3 questions for non-catholics?

[joe370]

The Lutheran Church subscribes to the three Ecumenical Creeds - Apostles’, Nicene (one or the other is said each Sunday), the Anthanasian which is said on Trinity Sunday.
Our Lutheran Confessions are the correct exposition of the Word of God.
We don’t need the the pope or tradition to interpret Scripture, the only correct way is to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

I amiably respect your right to believe that the Lutheran Confessions are the correct exposition of the Word of God, and that you do not need the the pope or tradition to interpret Scripture.

2 questions:

How does Scripture interpret Scripture? And what are your responses to the 3 questions vis-a-vis the OP? Did the early church leaders believe that scripture interpreted scripture? Just trying to steer closer to the OP.

 

[pablope]

The Lutheran Church subscribes to the three Ecumenical Creeds - Apostles’, Nicene (one or the other is said each Sunday), the Anthanasian which is said on Trinity Sunday.

Our Lutheran Confessions are the correct exposition of the Word of God.

 

[CompSciGuy]

It does not say that you are part of the CC. It does not say that at all. that is your wishful thinking.

No statement is found that states those outside the Church are part of the Church. where do u see as such?

He just quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

And the charitable discussion is over…

The Holy Bible is working great, wisdomseeker.

Now, you did ask a question. I would LOVE to answer it.

how come you all teach a different thing from each other?

Just cite an example and I’ll try my best to answer it.

well, lets see. do you agree with lutherans in all they believe? do you agree with all the protestants who teaches baptism is for salvation and baptists say something else? how about anglicans? do you believe what they believe they see in the Bible? some of you baptize children and some of you dont, yet you all read the same Bible, dont you?

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

Brother, I respect your position, as you know, but if you are right and the CC today, and since the great schism, **no longer possesses the same Christ ordained authority the early CC possessed, **

 

[JonNC]

The Lutheran Church subscribes to the three Ecumenical Creeds - Apostles’, Nicene (one or the other is said each Sunday), the Anthanasian which is said on Trinity Sunday.
Our Lutheran Confessions are the correct exposition of the Word of God.
We don’t need the the pope or tradition to interpret Scripture, the only correct way is to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Perhaps we don’t, but it sure would be nice to have a hierarchy that guides us, as the Pope provides for our Catholic siblings. Perhaps if we did, we wouldn’t see Lutherans ordain folks that shouldn’t be ordained. We wouldn’t see Lutherans throw consecrated elements to the birds, or back into packages of unconsecrated. And many more examples. And the fact is, a great deal of what we believe came from councils and popes, Luther’s complaints notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

joe370;8299444:

Hey Jon…

But Joe, you know I don’t say that. First, I don’t define “The Church” as just the CC or Lutheranism, etc. Secondly, I simply contend that for the CC to claim to set doctrine for the entire Church Catholic, it must do so with the other patriarchates in general council.

Jon

This is not possible since man decides to leave the Church, the Church cannot depend on man to have authority. Jesus stablish His Church and gave the Keys to St Peter. this is the sign of the One Holy Catholic Church for all to see. it is not depended on man. The Church to be whole does not depend on anyone but on teh authority given to St Peter to lead His Church and not on luther or Orthodox Church. your premise is that the Church has no longer authority because the Orthodox church has separated themselves, this is false. there is one more prove only the CC can call a Council, no one else can. that is because they all have split from each other. only the CC can call for unity. no one else can.

our holy father has continuously affirming this. the Fathers of the Church has affirmed this on the past. St Peter’s Chair is in Rome where the pope sits in this Chair. no one can truly in good concitiousness claim such. The Papacy is glue that holds unity. Proud men cannot destroy what God has done. you dont think it has been tried for 2000 yrs?

You think that the Church should be paralyzed because some man leaves. God built His Church and not man. The Church goes on, she is not paralyzed when bishops or priests leaves.

 

[Calgar]

well, lets see. do you agree with lutherans in all they believe? do you agree with all the protestants who teaches baptism is for salvation and baptists say something else? how about anglicans? do you believe what they believe they see in the Bible? some of you baptize children and some of you dont, yet you all read the same Bible, dont you?

I can tell by your rambling that you don’t even understand your own questions.

I’ll hit what you’ve written here.

Don’t know, you weren’t specific. Who, and what? What do you mean exactly? Which part? All Christians should read the Bible.

Whew!

Ok, are you going to ask something specific? Or is your intent simply to attack and belittle Christians?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can tell by your rambling that you don’t even understand your own questions.

I’ll hit what you’ve written here.

Don’t know, you weren’t specific. Who, and what? What do you mean exactly? Which part? All Christians should read the Bible.

Whew!

Ok, are you going to ask something specific? Or is your intent simply to attack and belittle Christians?

