The Great Protestant Fallacy

[BobRyan]

Hi Darron, even as a Baptist I’ve always been intrigued in regard to just how Christianity got its start. What happened after the day the Church was founded at Pentecost. We do seem to get a glimpse through the NT, but what happened after the Apostles martyred? What were the challenges that the Early Church (EC) faced,

According to scripture WHY was Paul leaving Timothy at Ephesus?

Answer - to fight raging heresy.

According to Acts 20 WHAT did Paul say would happen as soon as he left?

Answer - wolves would come in -- men would arise FROM AMONG your own selves teaching error and taking disciples out drawing them into error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

In order for your view to hold water, you would have to demonstrate that the 'wolves' prevailed ie: that Christ's words in Matt 16:18 that His Church would prevail were a nonsense or lie. I hope that's not what you're implying.

On the contrary, we have evidence not only of who the wolves were (various Gnostics such as docetists, Valentinians etc), but also of the fact that Christ's Church did indeed prevail against them

 

[Matt Black]

Nobody denies that there were prayers and praise and sctipture readings. Still, you talk about the full "liturgies" of the later Churches, yet there was no mention of incense, fear of dropping it or special disposal for the crumbs, and all of the pther aspects of the Church institution (even beyond liturgy) like David mentioned. I use the word "liturgy", but I mean the later grand, "high" forms. Yes, simply having a Communion with a prayer and scripture reading can be called a "liturgy", but that's not what we're disputing.

A lot is on my mind, and it's taking time to digest those quotes, so I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by "intercession"? Not prayers to icons and dead saints is it? Or is it supposed to be God changing the bread and wine into flesh and blood? And what do you mean by "reservation" of the scaraments?

And even the small amount of formalization that were there by then in the nearly 100 or so years until Justin had plenty enough time to develop. It does not prove it was "handed down from the apostles". And the description of "real Presense" is still a bit ambiguous, and does show a clear development in thinking:

http://members.aol.com/etb700/catholicorthodox.html
We see it go from Ignatius' "they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" which still leaves it open to be a metaphor (Where a "simile" is "a comparison using 'like' or 'as'"; a metaphor calls it like it is the thing it is being compared to). Then, expanding upon this, a half century later, Justin's "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but...the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.". That too can still be metaphorical, but now he adds to it "blessed by the prayer of His word". He mentions a "transmutation", but that appears to be referring to the "nourishment" or our own bodies (suggesting as I always point out, that this was not cracker crumbs, or wafers especially made for the "service". He also otherwise pictures the bread as a "remembrance"). Then, in the next century, we begin to get more expounding of some "change" in the food TO "the flesh and blood".

You may also want to look at the Liturgy of St Mark, much of which dates from the 2nd century also, and which also contains the common liturgical elements.

 

[David Lamb]

You may also want to look at the Liturgy of St Mark, much of which dates from the 2nd century also, and which also contains the common liturgical elements.

It makes no difference which century it dates from - insofar as it adds to what God has revealed in His Word, it is wrong. The very first words of the "liturgy" you point us to are: "The Priest". Yet in the New Testament churches had elders and deacons. We are told in 1 Peter 2.9 that all believers are priests:

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;​

The liturgy says (emphasis mine):

we pray and beseech Thee to defend in Thy good mercy our most holy and blessed high priest our Father in God D,​

The bible says that Christ is our high priest, not "D".

The liturgy says:

"The Gospel is carried in."​

So I could go on. Monks, papas, prayers for the dead, making the sign of the cross....

 

[Doubting Thomas]

It makes no difference which century it dates from - insofar as it adds to what God has revealed in His Word, it is wrong. The very first words of the "liturgy" you point us to are: "The Priest". Yet in the New Testament churches had elders and deacons. ..

If you check out an English dictionary you'll find the that the word "priest" is derived from "prest" which itself was a shortened from of "presbyter"(or "elder"). That's the sense it which the word "priest" is used in Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

The reference to "high priest" in the Liturgy cited may be in reference to the "bishop" (another NT term), for at first the terms bishops and presbyters were used somewhat interchangeably, but with time the leading presbyter, or "high priest", became to be exclusively referred to as the "bishop"--as early as the late 1st/early 2nd century in Asia Minor, based on the content of the epistles of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.

