Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

It wasn’t based on popular vote else we’d all be clinging to Arianism today.

You are right! The Holy Spirit does not count the ‘Yeas and Neys’ when it comes to doctrine - this is why the Gates of Hell (Matt 16) will not prevail. Unfortunately, I do not understand what it is you mean by us being Arians today… do you think the Holy Spirit was not at work protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error?

It was not based on the Lutheran Confessions either - correct? Why didn’t you answer Tom’s question?

His Apostles are a part of the church, they’re not THE church. When Christ founded His Church, (please re-read Matt 16) there were just the 12 Apostles there! God the Father selected Peter to be the leader - and inspired him to answer Christ’s question correctly! Only 12 and Peter was placed in charge. Hones. Read it yourself.

The apostles are the foundation of Jesus’ church, and Christians belonging to the CC make up the Body of the CC, to which Christ is the head and savior.

You keep talking about “the Church” as if it’s some kind of separate entity from the body of Christ.

I think you will find we look at the Chruch as much bigger then you are describing. We think of the Church on Earth - what you are trying to describe… the Church Suffering - those who have died in the Love of Christ but still have sin that must be purged from their souls (Purgatory) and then we have those who have died in the Love of Christ who are with Him right now and forever more in heaven - the Church Triumphant!,

I didn’t get that from what he said. Again, we agree with you; the church built by Jesus (Matthew 16) - is His Mystical Body.

What you call the infallible “Church” is your “Magisterium.” An ecclesiastical hierarchy which claims for itself infallibility and requires all members of its religious institution to accept it with docility.What you “explained” was your own theory of infallibility. A theory not backed up by historical facts.

Actually, Moondweller, when Christ told the Apostles He would not leave them, when He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and when the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost it was all based on the Power of God. I don’t know how you look at this - but, our God is an awesome God! He can really have His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) withstand the Gates of Hell.

Can you tell me when the majority of the churches ever accepted Gnostic writings as Scripture?

I really do not know exactly what you are asking here, Moondweller.

I am with Tom on this one; what is your point? Perhaps I will find out when you respond to Tom!

 

[moondweller]

You wish, Moondweller!

Just as a reminder, the ‘context’ is the ‘Defense of Sola Scriptura’ - and actually, the 'defenses have been shreded for what they are: a human tradition.

I only took your first paragraph, copied and pasted it and then responded as best I could. As I see it, the burden is on you to respond - not evade.

Well, if that was the “best” you could do, then… :tiphat:

The decision made at Jerusalem concerning believing Gentiles and circumcision was based on the testimony of contemporary events, i.e., that it was personally witnessed by Peter (by Apostolic authority) that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, cleansing them (Gentiles) not by circumcision, not even by baptism, but BY FAITH alone (Acts 15:9). Peter testified publicly that both Jews and Gentiles are saved (a, once for all, completed, divine act) through GRACE alone (Acts 15:11).

James then appealed to the O.T. Scriptures stating that “After these things” (i.e., calling out the church of Christ through faith alone by grace alone) Christ will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David which had fallen. IOW, after this church age, according to prophetic Scripture, Christ will return as “King of kings and Lord of lords” to literally fulfill all the O.T. prophetic promises concerning national Israel and the earthly, Messianic Kingdom (Acts 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-29).

So, let’s see if you can re-work that dismissive response and actually come up with a ‘defense’. I selected the First Council because it was in your abridged Bible - and one you could reference without any effort. My suggestion would be to look how the issue of circumcision - actually, the first doctrinal division in the Catholic Church - was resolved. And, as you see, it was not resolved by a ‘SS’ response. Imagine that… better yet, just read the words

Well, as you can see, my friend, SS did play a part at that council. James’ judgment not to trouble the believing Gentiles who were being baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, by grace alone through faith alone, was also based on Scripture: “Therefore…,” says James in Acts 15:19. Imagine that!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Well, if that was the “best” you could do, then… :tiphat:

The decision made at Jerusalem concerning believing Gentiles and circumcision was based on the testimony of contemporary events, i.e., that it was personally witnessed by Peter (by Apostolic authority) that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, cleansing them (Gentiles) not by circumcision, not even by baptism, but BY FAITH alone (Acts 15:9). Peter testified publicly that both Jews and Gentiles are saved (a, once for all, completed, divine act) through GRACE alone (Acts 15:11).

