Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[The Penitent Man]

Penitent, take the time to read this:

The Perspicuity of Scripture in the Early Church

I have written before on sola Scriptura in the early church, but now I want to give you some quotations on the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture in the writings of the early church fathers in con…

jamesattebury.wordpress.com

The guys you are listening to, and the line you're falling for, is the imperspicuity of Scripture. No one in the early Church believed the Scriptures were unclear. Just the opposite, they all believed the Scriptures are indeed clear. This is one proof among many that the guys you're listening to are not the guys "who were there before the lens broke" nor are they a "consistent and reliable source."

Here's a guy who was actually there "before the lens broke" saying the opposite of what you're saying above:

Hey thanks for posting this, will read through it when I get a sec. Gotta return to the Monday grind.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I can point to scripture that states otherwise.

No Scripture states otherwise. Everything in the Scripture can be understood by reading it. Or as the Church fathers and Reformers say, by using ordinary means (reading it + believing in it).

In Acts chapter 8 the Ethiopian tells Philip that he can’t understand scripture unless someone explains it to him.

Are you saying that the Scriptures clearly teach that they are unclear?

I’m sure you can point out scripture that supports your position.

I can, such as Timothy "knowing the Scriptures from childhood." The Bereans testing Paul's Gospel by appealing to the Old Testament. Paul saying that the Scriptures are able (not unable) to fully equip the man of God for doctrine and every good work.

That is the problem with Sola Scriptura.

You being out of accord with both the Bible and the early church is the problem with Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that when it comes to Scripture and Tradition, Scripture comes out on top everytime. This was the view of the early church. This is also Jesus' own view of the Scripture. If Jesus is your teacher, perhaps you should share His view of Scripture as well:

Mark 7:6-9:
And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

The Orthodox by no means have a diminished view of the scriptures. Everything we do is based on them. A significant portion of our services are the scriptures.

They do have a diminished view of Scripture since they need to filter it according to their tradition. They're not even shy about admitting that. Why do you think they insist the Scriptures are unclear and that they need to be the ones to interpret it for you?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For those who think the Scripture is unclear, 2 Corinthians 4:4 speaks well of you.

2but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

“Some people who have fallen foul of this complaint have endeavored to level charges at the divine Scripture, and especially the inspired oracles, of being shrouded in obscurity. To such people the divine-inspired Paul would retort, ‘Now, even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, but to the mature it is wisdom we are speaking.’ In keeping with this, too, is what is said by our Lord and savior to the holy apostles, ‘To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, whereas to those others it is not given;’ and to explain the reason he immediately adds, ‘Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not understand’ — that is, they willingly bring upon themselves the cloud of ignorance: if they turn to the Lord, as the apostle says, the veil will be lifted. Divine realities, therefore, are not obscure to everyone, only to those who are voluntarily blind; they ought to take note and realize that nothing worthwhile is readily accessible to human beings” (Theodoret of Cyrus, In Ezechielem – Præfatio, [PG 81.808-809]).

 

[Aboulia]

He is also known for pointing out that the three-tiered office of the church that Catholics and Orthodox have is not the original system of church government that the Apostles established and that the Scriptures present. He pointed out that the Apostles used a two-office government of Bishops and Deacons, the same that Protestants use today.

You can't even read Jerome right let alone the Scriptures.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 146 (Jerome)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also. Again when a man is promoted it is from a lower place to a higher. Either then a presbyter should be ordained a deacon, from the lesser office, that is, to the more important, to prove that a presbyter is inferior to a deacon; or if on the other hand it is the deacon that is ordained presbyter, this latter should recognize that, although he may be less highly paid than a deacon, he is superior to him in virtue of his priesthood. In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron his sons, and the Levites in the temple.

Edit: furthermore Protestants don't use the same government (outside of possibly Anglicans, not knowledgeable enough about them) because they can't, They don't have authority passed down and as anyone who doesn't pass through the gate but climbs in another way is a thief and robber(John 10:1) At best your 500 year old social club has a mockery and imitation of sacraments.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You can't even read Jerome right let alone the Scriptures.

