I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[Gretchen in NJ]

Thank you Elaina for sharing. I enjoyed leaning about you beliefs.

[*anj*]

Just one little point I wanted to make....

 

The name "Protestant" has been used a lot in this thread, obviously. I don't think that this is the place to completely hammer out a definition of that term. But I do feel compelled to mention that all "Protestants" are not alike. There are various theologies, doctrines, ways of interpreting Scripture that can differ from one denomination to another.

 

So it really isn't accurate to say that "Protestants" believe that each person has to interpret Scripture for him/herself. That wouldn't really make much sense because we could end up having 1,000 different interpretations of the same passage. I have heard that there are groups/churches where no study guides, commentaries, or other reference materials are used. I don't have any personal experience with those kinds of churches, nor do I know anyone who belongs to such a church.

 

We do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. We don't use the Jerome Biblical Commentary,

but we do have our own reference sources. And they weren't all written in the past 50 years, and most of them do pay close attention to writings of the early church Fathers and others. One has only to look at the editorial comments of a study Bible to see how seriously "we" pursue Biblical study.

 

On the other hand we do try to view scripture in a Berean fashion, namely:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

So "we" cannot accept a teaching that comes from a person or a Creed or a Catechism that doesn't seem to square with Scripture.

 

And in closing I'll go back to the point I made at the beginning, all Protestants are not the same. I've no doubt that someone will read my words and disagree with what I've said. That's totally fine and only proves my point, which is that we are not a homogeneous group, we Protties! :001_smile:

[*anj*]

 

Sorry about that.... carry on... I'll just slip quietly away...

 

:leaving:

 

Please don't.

I think that your perspective is as important and enlightening as anyone else's.

I think that one really cool thing is that so many people can disagree so strongly about so many things that are really important to them, but still respect one another as people and find commonality in other areas. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. :001_smile:

[BlueGator]

During the first exile, before the Beis HaMikdash was rebuilt, there was also no means of bringing korbanos... and no Xtianity yet either. In Yimiyahu Hashem says:

 

 

I have a hard time understanding some of your terms.

 

It took me forever to figure out Xian. I thought it was some kind of outerspace term to reference being off the wall. I just figured it out. It's late.

 

Beis HaMikdash - Does this refer to Harrods temple?

Yimiyahu Hashem ???

korbanos - This is an offering that is not from an animal, right?

[Nicole M]

Just one little point I wanted to make....

 

The name "Protestant" has been used a lot in this thread, obviously. I don't think that this is the place to completely hammer out a definition of that term. But I do feel compelled to mention that all "Protestants" are not alike. There are various theologies, doctrines, ways of interpreting Scripture that can differ from one denomination to another.

 

So it really isn't accurate to say that "Protestants" believe that each person has to interpret Scripture for him/herself. That wouldn't really make much sense because we could end up having 1,000 different interpretations of the same passage. I have heard that there are groups/churches where no study guides, commentaries, or other reference materials are used. I don't have any personal experience with those kinds of churches, nor do I know anyone who belongs to such a church.

 

We do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. We don't use the Jerome Biblical Commentary,

but we do have our own reference sources. And they weren't all written in the past 50 years, and most of them do pay close attention to writings of the early church Fathers and others. One has only to look at the editorial comments of a study Bible to see how seriously "we" pursue Biblical study.

 

On the other hand we do try to view scripture in a Berean fashion, namely:

 

 

So "we" cannot accept a teaching that comes from a person or a Creed or a Catechism that doesn't seem to square with Scripture.

 

And in closing I'll go back to the point I made at the beginning, all Protestants are not the same. I've no doubt that someone will read my words and disagree with what I've said. That's totally fine and only proves my point, which is that we are not a homogeneous group, we Protties! :001_smile:

 

Based on what I have learned about inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible since asking about homosexuality as a lifestyle choice here on this board, I believe that we are not talking about "Protestants" as the folks who base their faith solely on the biblical texts, but Evangelical Christians. Or perhaps that's not right, but I think many (most?) evangelicals hold the inerrancy of the Bible and its literal "truth". I wish I could remember exactly what one woman in that thread said to me when I asked if there was room in her to confess that her interpretation of the Bible was incorrect. Absolutely not, for her, because the Bible is perfectly clear.

 

I'm assuming that it's the mainline Protestants who are more open to using helps, references sources and the like. And yes, we are very diverse. Though. On the other hand, I have noticed that when you go into a Christian book store, there are a lot of books about the Bible. Why, if the Bible is so perfectly clear and it's all you need? ;)

[Jenny in Atl]

I have a hard time understanding some of your terms.

 

It took me forever to figure out Xian. I thought it was some kind of outerspace term to reference being off the wall. I just figured it out. It's late.

 

Beis HaMikdash - Does this refer to Harrods temple?

Yimiyahu Hashem ???

korbanos - This is an offering that is not from an animal, right?

 

Google is great for looking up terms and ideas.

[*anj*]

Eliana,

I was just wondering something. Do you speak Hebrew fluently? When you're at home are you likely to chat in Hebrew, or do you just speak English with lots of Hebrew words added? I love the way it sounds, and I also enjoy trying to figure out exactly what you mean based on context and my prior knowledge of some of the prefixes. :001_smile:

[*anj*]

Even more stressful: a friend from my community who went through geirus several years ago with our local (Orthodox) Beis Din, was beside herself when the news came out that the Israeli Rabbinut was considering not accepting any foreign conversions without careful, intense, lengthy scrutiny (and Israeli red tape is infamous). She was planning to make aliyah, but was really shaken by the possibility that she might not be accepted as a Jew.

 

 

But if she was just going to make aliyah, not moving there permanently, how would they know she wasn't born to a Jewish family? It wouldn't say so on her passport. I don't understand. And even if they knew, how would their nonacceptance manifest itself? Do you have to provide documentation in order to attend religious services there?

 

I'm very curious about this, and I'm so glad to be able to ask you.

 

ETA: I had this question several posts ago. What makes a person a righteous gentile?

