Posted on 06/11/2007 8:11:53 PM PDT by markomalley
As for Protestants, who is to decide? I’m not sure what constitutes “core Reformation doctrine.” But I’m sure it would be a real surprise to some of the flakier little charismatic country churches around here that they’re “not Protestant,” because they certainly consider themselves to be so....The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).
Great post, livius! To your point, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. You raise in an interesting problem in that many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject these creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine, and thus there is no simple way of determining whether they are "in the fold" or not.
I would never suggest that creeds are a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that they are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in prior ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes such as you mention. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer.
The practical result of any refusal to use a creed/confession/doctrinal statement of some kind, is such that every time someone wants to investigate a brother's doctrine, they must go through the Bible - all of it - and see how each agrees with each other's reading, point-for-point, of:
All 66 books
All 1,189 chapters
All 31,373 verses
All 775,693 words
...and since those numbers are drwan from the KJV, they'll probably debate whether to limit the reading to the Authorized Version as well. Will each agree with the other's beliefs and doctrines point-for-point? How long will either of them endure the investigation, how much error will either of them permit, before one gets fed up and separates from the other?
By refusing to profess/acknowledge a creed, or at least publish/profess an "articles of faith" / "doctrinal statement", the anti-creedal believer and/or their congregation functionally accomplishes five things:
- a tacit a priori rejection of every prior study and/or codification of doctrine formulated by any church body, at any and every point in church history,The phrase "Protestant" loses meaning when it's used inclusively to speak of everyone "not Catholic and not Orthodox". It becomes a meaningless epithet when used in this manner. IMO "Protestant" should be redefined to be synonymous with the phrase "Reformed", i.e. with the pro-creedal churches that emerged from the Reformation. While there are other churches and denominations that sprang out of that era (and since), they did not form in protest to the excesses of the institutional Catholic Church. Instead, most of them formed as a protest and opposition to the creeds, confessions, and doctrinal distinctives held by the Reformed (Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican etc) churches. In other words, they were part of the counter Reformation/"radical Reformation" movement.
- a practical behavior, if not an outright creed-like belief and teaching, that Wisdom ended in the first century (when special revelation did), effectively dismissing any and all possible wisdom acquired by any bible-believing Christian in any post-NT church era, contrary to Proverbs 2:6-9,
- an allowance of relatively minor points of doctrine (eschatology, worship forms and practices, ecclesiastical government forms, etc) to be granted equal status with major points of doctrine (the Trinity, nature of salvation, etc),
- an allowance for doctrinal stances to shift unknowingly from moment to moment, congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, or even from week to week, without declaration or documentation,
- a willful sequestering of oneself from examination and correction by any congregation, visitors, friends, fellow believers and unbelievers, preventing all from discovering one's actual doctrinal beliefs without forcing a long, arduous and mandatory investigation.
In more recent times, and following in this latter group's tradition, is the Restorationist (Campbellite) movement of the 19th century. Restorationists reject any prior reforms or formal creeds, Catholic or Protestant. Restorationists believe they are returning believers to an authentic "first century church" experience, by attempting to take the church back to a time when no creed had been formed. In our own lifetime we're faced with the Emergent Church phenomenon, which also seeks to throw off historic traditions and orthodoxies that might color how the Bible is understood. They are not protesting in favor of a particular doctrine over another - they are apparently protesting any institutionalizing of traditions, creeds, and exegesis altogether, in a manner similar to the Restorationists.
IMO both groups (and countless non-denominational others) are born of the (false) beliefs that all institutional authority is corrupt by definition, and that the larger/older the institution is, the more corrupt it is. Thus, the Restorationist desire to not form (institutionalize) their congregations into a denomination, to limit ecclesiastical authority to the local church body only, to avoid formulating any binding creeds or statements of faith to be held accountable to. "No Creed but Christ, No Law but Love, No Book but the Bible". To re-write a familiar proverb in Restorationist terms, "you might successfully tie two strands into a cord, but binding three together weakens the whole."
IMO most of the churches that are called "Protestant" by Catholics aren't deserving of that historic title, and it would be wise to understand and recognize the profound differences between them. IMO those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can be said to be "in agreement", since the creeds define what their shared beliefs are, and provide a useful way for insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they are doctrinally and congregationally unified.
I'm not aware of the Royal Crown cola company holding any theological positions. Perhaps their stockholders should be made aware of the goings on ...