James then appealed to the O.T. Scriptures stating that “After these things” (i.e., calling out the church of Christ through faith alone by grace alone) Christ will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David which had fallen. IOW, after this church age, according to prophetic Scripture, Christ will return as “King of kings and Lord of lords” to literally fulfill all the O.T. prophetic promises concerning national Israel and the earthly, Messianic Kingdom (Acts 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-29).Well, as you can see, my friend, SS did play a part at that council. James’ judgment not to trouble the believing Gentiles who were being baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, by grace alone through faith alone, was also based on Scripture: “Therefore…,” says James in Acts 15:19. Imagine that!

Yes. The Council of Jerusalem (sometimes regarded as the first ecumenical council) is a classic example of Sola Scriptura. There was a position (actually, at least 2 of them). NONE was assumed to be infallible/unaccountable (as The Catholic Church demands of it’s official teachings - that they must be simply accepted “with docility”). Views were held as ACCOUNTABLE - and thus a norming is applied. The fundamental exemption of self for self (the foundation of Catholic epistemology) is rejected. And the first issue in norming in WHAT will serve as the norma normans. Acts 15 actually tells us what it used as such. Read Acts 15:15, the norm here is, it specifically states, is “Scripture” (it goes on to state examples). It wasn’t the Tradition of The Catholic Church. It wasn’t the words of Peter regarded as infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error (I recall Jesus calling one of the Apostles “Satan!” Which one was that?). Read Acts 15:15-18. It’s one of the most clear examples of the praxis of Sola Scriptura in Scripture (although Jesus has some 50 other examples). Then, turn to the arbitration issue (outside what we can talk about in this thread - but allow a brief diversion). Verse 19 begins with “THEREFORE…” So, what was the basis for the “judgment?” Yup, the Scriptures. Now, my discussion with my Orthodox friends in the following verses reveals (to them - and I think they may be on to something) that arbitrations like this are not “final” but need the affirmation of the whole body of Christ (the church). In any case, Catholics often reference this Council but if they actually quote the Scriptures (and they very, very rarely do) they always end the quote at verse 14. Too bad, if they kept reading - they’d see a classic, clear case of Sola Scriptura.

.

 

[moondweller]

Again, Tom clearly answered your question. They did not look to the Scriptures as their sole objective norm.

Joe, were any of the Apostles present at any of the subsequent Councils? Your line of argument is quite silly, indeed.

 

[moondweller]

Yes. The Council of Jerusalem (sometimes regarded as the first ecumenical council) is a classic example of Sola Scriptura. There was a position (actually, at least 2 of them). NONE was assumed to be infallible/unaccountable (as The Catholic Church demands of it’s official teachings - that they must be simply accepted “with docility”). Views were held as ACCOUNTABLE - and thus a norming is applied. The fundamental exemption of self for self (the foundation of Catholic epistemology) is rejected. And the first issue in norming in WHAT will serve as the norma normans. Acts 15 actually tells us what it used as such. Read Acts 15:15, the norm here is, it specifically states, is “Scripture” (it goes on to state examples). It wasn’t the Tradition of The Catholic Church. It wasn’t the words of Peter regarded as infallible/unaccountable/incapable of error (I recall Jesus calling one of the Apostles “Satan!” Which one was that?). Read Acts 15:15-18. It’s one of the most clear examples of the praxis of Sola Scriptura in Scripture (although Jesus has some 50 other examples). Then, turn to the arbitration issue (outside what we can talk about in this thread - but allow a brief diversion). Verse 19 begins with “THEREFORE…” So, what was the basis for the “judgment?” Yup, the Scriptures. Now, my discussion with my Orthodox friends in the following verses reveals (to them - and I think they may be on to something) that arbitrations like this are not “final” but need the affirmation of the whole body of Christ (the church). In any case, Catholics often reference this Council but if they actually quote the Scriptures (and they very, very rarely do) they always end the quote at verse 14. Too bad, if they kept reading - they’d see a classic, clear case of Sola Scriptura.
.