[*anj*]

 

I need a non-hugging warm-fuzzy icon here (though why my no-touching the opposite gender thing should translate to the virtual, I do not know...)

:cheers2: There! [mine's mint tea, though....]

 

That reminds me of a book I read once. I may still own my copy of it, I'm not sure. I think it was called The Bamboo Cradle. It was about a Jewish couple who were barely practicing, but adopted a daughter from China. Over the years they became increasingly observant to the point of Orthodoxy. So their dd was a Chinese Orthodox Jew. But something sad happened. When she entered puberty and physically became a woman, her father could no longer hug her or touch her at all because she was technically a "strange woman." So in the book they talked about getting through those feelings and she understood and everything, but they both just always missed being able to hug each other.

 

It was a good book. :001_smile:

[NevadaRabbit]

I'm assuming that it's the mainline Protestants who are more open to using helps, references sources and the like. And yes, we are very diverse. Though. On the other hand, I have noticed that when you go into a Christian book store, there are a lot of books about the Bible. Why, if the Bible is so perfectly clear and it's all you need? ;)

 

There are so many books on the Bible because there's a big difference between "what does this mean?" and "what does this mean to me?"

 

What does this mean leads us to consider context, original language and manuscript/archaelogical evidence, historical culture, pretty objective stuff. If that's all we looked at, we should all come to similar conclusions.

 

But when one starts asking what does this mean to me then the directions are almost limitless. Hence all the books in the bookstore. Not to mention the authors and publishers out to just cash in on anything that says "Christian" on it, whether it squares with Scripture or not.

 

I"m not mainline Protestant - we're evangelical, and honestly I'm not sure what that term means anymore - but we've got shelves full of commentaries and Bible helps. So do most of my friends at church. So I'm not sure your assumption is necessarily correct. :001_smile:

[PameliaSue]

I have a hard time understanding some of your terms.

 

It took me forever to figure out Xian. I thought it was some kind of outerspace term to reference being off the wall. I just figured it out.

 

Yeah I did too.

 

Once I realized what Eliana meant it was sort of offensive to me. How would you feel if I replaced the name of your G-d with an X??? I get that you intend it to stand for Chi but it still was difficult... When I see X... It doesn't mean Chi to me.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yeah I did too.

 

Once I realized what Eliana meant it was sort of offensive to me. How would you feel if I replaced the name of your G-d with an X???

 

It's respectful, actually. The X is the early Christian symbol shorthand for Christ (Xristos), using the first letter of the Greek alphabet. She would never type out the word for God, and she extends us the same courtesy.

[PameliaSue]

It's respectful, actually. The X is the early Christian symbol shorthand for Christ (Xristos), using the first letter of the Greek alphabet. She would never type out the word for God, and she extends us the same courtesy.

 

I can understand that. I think it would possibly be received different if the Christians themselves actually did this. As in Christians today labeled themselves this way. It isn't part of our current culture.

 

I have a hard time with Xmas too. Our culture doesn't use this in a positive way and so, I dunno it is just hard... it feels disrespectful.

IT really has nothing to do with who says it or why. It feels like more stripping of the name of Christ from any and everything.

 

Again, I understand that Eliana meant no disrespect. I was just sharing how it made me feel.

[PameliaSue]

And yes, I would say my feelings are way off subject of the original post....:D

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I can understand that. I think it would possibly be received different if the Christians themselves actually did this. As in Christians today labeled themselves this way. It isn't part of our current culture.

 

I have a hard time with Xmas too. Our culture doesn't use this in a positive way and so, I dunno it is just hard... it feels disrespectful.

IT really has nothing to do with who says it or why. It feels like more stripping of the name of Christ from any and everything.

 

Again, I understand that Eliana meant no disrespect. I was just sharing how it made me feel.

 

Yeah, I understand. But I think it's probably equally hard to receive on her part, people referring to her deity with the whole word. She knows full well that we don't feel the same way, so she probably doesn't hold it against us personally, but I imagine she feels exactly the same way when she reads the word "God." That it's not revered enough, that it's being bandied without proper regard.

 

But she knows *we* mean no disrespect. But I'm sure it makes her cringe a bit in the same way that "Xmas" makes you cringe. We don't censor just because her culture/practices demand an abbreviation. And she doesn't type it out just because ours does not. We use the term that is respectful based on the position we come from.

 

Does that make any sense?

[*anj*]

But she knows *we* mean no disrespect. But I'm sure it makes her cringe a bit in the same way that "Xmas" makes you cringe. We don't censor just because her culture/practices demand an abbreviation. And she doesn't type it out just because ours does not. We use the term that is respectful based on the position we come from.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

It totally makes sense to me.

I had typed out a whole response to Pamelia a few minutes ago, but then deleted it. I have a little inward cringe when I read those terms, even though I understand the historical and linguistic basis. But when I read it and wince I know that Eliana's intentions are not offensive. And yes, I think your point is very well taken. I'm sure that it does bother her to see the Name spelled out just like any other word. Actually, I'd imagine that there were several things in this thread that caused her to wince. Such are the challenges of interfaith dialogue, I think.

[PameliaSue]

Since we are having this discussion I will veer way off coarse for a moment, please forgive me in advance... and make a point and see what you think....

 

Yes, it makes sense. I am familiar with the Old Testament and know that G-d is not said or written and why. That being said we believe in the same G-d and disagree on the Messiah. So technically there is no need to shorten Christ because he is the Messiah (Christians believe Him to be anyhow).

 

Really, this isn't a soap box issue for me but since I am up and cruzzin the boards may as well have a discussion...

:lurk5:

[PameliaSue]

WOW Eliana, that was a ton of work to put that post together!!

Thank you for taking the time to share more of the Jewish faith with us! It really is just a different language/culture and every detail has to be explained.

 

Thank you!

[*anj*]

Garumph... I typed out a long, rambling response and managed to misplace it completely...

 

 

 

Sorry, more inept non-translation on my part. Making aliyah is moving to Israel permanently (or with the intention that it be permanent - some dear friends ended up moving back after a bout a year to help care for an elderly parent.]

