Early Church - Modern church

[lutheran52381]

Admin note:
This topic has been split from the original thread, "New - Lutheran Christian" in the "New Members" forum, to field the questions in the appropriate place.

Hello, I just want to ask everyone, if you know something about the early church? And why does the modern churches now, did not practice the same traditions before.

All I know, is the tradition of the Word... The Sola Scriptura. But lately, it becomes idolatry in the sense, that my fellow Protestant, worship the book, than what it meant.

This is an eye opening for me. To know the truth....

Could you please help me? :biglol

 

[Blazin Bones]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask 52381. :gah

 

[lutheran52381]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask 52381. :gah

Well, I can put my inquiries these way: 1) What are we protesting about?
2) Why isn't the more I defend our belief the
more I become inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?
For example: God said do not make any images, but why is
God, tell Moises to build am arc of the covenant, and put
two cherubim? Plus, why make so important with that box?
I am just asking.... :help

 

[A-Christian]

Why isn't the more I defend our belief the
more I become inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?

Because you may be mis-interpretting the bible. Don't feel bad, the bible is easily mis-interpretted. I suggest you read the writings, ALL the writings, of the early Church fathers. A very good book is "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William Jurgens. It is a three volume series and here is a link to volume one. If you really want to know what the early christians thought and taught, start here.
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Vol-1/dp/0814604323

Peace

 

[amg0364730]

Are you turning Catholic Now?

 

[Cornelius]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask 52381. :gah

Well, I can put my inquiries these way: 1) What are we protesting about?
2) Why isn't the more I defend our belief the
more I become inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?
For example: God said do not make any images, but why is
God, tell Moises to build am arc of the covenant, and put
two cherubim? Plus, why make so important with that box?
I am just asking.... :help

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,

The answer is in , "thous shalt not bow down thyself unto them , nor serve them"

God has no problem with anybody making a statue, but He has a problem if you want to bow down and worship it.

.............

Stick to the Word only, no matter what people say. There is no higher authority to the believer,because it is the Word of God. God agrees with every letter, and so should we.

Those who tell you otherwise, has no answer for you about what or who else you should follow. Some will tell you to look at old human teachings , but do not fall for it. Stay in the Word only.

C

 

[shad]

C,

I think I understand why lutheran is asking this question. I had the same nagging question but have been squashing it. Why did God tell His people to make tabernacle?

 

[Cornelius]

My friend, I have not studied the tabernacle I know its built according to pattern. Patterns reflect spiritual things. I know too little to venture out and tell you something that matters.

I have bits and pieces , but I don't think I am going to be able to make a educated post about it, so I will pass. Google it, I am sure there are many people out there who have studied it . If you find something interesting, then please share it . Maybe a separate thread would work ?

C

 

[lutheran52381]

Now this is what I think we are protesting about.

We protest because of the Pope and its Roman Catholic's traditions. But hey we had also traditions!

We believe in SOLA FIDES, means faith alone, and also SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scriptures alone), and this is our long lived traditions.

Look at this, in EXODUS 20:4 it said " You shall not make for yourself an Idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth" Now, we believe it and agreed on it. That is why we do not have statues or icons or even relics.

BUT IN EXODUS 25:18 "YOU SHALL MAKE TWO CHERUBIM OF GOLD you shall make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat."

Now if I would look at those contrasting lines, it does really bothers me. Especially if you would read it at the same book! If you read on until Exodus 37:1-9 it is all about the making of the Ark of the Covenant.

My point is, it is written make a cherubim, plus how does Moses knew about the looks of those Angels any way?

If these are one of the thing we protest then, maybe we are wrong?

 

[mondar]

Now this is what I think we are protesting about.

We protest because of the Pope and its Roman Catholic's traditions. But hey we had also traditions!

This is correct. Both protestants and Catholics have tradition. However, we both look at tradition in different ways and mean different things by the word tradition. Catholics are speaking of infallible sacred tradation, protestants have no concept of infallibility to their traditions.

We believe in SOLA FIDES, means faith alone, and also SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scriptures alone), and this is our long lived traditions.