Here you go:

Jerome on the Development of the Monoepiscopacy - Truth Unites

Jerome’s commentary on Titus 1:5 contains an important testimony about the development of the monoepiscopacy in the early church (in addition to various statements in…

truthunites.org

These things [have been said] in order to show that to the men of old the same men who were the priests were also the bishops; but gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people.”

St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 289-290).

Before you determine if I can read Jerome correctly, you might want to inquire which portion of Jerome I'm referring to. The above point is enough to refute Orthodoxy's claims of being the Apostolic Church. It doesn't even have the same church government as the Apostolic Church.

 

[Northumber]

It always seems the Protestant posture is to pick apart versus a Catholic or Orthodox posture, which is to put together. I'm basically restating how I understand this apostolic succession question. I assume this is what the debate about governance is about?

From the protestant perspective, how can there be a unifying trend to be pointed to, for the Christian Church, throughout history? What is in the mind of protestants here?

 

[Aboulia]

Before you determine if I can read Jerome correctly, you might want to inquire which portion of Jerome I'm referring to. The above point is enough to refute Orthodoxy's claims of being the Apostolic Church. It doesn't even have the same church government as the Apostolic Church.

So, as more people joined and the church expanded as a structure, the needs necessitated a greater government as precedented in Acts 6, the more aged and experienced taking the senior role "as they ought" as St Jerome affirms.

In your view, since the Church expanded it is therefore invalidated as the Apostolic Church?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It always seems the Protestant posture is to pick apart versus a Catholic or Orthodox posture, which is to put together.

The Protestant posture is to pick apart post-Apostolic tradition in order to put back together a Biblical/Apostolic worldview. The reverse is true for the counter posture, where the Bible is picked apart in order to put together a tradition.

I'm basically restating how I understand this apostolic succession question. I assume this is what the debate about governance is about?

Apostolic Succession is an aside from Church Government, though they are related issues. The "traditional" models for Apostolic Succession are predicated on the Monoepiscopacy. If the Monoepiscopacy is a development, and it is indeed a development, then these models for Apostolic Succession are left without any grounding.

From the protestant perspective, how can there be a unifying trend to be pointed to, for the Christian Church, throughout history? What is in the mind of protestants here?

According to the Bible, the early church, and the Protestant confessions, the unifying principle for all of the Church is Christ Himself, or the confession of Christ as Lord.

LBCF (for example)
26:2 All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the gospel and obedience to God through Christ in keeping with the gospel are and may be called visible saints, as long as they do not destroy their own profession by any foundational errors or unholy living. All local congregations ought to be made up of these.

If you assert that faith in Christ is too spiritual to function as a unifying principle, then you would be hard pressed to find a merely institutional unifying principle, since it was on account of these, namely councils, popes, bishops, that the early church underwent many schisms.

Here is one Gregory of Nazianzus' view of the councils:

For my part, if I am to write the truth, my inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops, because I have never seen any Council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils. On the contrary, it usually increases them. You always find there love of contention and love of power (I hope you will not think me a bore, for writing like this), which beggar description; and, while sitting in judgment on others, a man might well be convicted of ill-doing himself long before he should put down the ill-doings of his opponents. So I retired into myself; and came to the conclusion that the only security for one's soul lies in keeping quiet. Now, moreover, this determination of mine is supported by ill-health; for I am always on the point of breathing my last, and am hardly able to employ myself to any effect. I trust, therefore, that, of your generosity, you will make allowances for me, and that you will be good enough to persuade our most religious Emperor also not to condemn me for taking things quietly, but to make allowances for my ill-health. He knows how it was on this very account that he consented to my retirement, when I petitioned for this in preference to any other mark of his favour.

In your view, since the Church expanded it is therefore invalidated as the Apostolic Church?