Now, do you admit that your musings are merely fallible opinions, or do you claim for yourself the infallible magisterial authority which you derisively deny others?
IIRC,
I’ve always owned my convictions as my own.
It’s the RC folk who have claimed the imprimateur of historical infallibility . . .
quite contrary to historical FACT.
Priceless, AB!
LOL!
You trying to say that we should never accept anything, any position on anything from our Catholic brothers & sisters except official Church documents, in the official Church translation of them? Otherwise, we’d only be getting some opinion that might be in conflict with infallible magisterial authority.
I challenge you to hold yourself to the same standard that you seem to demand of others, less you wanna claim for yourself the infallible magisterial authority.
Indeed, it is not enough to know the Scriptures:
Joshua nor the people even knew there was an accursed thing in their midst. But because of it, God was not with the men who first went to take Ai and they failed horribly. And once the people searched out the abomination and rid themselves of it, repented and sanctified the assembly before God, He again was with them in a great display of power. Indeed, the Tanach has many such examples.
The moral of the story is that assemblies of men can erroneously presume that God is with them when He is not. See also Revelation 2 and 3.
I realize that many here would say that Matt 16:18 protects the succession of a physical assembly of men from the apostles to this day:
In sum, an assembly of men may or may not be comprised solely of the redeemed. If there is an accursed thing in the midst of the assembly, the power of God may not be with the assembly itself even though He is with His own (Romans 8:9) who may be members of the assembly. Conversely, any particular assembly may become empowered by God, or empowered once again. This is the lesson of Joshua 7 et al.
The problem with assemblies of men is the men themselves, i.e. that they are men. It has been said that a camel is the horse a committee would have built. The Internal Revenue Code is another example – as is the rest of our huge body of civil and criminal laws and regulations. The legislatures busy themselves making things all the more complicated and huge.
And the same is true of all assemblies of men who promulgate doctrines and traditions – whether Judaic or Christian or whatever.
By contrast, Truth is elegant – so elegant it can be spoken in a parable and thereby hidden in plain view. (Matt 13)
Moreover, some of the doctrines and traditions of men can be as harmless as the color of the garment a minister or priest shall wear. Or they can be a frivolous waste of time:
Likewise, following the John 10 metaphor, a spiritually or physically injured lamb should let the Shepherd pick him up to heal him – but because he is still just a lamb, he might resist and surely, having the other, mature sheep around him in the pen to encourage him would be helpful.
But pens and sheep aside, the only truly important part is that His Name be hallowed, that His Will be done, that His Kingdom come.
To God be the glory.
I invite you to have a glance at Dave Armstrong's books or even glance at his website. It appears that your position is not far from ours and he has had extensive dialogs with Protestants of every Confession. It may be illuminating. We often reject what we THINK others believe!
In the Peace of Christ!
Frank
but I’ll put my stock there over some loftier ecclesiastical body of power mongering bureaucrats . . . of any denomination . . .
Well, let's take a look at what the Scriptures say about doctrinal disputes:
In Acts 15, there was a dispute as to whether new converts need obey the Mosaic law (Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved). Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them (Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them). The people from the local church dispatched them to get advice from the elders in their hierarchy (Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question) to get a ruling.
There continued to be a disagreement (But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.").
So a council was convened with the hierarchy representing the entire Church (The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.)
There was considerable discussion and debate. The council finally came up with a decision on the matter and published the findings of the council, believing that the Holy Spirit had moved the council toward that end. The letter was written in the name of those present at the council on the authority of the Church (Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.")
Paul and Barnabas were entrusted with this letter and distributed it. (So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.)
They communicated the council's findings to the people and those findings were accepted, resolving the dispute (And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation.)
That, Quix, is the way that disputes are scripturally resolved. You will note that it was not all dependent upon the leader of a local community as the final authority, it was resolved by the use of a council with the hierarchy from the entire Church.
You ask a very good question about 'proper.' That's a big reason why this collegial approach was used in the early Church (starting with this council). No one person could be deceived and fly off into left field.
While that is often true, we do reject what we think others believe, there is a clear divide that will never be healed until God makes it happen.
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written:
"I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."
Men have been trying to regather together the whole flock ever since, but in truth, we NEED our shepherd to do it. We're working from only a small sliver of all knowledge. We have no way to read, much less mold the hearts of men. Is it any wonder we fail so miserably?
Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch & pray, so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.