Obviously you dont understand the Christian Faith given to us Catholics.

 

[joe370]

joe370;8299444:

Hey Jon…

But Joe, you know I don’t say that. First, I don’t define “The Church” as just the CC or Lutheranism, etc. Secondly, I simply contend that for the CC to claim to set doctrine for the entire Church Catholic, it must do so with the other patriarchates in general council.

Jon

Firstly, you are right; I apologize. Oops…I’ve been away for awhile with a lot on my mind…

Secondly, I agree that the CC no longer has the right, or claims the right, to set doctrine for the entire Church Catholic, (comprising both the CC and the EOC) - for the simple fact that the CC must do so with the other patriarchates in general council, which was why I suggested as a possibility, that the CC today does not possess the same authority that it possessed prior to the great east west schism.

 

[joe370]

I can tell by your rambling that you don’t even understand your own questions.

I’ll hit what you’ve written here.

Don’t know, you weren’t specific. Who, and what? What do you mean exactly? Which part? All Christians should read the Bible.

Whew!

Ok, are you going to ask something specific? Or is your intent simply to attack and belittle Christians?

Hey Calgar…

Before addressing the OP I suppose the following questions should be squarely answered. Let me preface the questions by mentioning that Bogey has ruled out, (for sola scriptura advocates of an orthodox nature) - **private/individual interpretation:
**

Regarding sacred scripture, who or what has the authority to settle doctrinal matters, within Christendom, when they arise?

And

Who or what has the authority to interpret sacred scripture, within Christendom, when fellow Christians from different denominations, come away from sacred scripture with conflicting interpretations?

Thanks brother…

 

[JonNC]

Agreed. But that doesn’t mean that the fullness of truth is not available to the Church. Correct?

Jon

 

[joe370]

What about the eastern orthodox church? The anglicans? There’s two that claim to be the ONE church.

All 3 can’t be right? After all, Jesus didn’t say: I will build my three churches…LOL…

But seriously, historically speaking, can the Anglican church really trace its origin all the way back to the apostolic age, as can the EOC (not including the offshoots of the Eastern Orthodox Church of course)?

 

[joe370]

Agreed. But that doesn’t mean that the fullness of truth is not available to the Church. Correct?

Jon

This is where I get a tad confused. If you are right and the fullness of truth can still be found in the universal church, then where can one, (struggling with truth, within Christendom) - go to find the fullness of truth?

 

[Contarini]

Well, then let’s start by naming the church founded by Jesus, (assuming that the CC was not the church created by Christ) - that existed alongside the supposed man-made catholic church, for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

You don’t get Calgar’s point. He/she is not saying that there was a true Church alongside what became the RCC–only that the RCC isn’t the only expression of the true Church.

You’re creating a false dichotomy.

Anyway, I think the main problem with your OP is that the best case for sola scriptura is a negative one. An SS advocate might argue that there may be authoritative non-Biblical tradition, but that there simply isn’t any evidence for such a thing.

One could then point to specific things such as prayer for the dead. Of course, whether that’s “non-Biblical” depends on what one thinks of II Maccabees and whether one thinks Onesiphorus was alive or dead when Paul prayed for him, but certainly (to use the language of Dei Verbum) the Church’s certainty concerning prayer for the dead does not derive from Scripture alone.

In practice, the reason most Protestants believe in SS is that they look at a lot of Catholic teaching and see it as quite different from what they find in the NT. I think it’s worthwhile demolishing the “principled” SS position, but Catholics shouldn’t kid themselves that this is enough to prove that Catholic tradition is authentic.

Development of doctrine is the real elephant in the room. Everyone, in practice, believes in it, whether they admit it or not. And the big question is how we discern true from false “development” without dividing the Church. The only coherent alternatives, it seems to me, are:

1. Give up on the attempt at discernment and just hang out with anyone who claims to be a Christian (even my own denomination doesn’t do this–arguably the UCC does, though in practice they don’t seem too interested in fellowship with conservatives);
2. Accept that discernment will divide Christians and that this is the price we pay for caring about truth, although we should always be striving for greater unity. This is probably the mainstream Protestant position.
3. Claim that those who discern wrongly are no longer meaningfully Christian and so it doesn’t matter that we are divided from them. This is the position held by ultra-conservative Protestants and by many Orthodox (and perhaps some Catholics as well).
4. Accept by faith that God has entered into a covenant with a particular community to protect them from any error that would make division necessary. This leaves only the Catholics and the Orthodox as reasonable alternatives, with Catholicism making relatively more sense. (I don’t think the case is as open-and-shut as Catholics claim, but many Orthodox seem to hold to 3 rather than 4, and those who don’t do not, in my opinion, make a good case for why a Western Christian at least should not seek union with Rome.)

