Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell This morning I was considering how the present theological and liturgical confusion among Protestant Evangelicals contributes to this migration to Rome, Constantinople and elsewhere. Many seem to be in search of an authority in a midst of chaos. This calls for a clear ecclesiology, subscription to biblical truth succinctly stated in confessions, and the Regulative Principle applied to doctrine, worship, government and discipline. This migration is forsaking Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide for the security of a perverted gospel. | I have to admit that I have experienced a lot of what seems to me to be liturgical and ecclesiological confusion.
There's something about the idea that there could be one church, stretching all the way back to the apostles, that could just tell us what the correct teachings are. As it stands, I feel a lot of weight as a layperson to figure everything out, to study constantly, for fear that I may somehow unconsciously adopt a heterodox view and put myself in danger. Of course, against what do I measure my conclusions? So in this sense I see the attraction, but I realize that it's an illusion. Unfortunately that just leaves me in my state of confusion.
Am I the only one who thinks that Reformed believers want to have their cake and eat it, too? Since I came over from charismania, I've heard a lot of people speak individualistically, and I've heard some (sometimes the same people) speak as though we do have some kind of magisterium. But of course...we can always disagree with the magisterium, take exception to the standards, etc. What's the other choice? Implicit faith? Well, we don't like that either. Apart from officers, we really do end up with each person building his or her own theological system, as long as they agree with as much of their denomination's standards as is necessary for membership.
Sorry if this is muddled. I'm just letting things gush out. |
I think there's a distinct difference between the Magisterium of Romanism and the Confessional adherancy of the Reformed.
The Magisterium dictates what you will believe, whereas the Confessions dictate what we do believe. One is an active subjugator of the conscience whereas the other is an illustration of what it has wrought from being shaped and conformed by Scripture. According to the Magisterium, it cannot be disagreed with, though that fails in practice. As you noted, we can disagree with the Confessions, but the Confessions are not steeped in a Tradition claimed by the church proper existing apart form Scripture, rather it stems from a tradition that is steeped in Scriptural and the authority thereof. I don't think anyone existing under the adjective of "Reformed" will deny the prescence of a tradition, quite the contrary I've seen many refer to the "Reformed Tradition", but this is absolutely distinct from the Roman Tradition. Our tradition stems from Scripture, their Tradition usurps and attempts to explain Scripture, i.e. Marian dogmas.
Moreover, the Roman Magisterium has infalliably defined how many verses of the Bible? I don't know the exact number but I do believe it can be counted on one hand missing a finger or two. They are of little to no use to their laity, other to confuse, sedate, and falsly assure.