 

[David Lamb]

If you check out an English dictionary you'll find the that the word "priest" is derived from "prest" which itself was a shortened from of "presbyter"(or "elder"). That's the sense it which the word "priest" is used in Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

The reference to "high priest" in the Liturgy cited may be in reference to the "bishop" (another NT term), for at first the terms bishops and presbyters were used somewhat interchangeably, but with time the leading presbyter, or "high priest", became to be exclusively referred to as the "bishop"--as early as the late 1st/early 2nd century in Asia Minor, based on the content of the epistles of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox churches, but in Roman Catholic churches, and in "high" Anglican churches (that is, Anglican churches that tend towards Roman Catholic doctrine and practice) "priest" is more than just another name for "elder" or "prebyter", despite the history of the English word. The Catholic Encyclopedia begins its entry on "Priest" thus (emphasis mine):

Priest
This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity ​

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox churches, but in Roman Catholic churches, and in "high" Anglican churches (that is, Anglican churches that tend towards Roman Catholic doctrine and practice) "priest" is more than just another name for "elder" or "prebyter", despite the history of the English word. The Catholic Encyclopedia begins its entry on "Priest" thus (emphasis mine):

Priest
This word (etymologically "elder", from presbyteros, presbyter) has taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been formed in various modern languages (English, French, German). The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity

​

So, you at least acknowledge the etymology of the word. I can't speak for Roman Catholics--I'm Anglican Catholic--but the concept of ministering in divine worship is certainly biblical. Also, given that the Eucharist is our participation in the New Covenant Sacrifice of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-18), there's nothing inherently wrong with saying that the priest is the minister of the "highest act of worship, sacrifice". I agree that it would be wrong, however, to suggest that the priest is somehow offering a different sacrifice than the one offered by Christ on the cross or is somehow sacrificing Christ over and over again. Neither notion is biblical, and I don't know if there are even any Romanists that would argue for either these days.

 

[Matt Black]

It makes no difference which century it dates from - insofar as it adds to what God has revealed in His Word, it is wrong. The very first words of the "liturgy" you point us to are: "The Priest". Yet in the New Testament churches had elders and deacons. We are told in 1 Peter 2.9 that all believers are priests:

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;​

The liturgy says (emphasis mine):

we pray and beseech Thee to defend in Thy good mercy our most holy and blessed high priest our Father in God D,​

The bible says that Christ is our high priest, not "D".

The liturgy says:

"The Gospel is carried in."​

So I could go on. Monks, papas, prayers for the dead, making the sign of the cross....

David, what if it could be demonstrated that such practices occurred in the congregations to which St Paul ministered? Would you accuse him of 'adding to God's word'?

 

[David Lamb]

So, you at least acknowledge the etymology of the word. I can't speak for Roman Catholics--I'm Anglican Catholic--but the concept of ministering in divine worship is certainly biblical. Also, given that the Eucharist is our participation in the New Covenant Sacrifice of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-18), there's nothing inherently wrong with saying that the priest is the minister of the "highest act of worship, sacrifice". I agree that it would be wrong, however, to suggest that the priest is somehow offering a different sacrifice than the one offered by Christ on the cross or is somehow sacrificing Christ over and over again. Neither notion is biblical, and I don't know if there are even any Romanists that would argue for either these days.

Thank you for your reply, but I still cannot agree with you about a human priesthood, though I do agree that ministering in worship if biblical, and apologise if I gave you the idea that I thought otherwise.

The bible speaks of all Christians as priests, and of Jesus Christ as the great high priest. The New Testament presents Christ as the fulfilment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Hebrews 10.11-14:

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. ​

Can we lay to one side for a moment the etymology of the English word "priest"; the New Testament was written in Greek, a language which had a separate word, hiereus, for the concept of a sacrificing priest, and that word is never used in the New Testament (as far as I know) for elders/presbyters. It is used of Jesus Christ, and a derivative, translated "priesthood", is used in 1 Peter 2.9 of all Christians.

I am not quite sure what sacrifice you do believe an Anglo-Catholic priest is offering, because you say on the on hand that it would be wrong to suggest that the priest is somehow offering a different sacrifice than the one offered by Christ on the cross, yet on the other hand, you also say it would be wrong to suggest that the priest is somehow sacrificing Christ over and over again. So what is he sacrificing? If you say "praise", well, yes, that is biblical, but all Christians are to offer that. (Hebrews 13.15).

 

[David Lamb]

David, what if it could be demonstrated that such practices occurred in the congregations to which St Paul ministered? Would you accuse him of 'adding to God's word'?

Demonstrated from what source? In the New Testament, all sorts of wrong things happened in the churches to which Paul ministered - he wrote against them in his letters. Are you seriously suggesting that the apostle Paul taught:

i) that there was any other high priest (as far as Christians are concerned) than Jesus

ii) that the gospel should be ceremonially "carried in" as part of the service

iii) that there should be monks

iv) that Christians should pray for the dead

v) that Christians should "make the sign of the cross"?

 

[Matt Black]

No, I'm not saying that it can be demonstrated; I'm asking "what if it could?"

