Christianity In The USA

[GodfatherPartTwo]

A copy of a copy of a copy does not in fact bring anyone closer to the original/source.

Huh? This is Bart Ehrman level. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ecclesiologies took their shape.

The thread is about Christianity in the USA, and the vast majority identify as some form of Protestant, but what essential doctrines must one hold to be considered 'Protestant'? It seems to be more defined by what it is not, or what it is against, than actually having an identity of its own. Ask 10 mainstream American Christians what it means to be a Christian and you'll get 10 different answers.

Can't speak for your kind of "Protestant." But the historical Protestant tradition has been summed up well in the Five Solas. You would be hard pressed to find any Protestant to reject any one of those. Even the broader Evangelical movement is still fairly solid on them, the conservatives at least. Your "10 different answers" comment is also a stretch. I have the hunch that if you ask 10 American Christians what it means to be a Christian, most of the answers you get will be something to the effect of being a follower or believer in Jesus.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I have "featured" this thread. It will now appear prominently at the top of the home page and under the "featured content" section.

Keep up the good work everyone.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

Huh? This is Bart Ehrman level. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the ecclesiologies took their shape.

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.
Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?
As far as I am concerned, anyone who preaches Jesus as the Christ and believes in Him as God's only Son (who died and rose again to redeem all of creation) & the only way to the Father and is a follower of Him, can be considered a Christian.
However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).
Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

 

[Blade Runner]

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.
Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?
As far as I am concerned, anyone who preaches Jesus as the Christ and believes in Him as God's only Son (who died and rose again to redeem all of creation) & the only way to the Father and is a follower of Him, can be considered a Christian.
However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).
Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

Good points.

A quick summary of what you say, and many others have said, is that the question "What must I do to be saved?" is not asking "What must I do minimally to be saved?" which is how most humans tend to take it, and most broken humans who want people on their side (simple living, assurance, followers) will tend to put forth.

That's the point. Good teachings and faith traditions don't focus on the lowest of the low to encourage humanity towards better things, especially godly things.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'll ignore the low blow and redirect this back to my point about John Calvin and OSAS.

I didn't mean it as a low blow. That is literally how Ehrman has articulated the Bible. If you are consistent with that kind of epistemology, you'll follow it right out of Christianity altogether.

Is John Calvin's teaching closer to what Jesus, the Apostles or the early church fathers taught, or is it based off of his understanding of the church of his day, his understanding of the text and his personal context? In history, there were 1500 years of church tradition before Luther and Calvin, so was all of that theology and practice incorrect until the Reformation?

I recommend that you read the Institutes. "Calvin vs 1500 years of tradition" is both anachronistic and inaccurate. The idea that the first 1500 years is a monolith is a myth. The fact that you have multiple churches claiming to be "the church of the first 1500 years" is all the evidence you need to see that.

Your first question, the answer is a bit of both. I don't see a dichotomy there. Second question, no, not all the theology was incorrect, but it's imprecise to flatten out the first 1500 years as if there were no doctrinal developments, schisms, controversies, political maneuverings, etc.

In addition, one of the fundamental flaws of sola scriptura is that not all of the traditions of the church are contained there. What of the 'doctrine of the Apostles' as mentioned in Acts 2:42? What are the things God spoke directly to the prophets? What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?

If a church contains a tradition that is not in Scripture, then the "fault" is in that church and not the Scripture. This is not a "flaw" or a bug, but a feature.

Acts 2:42: And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

Not sure what you see in this other than what it says. In context, the Apostle's teaching = the Gospel.

What of John 21:25, where not even all of the acts of Jesus himself were recorded?

How is this an evidence against Sola Scriptura? Are these unrecorded things we need to know? Does Oral Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? Why not read the previous chapter?

John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

However, achieving a form of fullness in one's walk with God means being a part of the church. Not that it is in itself necessary for salvation, but life is meant to be lived in community. St Paul commands believers to assemble (and not just gathering for 1.5 hrs every Sunday).

No one's arguing against this.

Where things get murky and waters are quite muddied is when folks start splitting hairs about doctrines and ideas that were never taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles. My gial is not to be hypercritical but just look at the state of Protestant churches in North America. Something is clearly amiss...

If Protestants split hairs over what the Bible teaches, how much more do you think non-Protestants split hairs over what the Bible doesn't teach? As I said above, look into the history of the schisms. The idea that the first 1500 years was the Church living in static harmony is a lie.

 

[starlight]

I didn't mean it as a low blow. That is literally how Ehrman has articulated the Bible. If you are consistent with that kind of epistemology, you'll follow it right out of Christianity altogether.


I recommend that you read the Institutes. "Calvin vs 1500 years of tradition" is both anachronistic and inaccurate. The idea that the first 1500 years is a monolith is a myth. The fact that you have multiple churches claiming to be "the church of the first 1500 years" is all the evidence you need to see that.

Your first question, the answer is a bit of both. I don't see a dichotomy there. Second question, no, not all the theology was incorrect, but it's imprecise to flatten out the first 1500 years as if there were no doctrinal developments, schisms, controversies, political maneuverings, etc.


If a church contains a tradition that is not in Scripture, then the "fault" is in that church and not the Scripture. This is not a "flaw" or a bug, but a feature.

Acts 2:42: And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

Not sure what you see in this other than what it says. In context, the Apostle's teaching = the Gospel.


How is this an evidence against Sola Scriptura? Are these unrecorded things we need to know? Does Oral Tradition tell us what other things Jesus did? Why not read the previous chapter?

John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


No one's arguing against this.


If Protestants split hairs over what the Bible teaches, how much more do you think non-Protestants split hairs over what the Bible doesn't teach? As I said above, look into the history of the schisms. The idea that the first 1500 years was the Church living in static harmony is a lie.

Also, just to add on to what you already wrote, about the first 1500 years of Christianity and Luther and the Reformation: his 95 Theses were a critique of heresies of the Catholic church at that very specific time. Ironically, many of those very theses and critiques were addressed and utilized during the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done given that the Catholic church had vilified, exiled, and excommunicated many devote Catholics with no possible reconciliation.