The disciples kept falling asleep instead of keeping watch.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to be pounding square pegs into round holes & calling it good. I think we can learn from each other. Each of the sides of the divide will go back to the authority that works for us to mold it & that is just the way that it is gonna have to be until the boss shows up. JMHO
I had an earlier discussion some time ago with some Protestants about creedal groups and non-creedal groups, and Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian groups, and it did help me to get a better understanding of the things under the "Protestant" umbrella. I really don't know where to begin on the interesting points your post raised, but one thing struck me as a commonality:
Restorationists believe they are returning believers to an authentic "first century church" experience, by attempting to take the church back to a time when no creed had been formed. In our own lifetime we're faced with the Emergent Church phenomenon, which also seeks to throw off historic traditions and orthodoxies that might color how the Bible is understood.
I didn't know these people were called Restorationists in the Protestant churches, but they are very similar to many of the people who were behind the truly horrible changes of Vatican II, which were aimed at "restoring" some supposedly purer form of the Church, and were products of the "higher Biblical criticism" movement and very much influenced by certain 19th century German Protestants. At some point, possibly because of French Orientalism, the "discovery" of the Middle East by the Germans and the British, and the 19th century obsession with archeology, collecting and museology, Biblical studies seem to have become infected with a strange belief that proto-Christianity (as they had reconstructed it) was the only true and authentic form, and everything else was not a development but a corruption.
I think this had a lot to do with non-theological and in fact non-church related currents in 19th century historical and literary thought. What we saw in Vatican II and probably in the Restorationists of the 20th and present centuries was perhaps actually the outcome of a nonreligous intellectual movement that began in the middle to late 19th century, in other words, nearly 150 years ago.
Well, we can all see how well "restoring" the mythical purity works...Thank you for a very, very informative post.
Not so! Whenever you assert that "such-and-such" is or is not "Biblical" you're making your own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture into Magisterial Teaching. Or not. But if not, if it really is just your own, personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture then it's no better than anyone else's. Under such circumstances, to dismiss the other guy's claim as "nonsense", and to do so with extreme derision is the height of hubris.
If that's where you're at, fine. Just sayin' ...
Now ... would you mind telling me what the Rock-Ola Company means by "historical infallibility"? I've never heard that term before.
Funny that you should mention that timeframe. One of the odd discoveries that I made in my readings of history regards an area in upstate New York sometimes called the Burned Over District.
The "burned over district" is a geographical reference to the Hudson River Valley in upstate New York. Unitarianism, Mormonism, Restorationism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and a host of other anti-creedal "proto Christianity" movements (including Charles Finney's revivals) all sprang up or focused their efforts in this one geographic area, within a span of but a few decades. IIRC, Finney referred to it as "burned over" because it's inhabitants were resistant to his revivals, as if the area had been scorched clean of all flammable wood. It fascinates me because there's a shared geography and chronology, as well as the common rejection of the historic creeds, that's held by all of these groups.
This part of western New York became famous after the Erie Canal for its history of revivalism, radicalism, communitarian experiments. It was fertile ground for new ideas to take root and spread to other parts of the country. It became a "psychic highway" for New Englanders who left the East and headed West in search of new ways of life
- from The Burned Over District
Actually, more or less, yes. The actual formal teaching of the Church, based on the Sacred Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition, guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and expressed in eg. Councils and Encyclicals IS the standard of belief to which any Catholic (should) hold himself. And that's all in the public domain. Anything else is just my own private, personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture.
Surprised?
You shouldn't be ... I have no desire whatsoever to commit heresy. If I'm found to be maintaining some theological position which is at odds with Catholic Dogma or Catholic Doctrine, by all means let me know. I certainly wish to correct the error.
Beware, though ... not all the musings of priests, bishops, or even popes are Catholic Dogma or Catholic Doctrine.
The problem, of course, is with the Protestants who have no objective standard to which they can refer. "The Scripture Alone" effectively makes every man his own pope ... and leads to chaos.
bp, you have GOT to read Alamo-Girl's post!!! Bumping that A-G!
That’s Dr. Pepper’s hyphenated wife, Dr. Pepper-Grapette.
NEVER trust a hyphenated woman. Particularly not one with a Ph.D.
See post #141. Some of us have more objective standards than others.
Congratulations ... that’s a step in the right direction. Or at least a refusal to take a bunch of steps in the wrong direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.