 

Aha! Okay, I get it. I was thinking it meant something like a pilgrimage. Thanks for the explanation.

 

and many other limitations, large and small. ... she wouldn't even be able to fully keep Shabbos (it almost makes me cry to think about it!)

Oh my. I can't even imagine what that would feel like.

 

 

And how would they know? ...oh, my dear! Not only do we tend to be talkative, part of the closeness, the extended family-ness of the community is (in many communities) a lot of questions... we play Jewish geography, but we share about our families, where we came from, if we are FFB (frum from birth) or BT (baal or baalas tesuvah... a returnee, one who came to observance as an adult)... there's a lot of love, and if you want to keep something private you certainly can, and you won't get pushed... but we tend to share...

I am so jealous. I want to play Jewish geography.

 

For guys, it is more straight-forward - the gabbai needs to know how many there are for a minyan, who can be called up to the Torah, etc...

Here's a fun story: I think I mentioned to you before that I took a number of Hebraic Studies classes in college as part of my major. For one of the classes we had to visit various types of shuls (is "shuls" the plural of "shul"?) Anyway, one that we had to attend was a Chabad. My dh (who was then just my friend) walked in with the rest of the men and he was given a yarmulke at the door. I guess someone just assumed he was Jewish because when the appropriate time came, they motioned for him to take a turn reading. He got all flustered and told them that he wasn't Jewish, and it was fine, but we got a little chuckle out of it because for a split second he sat there like a deer in the headlights because he didn't know what to do, you know?

 

 

I don't feel that I'm doing the best job with this.... sorry, honey!

You're doing just fine. I'm getting it. :001_smile:

 

 

 

Colloquially, it just means a fabulous human being... a real mensch...

Aha. I actually get that.

 

 

I believe, oh so strongly, that each of us has been given the background, the abilities... all the tools we need to fulfill our deepest purpose in this world. And your purpose is as essential, as valuable, as important as mine. You don't need to join my people to be the best Anj ever, to give the world all the amazing and wonderful gifts you have to bring... and for which you were created. When you do that, in my theologically simplistic view, you are being a righteous gentile.... as you demonstrate so regularly here.

This made me cry. :001_smile:

 

Formally? A righteous gentile keeps/upholds the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach (the 7 Noachide Laws). ...though there are only seven, there is a wealth of commentary and discussion out there which expand on them all....

 

But here's a Chabad site with a list with sources and one with links to some discussion/stories/explication....it's fairly simplistic, but should give you the general idea...

 

:grouphug:

Thank you. I love to learn these things. I will explore those links in more depth later.

I must go to bed now, but you've given me so much food for thought. Thanks!

[PameliaSue]

Also I just wanted to say that I am sorry that you have had to walk through such negative experiences with Christianity.

I think that as a person of Jewish faith/descent there are lots of "places" one could go to find hate directed at them, past and present.

It sounds though like you have been able to walk through the settling of your faith and identity with dignity and insight. It is hard won but worth it to pursue one's spiritual center.

I understand that you find the Christian and Jewish faith incompatible and I wouldn't expect any different. I posted earlier in this thread of how my family has really looked at the heritage of our faith, including Judaism and have incorporated different things into our family culture. So I am aware of why they are incompatible from your stand point.

But it does surprise me that you experienced such negativity in this day and age in the US. I have never really come across any of that...

And if a Christian really knows their Bible than they want was is best for the Jews. Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

We believe that Christ descended from the seed of Abraham and that is the blessing spoken of here (all families of the earth). And so I was taught that the Jews are a blessing and should be blessed. My faith teachings have all been positive and even reverent toward/regarding the Jews and Judaism.

 

Again, thank you for sharing.

 

Blessings,

[8filltheheart]

I'm not sure where to start with this one.

 

This represents a common, but really off-base understanding of the role of korbanos (offerings) in Jewish theology and practice.

 

Korbanos were brought only for a few *very specific* categories of transgressions (the primary category is shogeg# (unintentional or unwitting transgression))- they were not *the* means for "atoning" for "sins" they were *part of* the process in some very specific instances. A process which included the (equally essential) internal repentance and daavening (praying) for forgiveness.

 

*Intentional* transgression could not be atoned for by bringing a korban, but only through teshuvah (repentance) and tefillah (prayer).

 

[And, a human death could never substitute... and the whole 'one time perfect sacrifice' is completely foreign to Jewish belief... and.. no, never mind, I don't think we really want to go there....]

 

During the first exile, before the Beis HaMikdash was rebuilt, there was also no means of bringing korbanos... and no Xtianity yet either. In Yimiyahu Hashem says:

 

 

Avodas HaLev (the service of the heart - prayer) was always a core component of the korbanos process and is the one which can stand alone- a korban alone without the offering of the heart is worthless and meaningless... as the Torah tells us in many places.

 

 

 

I understand that this is Xtian theology, but I do want to be clear that it is incompatible with Torah - and always has been.

 

:rant:]

 

:blush: Can you tell that I have had too many folks come knocking on my door wanting to 'save' me?

 

Sorry about that.... carry on... I'll just slip quietly away...

 

:leaving:

 

Actually, Eliana, I wish we could sit down for hours and hours and talk!! :)

 

The more I read and study Catholic theology, the more I have to return to studying Jewish teachings.

 

I wish I could forego my responsibilities this morning and simply have a conversation with you instead.

 

When I re-read something with a real understanding of Jewish tradition, it makes everything become much more clear.

[Plaid Dad]

It makes complete sense, but I hadn't thought it through and realized that, in approach if not in conclusions, our respective faiths are closer than I had realized in this area.

 

I have often wished there were something like the Talmud in my faith, so people could see with more transparency how an understanding of Scripture developed in the "interpretive community" that is the Catholic Church. In a sense, the Catholic Catechism tries to do this by footnoting the various decrees and encyclicals it quotes in support of doctrine. Still, unless you go back and study this vast set of writings in detail, the dialog aspect remains opaque to many people, which is one reason that Catholic doctrine can seem arbitrary and authoritarian to non-Catholics - and many Catholics as well, I fear. There is a series coming out from an evangelical publisher that gives commentary from the various Church Fathers on Scripture, and perhaps that's a beginning.