 

[Eric B]

I can't speak for Roman Catholics--I'm Anglican Catholic

Wait a minute! I thought you were Eastern Orthodox! Is Anglican what you were converting from? On the profile, it seems other forms of Protestantism were what you were converting from. I thought you were Baptist or something before. And I clearly remember you arguing the EOC as the "one original Church". Isn't that what you were just catechumenated into? (You speak of being Anglican in the present tense).

 

[D28guy]

What is being called "the great protestant fallacy"...sola scriptura/individual interpretation...is in actuality one of the most important and great truths from the scriptures that were gloriously "resurrected" (though they was never completly extinguished) during the great revivals of 400 or so years ago.

All one has to do it look at the wonderful fruit that has come about since those great revivals. A virtual explosion of freedom, grace, and truth. The "simplicity" of the gospel (2 Cor 11:3), and its accompanying great truths, were once again being propagated and lived out.

FREEDOM from falsehood! FREEDOM from bondage! FREEDOM from oppression! FREEDOM from the clutches of man made false religion, and a return to the "glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8:21)

Just think of the great darkness, oppression, idolatries and falsehoods the false Catholic Church of Rome would have so many in bondage to if not for the great awakenings of so long ago.

PRAISE GOD for those Holy Spirit filled brothers and sisters, and their sensitivity to the Spirits voice and guiding.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[David Lamb]

No, I'm not saying that it can be demonstrated; I'm asking "what if it could?"

More would need to be demonstrated than the mere fact that a practice "occurred in the congregations to which St Paul ministered". By no means everything that occured in those local churches was right. The church at Corinth was making the Lord's Supper into a debauched feast, for example. 1 Corinthians 11.22:

What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.​

But if monks, prayers for the dead, making the sign of the cross, and the rest could be shown from the bible to be right, then of course I would not accuse Paul of adding to God's Word.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, let me refine the question further: if it could be shown that these practices were occurring in Paul's congregations and that he didn't rebuke them for them, what then?

 

[grahame]

OK, let me refine the question further: if it could be shown that these practices were occurring in Paul's congregations and that he didn't rebuke them for them, what then?

I suppose we should have to assume that he agreed with them and if he agreed with them, since he was an apostle and since we acknowledge that when he wrote he was under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that those practices would be right and that we Protestants are therefore all heretics and that the church of Rome was right all along. :tonofbricks:

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

You posted...

"

Originally Posted by Matt Black
You may also want to look at the Liturgy of St Mark, much of which dates from the 2nd century also, and which also contains the common liturgical elements."

And David Lamb said...

"It makes no difference which century it dates from - insofar as it adds to what God has revealed in His Word, it is wrong. The very first words of the "liturgy" you point us to are: "The Priest". Yet in the New Testament churches had elders and deacons. We are told in 1 Peter 2.9 that all believers are priests:"

And he is 100% correct. It doesnt make an ounce of difference whether something happened in the 20th century or the 2nd or 3rd century. If the scriptures make clear that its error...then its error. Period. And to wonder whether Paul rebuked them or not is error. Paul DID rebuke the error. Its in the scriptures. In the ones Paul wrote and any others that apply to the error. David Lamb quoted one of the many.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

I suppose we should have to assume that he agreed with them and if he agreed with them, since he was an apostle and since we acknowledge that when he wrote he was under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that those practices would be right and that we Protestants are therefore all heretics and that the church of Rome was right all along. :tonofbricks:

Not quite; Protestants "not right" on this point doesn't necessarily = "Rome right"

[ETA - Mike, show me where the liturgical practices in S Mark's Liturgy are rebuked by S Paul]

 

[David Lamb]

OK, let me refine the question further: if it could be shown that these practices were occurring in Paul's congregations and that he didn't rebuke them for them, what then?

That seems to me to be making a lot of assumptions. Some are:

1. That Paul knew about everything that was happening in every local church he ever preached to.

2. That everything Paul wrote and said to those churches is included in the bible. That is not the case, for in 1 Corinthians 5.9 he mentions a previous letter to the Corinthian church:

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.​

3. That the parts of the bible penned by Paul can somehow be separated from the rest of Scripture.

I assume that you would not be asking the question if you did not believe that you could somehow show that what you call "Paul's congregations" were practicing the monastic life, prayers for the dead, making the sign of the cross, and the rest. If so, perhaps you would let us know how you can show this. If on the other hand your question is totally hypothetical, what is the point of it? (That's not a criticism by the way).

 

[Matt Black]

It is largely hypothetical: the point of my asking it is to demonstrate that not everything done in the 1st and 2nd century congregations needs to be expicitly laid down in Scripture; Scripture is not a 'how-to-do' manual for Church.