Because even though Jesus had twelve apostles, He named one Rock, gave the keys to one man thereby establishing one royal steward in charge of His household, and instructed one shepherd to care and feed ALL the rest of the sheep (including the other 11).
Do you mean those that agree with your interpretation?
No. Those that agree with the plain black and white. Like, “no fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, greedy, slanderers will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Those ones.
Not to speak for Per Crucem, but I agree with his original post - “I get along fine with other Lutherans who believe what Scripture teaches” (i.e. as it is rightly reflected in the Confessions).
I’m afraid I’ve noticed that too. I wonder if some of my fellow Catholic have the idea that, since we have “Papal Infallibility”, Lutherans must have an equivalent, like “Infallibility of Martin Luther”.
Is there a plain black and white that tells us that public revelation has ended?
What has any of that to do with what I stated previously?
So, you accept the scriptures as rightly interpreted by the Confessions. And this is different from Catholics looking to the Magisterium how?
See post #662.
It’s not, really. There are differing theologies behind the two, but the end result is much the same.So, you accept the scriptures as rightly interpreted by the Confessions.
And this is different from Catholics looking to the Magisterium how?
If you define sola scriptura as not using anything other than the Bible, then no, we’re not sola scripturists. If you define sola scriptura as the Confessions define it, then yes, we are. You can’t stick the presuppositions of American Protestantism on us. We can’t define what we don’t hold to.
Not really. The Orthodox follow Scripture and tradition. Are they Roman Catholic, too?
Since I’m not LCMS, why would I ever go to the LCMS about any disagreements? Do you think when an issue comes up we wander the streets asking various Protestant pastors what their opinion on a doctrinal dispute is? I’m sorry, we just don’t have your existential angst.
Actually, the reason the ELCA, LCMS, WELS, etc. exist is they were different dioceses within the American Lutheran church at one point in time. Granted, one of those has gotten increasingly liberal over the years. However, I would argue it has nothing to do with interpretation of the Confessions, so much as it has to do with jettisoning the Confessions in favor of liberal theology being the guiding norm for doctrine.
Right. Tell that to Nancy Pelosi, Hans Kung, the Kennedy’s, and every other wacky American Catholic who ignores Catholic teaching, yet is still considered “in good standing.”
No, but they are a true Church since they have maintained Apostolic Succession. So, they are very close to Catholicism, but I get the impression that they are less interested in reunification than many Lutherans. I would love to be wrong about that.Not really. The Orthodox follow Scripture and tradition. Are they Roman Catholic, too?
Exactly. Why would steido or Jon be willing to submit to the leadership of your church? So, if you two get into a disagreement over something, you CAN’T take it to the Church as Jesus instructed, because you can’t even agree on who or where that Church is found. :nope:
Jettisoning of the Confessions. Which is another way of saying that some interpret them differently, eh? Thank you.
This is a classic attempt at deflection, but let’s go with it. These folks are so out of line with Catholic teaching that even non-Catholics know it. :sad_yes:
Sounds like a great topic for another thread. Lead the way.
We don’t pretend the Confessions cannot err; only that they do not. Contrast this to you Magisterium.So, you accept the scriptures as rightly interpreted by the Confessions. And this is different from Catholics looking to the Magisterium how?
You’re correct; we are not Sola Scripturists in the sense of the phrase common to today’s generic protestants, nor have we ever been. We’ve explained our position on SS in other threads.
Thanks, I think?
But our Confessions add nothing to Scripture and are not outside of it; they simply reflect. Scripture is our sole rule and norm.If your point is that we need a centralized decision-maker so that we can have a centralized decision-maker, we’d obviously disagree. See Peter J’s last post. In this respect, we Lutherans are more similar to our Orthodox brethren.
False; Christ Jesus established His Church, not a Magisterium. That he established a priestly office of public ministry is clear - but He gave no direction as to the actual structure that humans would assign to bishops, presidents, districts, dioceses, archdioceses, etc.
The true church can teach mutually exclusive doctrinal truths?
Why would I expect them to?
Since I don’t expect Jon to sin against me such that either of us have to take it to our pastors, I’m not sure that’s even an issue. Or did you think that Jesus meant in Matt 18 talking about theological disagreements? If so, why should I accept your personal interpretation of Matt 18?So, if you two get into a disagreement over something, you CAN’T take it to the Church as Jesus instructed, because you can’t even agree on who or where that Church is found.
And no one has interpreted Vatican II differently, eh?
Just like the ELCA is so far outside the Confessions that confessional Lutherans know it. Doesn’t stop them from proclaiming themselves Lutheran, eh? Just like it doesn’t stop Pelosi from calling herself a practicing Catholic. Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be permitted at our altar, though.
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church - not a collection of people who are members of a group.
Catholic teaching adds nothing to the fullness of God’s revelation which includes both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There are many articles online which explain the complex relationship between them.Thanks, I think?
perhaps a better translation of the idea is the Confessions reflect scripture.Hmmm…your canon must be considerably different than mine because I do not find the Confessions in any of the many translations of scripture that I own.
You’ve stumped me here. I do not understand the question.
The hole is getting deeper.
Jon seems like a pretty nice guy, but I think he would concede that he is capable of sinning against other people. Could it be that you might sin against him?
You shouldn’t. You should accept the interpretation of the teaching authority of the Church which Jesus invested in Peter and his successors.
Of course they have! Which is why we have a LIVING magisterium which can correct them. Your questions suggest that you are starting to see the problem inherent within Protestantism.
You and I are in far more agreement here. But then, I tend to be pretty black and white.
I’ve said it both ways, but Isn’t it a distinctioon without a difference…at least as far as going back to their roots?
I wonder what’s happened. I don’t see that on my screen.I’ve printed from the Lutheran view before and THAT didn’t seem to move the needle either. So I thought I would broaden the view.
Re: the 1st link, [the apocrypha a lost treasure] Well, does this source go on to say the apocrypha, is no longer apocrypha, it is scripture ?
I meant to thank you for this. Your gift for listening and hearing only what has been said has not gone unnoticed. :tiphat:I’m afraid I’ve noticed that too. I wonder if some of my fellow Catholic have the idea that, since we have “Papal Infallibility”, Lutherans must have an equivalent, like “Infallibility of Martin Luther”.