[Michelle in MO]

a few rambling thoughts before we head out for the day. I like what *anj* said here:

 

The name "Protestant" has been used a lot in this thread, obviously. I don't think that this is the place to completely hammer out a definition of that term. But I do feel compelled to mention that all "Protestants" are not alike. There are various theologies, doctrines, ways of interpreting Scripture that can differ from one denomination to another.

 

So it really isn't accurate to say that "Protestants" believe that each person has to interpret Scripture for him/herself. That wouldn't really make much sense because we could end up having 1,000 different interpretations of the same passage. I have heard that there are groups/churches where no study guides, commentaries, or other reference materials are used. I don't have any personal experience with those kinds of churches, nor do I know anyone who belongs to such a church.

 

We do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. We don't use the Jerome Biblical Commentary,

but we do have our own reference sources. And they weren't all written in the past 50 years, and most of them do pay close attention to writings of the early church Fathers and others. One has only to look at the editorial comments of a study Bible to see how seriously "we" pursue Biblical study.

 

On the other hand we do try to view scripture in a Berean fashion, namely:

 

 

So "we" cannot accept a teaching that comes from a person or a Creed or a Catechism that doesn't seem to square with Scripture.

 

And in closing I'll go back to the point I made at the beginning, all Protestants are not the same. I've no doubt that someone will read my words and disagree with what I've said. That's totally fine and only proves my point, which is that we are not a homogeneous group, we Protties! :001_smile:

 

and just wanted to add that, as a Protestant, I've really benefited (sp?) from our study of church history and would like to add that I would indeed agree wholeheartedly with the need for all Protestants and perhaps Catholics, too (although that is perhaps more in line with Catholic tradition) to become even more literate with church history and the teachings of the church throughout the ages. I don't believe that our current understanding of Scripture should be separated from its historical context. I once heard someone attempt to argue that the apostle Paul died of old age, because the New Testament doesn't specifically state how he died. This is completely contradictory to the understanding of most Christians and early Christian history!

 

And, I can't quote Nevada Rabbit correctly here, because I'm not at our home computer (and, I apologize if I've gotten your name wrong!), but I would agree that when I read Scripture for myself, I may get a more personal understanding or insight that applies to me, but I try not to divorce that understanding from the context of Scripture as a whole.

 

Sorry for the interruption! We have to head out, so I'm taking in this conversation in bits and pieces.

[Nicole M]

 

I"m not mainline Protestant - we're evangelical, and honestly I'm not sure what that term means anymore - but we've got shelves full of commentaries and Bible helps. So do most of my friends at church. So I'm not sure your assumption is necessarily correct. :001_smile:

 

I was responding to Anj who was responding to Plaid Dad who was responding to... oh, I don't know anymore.

 

For salvation, many I-don't-know-what-they-call-themselves believe scripture alone is the path. Anj wanted to clarify that many Protestants do not believe that is the case. (I think.) The scripture alone folks - who are they? I know they're out there. Do evangelicals distinguish themselves from literalists, or are all the inerrancy folks also evenagelical?

 

Carol in Cal btw, wrote a very nice explanation of mainline Protestant somewhere back around page 20 in this thread.

[Jugglin'5]

I was responding to Anj who was responding to Plaid Dad who was responding to... oh, I don't know anymore.

 

For salvation, many I-don't-know-what-they-call-themselves believe scripture alone is the path. Anj wanted to clarify that many Protestants do not believe that is the case. (I think.) The scripture alone folks - who are they? I know they're out there. Do evangelicals distinguish themselves from literalists, or are all the inerrancy folks also evenagelical?

 

Carol in Cal btw, wrote a very nice explanation of mainline Protestant somewhere back around page 20 in this thread.

 

I believe some of the confusion about Protestant beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation. Early on, the refomers were divided into two camps (I am generalizing for simplicity's sake): The magisterial reformers and the anabaptists. The MRs wanted to reform the catholic church from within, and were not interested in leaving the church until they were actually excommunicated and kicked out (again, generalizing for simplicity's sake). The ABs thought that the church was too corrupt to be any part of it, and separated. The ABs were more radical that the MRs.

 

The magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin,, etc) are the ancestors of modern Lutherans, presbyterians, methodists, Dutch reformed, etc. They usually believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority, but also have creeds, confessions, and take tradition and the church fathers very seriously.

 

I think most modern evangelicals are more influenced by the anabaptists. Granted, they are not directly descended from them in the way the Amish and Mennonites are, but they are more willing to jettison tradition and church authority. They are in agreement with the MRs as far as Scripture being the first authority, but are less impressed with other authorities if that makes any sense. And again, this is all generalization.

 

All of these groups can be divided into the more liberal and more conservative. Mainliners tend to be more liberal. For instance the PCUSA is generally much more liberal in its view of scripture than the OPC or PCA , although there are individual PCUSA churches that are more conservative, . The PCUSA is the oldest, with the others splitting off when they felt the original church was too far from Scripture. I believe much the same has happened with the Lutherans and Dutch Reformed over the years.

 

There, that's more than you ever wanted to know....:D

[Jami]

I believe some of the confusion about Protestant beliefs can be traced back to the Reformation. Early on' date=' the refomers were divided into two camps (I am generalizing for simplicity's sake): The magisterial reformers and the anabaptists. The MRs wanted to reform the catholic church from within, and were not interested in leaving the church until they were actually excommunicated and kicked out (again, generalizing for simplicity's sake). The ABs thought that the church was too corrupt to be any part of it, and separated. The ABs were more radical that the MRs.

 

The magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin,, etc) are the ancestors of modern Lutherans, presbyterians, methodists, Dutch reformed, etc. They usually believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority, but also have creeds, confessions, and take tradition and the church fathers very seriously.

