The Great Protestant Fallacy

[Doubting Thomas]

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).

No I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but you aren't imagining things--I did start the catechumeate in an EOC parish. However, I haven't been to an EOC service in almost 1 1/2 years (the last one I attended was Pascha 2006). And you are also right in that I used to be Southern Baptist--that's how I grew up. However, to make a long story short, I realized that just as one didn't have to be 'Roman' to be 'catholic', one didn't have to be 'Eastern' to be 'orthodox'. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit went <poof!> and vanished from either half of the Church in 1054. At any rate, I've been attending an Anglican Catholic parish for a year and half now. (I haven't figured out how to update the 'Denomination' indicator on my profile, but I do at least show 'Anglican Catholic' next to my church.)

 

[grahame]

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.

And of course we don't necessarily do what the first century Christians did either. What about holding all things common?

neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common.

How many churches do that nowerdays?

 

[David Lamb]

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.

Whether or not the bible is a 'how-to-do' manual, it most certainly is a "what to believe" manual. Does it teach us to believe that the monastic life is right, that it is right to believe in praying for the dead?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

Indeed--the Church was established and existed for about 2 decades before the first NT Scripture was even written. The Church existed for about 60-70 years before the final NT Scripture was finished. The writings that were penned were in the genre of narratives and epistles--not detailed church manuals or works on systematic theology. (The closest thing to a manual was probably the Didache which ultimately didn't make the canon).

 

[Matt Black]

Whether or not the bible is a 'how-to-do' manual, it most certainly is a "what to believe" manual. Does it teach us to believe that the monastic life is right, that it is right to believe in praying for the dead?

Depends whose interpretation is correct

[ETA - eg: on monasticism and celibacy, Jesus' instruction to the rich young ruler to sell all he has, give to the poor and come follow Him, His discourse about some being eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God, S Paul's dicsourse on marriage in I Cor 7 etc]

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Mike, show me where the liturgical practices in S Mark's Liturgy are rebuked by S Paul."

The only thing we see in the scriptures...after God took the believers out of Jerusalem as He desired...was simple meetings, similar to normal evangelical/pentecostal meetings of today.

No complex liturgies.

No cultic "priestly" class of "go-betweens" to connect the "regular" christians to God.

No cult like "we (the priestly "go betweens") are the ones who understand Gods truth, WE tell YOU what to believe" mentality, etc etc etc.

They gathered in homes, praised God together, learned from the scriptures, partook of the Lords Supper memorial, and then dispersed and told everyone about the good things God had done for them.

Here is a passage of scripture that, although it has original references to the old covenant Law, seems to speak prophetically to the erronious "liturgical" mindset of groups like the Catholic Church and EOC.

Keep in mind, to the Catholic Church the daily and weekly "Mass" is a real and literal sacrifice, only without blood....

"Hebrews 10
Animal Sacrifices Insufficient

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
Christ’s Death Fulfills God’s Will


5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:


“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”



8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law),

9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Christ’s Death Perfects the Sanctified


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.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Hold Fast Your Confession


19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,

21 and having a High Priest over the house of God,

22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works,

25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."

God bless,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Mike,
I don't see anything in the Hebrews 10 passage you quoted that would contradict the liturgical remembrance of and participation in the ONE Sacrifice of our Lord.
Regards,
DT

 

[Eric B]

No I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but you aren't imagining things--I did start the catechumeate in an EOC parish. However, I haven't been to an EOC service in almost 1 1/2 years (the last one I attended was Pascha 2006). And you are also right in that I used to be Southern Baptist--that's how I grew up. However, to make a long story short, I realized that just as one didn't have to be 'Roman' to be 'catholic', one didn't have to be 'Eastern' to be 'orthodox'. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit went <poof!> and vanished from either half of the Church in 1054. At any rate, I've been attending an Anglican Catholic parish for a year and half now. (I haven't figured out how to update the 'Denomination' indicator on my profile, but I do at least show 'Anglican Catholic' next to my church.)

Wow, I thought you were still arguing for the East more recently than that. Like last winter, at least. That the Spirit did not remain in only one organization is one of the things I was arguing. You were so adamant about the "one true Church" (meaning denomination) as opposed to "all the hundreds of conflicting schismatic groups of Protestantism". The Anglicans are sort of between Catholic and Protestant. It was basically the English Catholic Church, but it did break off around the same time all of the other groups broke off. Yet, since they no longer were following the Pope, and the American branch of this church is Episcopal, which is strictly considered "Protestant", it is technically Protestant.
So isn't this a "schism" to you? Or you don't argue on "schism" any more?
I know that as a high Protestant, it still holds the doctrines you argue over. Still, to say you can be "orthodox" in that church, aren't the Anglicans Augustinian in soteriology? And what about filioque?

 

[David Lamb]

Depends whose interpretation is correct

[ETA - eg: on monasticism and celibacy, Jesus' instruction to the rich young ruler to sell all he has, give to the poor and come follow Him, His discourse about some being eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God, S Paul's dicsourse on marriage in I Cor 7 etc]

Matt, we could go on like this forever, because we differ on the basic issue of authority. I believe that God's Word is our sole authority for what we believe, and you (if I have understood you correctly) believe that it is God's Word as interpreted by "the church".

I would just say that it is an enormous leap from Jesus telling the rich young ruler to go and sell all he has, give to the poor and follow Him, to some men living in a monastry with all that that may imply, which I know will depend on the so-called "order". It is the same with Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 7. However one interprets that passage, there is nothing in it about clergy, monks and nuns remaining unmarried.