:thankyou:

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Again, Tom clearly answered your question. They did not look to the Scriptures as their sole objective norm.
Joe, were any of the Apostles present at any of the subsequent Councils? Your line of argument is quite silly, indeed.

That’s because I am a silly guy. LOL…Nope, just their successors!

The apostles belonged to the church built by Jesus on Pentecost; the members of the 3rd, 4th century CC belonged to an entirely different church, built by man, as opposed to Jesus, at a later date - is this your belief???

 

[moondweller]

That’s because I am a silly guy. LOL…Nope, just their successors!

The apostles belonged to the church built by Jesus on Pentecost; the members of the 3rd, 4th century CC belonged to an entirely different church, built by man, as opposed to Jesus, at a later date - is this your belief???

According to the Scriptures, the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18) is made up of all true believers baptized into it (the body of Christ) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:13) since Pentecost (Acts 1:5). Since Pentecost there is, and always will be, only one church, and “being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:20-21).

But this is off topic. However, I do find it conspicuously ironic that all of you who vehemently oppose SS invariably try to appeal to the Scriptures for your defense. The only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures.

 

[MartinJordan]

So many opinions on Scripture, no wonder there are 38,000 denominations of so called Christian churches!

 

[Teneas]

According to the Scriptures, the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18) is made up of all true believers baptized into it (the body of Christ) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:13) since Pentecost (Acts 1:5). Since Pentecost there is, and always will be, only one church, and “being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:20-21).

But this is off topic. However, I do find it conspicuously ironic that all of you who vehemently oppose SS invariably try to appeal to the Scriptures for your defense. The only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures.

The only reason we do use Scripture to prove against SS is simple. Those that believe in SS will only acknowledge scripture as valid. They won’t allow anything else, or it will be dismissed very fast.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Which brings me back to the original question that you did not answer:“OK…Let’s assume that the CC is as you say, and move on! How can we know if a teacher is doctrinally correct or incorrect, regardless of the church to which they belong? Keeping in mind that you said: the bible as the Christians norm norma, cannot arbitrate and it cannot determine anything!”

AGAIN, you begin by rejecting the premise of The Catholic Church - that one is exempt from your question (specifically and exclusively - itself). You embrace your question - and apply it to ALL (including The Catholic Church).

You’ve now departed from the exemption of self alone by self alone, and entered the realm of norming. Norming is the process of addressing your excellent question: “is this teacher/teaching correct?”

All norming (regardless of the discipline) involves two main aspects. The first (and the first that must be addressed) is WHAT will serve as the rule (“straight edge”) / canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is technically called in epistemology, the norma normans ("the norm that norms). In my field, physics, we use math and repeatable/observble experimental evidence. The best, most sound norma normans is the most OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all parties, knowable to all, alterable by none, with the strongest and most universal embrace as reliable. Simply insisting that the view of self (under review) is the best canon for the evaluation of the view of self is simply noting if the view agrees with itself - it’s entirely moot to whether the veiw is correct. Sola Scriptura addresses only this first point, the WHAT will serve as the rule/ canon/ norma normans in the norming process. It embraces/uses Scripture as such. The second main part (and what we cannot discuss here for it would be hijacking) is the arbitrative process, the HOW it will be determined if the view under review, the view in the normative process, “measures up” to the “measuring stick.”

The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura not because it has an alternative norma normans (better or worse) but because it rejects norming (and all aspects of it) IN THE SINGULAR, EXCLUSIVE CASE OF JUST ONE; ITSELF. It’s norming it rejects, therefore the Rule of Scripture (or any other). It alone insists that it alone CANNOT err (at least in certain areas and under certain conditions), it alone insists that it alone is infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming, thus the entire issue of which Sola Scriptura is a part is declared by one to be moot in the case of one: itself. It insists that whatever it alone says is to be accepted simply “with docility.” But this, obviously, is not an alternative approach to norming (better or not), it’s simply self alone excluding self alone from the entire issue. “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right - just accept it with docility.”

.

