All we need is Jesus

[MT1926]

He said wasn’t burned alive. Not was.

Oops missed that. Thanks.

I had to read it like three times but I get it now.

 

[BoomerangToo]

Can anyone help, guide, provide pointers for me in constructing a reply to this “all we need is Jesus” belief?

Two things. I assume he believes in the bible, right?:

1. Point out church hierarchy in the NT. Deacons, Presbyters (priests) and Bishops.
2. Point out the seven sacraments in the NT. Baptism, communion, confirmation, holy orders, holy matrimony, anointing of the sick, and confession.

NONE of the things in either point above can be obtained without being in a Church. An organized Church. You cannot “go-it-alone” and be fully obedient to Jesus, plain and simple.

 

[guanophore]

I would like to say that Jesus is everything we need He is our rock

She is right, but we understand what that means differently. We understand that Jesus is the Head of His One Body, the Church, and that, since it is not a Headless Body, or Bodyless Head, they are joined eternally together. One does not have the “head” without the Church!

We also know that Jesus founded One Church, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets. He grafted these as living stones into Himself, as the Cornerstone.

Through that Church, He gave us the Scriptures, and the teachings of the Apostles (Sacred Tradition), and the Authority to teach (Magesterium). All of these come with “just Jesus”.

 

[guanophore]

Well all we need is Christ since He died for us.

This seems like such an odd thing to say, especially since Jesus founded a Church. Why do you suppose Jesus would do something unnecessary?

 

[Gorgias]

No sir. Luther was absolutely correct in his interpretation. We don’t obtain grace by purchasing indulgences. We obtain grace through faith.

As I recall, the legend didn’t say that Luther nailed the “One Thesis” to the door.

Now, to your assertion about ‘indulgences’. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that indulgences are means to obtain grace. Rather, they are means to dispense with the temporal punishment due to sin. The whole idea of purchasing them was against Church teaching, as well. So, we have two problems here: first, a mischaracterization of what the Church teaches (or individuals who teach against what the Church teaches) and the invalid notion that these can be bought.

Tell me, again: which part should we give Luther credit for? Affirming what the Church doesn’t teach, or pointing out an inaccurate teaching? Which one is worth creating a new denomination over?

(Edited to add:

And when Luther’s response to this abuse was sent to the Pope, the Pope backed Tetzel.

It’s my understanding that the Pope backed Tetzel’s assertion that indulgences do not obtain grace or save the damned from hell. Do you have any support for your position that the Pope fully backed even Tetzel’s over-the-top characterizations?)

 

[PJM]

In conversation with a cousin who has started their own “Church” and states all we need is Jesus:

“I read your post and I noticed you have a lot of passion for the Catholic Church and that’s good but I would like to say that Jesus is everything we need He is our rock our guide our love our forgiveness our Savior our Lord it’s all about Him I’m not minimizing anything any religion I’m saying I’m thankful to have a loving God who loves me unconditionally!!”

This to me has undertones of “faith alone” and “personal relationship” theology common in protestantism. My knee-jerk reaction is to go full out Micheal Vorris on them but I’m not blessed with the gift of articulating a response I believe that could plant that seed in them and bring them back to the fullness if truth. Can anyone help, guide, provide pointers for me in constructing a reply to this “all we need is Jesus” belief? Not so much a “taste me sword you heretical heathen” but something a bit more compassionate, thoughtful and rooted in truth?
Thank you

That’ my friend is your take; BUT is it also that of JESUS?

No, not historically and not biblically

It is more than than “faith alone”; it IS MY faith ALONE: quite a profound difference.

Suggest they READ prayerfully; carefully and taking note of the singular tense words
Mt 10: 1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20
Eph 4: 5
Eph. 2: 20

Because the Bible is historically a Catholic Book {easily provable} , the above passages are a synopis of the Catholic Faith instituted by Jesus Personally.

May God guide our paths,
Patrick

 

[Benadam]

Jesus ordered things in a way that we need His Church. If all we need is Jesus no one would have known He ever was by now.

 

[guanophore]

Apparently you haven’t read many of the reformation documents such as The Augsberg Confession which frequently refers the theologians that came before them.

While this may be true, it is also true that many Lutherans have not read them (just as many Catholics have not read their catechism!).

And there is an appalling number of modern evangelicals that know nothing about their own family history.

 

[guanophore]

The divinity of Christ has been solidified from the beginning of the church and is demonstrable in the scriptures.

If this were true, then there would not have been so many early Christological heresies, or a need for Councils to meet and define/clarify.

I agree with you that the dogma has been there from the beginning, but clearly, one can read the Scriptures and reach an opposite conclusion, as do the Mormons.

It was by the scriptures that the divinity of Christ was defended.

Yes, and by the Sacred Tradition, which has always been considered equal in authority to they Scripture it produced.

Many of these Christological heresies predated the closing of the NT canon, and part of them was rooted in books that claimed to be authorative, but did not meet the criteria to be included in the canon.