"Expanded" is an interesting word for "changing the Church government." Jerome does not say the government was changed because the Church "expanded." He says that it was changed in order to counter divisions. I think the history can tell plainly that this change was not successful for the purpose it was set out to do.

It's very simple, if someone claims to be the "one, true, unchanging church" then I'm not going to simply take their word for it, but test their claim by objective standards. "Test the spirits" as John says. If I can see the evidence that it took centuries, even a millenia, of changes in order for your denomination to come about, I'm going to deem the original claim as false.

 

[Aboulia]

"Expanded" is an interesting word for "changing the Church government." Jerome does not say the government was changed because the Church "expanded." He says that it was changed in order to counter divisions. I think the history can tell plainly that this change was not successful for the purpose it was set out to do.

It's very simple, if someone claims to be the "one, true, unchanging church" then I'm not going to simply take their word for it, but test their claim by objective standards. "Test the spirits" as John says. If I can see the evidence that it took centuries, even a millenia, of changes in order for your denomination to come about, I'm going to deem the original claim as false

You sure are full of your own opinions. The countless saints that the Church has produced/is producing from the Apostles to more modern saints like St John of San Francisco and St Nektarios of Aegina shows it's still fulfilling it's purpose.

The Church grows and adapts to combat problems, as shown in the example of Acts 6:1-4, It's both a divine and living organism, but it's telos remains unchanged. Countering divisions is needed for anything to continue to exist. It's kind of how things work. If a zebra doesn't run fast enough it's eaten by a lion, and if the Church doesn't adapt to overcome administrative problems and outright heresies, then bad behaviours are encouraged and ill formed ideas multiply and the Gospel is obscured. After all, the Gospel of John was written at the request of bishops to combat heresies, for if a problem doesn't arise, there would be no need to make that request.

I don't accept you as capable of discerning what is true or false. Anyone is free to read this thread in entirety and the old thread https://christisking.cc/threads/deacon-ananias-vs-matt-slick-sola-scriptura.117/ which do the best job of showing the incoherence of your beliefs.

 

[Northumber]

The Protestant posture is to pick apart post-Apostolic tradition in order to put back together a Biblical/Apostolic worldview. The reverse is true for the counter posture, where the Bible is picked apart in order to put together a tradition.

It seems to me it should all go together.

Apostolic Succession is an aside from Church Government, though they are related issues. The "traditional" models for Apostolic Succession are predicated on the Monoepiscopacy. If the Monoepiscopacy is a development, and it is indeed a development, then these models for Apostolic Succession are left without any grounding.

Seems like there would still be a grounding without a institution-like structure like a Monoepiscopacy (although I don't know exactly what you mean by that). The grounding, to me, would essentially be that you are going with a group of people that you trust (without going into all the specific reasons why, but obviously we trust the group of people who wrote Scripture.)

According to the Bible, the early church, and the Protestant confessions, the unifying principle for all of the Church is Christ Himself, or the confession of Christ as Lord.

LBCF (for example)
26:2 All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the gospel and obedience to God through Christ in keeping with the gospel are and may be called visible saints, as long as they do not destroy their own profession by any foundational errors or unholy living. All local congregations ought to be made up of these.

What is funny is that I read this and think, yeah, that sounds about right, (I bet even a Catholic or Orthodox would too) but I know if people got into what is meant by "keeping with the gospel" or "foundation errors" there would be crazy disagreement.

If you assert that faith in Christ is too spiritual to function as a unifying principle, then you would be hard pressed to find a merely institutional unifying principle, since it was on account of these, namely councils, popes, bishops, that the early church underwent many schisms.

My assertion is that institutions, in general, represent a breakdown, or distancing from a greater, more natural, and deeper connection. Institutions can provide a practical structure but they also function as a kind of barrier to integrity. I think there is always a "have your cake and eat it too" type of Faustian bargain that happens with institutions. I suspect the Church is much greater than an institution, not only mystical but also incarnate and organic, as opposed to institutional, in nature. (and part of being organic is some messiness)