Edwin

 

[joe370]

Hey Edwin…

Contarini;8301259]You don’t get Calgar’s point. He/she is not saying that there was a true Church alongside what became the RCC–only that the RCC isn’t the only expression of the true Church.

You’re creating a false dichotomy.

Well brother, that certainly was not my intention. I understand that today there is more than one expression of the true Church; that goes without saying friend.

Anyway, I think the main problem with your OP is that the best case for sola scriptura is a negative one. An SS advocate might argue that there may be authoritative non-Biblical tradition, but that there simply isn’t any evidence for such a thing.

I think you are right; sola scriptura is too loosely defined! Hard to find a starting point when I don’t even really know what the true definition of sola scriptura is, but I do my best. Regardless, I am still looking for answers to the OP for the simple fact that most sola scriptura advocates believe that the holy bible is the Christians one and only authority for such things as settling doctrinal differences when they occur and interpreting sacred scripture in the face of conflicting interpretations, within Christendom.

In practice, the reason most Protestants believe in SS is that they look at a lot of Catholic teaching and see it as quite different from what they find in the NT.

And the same can be said in reverse which is why, perhaps, Jesus frowns upon subjective, individual interpretation?

Development of doctrine is the real elephant in the room. Everyone, in practice, believes in it, whether they admit it or not. And the big question is how we discern true from false “development” without dividing the Church. The only coherent alternatives, it seems to me, are:

You hit the nail right on the head!!!

1. Give up on the attempt at discernment and just hang out with anyone who claims to be a Christian (even my own denomination doesn’t do this–arguably the UCC does, though in practice they don’t seem too interested in fellowship with conservatives);

I know you were just being facetious…

1. Accept that discernment will divide Christians and that this is the price we pay for caring about truth, although we should always be striving for greater unity. This is probably the mainstream Protestant position.

Well, I think this underestimates God’s omnipotents…but I see your point…

3.** Claim that those who discern wrongly are no longer meaningfully Christian** and so it doesn’t matter that we are divided from them. This is the position held by ultra-conservative Protestants and by many Orthodox (and perhaps some Catholics as well).

Neither you nor I agree with that position…

1. Accept by faith that God has entered into a covenant with a particular community to protect them from any error that would make division necessary.

Hmmmmmmm…

This leaves only the Catholics and the Orthodox as reasonable alternatives, with Catholicism making relatively more sense. (I don’t think the case is as open-and-shut as Catholics claim, but many Orthodox seem to hold to 3 rather than 4, and those who don’t do not, in my opinion, make a good case for why a Western Christian at least should not seek union with Rome.)

I agree. It really comes down to those 2 candidates in my humble opinion. To each his/her own of course…

 

[JonNC]

This is where I get a tad confused. If you are right and the fullness of truth can still be found in the universal church, then where can one, (struggling with truth, within Christendom) - go to find the fullness of truth?

Certainly the Church Triumphant. Otherwise, it is difficult with division within His Church. ISTM one must prayerfully consider one’s choice, and honestly rely on grace.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Certainly the Church Triumphant. Otherwise, it is difficult with division within His Church. ISTM one must prayerfully consider one’s choice, and honestly rely on grace.
Jon

Jon, I’m sorry but it doesn’t seem so certain to me. So if a person, such as my niece (struggling with the fullness of truth, within Christendom) - is looking to find the fullness of truth, and that fullness of truth can still be found, that person simply needs to locate the church Triumphant? Okay…Where can that church triumphant be found here on earth? - would be the question my niece would ask.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I’m sorry but it doesn’t seem so certain to me. So if a person, such as my niece (struggling with the fullness of truth, within Christendom) - is looking to find the fullness of truth, and that fullness of truth can still be found, that person simply needs to locate the church Triumphant? Okay…Where can that church triumphant be found here on earth? - would be the question my niece would ask.

Read the second part of the post, Joe. Here on Earth, because of the division in Christ’s Church, it is difficult to know where the fullness of truth is, so one must prayerfully consider where the Spirit calls one to be, and depend on grace. My hope for your neice, Joe, is that she listens to you and other trusted loved ones in the matter, as my daughter has done with my wife and I.
Joe, I don’t know what else can be said.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Read the second part of the post, Joe. Here on Earth, because of the division in Christ’s Church, it is difficult to know where the fullness of truth is, so one must prayerfully consider where the Spirit calls one to be, and depend on grace. My hope for your neice, Joe, is that she listens to you and other trusted loved ones in the matter, as my daughter has done with my wife and I.
Joe, I don’t know what else can be said.

Jon

That’s cool. I was only attempting to understand what you meant when you said:

“But that doesn’t mean that the fullness of truth is not available to the Church. Correct?”

But I digress…