The Great Protestant Fallacy

[David Lamb]

The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Lest I misunderstand you, may I ask, does that mean you do not believe that the bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God?

If so, that is the nub of this whole thread, in my opinion. The major Protestant statements of faith are agreed that it is. It is difficult (at least I find it so) to discuss Christian matters if the two "sides" have different authorities for their beliefs.

Just a few examples from Protestant statements of faith about this:

The Westminster Confession of Faith:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. ​

The Savoy Declaration of Faith is almost identical:

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the Author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.​

So is the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

The French Confession says:

V. We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded from God,[1] and receives its authority[2] from him alone, and not from men. And inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth,[3] containing all, that is necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it.[4] Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures,[5] but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated, and reformed according to them.[6] And therefore we confess the three creeds, to wit: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because they are in accordance with the Word of God.

1. II Tim. 3:15-16; II Peter 1:21
2. John 3:31, 34; I Tim. 1:15
3. John 15:11; Acts 20:27
4. Deut. 4:1, 12:32; Gal. 1:8; Rev. 22:18-19
5. Matt. 15:9; Acts 5:28-29
6. I Cor. 11:1-2, 23​

The Second Helvetic Confession:

Canonical Scripture. We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures.​

The Lausanne Covenant:

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God's word to accomplish his purpose of salvation. The message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women. For God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He illumines the minds of God's people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever more of the many-colored wisdom of God.

II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16, Matt. 5:17-18; Jude 1:3; Eph. 1:17-18; 3:10,18​

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

The word 'canon', signifying a rule of standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of messianic prophecy. Thus as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do--not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself that He undertook to inspire by his gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings that together make up our Bible.

By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.​

 

[Matt Black]

And art 6 of The Anglican 39 Articles says much the same thing. However, that then begs two further questions:-

1. What is Scripture? To return to the oft-cited examples of the Bereans in Acts 17, the Scriptures they had would have been the LXX (ie: including the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals) version of the OT. Modern Protestants use the OT without the DCs plus 27 books in the NT - on what basis?

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Lest I misunderstand you, may I ask, does that mean you do not believe that the bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God?

Oh of course NOT, that would go against everything the Orthodox Church stands for.

When I mention "Bible" its the collection of 66 table of content Books you carry to Church with you.

So no, the Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Church...there was no "Bible" the day of Pentecost when the Church was offically established, the Church is built upon the apostles. And finally, we have no record of Christ leaving a written manuscript to help guide His Church, He left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit as He promised. We see this played out in the first Council at Jerusalem and in the 7 Ecumenical Councils...
-

 

[David Lamb]

And art 6 of The Anglican 39 Articles says much the same thing. However, that then begs two further questions:-

1. What is Scripture? To return to the oft-cited examples of the Bereans in Acts 17, the Scriptures they had would have been the LXX (ie: including the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals) version of the OT. Modern Protestants use the OT without the DCs plus 27 books in the NT - on what basis?

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct?

1. I am not qualified to say whether the bible the Bereans searched had or did not have the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals, so I will not try to answer that one.

2. Exactly the same question could be asked about church councils.

 

[Matt Black]

In what way are the Seven Ecumenical Councils on all fours with sola Scriptura?

 

[Darron Steele]

Oh of course NOT, that would go against everything the Orthodox Church stands for.

When I mention "Bible" its the collection of 66 table of content Books you carry to Church with you.

So no, the Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Church...there was no "Bible" the day of Pentecost when the Church was offically established, ...

But there was Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16a "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). Scripture comes from God. Whatever was Scripture would have been Scripture regardless of what church leaders decided.

For any church polemicist of any denomination to use wordings to claim credit for what God wrote seems out of line to me. For them to claim authority for their denomination above what God has written seems out of line to me.

Why would it be so important for some denominations' polemicists to use this tactic to claim that their area of the church has more authority than Scripture = God's written Word? The discrepancies force them to say `Listen to our leaders instead.' It is tacit admission that there are noticeable discrepancies.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

But there was Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16a "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). Scripture comes from God. Whatever was Scripture would have been Scripture regardless of what church leaders decided.

For any church polemicist of any denomination to use wordings to claim credit for what God wrote seems out of line to me. For them to claim authority for their denomination above what God has written seems out of line to me.

Why would it be so important for some denominations' polemicists to use this tactic to claim that their area of the church has more authority than Scripture = God's written Word? The discrepancies force them to say `Listen to our leaders instead.' It is tacit admission that there are noticeable discrepancies.

Just simply amazing, please show me where I have questioned the inspiration of Scripture. Please provide me evidence where the Orthodox Church denies the inspiration of Scripture.

Show me were Christ instructed His Apostles to go forth and write letters and then collect such letters and form a NT Book and add those to the OT Scripture and call it a Bible and thus build His Church upon.

2 Timothy 3:16a has nothing to do with my signature line and everything to do with the FACT that there was no NT when the Church was founded at Pentecost. On that day, Paul didn’t proclaim the Gospel from the Book of Romans…
-

 

[Darron Steele]

Just simply amazing, please show me where I have questioned the inspiration of Scripture. Please provide me evidence where the Orthodox Church denies the inspiration of Scripture....