 

[JonNC]

=AmericanJosiah;6159335]Read Acts 15:15-18. It’s one of the most clear examples of the praxis of Sola Scriptura in Scripture (although Jesus has some 50 other examples). Then, turn to the arbitration issue (outside what we can talk about in this thread - but allow a brief diversion). Verse 19 begins with “THEREFORE…” So, what was the basis for the “judgment?” Yup, the Scriptures. **Now, my discussion with my Orthodox friends in the following verses reveals (to them - and I think they may be on to something) that arbitrations like this are not “final” but need the affirmation of the whole body of Christ (the church). ** In any case, Catholics often reference this Council but if they actually quote the Scriptures (and they very, very rarely do) they always end the quote at verse 14. Too bad, if they kept reading - they’d see a classic, clear case of Sola Scriptura.

Jon

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

Well, if that was the “best” you could do, then… :tiphat:

Actually, I think that was the best I could do - glad you appreciated it… Now, let me tell you about evasion and how well you have provide examples in this post. Recall, the thread is “Defense of Sola Scriptura”

But, let’s first see if we can put some limits on this run-on sentence of yours…

The decision made at Jerusalem concerning believing Gentiles and circumcision was based on the testimony of contemporary events,
While you can say it this way, you tend to miss or evade the point. We need to get back on track from the very beginning… And, that point is that Peter did not use Scripture to make this decision he rendered at the Council of Jeruslaem. I realize that this does not square with your position - but, Scripture did not pay a role in this. Peter was given a vision by God - Peter worked with the Gentiles he saw and Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit to set out a new direction for the new (maybe ‘Infant’ would be a better word) Catholic Church

i.e., that it was personally witnessed by Peter (by Apostolic authority) that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, I think you said this very well, Moondweller,

cleansing them (Gentiles) not by circumcision, not even by baptism, but BY FAITH alone (Acts 15:9). Peter testified publicly that both Jews and Gentiles are saved (a, once for all, completed, divine act) through GRACE alone (Acts 15:11). You realize that you are shifting the topic…and evading the point of my post and the nature of this thread. Did yo realize that Saul of Tarsus received the Holy Spirit first - and then baptism. Did you know that God can change the arrangement any way He chooses. If you want to speak at length about Faith Alone, let me invite you to start a new thread.

James then appealed to the O.T. Scriptures stating that “After these things” (i.e., calling out the church of Christ through faith alone by grace alone) You do so much better when you do not misquote and misdirect the topic. Actually, here are the actual words rather then your interpretation of them…

"After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written: 'After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things, known from of old.”’

Now, I do not want to put too fine a point on this, but, this quote from James does not even hint of circumcision - either for or against - so, I just do not see how you can claim SS was the basis for this decison by Peter. And, I guess that is the bottom line for your argument: it isn’t there in that context! Honest! This, of course, does not mean that they the Apostles didn’t pray or read from the OT or do other things - but, none of that is part of this thread.

Christ will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David which had fallen. IOW, after this church age, according to prophetic Scripture, Christ will return as “King of kings and Lord of lords” to literally fulfill all the O.T. prophetic promises concerning national Israel and the earthly, Messianic Kingdom (Acts 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-29). Your IOW really does not fit - and looks like another evasion. No? Well, if the issue is that SS answers everything - and I have shown you where it doesn’t - from your own abridged Bible - then your argument lacks validity.

Well, as you can see, my friend, SS did play a part at that council. You may need to refer to your idea about "the testimony of contemporary events’. SS only exists exists as an explanation in your mind - not in the Scripture.

James’ judgment not to trouble the believing Gentiles who were being baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, by grace alone through faith alone, was also based on Scripture: “Therefore…,” says James in Acts 15:19. Imagine that!

FONT=“Century Gothic”]James could have said, “Amen” or “Right on!” or " Me, too" - terms that you would have difficulty misunderstanding. James did not make the dicision - he endorsed what was already done by Peter through the Holy Spirit and it did not contain Scripture. Please, just take the time to read the words and stop putting things into those words.

 

[tqualey]

FONT=“Century Gothic”]Hi, Joe,

Clearly Tom has answered your question! He said:

I agree with you as does Tom: “the Holy Spirit’s is leading into all truth does not preclude teachers rising up within the the church and teaching erroneous doctrines. As I said, history bears this out.” However, the Holy spirit will, nonetheless, guide Jesus’ church into all truth, as per the holy bible, regardless of such divisive and heretical movements - correct?