Again, the scriptures demonstrably show that Christ was both the son of God was both human and man.

They do for us because we read them through that lens. We already accept the Trinity, so when we read, we see it. But those who do not accept it, do not see what we do.

Believing that the scriptures are sufficient to teach that principle is not rebellion against Christ’s Church.

It is a rejection of the authority that produced the Scriptures, and canonized them.

We acknowledge and confess the same Christ as you do.

Amen!

But Mormons do not, nor do JW’s even though they claim the same NT we do.

 

[guanophore]

The tense used in John 1:1 is the imperfective tense which means the action began at a past point in time and continued until the ending reference.

I find it curious that you would not apply this same principle to Mary being perfected in grace in the same way.

 

[guanophore]

I think you misunderstand what scripture alone even means, something that is common because most Catholic apologists present a boogey man that does not represent the proper definition of what this doctrine means.

This might be related to the fact that so many different factions use it differently. Some say it is a doctrine, some say it is a practice. It is a position that is not found within Scripture itself, which seems to make it self refuting.

Scripture alone is NOT me by my lonesome under a tree somewhere.

This may be the case for you, but it is not for all those who embrace it.

Scripture Alone means that scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith and doctrine for the church.

And this, at it’s core, is problematic, since such a doctrine is not found within the pages of the Sacred Text.

It is also a problem because infallibility, by definition requires the ability to be fallible. It is a quality that was never intended to belong to Scripture. No writing , however Holy, can take responsibility for one’s choices, made decisions, and accept the consequences of those decisions. These are qualities that belong to persons, not writings. By attempting to force the text into a role it was never intended to play, the result is that the "persons’ are the interpretive element.

Scripture is not, by nature, infallible. It is inspired, and inerrant, but it is not a person, and cannot make decisions. Therefore, it cannot “rule”.

We will all agree that God is infallible, and does not err, but God is not the one interpreting, people are.

Now, given that God’s word is infallible, and that the scriptures are the God-breathed record of God’s word, this is authoritative to the believer who is subject to God.

It is a faulty conclusion, based upon a false premise. Of course, faithful Christians all believe they are subject to God. The Pilgrims believed they were subject to God when they killed people during the witch hunts. The Crusaders thought they were subject to God when they slaughtered in the name of Christ.

Luther’s issue (I know you disagree with me, but set that aside for a moment) is that he believed that other authorities were saying one thing about certain doctrines which were in conflict with what God’s word says.

I don’t disagree with you at all. In fact, this is the same thing that is operating today, and continues to split Christendom.

He said that God’s word holds supremacy over authorities that are in conflict with it.

And so it boils down to each person’s interpretation of what is written.

 

[guanophore]

Luther was addressing an abuse of a practice (which was unscriptural to begin with, but I digress). And when Luther’s response to this abuse was sent to the Pope, the Pope backed Tetzel. And to answer your question, even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s interlocutor, admitted to Tetzel’s abuse. Saying the church didn’t teach the abuse is nonsense since when the church was confronted with the abuse they supported the abusive practice.

I think you have the Church confused with certain persons within her that are/were failing in holiness. No amount of sinful people requires the Teaching of Christ to be changed. The Church never taught this, and does not now.

I agree that they reacted badly to Luther’s complaint, but conflating the misdirected behavior of certain leaders with the Teachings of the Apostles is not a leap that can be made.

Again, the issue was not Luther addressing the practice of indulgence sales, it was the papacy’s response by supporting error that caused the problem.

I think both were a problem, but Peter denying he knows Christ does not dilute the truth of Christ. No person, even the Pope, by behaving badly, requires the Teachings of Christ to be redefined.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I think you misunderstand what scripture alone even means, something that is common because most Catholic apologists present a boogey man that does not represent the proper definition of what this doctrine means.

As a former Protestant, this is definitely the case. Some Reformed writers have even taken to differentiating between sola scriptura, which they use to reference the teachings of Luther and Calvin, and a so-called solo scriptura, which they use to reference the Evangelical practice of ignoring all but Scripture.

In general, though, the only thing Protestants can seem to agree on is that Scripture is infallible and Tradition isn’t. Beyond that, you can get a lot of variation. Some take Tradition seriously despite not seeing it as infallible. Some refuse to acknowledge anything from Tradition, believing sola scriptura demands looking to the Bible “fresh”. Some (e.g. certain Charismatics) will add in some private revelation.

With that said, even the more traditional Protestants (Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.) would still tend to view anything outside Scripture with skepticism. They’ll only accept that which can be backed up by Scripture, which of course leads to the problem that they’re first interpreting Scripture and then accepting Tradition, despite claims to the contrary. That was actually one of the early issues I had as a Reformed Christian. We were criticizing the Evangelicals for “solo scriptura”, but their practice seemed like just a more honest application of our doctrine.

And even at that, their interpretation of the Tradition can be a bit weird, like with the whole “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” part of the Nicene creed, which they accept despite it appearing to fly in the face of all Protestant doctrine.