I never said you did. My post only said what it said.

I respect the Orthodox and you, as well as Catholics who are serious about their Christian faith. These religious systems produce good and faithful Christians who serve Christ well in their day-to-day lives. However, that does not mean that I give a free pass. To respect something does not mean that I see myself obligated to agree with it on everything or consider it above criticism.

Since you have decided not to rebut points actually made, and instead go off on things I said nothing about, I guess my real points remain unanswered.

 

[David Lamb]

In what way are the Seven Ecumenical Councils on all fours with sola Scriptura?

I usually have to question the meaning of "American English" phrases, but Matt, with just Dorset between us, not the Atlantic Ocean, I feel silly have to check what you mean by "on all fours with" - am I correct to assume it means "in opposition to?" If so, here are some examples. I am making the assumption that the source web site for the Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, at http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0835.HTM is trustworthy:

First Council:

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.

Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.

Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.

Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.

Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing. ​

Second Council:

Canon 2: Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only....

Canon 3: Let the Bishop of Constantinople, however, have the priorities of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because of its being New Rome.

Third Council:

Canon 6: Likewise in regard to any persons who should wish to alter in any way whatsoever anything that has been enacted in the holy Council in Ephesus concerning anyone, the holy Council has prescribed that if they be Bishops or clergymen, they are to lose their own rank entirely, while if they be laymen, they are to be excluded from communion.

Fourth Council:

Canon 4: Let them who sincerely and truly enter upon monastic life be accorded due honour.....The Bishop of the city, however, is required to make proper provision for monasteries.


Canon 7:

We have decreed in regard to those who have once been enrolled in the Clergy or who have become Monks shall not join the army nor obtain any secular position of dignity. Let those be anathematized who dare to do this and Jail to repent, so as to return to that which they had previously chosen on God’s account.

Canon 8:

As for the Clergymen attached to poor houses or monasteries or martyries, let them remain under the authority of the bishop of the city in question, and not disrespectfully desert their own Bishop, in accordance with the teaching imparted by the holy Fathers. As regards those who dare to defy any such formal ruling, in any manner whatever, and who refuse to submit to their own Bishop, in case they are clergymen let them be liable to the penalties prescribed by the Canons, but if they are monks or laymen, let them be excluded from communion.​

and so on. Patriarchs, enforced celibacy, monks, diocese, indulgences, bishops in Jerusalem and Constantinople have special rights - I cannot find those in the bible.

 

[Matt Black]

David, "on all fours with" means "the same as, congruent to, etc". You appeared in your previous post to ask who was qualified to 'interpret' Church Councils and, in so doing, you seemed to be equating my reference to the 7 Councils to your reference to SS.

As to not being able to find these in the Bible, (a) that is arguable (as is so much concerning Scripture alone) and (b) one cannot either find Sunday services, Sunday schools, teetotalism, and a host of other practices that I have known Baptist congregations to practise. The end of St John's Gospel makes it clear that the Bible is not an exhaustive 'how to' manual for Church life, in that it refers to many things which the Lord did but which are not recorded therein. Don't forget that the Church was 'doing Church' long before the NT was finished.

 

[Matt Black]

PS

I am not qualified to say whether the bible the Bereans searched had or did not have the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals, so I will not try to answer that one.

Assuming I'm correct about the Scriptures which the Bereans used, are you still content for Acts 17 to be used as a proof-text for SS?

 

[Eric B]

As to not being able to find these in the Bible, (a) that is arguable (as is so much concerning Scripture alone) and (b) one cannot either find Sunday services, Sunday schools, teetotalism, and a host of other practices that I have known Baptist congregations to practise. The end of St John's Gospel makes it clear that the Bible is not an exhaustive 'how to' manual for Church life, in that it refers to many things which the Lord did but which are not recorded therein. Don't forget that the Church was 'doing Church' long before the NT was finished.

This is equivocating between John's description of all of Christ's works (particularly, miracles), with rituals and doctrines of the later Church. Nowhere does it say that the "apostolic Church" had so many different rites that the world could not contain all the books, or that the works that would be written in the hypothetical books were oral instructions for elaborate rites and other concepts that He would pass down to the Church! (Patriarchs, enforced celibacy, monks, diocese, indulgences, bishops in Jerusalem and Constantinople have special rights, etc. as David mentioned. Do you really believe all of that was there in NT times? How about state support by the emperor as well?)
Again, someone ealier had mentioned the letter of Pliny to Trajan, which portrayed Church services as simple.

 

[BobRyan]

1. What is Scripture? To return to the oft-cited examples of the Bereans in Acts 17, the Scriptures they had would have been the LXX (ie: including the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals) version of the OT. Modern Protestants use the OT without the DCs plus 27 books in the NT - on what basis?

2. Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct?

Red herring -- as usual.

David Lamb

1. I am not qualified to say whether the bible the Bereans searched had or did not have the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals, so I will not try to answer that one.