Again, Tom clearly answered your question. They did not look to the Scriptures as their sole objective norm. If they did then where did they get the idea that the Christ and the holy spirit are one: of the same substance? In Scripture there is no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. As per the Lutheran confessions, the Biblical teaching, concerning the Holy Trinity, is this: Within the Godhead we find three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are three distinct persons but only one God, three Persons not three Gods. The bible does not mention any of this; the bible does not tell us that Jesus and the holy spirit are one. The Lutheran confessions also states that that it is important to note that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible but was used by the early church (the CC) - to describe what the Bible teaches. The yardstick was not the Scriptures alone, or the Lutheran confessions, as the Christians final arbiter; it was the Ecumenical councils of the CC.
Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius, as many protestants such as yourself are opposed to certain teachings of the CC today. Should I side with you as many did with Arius? Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after the fact. The idea of the Trinity was only adopted by the CC three hundred years after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; to trust our Lord Jesus Christ is to trust the CC, if you trust that the Trinity, Jesus’ 2 natures, and Theotokos are indeed infallibly defined. The New Catholic Encyclopedia rightfully states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” Clearly the bible alone as your norm, or the bible seen through the lens of the Lutheran Confessions, is of no help in determining the veracity of the Trinitarian dogma.

 

[rdscheirer]

If you only use the Bible -written by the First Catholics- and then changed by Calvin and Luther- how will you know what is true. They didn’t change it over differences in translation- they added and subtracted from the Bible in use for 1500 years.
I am not a Bible scholar but I know that in one of Paul’s letters he said “Remember the Scripture and Tradition we taught you”.

So why is tradition wrong if everything in your Bible is the only source you need. How do you find tradition in the Bible?

 

[JonNC]

=rdscheirer;6161447]If you only use the Bible -written by the First Catholics

I think a significant portion of the Bible was written prior to any Christian communion. As for the NT, the writings were certainly compiled by the undivided Church.

and then changed by Calvin and Luther- how will you know what is true. They didn’t change it over differences in translation- they added and subtracted from the Bible in use for 1500 years.

Don’t know about Calvin, did he translate? Luther, on the other hand, did translate, and the use of the word “allein” in Romans 3:28 is precisely related to translation. This is evidenced by the fact that “alone” does not appear in any English Bible because it is not necessary in translation. I don’t know of any subtraction from the Bible by Luther.

So why is tradition wrong if everything in your Bible is the only source you need. How do you find tradition in the Bible?

Nothing wrong with Tradition at all, so long as teachings and teachers are subject to the measure of scripture.

Jon

 

[joe370]

=moondweller;6159775]According to the Scriptures, the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18) is made up of all true believers baptized into it (the body of Christ) by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:13) since Pentecost (Acts 1:5). Since Pentecost there is, and always will be, only one church, and “being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - according to the Scriptures (Eph. 2:20-21).

Amen brother! Couldn’t agree more.

But this is off topic. However, I do find it conspicuously ironic that all of you who vehemently oppose SS invariably try to appeal to the Scriptures for your defense. The only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures.

No Catholic is vehemently opposed to the bible. That would be like being opposed to Jesus Christ! We are opposed to the bible as our one and only authority, which simply has led to division and disunity. I will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as my interpretation agrees with the CC, just as you will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the Lutheran Confessions - correct??? What’s the difference? I agree, the only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures and the ECF’s, and the only way you and I know about the bible (which tells us about the Jerusalem Council) - is through the CC, forever guided by the holy spirit. If I am wrong please expound???

MD, keep in mind that I am not trying to change your beliefs or prove you wrong, just trying to understand them! After all we are brothers in Christ, and we should be striving to unite not divide. That is why I am trying to see things from your perspective, which once use to be my perspective, as a former Lutheran.

BTW, you did not answer the question; let me re-phrase the question: do you believe that the CC, the EOC, as well as all of the PC’s, comprise the one Church built by Jesus on Pentecost? Or, do you believe that Jesus established just one church (1 united body of brothers and sisters in Christ) - on Pentecost, which split into 2 churches in the 11th century, which again fractured in the 16th century, 17th century…21st century…?