Yes, and we also believe that our traditions must always be checked with scriptures. So then you must answer the question is the tradition of sola fide and sola scriptura a proper interpretation of scripture.

Look at this, in EXODUS 20:4 it said " You shall not make for yourself an Idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth" Now, we believe it and agreed on it. That is why we do not have statues or icons or even relics.

BUT IN EXODUS 25:18 "YOU SHALL MAKE TWO CHERUBIM OF GOLD you shall make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat."

Now if I would look at those contrasting lines, it does really bothers me. Especially if you would read it at the same book! If you read on until Exodus 37:1-9 it is all about the making of the Ark of the Covenant.

My point is, it is written make a cherubim, plus how does Moses knew about the looks of those Angels any way?

If these are one of the thing we protest then, maybe we are wrong?

This is the part I am not sure I am following your thinking. How does the Ark of Covenant relate to tradition? We are not protesting the Roman Catholic view of the Ark of the Covenant.

Also concerning the Ark.... The important part of the ark is what was on the Throne on top of the Ark. Do you know what sat on that Throne?

 

[francisdesales]

This is correct. Both protestants and Catholics have tradition. However, we both look at tradition in different ways and mean different things by the word tradition. Catholics are speaking of infallible sacred tradation, protestants have no concept of infallibility to their traditions.

Really? How about the tradition of the table of contents? Is that infallible or not? Are you suggesting we consider adding new Scriptures, perhaps taking some out based upon our forefathers' fallible decisions???

As an aside, all Catholic traditions are not infallible. Only those that are apostolic taught during that era. We are told to obey ALL of their teachings, both written and orally given. Have you yet found a verse that tells us otherwise?

Yes, and we also believe that our traditions must always be checked with scriptures. So then you must answer the question is the tradition of sola fide and sola scriptura a proper interpretation of scripture.

Traditions and Scriptures should not disagree, that is true.

However, note that particular men had the power to bind and loosen, not the Bible. We have already discussed that the Bible does not always interpret itself. Case in point - foreshadowing in Scriptures, such as our discussion on Emmanuel.

Look at this, in EXODUS 20:4 it said " You shall not make for yourself an Idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth" Now, we believe it and agreed on it. That is why we do not have statues or icons or even relics.

BUT IN EXODUS 25:18 "YOU SHALL MAKE TWO CHERUBIM OF GOLD you shall make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat."

Now if I would look at those contrasting lines, it does really bothers me. Especially if you would read it at the same book! If you read on until Exodus 37:1-9 it is all about the making of the Ark of the Covenant.

My point is, it is written make a cherubim, plus how does Moses knew about the looks of those Angels any way?

If these are one of the thing we protest then, maybe we are wrong?

The attack by some Protestants on "graven images" is clearly proven wrong by what you point out. But this is not a "tradition of Catholicism", merely an interepretation of Scriptures that is very old that takes into account all of what Scriptures say, rather than proof texting and ignoring the rest.

There is nothing wrong with agreeing that statues are not outlawed by God...

Also concerning the Ark.... The important part of the ark is what was on the Throne on top of the Ark. Do you know what sat on that Throne?

Here, Mondar is correct. The statue/art is supposed to direct the worshiper to the invisible God that it represents. A picture/statue is worth a thousand words and thoughts...

Regards

 

[lutheran52381]

Yes, I know who sits on the throne, I am pertaining at the commandment it self.

Now, I must learn the Catholic Way..... I am no longer interested with so legalistic view of my religion (Lutheran). I found my faith, when I visited the churches in Israel, and really found my home.

I am going back home, even though I lead a lot of people in church as their lead pastor. I am going back to Rome! I will be a Roman Catholic.

It sounds bit strange, I found the truth in the Church fathers, and to Benedict XVI he's amazing. this thread is over. I already found what I am looking for.

 

[francisdesales]

I am going back home, even though I lead a lot of people in church as their lead pastor. I am going back to Rome! I will be a Roman Catholic.

It sounds bit strange, I found the truth in the Church fathers, and to Benedict XVI he's amazing. this thread is over. I already found what I am looking for.

Congratulations and welcome back!

 

[follower of Christ]

Why isn't the more I defend our belief the
more I become inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?