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"Mike,
I don't see anything in the Hebrews 10 passage you quoted that would contradict the liturgical remembrance of and participation in the ONE Sacrifice of our Lord.
Regards,
DT"

According to the Catholic Church, during the sacrifice of the Mass it is a real sacrifice taking place, right then. Every time a mass takes place, Christ is being sacrificed again, only without blood.

If that were not the case, there would be no need for them to make the distinction..."without blood", since Christ DID shed blood 2000 years ago.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia....

"Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar."

"If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:
a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

The scriptures I posted from Hebrews make clear that we are sanctified and justified thought he one

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"Mike, I don't see anything in the Hebrews 10 passage you quoted that would contradict the liturgical remembrance of and participation in the ONE Sacrifice of our Lord.

Regards,

DT"

According to the Catholic Church, during the sacrifice of the Mass it is a real sacrifice taking place, right then. Every time a mass takes place, Christ is being sacrificed again, only without blood.

If that were not the case, there would be no need for them to make the distinction..."without blood", since Christ DID shed blood 2000 years ago.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia....

"Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion, the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed to call the communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the altar."

"If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a sacrifice:
a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

The scriptures I posted from Hebrews make clear that we are justified in Gods eyes through the ONE sacrifice of Christ...2000 years ago...and NOT by continual and literal re-sacrificing of Christ over and over and over and over again over the course of 2000 years, as the Catholic church teaches.

What the Catholic Church is ingaging in regarding this topic is nothing less than idolatry and blasphemy of the worst sort.

May God have mercy.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, we could go on like this forever, because we differ on the basic issue of authority. I believe that God's Word is our sole authority for what we believe, and you (if I have understood you correctly) believe that it is God's Word as interpreted by "the church".

Really? I thought we were meant to worship and follow Jesus Christ, not a book. Oh well...

I would just say that it is an enormous leap from Jesus telling the rich young ruler to go and sell all he has, give to the poor and follow Him, to some men living in a monastry with all that that may imply, which I know will depend on the so-called "order". It is the same with Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 7. However one interprets that passage, there is nothing in it about clergy, monks and nuns remaining unmarried.

Not so much an enormous leap as a (theo)logical conclusion.

 

[D28guy]

I just noticed that I somehow posted duplicate posts. I messed up somehow when editing I believe. Please ignore post 210 in this thread, since it is cut off. and refer to post 211, which is complete.

Sorry!

Mike

 

[David Lamb]

Really? I thought we were meant to worship and follow Jesus Christ, not a book. Oh well...

I can't remember ever saying that we should "worship a book". If I inadvertently said it, it was in error; I certainly do not believe it.

 

[Matt Black]

No, you didn't say we were to worship the Bible; but your posts do seem to elevate the status of the Bible above that of Christ.

 

[David Lamb]

No, you didn't say we were to worship the Bible; but your posts do seem to elevate the status of the Bible above that of Christ.

That is certainly not my intention. However, Christ is not physically present with us today. We find out about Him from the bible. I know from what you have written before that you would not fully agree with that - you would possibly say that it is through the teachings of the church. If you do, it would surely be no more true for me to say that you elevate the status of church above that of Jesus Christ, as for you to say that I elevate the staus of the bible above that of the Saviour.

 

[Matt Black]

Christ is physically present today - through and in His Church which, far from being elevated above Him, is indeed His Body; now, that's Scriptural - I Cor 10:16, 12:14; Eph 3:6, 4:12, 5:23, Col 1:18

 

[BobRyan]

John 1 "THE WORD became flesh and dwelt among us"

In Rev 19 Christ is called "the WORD of God"

David Lamb
Originally Posted by David Lamb
Matt, we could go on like this forever, because we differ on the basic issue of authority. I believe that God's Word is our sole authority for what we believe, and you (if I have understood you correctly) believe that it is God's Word as interpreted by "the church".

Good point.

MB

Really? I thought we were meant to worship and follow Jesus Christ, not a book. Oh well...

The division you seek between Christ and His WORD does not exist which is why the authority of scripture his held as the rule and standard against which all church tradition and church-evolving-doctrine is judged.

Is 8

20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

[/B]
Gal 1 "Though we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to what has been given -- they are to be accursed"
in Christ,

Bob

 

[David Lamb]

Christ is physically present today - through and in His Church which, far from being elevated above Him, is indeed His Body; now, that's Scriptural - I Cor 10:16, 12:14; Eph 3:6, 4:12, 5:23, Col 1:18

Sorry Matt, I perhaps should have written, "Christ is not physically present in person as He was between His Incarnation and His Ascension." And yes, of course it is scriptural to say that Christ's church is His body, but He Himself is still the Head of His church. Surely you are not saying that when people come into contact with Christ's church, it is exactly the same as if they had come into contact with Him when He walked this earth.

 

[Matt Black]

David, no the two 'Presences' are not on all fours with each other; however, arguably, what we have now is better than when Jesus was Incarnate here on earth - did He not say that we, His Church, would do "greater things" than Him (John 14:12)?

The division you seek between Christ and His WORD does not exist which is why the authority of scripture his held as the rule and standard against which all church tradition and church-evolving-doctrine is judged.

Except that you do not take Christ at His word when eg: He tells of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. To reiterate - for me as a Christian, Christ is the supreme authority.