 

[joe370]

Aj, you said:

Read Acts 15:15-18. It’s one of the most clear examples of the praxis of Sola Scriptura in Scripture (although Jesus has some 50 other examples). Then, turn to the arbitration issue (outside what we can talk about in this thread - but allow a brief diversion). Verse 19 begins with “THEREFORE…”

So I think, your point is: since Peter, and James (who arbitrated and determined the outcome) - are the writers of a few books in the NT, we should, therefore defer to the holy bible to determine and evaluate doctrine - as opposed to the arbitration and determination of their successors, regardless of the century - is that correct?

So, what was the basis for the “judgment?” Yup, the Scriptures.

Let’s use your logic and apply it to the Trinitarian doctrine (the father, son and the holy spirit are of one substance) - and the doctrine of Theotokos. Help me determine/evaluate (using scripture alone) - the doctrine of the Trinity, Theotokos (Mary as God bearer, or mother of God)? Find these teachings spelled out explicitly in sacred scripture?

Now, my discussion with my Orthodox friends in the following verses reveals (to them - and I think they may be on to something) that arbitrations like this are not “final” but need the affirmation of the whole body of Christ (the church).

Well, then it looks like, if you are correct, the teaching of the Trinity or the Eucharist are still potentially fallible, at least until the whole body of Christ (the church leaders, comprised of all Christians regardless of church affiliation) - makes a decision - correct?

In any case, Catholics often reference this Council but if they actually quote the Scriptures (and they very, very rarely do)

Not true… I already asked you if we could work from sacred scripture alone, (leaving the Lutheran confessions and the CCC out of it) - but you never responded.

…they always end the quote at verse 14. Too bad, if they kept reading - they’d see a classic, clear case of Sola Scriptura.

Let see a classic, clear case of Sola Scriptura in action, determining/evaluating the Eucharistic doctrine, which will lead to just one truth regarding this one doctrine; let’s finally do this:

Over and over and over, people have asked you to use your norma normans/rule/canon to evaluate doctrine, such as the true doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist, and you simply come back with: the norma normans/rule/canon cannot arbitrate or determine or evaluate anything. For the last time: If the norma normans/rule/canon cannot arbitrate or determine or evaluate anything then what is my next step at determining and evaluating the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist so that my niece (who belongs to one of the Lutheran churches) - will finally come to believe as you believe? Help me help her, find the truth regarding this very important doctrine?

If you tell me that the decision must be evaluated by teachers, then help me find said teachers? My niece tells me that there must be an answer to this question, and wants the truth regarding this particular teaching of Jesus Christ, and she doesn’t trust the CC teachers, so perhaps you can shed some light on this for her. Heck, I’ll even give you her e-mail. Let us work together, using your norm via Lutheran confessions, to flesh out this truth!!!

 

[joe370]

Jon, you said:

Nothing wrong with Tradition at all, so long as teachings and teachers are subject to the measure of scripture.

I can give you 50 examples of teachers belonging to different PC’s, subject to the measure of scripture, who vehemently disagree with one another, only on certain things of course. They all defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for determining and evaluating doctrinal truth, yet they all come away with something different. We know that the infallible word of God is not the problem and that there can only be one truth regarding any one doctrine, so the problem must be the teachers of these 50 churches - correct?

If the bible alone (sola scriptura) - is the yard stick (for these 50 churches) - for determining/evaluating the outcome of a certain doctrinal truths, then help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust? The teachers of Matthew 28…the teachers to which Jesus said:

“As the Father has sent Me, even so send I you.”

After all, Jesus Christ came to bear witness to the Truth, to the entire world, to the very ends of the earth, regarding everything He taught in the 1st century. Were these unique truths relegated to the apostolic age only, or has God provided a way for all Christians, regardless of the time period, to avail themselves of the same unique truths taught and believed in the apostolic age? If so, where can I go to find these singularly unique truths of Jesus Christ?

