A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy

[JonNC]

Is there a difference in the Lutheran Eucharist during the Sacramental act and in the Eucharist after the Sacramental act?

Yes, as per the FoC

You’ve put up a defense on your opinion as to what Lutherans believe. Many other former Lutherans have challenged your ideas on this very form. I have found that Lutheran theologians do not teach what you claim they do. And, actual, live and practicing Lutherans disagree with you.

You’ve provided no evidence.

 

[JonNC]

So, since Anglicans don’t defend SS, why do you?

I’ve been on this forum a long time, ten years this month. There was a time on this forum when when many non-Catholics were here, including many Lutherans. Not so much now with the new format. One can speculate on the reasons for that.
In years past, there were Catholics and non-Catholics alike that took the position that one accepts the beliefs of others without telling them that’s not what they believe. To the point that each would chastise members of their own communion that stepped beyond that level of charity.
That seems to have changed here. Almost unlimited adversarial apologetics seems to be the rule now, apparently at the approval of CAF.
That’s fine, but the other Lutherans that used to be here aren’t anymore. So, there you are. But more and more, the polemics aren’t worth it.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, since Anglicans don’t defend SS, why do you?

I’ve been on this forum a long time, ten years this month.

I’ve been on this forum since it’s inception. You can check my history.

I wonder why we never ran into each other, before.

There was a time on this forum when when many non-Catholics were here, including many Lutherans. Not so much now with the new format. One can speculate on the reasons for that. In years past, there were Catholics and non-Catholics alike that took the position that one accepts the beliefs of others without telling them that’s not what they believe.

1. Jon, you claim to be an Anglican. Therefore, how do you maintain that I’m telling you that it’s not what you believe, when YOU claim that it’s not what you believe.
2. One of the best proofs that Catholic Apologists use on this forum and in others throughout the Net, is the fact that Protestants of all denominations contradict each other in their teachings.

To the point that each would chastise members of their own communion that stepped beyond that level of charity.

It’s not uncharitable to point out the flaws in your beliefs, Jon. Besides, you’re in the apologetics section. What did you expect? It’s the nature of apologetics to debate each other’s beliefs.

That seems to have changed here.

Not in my experience. See my history and you’ll see the proof of the CA that has always been here.

In fact, Jon, I’d never been admonished by a CA moderator before, until just last month when I was debating with you. And as you can see, I’ve actually mellowed down in my years here.

Almost unlimited adversarial apologetics seems to be the rule now, apparently at the approval of CAF.

As long as the discussion is civil. I mean, no name calling and such. And as long as one can prove their points with actual documentation.

That’s fine, but the other Lutherans that used to be here aren’t anymore. So, there you are. But more and more, the polemics aren’t worth it.

After the format change, I couldn’t use my password. Then, after a new password was issued, I couldn’t use my login. That’s why my “De Maria” which I used to use, was changed to “De_Maria”. It took months to get that straightened out. So, perhaps the other members are being delayed for similar reasons. Or, maybe they’ve given up trying.

So, I don’t know what you’re insinuating but it feels mostly the same to me.

Anyway, I took the time to answer your reply with detail, because you sound frustrated. But you really didn’t answer the question that I asked.

Without meaning any disrespect, I just wonder why a professed Anglican talks so much about and defends Lutheranism. It seems odd. Aren’t you interested in talking about Anglicanism and defending it’s teachings?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Is there a difference in the Lutheran Eucharist during the Sacramental act and in the Eucharist after the Sacramental act?

Yes, as per the FoC

1. Which you can’t back up with Scripture.
2. And you don’t believe, since you’re Anglican.

You’ve put up a defense on your opinion as to what Lutherans believe. Many other former Lutherans have challenged your ideas on this very form. I have found that Lutheran theologians do not teach what you claim they do. And, actual, live and practicing Lutherans disagree with you.

You’ve provided no evidence.

I’ve provided more than you.

 

[JonNC]

Without meaning any disrespect, I just wonder why a professed Anglican talks so much about and defends Lutheranism. It seems odd. Aren’t you interested in talking about Anglicanism and defending it’s teachings?

Asked and answered

Take care

 

[De_Maria]

Asked and answered

Take care

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve provided more than you.

No. You haven’t. But that’s fine

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You admitted that SS is not in Scripture.

correct, not explicitly

The fact that you say it’s “not explicitly” in Scripture, is another admission that Scripture is not the sole final rule. You see, in order to develop a doctrine from an implied elements in the Bible, there has to be a researcher, a sentient being, who goes through the Bible and puts the elements together to come up with a coherent teaching.

Thus, you have disproved SS as sole final rule, again.

Anyway, I have disputed that SS is in Scripture either implied or explicit. Neither you or any other Protestant has ever been able to provide the Chapter and verse.

You said that because it is not in Scripture, it is not a doctrine.

correct

Thanks for admitting that it is not in Scripture, at all.

You admitted that there are some doctrines which are adiaphora. Which means that Lutherans decide for themselves what to believe, despite Scripture.

Absolutely, totally and completely false.

You did admit that there are some doctrines which Lutherans consider adiaphora.

Perhaps you didn’t think it through when you said it, but since adiaphora means:

What is adiaphora? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
https://carm.org/questions-adiaphora
In Christianity, adiaphora means that something is debatable, spiritually neutral. There are essentials of the Christian faith such as the deity of Christ, monotheism, Christ’s physical resurrection, etc. But there are also topics that deal with issues that are non-essentials. So in a general sense, adiaphora means those Christian teachings which are neutral, things that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. An example of this might be what color of carpet to have in a church, or what time of the day a service should be held.

Sometimes there is debate within Christianity on what may or may not be adiaphora.

Now, since you say that “worshipping the Eucharist” is adiaphora in Lutheranism. Then, you admit that Lutherans can decide for themselves what to believe in this matter.

You admitted that Luther and Melancthon used Tradition as well as Scripture to decide what they considered to be doctrinal.

again, entirely false.

No. Read through the thread, you said

Luther and Melanchthon both use this very argument to defend the doctrine of the real presence

Umm, no. They did the sola scriptura thing, using the Fathers and the early Church to defend a doctrine.

Notice that YOU SAID Luther and Melancthon used the Fathers and the early Church to defend the doctrine. Thus, you have admitted that Scripture is not the sole final norm.

 

[JonNC]

Notice that YOU SAID Luther and Melancthon used the Fathers and the early Church to defend the doctrine. Thus, you have admitted that Scripture is not the sole final norm.

Defend a doctrine derived from scripture. They didn’t say they determined doctrine from the Fathers. Catholics don’t do that either.

 

[JonNC]

You did admit that there are some doctrines which Lutherans consider adiaphora.

False. Please. I have not misrepresented what you have said. Please do not do that to me. It is disingenuous.

https://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/2013/03/04/o-come-let-us-adore-him/

And from the confessions again;

**2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.**