Because you may be mis-interpretting the bible. Don't feel bad, the bible is easily mis-interpretted. I suggest you read the writings, ALL the writings, of the early Church fathers.

Peace

Ive read a lot of the ECFs and they certainly arent any help at all. They disagree so much among themselves on a lot of things that they only end up causing MORE confusion than they even remotely help.

Reading the ECF's only caused me to dig deeper into Sola Scriptura.

 

[stranger]

mondar wrote:

This is correct. Both protestants and Catholics have tradition. However, we both look at tradition in different ways and mean different things by the word tradition. Catholics are speaking of infallible sacred tradation, protestants have no concept of infallibility to their traditions.

Hello mondar,

Your one of very few who say that Protestants have traditions, that isn't Catholic. I agree that there are differences between Protestant and Catholic views about the role of tradition. What amazes me is the 'silence' about Protestant tradition - and the manner in which discussion is quickly diverted to an anti Catholic polemic -- scripture alone versus tradition and scripture.

While the word 'infalliability' is not used, what I have seen eg. in Presbyterianism is a clayton's version of 'infallibility' -- clayton' s is drink when your not having a drink! The Presbyterians have 'infallibility when your not having 'infallibility' in their Westminster Confession of Faith and the church hierarchy.
Presbyterians will declare 'scripture alone' but the truth seems to be that it is scripture alone and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

So thanks for raising the question - the challenge remains for Protestant denominations:

To what degree are Protestant confessions of faith 'infallible' while not being 'infalliable'?

blessings

 

[Paidion]

I am going back home, even though I lead a lot of people in church as their lead pastor. I am going back to Rome! I will be a Roman Catholic.

So I guess your forum name will soon be changed to "catholic52381".

 

[follower of Christ]

To what degree are Protestant confessions of faith 'infallible' while not being 'infalliable'?

blessings

My personal view is that ONLY scripture can be trusted as being 'infallible'.
While I probably agree with the statements in things like the Nicene Creed, I would not make any claim as to the creed itself being infallible. I believe it simply agrees with scripture that is infallible.

Since scripture doesnt cover every possible sin that man can commit, we have to use the spirit of the law to discern sin sometimes, and in many cases good old common sense takes over. But fully and finally the bible is the ONLY thing that is actually 'infallible' and the only absolute we can trust.
The only thing we cannot trust is sinful mans interpretation of Gods word and thus the reason why I believe that constant prayer and study is necessary for the believer who is serious about understanding His word.

 

[amg0364730]

To what degree are Protestant confessions of faith 'infallible' while not being 'infalliable'?

blessings

My personal view is that ONLY scripture can be trusted as being 'infallible'.
While I probably agree with the statements in things like the Nicene Creed, I would not make any claim as to the creed itself being infallible. I believe it simply agrees with scripture that is infallible.

Since scripture doesnt cover every possible sin that man can commit, we have to use the spirit of the law to discern sin sometimes, and in many cases good old common sense takes over. But fully and finally the bible is the ONLY thing that is actually 'infallible' and the only absolute we can trust.
The only thing we cannot trust is sinful mans interpretation of Gods word and thus the reason why I believe that constant prayer and study is necessary for the believer who is serious about understanding His word.

I believe as a former Protestant that is my former view... But hey just think about it, the Bible said everyone commits error, everyone sins. Therefore if the Bible is INFALLIBLE it must be made or bounded by Men who must be INFALLIBLE MEN

I formally taught like this: "THE BIBLE IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH THERE IS NO FALSE IN IT, GOD INSPIRED MEN TO WRITE IT, SO THE WRITERS MUST BE COMMUNE to GOD. That is why it is INFALLIBLE."

After some years I felt it was wrong. The Bible must be made by Infallible minds, heart, and hands.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

Lutheran- May I give you something to think on?