If you suggest the Lutheran Church, (which only makes perfect sense) - then I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision? After all, those 50 church leaders will disagree with you (not on everything of course) - and their reasons will be biblically motivated, just as yours are. They defer to the same collection of books (outside the Lutheran Confessions of course) - as you do, and they tell me, based on their interpretation of the bible (the final norm for them, for determining and evaluating doctrine) - that truth can be found at their respective assemblies, from the very pulpits from which they preach.

Help me work through this doctrinal maze, or does it even matter anymore, like it did in the early church? Has God provided a way for all Christian of the 21st century to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, or has the sin of man through the work of the evil one, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity?

 

[joe370]

Jon, you said:

I can give you 50 examples of teachers belonging to different PC’s, subject to the measure of scripture, who vehemently disagree with one another, only on certain things of course. They all defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for determining and evaluating doctrinal truth, yet they all come away with something different. We know that the infallible word of God is not the problem and that there can only be one truth regarding any one doctrine, so the problem must be the teachers of these 50 churches - correct?

If the bible alone (sola scriptura) - is the yard stick (for these 50 churches) - for determining/evaluating the outcome of a certain doctrinal truths, then help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust? The teachers of Matthew 28…the teachers to which Jesus said:

“As the Father has sent Me, even so send I you.”

After all, Jesus Christ came to bear witness to the Truth, to the entire world, to the very ends of the earth, regarding everything He taught in the 1st century. Were these unique truths relegated to the apostolic age only, or has God provided a way for all Christians, regardless of the time period, to avail themselves of the same unique truths taught and believed in the apostolic age? If so, where can I go to find these singularly unique truths of Jesus Christ?

If you suggest the Lutheran Church, (which only makes perfect sense) - then I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision? After all, those 50 church leaders will disagree with you (not on everything of course) - and their reasons will be biblically motivated, just as yours are. They defer to the same collection of books (outside the Lutheran Confessions of course) - as you do, and they tell me, based on their interpretation of the bible (the final norm for them, for determining and evaluating doctrine) - that truth can be found at their respective assemblies, from the very pulpits from which they preach.

Help me work through this doctrinal maze, or does it even matter anymore, like it did in the early church? Has God provided a way for all Christian of the 21st century to avail themselves of the same singular truths taught and believed in the apostolic age, or has the sin of man through the work of the evil one, temporarily thwarted Jesus’ plan for doctrinal unity?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe,

First of all, let me compliment you on the quality of your post - they are always an enjoyment to read.

One thing caught my eye from MD’s post - and, at least the way I am looking at it, sets the course for a misdirection…

Quote:
But this is off topic. However, I do find it conspicuously ironic that all of you who vehemently oppose SS invariably try to appeal to the Scriptures for your defense. The only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures.

The argument proposed is simply evasive and a logical fallicy. “Conspicuously ironic…” is rather clever - but, fails for three major reasons:

(1) it ignores the point that a decision on not requiring circumcision was made by Peter and it did not quote Scripture - the decision was from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . (MD’s orignial argument was that every council had its basis in Scripture - so SS is the way to go. This totally ignores the Power of the Holy Spirit - and the clearly written words of Scripture.)

(2) it criticizes a legitimate reference source that simply disproves MS’s argument (so, it must be flawed!)

(3) the quote given by James has NOTHING TO DO with circumcision. In fact, every verse in the OT from Abraham on involves the covenant which was signified by circumcision - and then after Moses, following the Law. There is no way to void out circumcision based on ANY straight forward quote from the OT. The truth of the matter is that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter and James agreed with it and gave this as a general reference on helping the Gentiles.

No Catholic is vehemently opposed to the bible. That would be like being opposed to Jesus Christ! We are opposed to the bible as our one and only authority, which simply has led to division and disunity. I will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as my interpretation agrees with the CC, just as you will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the Lutheran Confessions - correct??? What’s the difference? I agree, the only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures and the ECF’s, and the only way you and I know about the bible (which tells us about the Jerusalem Council) - is through the CC…

You are correct in identifying that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible - so, there is no conflict between the CC and the Bible. Additonally, SS is only responsible for thousands of sects, cults, groups, missions, assemblies and congregations - all claiming to be a church - yet all splintered over basic doctrine and totally incapable of every bringing themselves together even under the flawed banner of protestantism.

God bless