 

I think most modern evangelicals are more influenced by the anabaptists. Granted, they are not directly descended from them in the way the Amish and Mennonites are, but they are more willing to jettison tradition and church authority. They are in agreement with the MRs as far as Scripture being the first authority, but are less impressed with other authorities if that makes any sense. And again, this is all generalization.

 

All of these groups can be divided into the more liberal and more conservative. Mainliners tend to be more liberal. For instance the PCUSA is generally much more liberal in its view of scripture than the OPC or PCA , although there are individual PCUSA churches that are more conservative, . The PCUSA is the oldest, with the others splitting off when they felt the original church was too far from Scripture. I believe much the same has happened with the Lutherans and Dutch Reformed over the years.

 

There, that's more than you ever wanted to know....:D[/quote']

 

 

I think that's a good overview, Jugglin'. I would only add the post-2nd Awakening history for American Christianity. The churches that would call themselves "restorationists" in America which grew out of that 19th century movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

[Jugglin'5]

I think that's a good overview, Jugglin'. I would only add the post-2nd Awakening history for American Christianity. The churches that would call themselves "restorationists" in America which grew out of that 19th century movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

 

 

I would say that Restorationism is in the line of anabaptist influence. I almost said in the anabaptist tradition, but that would be oxymoronic, right?:)

Another instance of this division can be seen with the Pilgrims/Separatists and the Puritans. To most Americans they are one and the same, but the Separatists thought the Anglican Church was too corrupt to be a part of, while the Puritans wanted to work within the Anglican Church to "purify" it.

[HRAAB]

Thank you for all the time you've taken in responding to this thread. I am very ignorant of anything Jewish, yet lately I've felt that's where I need to start. So I have a question, if you don't mind.

 

Over the last 5 or so years I have spent a great deal of time deconstructing my Christian faith (I'm Catholic) and am now starting to slowly reconstruct it. Anyway, a couple years ago I was talking to my one and only Jewish friend and had mentioned a little bit about my 'faith crisis'. She asked me what it was I struggled with, and I said for starters that which is foundational to Christianity in its entirety. Original sin. Without that there is no need for Jesus or His Sacrifice. I remember her saying Jews had no understanding of Original Sin as Christians do. Also, that Jews don't believe in hell. Unfortunately, that conversation got interrupted and she's since moved away, and this is the first opportunity I've had to ask that question. How do Jews view Adams fall, and how does your view of the Messiah fit in with that.

 

I'm a total beginner and admit that much of your conversation has been over my head this morning, but it has reminded me again how much I feel I need to delve into those beliefs in order understand my own Christian beliefs.

 

Thanks,

Janet

[*anj*]

I was responding to Anj who was responding to Plaid Dad who was responding to... oh, I don't know anymore.

I just want to jump in and say that I was not responding to Drew. The only time that I am responding to a specific person is if I quote that person. I read this board in Linear Mode. I know that when you view it in one of the other modes it can look like I'm answering a particular post, but in my head I am usually responding to the last few posts I've read.

 

I know that this doesn't add anything to the subject at hand. I just wanted to clarify that point.

[*anj*]

 

For salvation, many I-don't-know-what-they-call-themselves believe scripture alone is the path. Anj wanted to clarify that many Protestants do not believe that is the case. (I think.)

 

Ooops! I don't think I explained myself well enough. I need to get more specific. Here's what I believe:

Scripture contains all that we need to know to live the Christian life. Even moral and ethical situations that aren't mentioned explicitly can be addressed in a general sense through Scripture.

 

I do believe in Scripture alone, but not Scripture in a vacuum. There is a big difference. A Catholic would say that Scripture and Tradition are equal. Scripture was birthed by Tradition and Tradition flows out of Scripture, in a sort of circular fashion. The official teachings of the magisterium come from that long standing Tradition and so it is all an organic mass, a living thing. (I trust that someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going on memory.)

 

I don't believe that any human being can say anything that equates with the words that came to us as the very breath of G-d. No human being (or human organization) can be called inerrant, nor can any human institution bind people under penalty of sin. So in that sense I believe in Scripture alone. But I do recognize that there have been many, many people over the course of history who have had insights into the meaning of G-d's word. Sometimes we can read their ideas and accept them, but sometimes we have to search the Scriptures ourselves to decide whether or not we agree with their writings. I don't think that a person was always right simply based on their status of being an early church father. They were human beings, prone to failure, and they made mistakes in judgment the same as I do. While I do accept that some of Augustine's writings were very insightful, that is not the case for everything that he wrote. For that matter, I cannot blanketly accept everything written by Luther or Calvin, though I do respect them.

 

I'm sorry that this is so long. It's hard to get specific enough to be understood.

 

The magisterial reformers (Luther' date=' Calvin,, etc) are the ancestors of modern Lutherans, presbyterians, methodists, Dutch reformed, etc. They usually believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority, but also have creeds, confessions, and take tradition and the church fathers very seriously.

[/quote']

 

I pretty much agree with this except I'd like to clarify the Reformed/Presbyterian aspect. As you said, there are many very liberal branches within the Reformed family, but I will speak only for the conservative ones (because that's me! :001_smile:)

 

So I'm talking more about the PCA, OPC, and other conservative Reformed denominations. They absolutely believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority. The creed that is most often (re)cited is the Nicene Creed, which predates the Reformation by almost 1200 years. This Creed pretty much restates the most basic of Christian beliefs. The Confessions are sort of a fleshing out of certain areas of Scripture, and the Catechisms do likewise. But neither the Creed, Confessions, nor Catechisms are held in as high esteem by Reformed Christians as Tradition is held by Catholics. And there is really nothing new, nothing extrabiblical in those documents, which is a major way that it differs from RC Tradition.

 

Whew! That took me a long time to write. Now I'm off to order my Circa punch! :001_smile:

[TXMomof4]

Based on what I have learned about inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible since asking about homosexuality as a lifestyle choice here on this board, I believe that we are not talking about "Protestants" as the folks who base their faith solely on the biblical texts, but Evangelical Christians. Or perhaps that's not right, but I think many (most?) evangelicals hold the inerrancy of the Bible and its literal "truth". I wish I could remember exactly what one woman in that thread said to me when I asked if there was room in her to confess that her interpretation of the Bible was incorrect. Absolutely not, for her, because the Bible is perfectly clear.