It seems to be that your present or former religion lutheran- has set you up for trouble to begin with so that now in your seeking you are going to the catholic church. The thing is it is your whole method of search that is problematic regardless of your decisions. I say this because you were in the lutheran church and your searchings here are speaking about how sola fide and sola scriptura and things on the ark etc... on traditions mainly. The problem here is that you are seeking based FIRSTLY on traditions, but anyone could say on whose traditions.Traditions can be both scriptural and unscriptural. We see clearly from scripture that we have inherited traditions and also that traditions also can be made that go directly against Gods commandments. Because of these things traditions should not be our first search, what church has what traditions etc.. So the problem with your search is that it is firstly based on legalistic foundations of men ( from both the lutheran church and catholic) and it does not extend back far enough to the bible itself.- The bible does NOT say strickly sola fide or sola scriptura and in fact it teaches against both of these in a measure. If you do not go back and toss out religious traditions and begin to seek after the Jesus CHrist of the bible and trust and believe Him first and all of this word and walk in it no matter what church does or doesnt, then you are just practicing how to be a very tradition of men, man.

The early church is the church we see in the gospels and acts, and that church is far different than any church we see today. Almost all churches with long standing traditions have become brothers to the pharasees of Jesus day. They no longer heal the sheep and feed them water them tend them teach them the pure word of truth from the WORD of God with POWER in the Holy Ghost. Their traditions have wiped away all things spiritual and powerful from them. They have a appearance of godliness but they deny the power thereof.- Almost none of them teach a person how to actually LIVE and WALK in faith. How to overcome sin in Christ Jesus. How to trust God truly, how to love each other and others truly.

If you truly want to seek the truth, then seek it first in the kingdom of God by seeking out JESUS and the scriptures instead of the traditions and churches of men which will ALL have a mixture and all are removed from the true early church.See we are told in the word that already in pauls day wolves were coming in. false apostles false ministers. Just because we look on a man and say o look what lutheran did(for example) does not mean that all he did was good or scriptural. Just because God used him for a purpose does not mean all his doctrine or fruit was good or right. We must base truth on the bible.Just because we can look back and say o they use to fight over infant baptism and these people were on this side and those on that side does not mean that because one was taught by john or paul that they are always correct either. It does not mean that they are all to be trusted all the time. We need to base truth firstly on the word of God and all else is econdary. The REAL early church fathers we see in the scriptures writting it and being spoken of in it. All beyoind that time point need to be compaired with the word. (second post under this on the ark

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

(firstly on infallability, we must realize it is GOD who is infallable. God used men of His choosing to write the bible and inspired them so. This does not mean they were infallable- if they were then everything they ever wrote would be scripture but it is not, there are other writtings by then that are not in the bible) God does not need an infallable man, to write an infallable word. He spoke to a man through a donkey,and a burning bush. His will is done in the earth.)

On the ark. I am not sure why the ark is an issue here when it seems to be tradition that is being questioned really. But either way. The reason God had moses build the tabernacle is that it was an exact replica of the temple in heaven AND it was a type of what was to come.(all things that happened unto them are examples to us) Now that Christ has ascended and sent the Holy Ghost to indwell us, God has made US the living, moving tabernacle of God.We are both the tabernacle and the temple of God. And WE as the temple- the body of Christ are NOW in heaven with Him seated, just as the temple in heaven that Moses was making the model of is.- It was to point to US and CHRIST in us.

On the ark. Again it was shown before that it was not image making of any kind that God was against, it was the making of images and the bowing down to them that God has a problem with. The ark of the covenant was the earthly throne of God and it had covering cherub firstly because His throne in heaven does. Secondly this was a type of JESUS and Mary ( mary being the ark and Jesus being within her)- you need not be a catholic to see the word of God. Thirdly this was a type of Jesus himself while He walked the earth As HE was full of the word, the power, the authority symbolized by the things IN the ark, and the Spirit was upon Him as God sat on the ark. and Fourthly and powerfully the ark represented US! Just has mary physically bore Christ in her womb. SO TO WE recieve the SEED of God in the form of the word of God, God places in us the WORD, the COMMANDMENTS, written on our hearts, the authority of Christ Jesus, etc.. and this seed- the word- grows up in us a perfect man, Christ Jesus. HE is in the womb of our hearts, changing out hearts, our very nature, renewing our mind to His, making us into HIS IMAGE just as mary did physically. And we recieve the holy Spirit of God upon us AND within us.

God was showing the physical representation of what is true in heaven- and what God would accomplish in Christ Jesus in His body- His temple- US