving baptism is a work of man. Water washes away no sin--the shed blood of Jesus cleanses from sin. There is no other way. Major impasse.

Then there is the church-- universal-- another heresy which the apostles never practiced. That is another thread.

"A little leaven leavens the whole lump"

What's on your altar?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

So, by your definition, then, David's a heretic? Nice.

Please demonstrate that the pre-Constantinian Church believed as you do.

 

[Bro. James]

Definitions

The Book of Acts defines the structure and activity of a New Testament Church. The authority to carry out the commission is given to Her, not the apostles, in Mt. 16 and 28. No authority to change the pattern has been given. Man has changed the pattern--he thinks he can earn his salvation. It is not my intention to offend nor judge anyone's religion. Thank God for religious freedom.

Just who the heretics are will be discovered at the Bema Seat.

What is on your altar?

Selah

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

The Book of Acts, eh? So, we all have to be Jewish Christians. Right, who's for circumcision first? After you....

 

[Chemnitz]

The Book of Acts, eh? So, we all have to be Jewish Christians. Right, who's for circumcision first? After you....

I don't know about circumcision, but I was thinking I am not sure I want to spend all my time formulating worship practices around the book of Acts considering the lack of details.

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed. It's particularly unclear to which portion of Acts Bro James refers.

 

[David Lamb]

The Book of Acts, eh? So, we all have to be Jewish Christians. Right, who's for circumcision first? After you....

Come on, Matt, that just isn't so. Indeed, those Jews who tried to insist that Gentile Christians (yes, there were Gentile Christians in Acts) should be circumcised, were told they were wrong. (See Acts 15).

 

[Matt Black]

That's why I'm asking Bro James to clarify to which portion of Acts he refers. If we are talking Acts 2:42 and the Jerusalem Church, which seems to be oft held up as the paradigm of "The New Testament Church" to which we should all aspire, then we most certainly are talking Jewish only. By Acts 15 of course there are Gentile converts and the whol issue arises of what to do with them. Somewhere between Acts 15 and 28, more Pauline Christianity takes over and the Jewish origins are increasingly played down.

So, to talk in terms of Acts as providing an ecclesiological model for today's Church, the question inevitably arises - which Acts model do you mean?

 

[David Lamb]

That's why I'm asking Bro James to clarify to which portion of Acts he refers. If we are talking Acts 2:42 and the Jerusalem Church, which seems to be oft held up as the paradigm of "The New Testament Church" to which we should all aspire, then we most certainly are talking Jewish only. By Acts 15 of course there are Gentile converts and the whol issue arises of what to do with them. Somewhere between Acts 15 and 28, more Pauline Christianity takes over and the Jewish origins are increasingly played down.

So, to talk in terms of Acts as providing an ecclesiological model for today's Church, the question inevitably arises - which Acts model do you mean?

As I see it, Acts does not command circumcision. Those male Jews who were converted would have been circumcised as infants, but nowhere does Acts say that physical circumcision was a necessary ingredient of ecclesiology. Acts does not provide two separate "ecclesiological models".

 

[Matt Black]

No, you're right, it provides more than two ecclesiological models...

 

[David Lamb]

No, you're right, it provides more than two ecclesiological models...

Perhaps I should have worded my reply differently. I certainly did not mean that Acts "provides more than two ecclesiological models". Sorry if my wording was unclear.

 

[Matt Black]

There are at least four models to be drawn just from the Pauline ecclesiologies of Acts 15 onwards. Throw into the mix the Jerusalem church's Temple-style ecclesiology of the Twelve led by Peter and James of pre-Acts 15 and the so-called 'house church' model of Acts 2:42 beloved by er...house churches and others and you have at least half a dozen ecclesiologies in Acts.

 

[David Lamb]

There are at least four models to be drawn just from the Pauline ecclesiologies of Acts 15 onwards. Throw into the mix the Jerusalem church's Temple-style ecclesiology of the Twelve led by Peter and James of pre-Acts 15 and the so-called 'house church' model of Acts 2:42 beloved by er...house churches and others and you have at least half a dozen ecclesiologies in Acts.

I think you and I may be talking (or rather writing) at cross purposes here. You and I seem to mean something different by the word "ecclesiology". You seem to apply it to outward things, such as whether worship takes place in the open air, in a private house, or in a synagogue or the temple. I understood you rather to be referring to what the church is, what the church does, what it believes. The churches in acts that met in houses did not believe a different gospel to those who met in the open, and the apoistles and others who we read of as going to the temple or a synagogue did not preach a different set of beliefs when they were elsewhere.

 

[Matt Black]

Their soteriologies were different though as well, if you compare for example the beginning of Acts with the end: in the former case, salvation is supposedly confined to the Jewish race; by the end Paul is all but denying salvation to the Jews; in between, Cornelius' conversion and the Council of Jerusalem are pivotal events in the revision of these early Christians' soteriology.

 

[David Lamb]

Their soteriologies were different though as well, if you compare for example the beginning of Acts with the end: in the former case, salvation is supposedly confined to the Jewish race; by the end Paul is all but denying salvation to the Jews; in between, Cornelius' conversion and the Council of Jerusalem are pivotal events in the revision of these early Christians' soteriology.

No, again that just is not so. Salvation was not "supposedly confined to the Jewish race" at the beginning of Acts. The apostles were fulfilling the specific command of Jesus before His ascension, in Acts 1.8:

8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."​

Such a progression from local to worldwide is not a change in soteriology. In Acts 4.9-12, following the healing of the lame man in Jerusalem, Peter says:

9 "If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well,
10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
11 "This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’
12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."​

In Acts 8.12, in Samaria, we are told:

12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.​

The same thing, later in the same chapter, with the Ethiopian eunuch.

In Acts 16.31, the Philippian gaoler is told:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"​

And in Acts 26 when Paul makes his defence before Agrippa and Festus:

19 "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
20 "but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.
21 "For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me.
22 "Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come––
23 "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."​

Salvation is by Jesus Christ at the beginning of Acts, in the middle of Acts, and at the end of Acts. Salvation is by Jesus Christ whether at Jerusalem, in Samaria, or anywhere else.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, but the question in the first half of Acts is "do you first have to be a Jew to experience that salvation in Jesus Christ?"

 

[Bro. James]

Church stuff in the Acts of the Apostles

Local, visible--120 members--Acts 1:15
Existed before Pentecost--1:21
Had a business meeting--1:23
Prayed together--1:24
Voted--1:26
In one accord in one place--2:1
Powered by Holy Spirit--2:4
Preaching the Gospel--2:14
Baptizing believers--2:41
Doctrine, fellowship, communion, prayer--2:42
Witnessed from house to house--2:46
Added new members--2:47
Evangelized--4:4
Scattered--8:1
Sister church at Antioch--11:26
Holy Spirit guided--13:2
Sent out missionaries--13:3
Preached to Jews and Gentiles--13:42

This is not an exhaustive list.

Absent: papacy, infant baptism, universal church.

Yes, controversial issues were referred to the 12, but that does not precedent a conclave of cardinals by any stretch.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Local, visible--120 members--Acts 1:15
Existed before Pentecost--1:21
Had a business meeting--1:23
Prayed together--1:24
Voted--1:26
In one accord in one place--2:1
Powered by Holy Spirit--2:4
Preaching the Gospel--2:14
Baptizing believers--2:41
Doctrine, fellowship, communion, prayer--2:42
Witnessed from house to house--2:46
Added new members--2:47
Evangelized--4:4
Scattered--8:1
Sister church at Antioch--11:26
Holy Spirit guided--13:2
Sent out missionaries--13:3
Preached to Jews and Gentiles--13:42

This is not an exhaustive list.

Absent: papacy, infant baptism, universal church.

Yes, controversial issues were referred to the 12, but that does not precedent a conclave of cardinals by any stretch.

Now what?

Swim the Bosporous!

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, but the question in the first half of Acts is "do you first have to be a Jew to experience that salvation in Jesus Christ?"

I'm not sure where you find that question in Acts. If it's there, the answer would be a resounding "No!"