 

I'm assuming that it's the mainline Protestants who are more open to using helps, references sources and the like. And yes, we are very diverse. Though. On the other hand, I have noticed that when you go into a Christian book store, there are a lot of books about the Bible. Why, if the Bible is so perfectly clear and it's all you need? ;)

 

I don't know a single Christian, mainline or otherwise who would say they could read the Bible and understand the original language, context, etc. without some outside assistance. But each individual is encouraged to read to learn that context, the history behind the scripture, the original language used, so that the meaning is clear.

 

Anything I pray about, decisions I have to make, raising my children, etc. I do believe the Holy Spirit leads me in. But it isn't just "Take that feeling and Run!". If what I'm *feeling* doesn't line up with Scripture, I can be certain it is *MY* wants that are expressing themselves and not the Holy Spirit. It is so easy to fall into the trap of letting the Spirit lead you without taking the time to study and know what God's will is. I do believe with all of my being that the Spirit leads me, and has chosen paths for me that I would never have chosen for myself. But I can only trust those leadings if I know for a certainty that they are within God's will as outlined in Scripture.

 

However, a person's *understanding* or maturity in Christ can increase their understanding of the scriptures. The faith I grew up with was much more strict and unrelenting about many topics than I am today. I can see that while those topics may be very important, the handling of those topics can drive more people away from Christ than insisting on them is.

 

I do believe we make faith much more difficult than what it has to be. A very good friend of mine always tells me, JUST DO WHAT HE SAYS! It's much easier that way!

 

.

[Jugglin'5]

Ooops! I don't think I explained myself well enough. I need to get more specific. Here's what I believe:

Scripture contains all that we need to know to live the Christian life. Even moral and ethical situations that aren't mentioned explicitly can be addressed in a general sense through Scripture.

 

I do believe in Scripture alone, but not Scripture in a vacuum. There is a big difference. A Catholic would say that Scripture and Tradition are equal. Scripture was birthed by Tradition and Tradition flows out of Scripture, in a sort of circular fashion. The official teachings of the magisterium come from that long standing Tradition and so it is all an organic mass, a living thing. (I trust that someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going on memory.)

 

I don't believe that any human being can say anything that equates with the words that came to us as the very breath of G-d. No human being (or human organization) can be called inerrant, nor can any human institution bind people under penalty of sin. So in that sense I believe in Scripture alone. But I do recognize that there have been many, many people over the course of history who have had insights into the meaning of G-d's word. Sometimes we can read their ideas and accept them, but sometimes we have to search the Scriptures ourselves to decide whether or not we agree with their writings. I don't think that a person was always right simply based on their status of being an early church father. They were human beings, prone to failure, and they made mistakes in judgment the same as I do. While I do accept that some of Augustine's writings were very insightful, that is not the case for everything that he wrote. For that matter, I cannot blanketly accept everything written by Luther or Calvin, though I do respect them.

 

I'm sorry that this is so long. It's hard to get specific enough to be understood.

 

 

 

I pretty much agree with this except I'd like to clarify the Reformed/Presbyterian aspect. As you said, there are many very liberal branches within the Reformed family, but I will speak only for the conservative ones (because that's me! :001_smile:)

 

So I'm talking more about the PCA, OPC, and other conservative Reformed denominations. They absolutely believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority. The creed that is most often (re)cited is the Nicene Creed, which predates the Reformation by almost 1200 years. This Creed pretty much restates the most basic of Christian beliefs. The Confessions are sort of a fleshing out of certain areas of Scripture, and the Catechisms do likewise. But neither the Creed, Confessions, nor Catechisms are held in as high esteem by Reformed Christians as Tradition is held by Catholics. And there is really nothing new, nothing extrabiblical in those documents, which is a major way that it differs from RC Tradition.

 

Whew! That took me a long time to write. Now I'm off to order my Circa punch! :001_smile:

 

I have no disagreements with you at all here, since I am a conservative presbyterian myself.;) You did an excellent job of fleshing out sola scriptura.

[TXMomof4]

I was responding to Anj who was responding to Plaid Dad who was responding to... oh, I don't know anymore.

 

For salvation, many I-don't-know-what-they-call-themselves believe scripture alone is the path. Anj wanted to clarify that many Protestants do not believe that is the case. (I think.) The scripture alone folks - who are they? I know they're out there. Do evangelicals distinguish themselves from literalists, or are all the inerrancy folks also evenagelical?

 

Carol in Cal btw, wrote a very nice explanation of mainline Protestant somewhere back around page 20 in this thread.

 

 

Again, just want to make this clear, scripture alone doesn't mean that we look at scripture and just make up our own understanding of it. Scripture alone means that the Scripture is the final authority. A man who writes a commentary is not infallible, and while he/she may be a very Godly person, it would be possible for him to make mistakes. I use commentary to increase my understanding of the things I mentioned before - context, history, language. But I don't look to that person to tell me what to think about what I've read, only to make it more clear. And never to come up with new thoughts that they believe I should follow. There is no man who has that power.

[*anj*]

I have no disagreements with you at all here' date=' since I am a conservative presbyterian myself.;) You did an excellent job of fleshing out [i']sola scriptura.[/i]

 

Thank you!!!

[TXMomof4]

Ooops! I don't think I explained myself well enough. I need to get more specific. Here's what I believe:

Scripture contains all that we need to know to live the Christian life. Even moral and ethical situations that aren't mentioned explicitly can be addressed in a general sense through Scripture.

 

I do believe in Scripture alone, but not Scripture in a vacuum. There is a big difference. A Catholic would say that Scripture and Tradition are equal. Scripture was birthed by Tradition and Tradition flows out of Scripture, in a sort of circular fashion. The official teachings of the magisterium come from that long standing Tradition and so it is all an organic mass, a living thing. (I trust that someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going on memory.)