2. Exactly the same question could be asked about church councils.

Good point - but don't give up on "Scripture" as fast as Matt would have it.

. By the time of Jesus the OT, called Tanaach by modern Judaism, consisted of the law, prophets, and writings (the first book of which was the Psalms, Luke 24:44).



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

After watching Matt Black blow some smoke onto the board about the Appocrypha -- some light might be a good idea so that confidence that the Hebrew readers in Acts 17 may very well have had a Hebrew Bible worth reading!

None of these (apocryphal) books are included in the Hebrew canon of Holy Scripture. All of them however, with the exception of 2 Esdras, are present in copies of the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint...

In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the readers attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome’s prefaces, and during the medieval period the western church generally regarded these books as part of the Holy Scriptures. In 1546 the council of Trent decreed that the canon of the old testament includes them (except for the prayer of Manasseh, and 1,2 Esdras).

Subsequent editions of the Latin vulgate text, officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church, contain these books incorporated within the sequence of the Old Testament books. Thus Tobit and Judith stand after Nehemiah; the wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus stand after the Song of Solomon.... And 1,2 Maccabees concludes the Old Testament.

Editions of the bible prepared by Protestants have followed the Hebrew canon. The disputed books have generally been placed in a separate section, usually bound between old and new testaments, but occasionally placed after the close of the New Testament....

 

[Matt Black]

This is equivocating between John's description of all of Christ's works (particularly, miracles), with rituals and doctrines of the later Church. Nowhere does it say that the "apostolic Church" had so many different rites that the world could not contain all the books, or that the works that would be written in the hypothetical books were oral instructions for elaborate rites and other concepts that He would pass down to the Church! (Patriarchs, enforced celibacy, monks, diocese, indulgences, bishops in Jerusalem and Constantinople have special rights, etc. as David mentioned. Do you really believe all of that was there in NT times? How about state support by the emperor as well?)
Again, someone ealier had mentioned the letter of Pliny to Trajan, which portrayed Church services as simple.

Christianity arose from within Judaism, which in itself was a liturgical religion; therefore we should not be surpirsed that the Church from the get-go was liturgical in its practice, even before NT writers like Paul started putting pen to paper (or, more accurately, started dictating to the scribes/secretaries). Justin (c.150) gives a glimpse of a church service which includes a Eucharistic Prayer of some kind and Hippolytus (c.215) actually reproduces a liturgy which would have been recognisable to most Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox today, eg: a Eucharistic Prayer including the Sursum Corda, Words of Institution and Consecration etc. That's a full century before Constantine started coming on the ecclesiastical scene.

[ETA - Bob, the Bereans were Greek speakers, so the OT they had would have been the LXX; I find it noteworthy that not one of the NT writers, being possessed of that version of the OT, ever stated that the DCs should be excluded]

 

[grahame]

It is likely, I should call it the Great American Protestant Fallacy, but I am not as in touch with Protestants from other countries. Anyhow, this great fallacy is the insistance on individual interpretation. This is a false teaching. Interpretation should never be done in isolation of the Church Militant. The scriptures were not given for that purpose and in no place do you find that interpretation was done on an individual level in the historical accounts in Scripture. They always involved the rest of the church, hence the first Jerusalem council. Individual study and understanding is important and to be commended, but interpretation should always be informed and tempered by the church.

Perhaps I should read the other posts before I answer this one? But if what you say is correct, then we would never have had the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Matt Black]

I agree it's an odd OP coming from a Lutheran, particularly one with that moniker. Well, I suppose Luther did want a General Council at one point to debate his ideas; the Diet of Worms was a pretty poor substitute.

 

[Bro. James]

Liturgical religion? Jesus said of the Jewish scribes and pharisees: "ye worship in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". One of signs of true followers of Christ is the simplicity of their worship: singing, praying, preaching, remembering Golgotha. The ritualistic mambo jambo which has emerged in the past near 2,000 years was not in the original "faith once for all delivered unto the saints", Jude 3. The churches of the world are still teaching the commandments of men--blind leading blind.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

You're conflating 'liturgy' with 'doctrines of men' - why? The ceremonial law of Leviticus is very detailed and ritualistic, but you wouldn't call that the 'doctrines of men', would you?

 

[Bro. James]

Commandments of men--to be sure--to the point of stopping up the gates of heaven. Men(and women) have done it again--we put a man, Peter and his apostolic progeny, at the gate with a massive obstacle course including purge-atory in the path. The reformers just made the course a little more palatable to the flesh.

Where are the ones who are like the original flock which Jesus gathered starting at the shores of Galilee? Yes, the ones who Jesus said He would never leave them or forsake them; that He would send another Comforter to lead them in all Truth, to be with them to the end. Most of what has been posted so far implies that the Lord's Churches have been floundering for proper guidance and direction since Jesus went to prepare a place for them. This is not so.

The Faith, once for all delivered to the saints is still in the world, not of the world, without spot or blemish or any such thing. They have never had connection with Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg or Nauvoo.

You probably will not find them listed in "Who's Who in Religion", nor in the Religion Column of the "Daily News".

What is in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James