 

I don't believe that any human being can say anything that equates with the words that came to us as the very breath of G-d. No human being (or human organization) can be called inerrant, nor can any human institution bind people under penalty of sin. So in that sense I believe in Scripture alone. But I do recognize that there have been many, many people over the course of history who have had insights into the meaning of G-d's word. Sometimes we can read their ideas and accept them, but sometimes we have to search the Scriptures ourselves to decide whether or not we agree with their writings. I don't think that a person was always right simply based on their status of being an early church father. They were human beings, prone to failure, and they made mistakes in judgment the same as I do. While I do accept that some of Augustine's writings were very insightful, that is not the case for everything that he wrote. For that matter, I cannot blanketly accept everything written by Luther or Calvin, though I do respect them.

 

I'm sorry that this is so long. It's hard to get specific enough to be understood.

 

 

 

I pretty much agree with this except I'd like to clarify the Reformed/Presbyterian aspect. As you said, there are many very liberal branches within the Reformed family, but I will speak only for the conservative ones (because that's me! :001_smile:)

 

So I'm talking more about the PCA, OPC, and other conservative Reformed denominations. They absolutely believe in Scripture as the ultimate authority. The creed that is most often (re)cited is the Nicene Creed, which predates the Reformation by almost 1200 years. This Creed pretty much restates the most basic of Christian beliefs. The Confessions are sort of a fleshing out of certain areas of Scripture, and the Catechisms do likewise. But neither the Creed, Confessions, nor Catechisms are held in as high esteem by Reformed Christians as Tradition is held by Catholics. And there is really nothing new, nothing extrabiblical in those documents, which is a major way that it differs from RC Tradition.

 

Whew! That took me a long time to write. Now I'm off to order my Circa punch! :001_smile:

 

I wish I could give you more rep. You've explained clearly what I was blundering my way through there!

[*anj*]

I wish I could give you more rep. You've explained clearly what I was blundering my way through there!

 

You didn't blunder. I wished I could rep you again too, because you did a great job! :001_smile:

[laylamcb]

I have no disagreements with you at all here' date=' since I am a conservative presbyterian myself.;) You did an excellent job of fleshing out [i']sola scriptura.[/i]

 

Ditto. :001_smile: I'm PCA (or rather, that's my church's affiliation; identifying with a denomination is still new to me, as I was raised by an atheist) and also think you did a really good job explaining this, anj!

[Plaid Dad]

The pastor in this book is quoted as saying that the only things you need to understand the Bible are a dictionary and a concordance. I don't know how typical that is for fundamentalist churches, but that level of "sola scriptura" is not unheard of, either.

 

Of course, their interpretations of the Bible are still taking place as part of an interpretive community, with certain interpretations categorically excluded by prior theological commitments. So I agree that none of this actually takes place in a vacuum, even when people say that they rely exclusively on the Bible to derive doctrine. There is always some level of tradition at work (e.g., is "new wine" interpreted to mean "unfermented grape juice"? is "baptizo" taken to refer solely to full immersion?). The difference is how pervasive and how authoritative that tradition is understood to be in the life of the congregation and for the individual believer - and how far one can go with an innovative interpretation without forming a new tradition, and with it, a new church or denomination.

 

ETA: Just wanted to add that I understand that the congregation profiled in this book is not in the same category as the denominations that look to the magisterial reformers. I just wanted to point out that there are Protestant groups who come very close to making "sola scriptura" into "nuda scriptura."

[OnTheBrink]

This has been a very interesting discussion. I'm glad Eliana shared all she did about Judaism; I've learned a lot!

 

I read with some frustration the posts about Protestants. There seems to be such a wide brush to paint those who, basically, aren't Catholic; it's daunting. I don't even know if I am "Protestant" at all; I don't attend a denomination that developed as a result of the reformation. My church is independent, Bible-teaching and fundamental, in the sense that we are "sola scriptura." I believe in eternal security, but I don't believe it means that "freedom in Christ" means a person can pray the prayer, be saved and live the same life as they did before salvation. (I know the Mennonites think that's what eternal security indicates-so sayeth one of their tracts). I think works are important, but I believe the works should stem from a renewed mind and changed life as well as a desire to be humble, serve God, obey His word. Not because works get you points in heaven. So, I'm not sure where this all puts me, label-wise.

 

As for the OP, I know that http://www.materamabilis.org/ uses Catholic materials and I believe Amblesideonline.org has a Catholic book list, as well. I've not particularly noticed anti-Catholic sentiment in the materials I've used, but I've not used Abeka or BJU, so it's either not been in our materials, or I've not noticed.

 

I've enjoyed this discussion and I'm glad it's gotten as far as it has civilly. :)

[Jugglin'5]

The pastor in this book is quoted as saying that the only things you need to understand the Bible are a dictionary and a concordance. I don't know how typical that is for fundamentalist churches, but that level of "sola scriptura" is not unheard of, either.

 

Of course, their interpretations of the Bible are still taking place as part of an interpretive community, with certain interpretations categorically excluded by prior theological commitments. So I agree that none of this actually takes place in a vacuum, even when people say that they rely exclusively on the Bible to derive doctrine. There is always some level of tradition at work (e.g., is "new wine" interpreted to mean "unfermented grape juice"? is "baptizo" taken to refer solely to full immersion?). The difference is how pervasive and how authoritative that tradition is understood to be in the life of the congregation and for the individual believer - and how far one can go with an innovative interpretation without forming a new tradition, and with it, a new church or denomination.

 

 

A book recommendation for anyone wanting to understand sola scriptura in the reformers' tradition is this:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749

[Jugglin'5]

 

I read with some frustration the posts about Protestants. There seems to be such a wide brush to paint those who, basically, aren't Catholic; it's daunting. I don't even know if I am "Protestant" at all; I don't attend a denomination that developed as a result of the reformation. My church is independent, Bible-teaching and fundamental, in the sense that we are "sola scriptura." I believe in eternal security, but I don't believe it means that "freedom in Christ" means a person can pray the prayer, be saved and live the same life as they did before salvation. (I know the Mennonites think that's what eternal security indicates-so sayeth one of their tracts). I think works are important, but I believe the works should stem from a renewed mind and changed life as well as a desire to be humble, serve God, obey His word. Not because works get you points in heaven. So, I'm not sure where this all puts me, label-wise.

 

.

 

I've enjoyed this discussion and I'm glad it's gotten as far as it has civilly. :)

 

I'd say you are an evangelical Protestant.:)

[*anj*]

I don't know how typical that is for fundamentalist churches, but that level of "sola scriptura" is not unheard of, either.

But how does one define "Fundamentalist"? When I left Catholicism, I had Catholic friends who snidely referred to my Presbyterian (PCA) church as "fundamentalist." :001_huh:

Do people who consider themselves fundamentalists even use the term "sola scriptura"? I have no idea. Anyone? Anyone? ;)

 

The difference is how pervasive and how authoritative that tradition is understood to be in the life of the congregation and for the individual believer - and how far one can go with an innovative interpretation without forming a new tradition, and with it, a new church or denomination.

 

Well said. I think it's also important to mention that the tradition/Tradition may or may not be viewed as inerrant by its adherents.

[TXMomof4]

But how does one define "Fundamentalist"? When I left Catholicism, I had Catholic friends who snidely referred to my Presbyterian (PCA) church as "fundamentalist." :001_huh:

Do people who consider themselves fundamentalists even use the term "sola scriptura"? I have no idea. Anyone? Anyone? ;)

 

 

 

Well said. I think it's also important to mention that the tradition/Tradition may or may not be viewed as inerrant by its adherents.

 

 

You know, I would consider my faith fundamentalist. That doesn't mean that I wear a head covering, refuse electricity, however that phrase is interpreted across the board. But I look at the fundamentals of my faith.

 

I attend a Church of Christ (no hisses from the crowd here), we look at scripture, study scripture and use that to guide our lives. There are things we practice that I'm sure are "debatable matters".

 

For example, we do not use insturments in our worship service. It that a salvation issue? Nope. For years I did think all those organ, piano, violin, and ::GASP:: guitar players were on a sure road to d*mnation. Luckily, I've grown up alot and realize that while I PREFER no insturments, it is a matter of preference. There is no statement in scripture that demands that, but there's no scripture in the New Testament setting forth the example of insturments being used in worship times together. Does that really matter? To some people it really does. To God? I doubt it. Praise to Him is praise to Him and I'm sure he enjoys all sorts.

 

I could go on and on about the things that were demanded in the Church of Christ that we have realized are really just things to be divisive over. Luckily, a new leaf is being turned over (for the most part) and I hope the reputation of our church will improve. It's hard to be known as Christ's Church when all people think of is "Those people who think they're the only ones going to heaven." But I would still define it as fundamentalist (in the most loving way possible).

[Carol in Cal.]

in any context.

[Carol in Cal.]

In the original Lutheran view, Sola Scriptura does not mean that you throw out all human tradition or interpretation and start from scratch from the Bible. Conservative Lutherans are very respectful of catholic tradition, particularly the ecumenical creeds and the writings and practices of some of the early church fathers. But, and this is key, we don't view the world as undergoing ongoing revelation about what God wants of us in terms of belief, practices, teachings, etc. We do believe that things are reinterpreted on the ground, and that that should be prayerfully considered, but, we don't implement something like that with the idea that it is newly revealed truth that is expected to hold for all of time.

 

Respectfully I would offer an example--when the Roman Catholic church formalized a belief in the assumption of Mary, it is almost impossible to convey how strange and unacceptable such a proclamation would be to us--not just in fact the belief itself, but just the idea that one could add to revealed truth in that fashion is inconceivable. (I know that that belief had been extant for a long time before it was formally adopted, but still, it's inconceivable to us.)

 

We hold the 3 creeds--Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasean. (We use the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene Creed rather than the Orthodox one.) It then follows, of course, that we hold the results of those councils that adopted those creeds as binding on us. They are not in the Bible, so how is that consistent with Sola Scriptura? Well, Sola Scriptura does not say that there is no merit to information from outside of the Bible. What it does say is that in any conflict, Scripture trumps tradition, councils, and any other sources of faith or practice premises. So, the Creeds are not contradictory with Scripture, and they elucidate it, and they were adopted, by and large, by the whole Church on earth together, so we hold them. In general, though, if and when there is a conflict, Scripture rules. The principle also means that if something is not mandated in Scripture, it is fine to change it, although that should be done in accord with Biblical principles. When Lutheran pastors are ordained, they state their holding to the Lutheran Confessions (which include those Creeds as well as some Reformation-era writings) as 'true and faithful exposition of the Holy Scriptures' or something very similar to that. (It has been several years since I have attended an ordination, so I am not sure that I got that exactly right.) Anyway, the primacy of the Bible is designated over all other writings or teachings in every ritual where other writings are mentioned. That is how Sola Scriptura plays out in the conservative branches of the Lutheran church today.

 

I believe that conservative Lutherans are the most conservative of the Roman Catholic offshoots in their retention of traditions, but the sense and feel of it is so different than in the Catholic church. Many Protestants who visit conservative Lutheran churches are startled by how Catholic they seem, but it is much easier for most Lutherans to attend and participate in a Protestant church service than in a Catholic one, because of the exclusivity and primacy of the Bible in Protestant worship/teachings and because of the emphasis on saints in Catholic worship/teachings.

 

I hope that I have been both respectful and clear in this post. That was my hope and intent, but these are tricky things to discuss.

[Plaid Dad]

But how does one define "Fundamentalist"?

 

I use it in a very limited and specific sense, to refer to (1) people who claim the name themselves and (2) people who adhere to the theological perspective that derives from or is in agreement with the ideas laid out in "The Fundamentals" - the historical source of the term.

 

I get rather worked up about people using "fundamentalist" as a catch-all smear for "people who believe things that offend my enlightened sensibilities." Living where I do, I get a lot of that. :glare: