Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

.

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?

No.

The “point” is The Jerusalem Council, which was referrenced, used Sola Scriptura.

Note the following:

1. NO teacher or teaching was regarded as infallible/unaccountable - exempt from norming. Thus, the insistence of The Catholic Church for it itself exclusively was rejected.
2. While several spoke, some Apostles and some not, we are told what the rule/canon/norma normans was at the meeting. We are told in the verse immediately AFTER Catholics always end the reference, Acts 15:15: “With this THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS (Scripture) AGREE” The text goes on to quote some of the Scriptures. It is obvious and undeniable that the rule/canon here was not the words of Barnabas or any other, not the “tradition” of any denomination (yours, mine or any other), but Scripture. The rule was Scripture. The Rule of Scripture is otherwise known as Sola Scriptura.
3. As for the arbitration (which we should not discuss here) was clearly and undeniably according to this rule. Continue to read where no Catholic does, Acts 15:19. The first and key word there is “THEREFORE…” The Rule of Scripture is noted, quoted, and then we have the arbitration which begins with, “THEREFORE…”

BTW, we don’t know who served as the arbiters here, or how it was arbitrated. Perhaps that was not regarded as important enough to convey to us. But we ARE told what the rule/canon/norma normans was. Read the text. Acts 15:15-19.

The Jerusalem Council is one of the classic, clear cases of the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

.

 

[joe370]

Aj, I ask again: do I need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Or, can I reject all of it or parts of it and still be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Jon has already helped me out by answering the question. What’s your answer?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Aj, I ask again: do I need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Or, can I reject all of it or parts of it and still be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Jon has already helped me out by answering the question. What’s your answer?

The only relevant aspect of your question is this: Are the Lutheran Confessions regarded as norma normans? No, they are not. I’ve already answered that several times. Jon has, too.

As a layperson, when I officially joined the congregation, I was asked if I regarded LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM (it’s 8 pages long) to be a “CORRECT EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE.” I said that I do. Thus, I specificially said that I do NOT regard it as norma normans. It is, at most, norma normata.

Yes, if one desires to be an ordained pastor in my denomination, the polity of that denomination is that they are to subscribe to all the Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord) as A CORRECT EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE." That’s the polity of the denomination. It’s for clergy. And it makes it clear that the Confessions are NOT norma normans.

The rule/canon/norma normans in Lutheranism is Scripture.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The “point” is The Jerusalem Council, which was referrenced, used Sola Scriptura.

Note the following:

1. NO teacher or teaching was regarded as infallible/unaccountable - exempt from norming. Thus, the insistence of The Catholic Church for it itself exclusively was rejected.
2. While several spoke, some Apostles and some not, we are told what the rule/canon/norma normans was at the meeting. We are told in the verse immediately AFTER Catholics always end the reference, Acts 15:15: “With this THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS (Scripture) AGREE” The text goes on to quote some of the Scriptures. It is obvious and undeniable that the rule/canon here was not the words of Barnabas or any other, not the “tradition” of any denomination (yours, mine or any other), but Scripture. The rule was Scripture. The Rule of Scripture is otherwise known as Sola Scriptura.
3. As for the arbitration (which we should not discuss here) was clearly and undeniably according to this rule. Continue to read where no Catholic does, Acts 15:19. The first and key word there is “THEREFORE…” The Rule of Scripture is noted, quoted, and then we have the arbitration which begins with, “THEREFORE…”

BTW, we don’t know who served as the arbiters here, or how it was arbitrated. Perhaps that was not regarded as important enough to convey to us. But we ARE told what the rule/canon/norma normans was. Read the text. Acts 15:15-19.

The Jerusalem Council is one of the classic, clear cases of the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

The official, historic definition of Sola Scriptura:

“The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (Ditto, 3). “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church.” (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS…

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT…

1. Doctrine. It’s praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: “The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished.” Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it’s praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God’s inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It’s not hermeneutics, it’s norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura “existed” just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the “size” of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the “canon” (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it’s moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position “measures up” (arbitration) to the “measuring stick” (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called “private arbitration.” SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called “public arbitration.” It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It’s just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

The Catholic Church (along with the LDS Church and all cults) rejects Sola Scriptura. But not because it has an alternative norma normans (better or worse) - it doesn’t. And not because it has an alternative praxis of norming (better or worse) - it doesn’t. It rejects the Rule of Scripture in norming because it rejects norming (but exclusively, solely, only in the case of just one - itself). Since norming is rejected (for self alone), all aspects of it are rejected (including any embraced rule). The Catholic Church alone declares that The Catholic Church alone is “infallible, incapable of error” in official matters of faith and morals - thus accountability and norming are moot in the case of just one - itself. Yes, it has it’s “spin” to try to justify the circumvention of accountability and thus norming for it itself alone, but such is NOT an alternative approach to norming - it’s just the exemption of self by self. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right I am right- so just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.).

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[moondweller]

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.

James wasn’t agreeing with anyone at that point, he was making a judgment, a judicial decision:Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,…"The issue at hand was whether or not the Gentiles were to come into the church as Gentiles or must they become Jewish converts via circumcision. James made a final judgment based on SCRIPTURE. He quotes the prophet Amos indicating that Gentiles will be brought into the Messianic Kingdom as Gentiles, hence, the church Christ is presently building are to come into it as Gentiles. Conversion to Judaism through circumcision is not required. James’ “Therefore…” judgment was ultimately based on Scripture, the Word of God, not merely the opinions of men. As AJ said:"The Jerusalem Council is one of the classic, clear cases of the praxis of Sola Scriptura."Because we “…are told what the rule/canon/norma normans was.” It wasn’t Peter, Paul, Barnabas or James, but SCRIPTURE; which, as AJ appropriately communicates, is the best “most sound norma normans outside, above and beyond all parties.” Since the Garden of Eden men were to look to God’s Word as the “rule/canon/norma normans.” We all know happened when that praxis was avoided. The same spiritual disaster can happen when a church institution looks to itself as the rule/canon/norma normans.

 

[moondweller]

Amen brother! Couldn’t agree more.

What you’re agreeing with is not what I am saying.

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.

As it should! No mere man or religious institution should be considered by any true believer as possessing the same authority or greater than God’s Word preserved in theopneustos, Holy Writ. Opposition to God’s Word arises when men claim their own teachings to be “kanon,” and in reality claim greater authority than God’s Word itself. Demonstrated by your following comment:"*I will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as my interpretation agrees with the CC,*Thereby placing your Church in higher authority than the Scriptures.

just as you will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the Lutheran Confessions - correct???

Incorrect. I’m not even Lutheran.

I agree, the only way we know about the Jerusalem Council is through the Scriptures and the ECF’s,

Which of the so-called ECFs were at the Jerusalem Council and wrote a firsthand account of it?

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???

You’re wrong on both accounts. Based on your statement are you then willing to go so far as to say that the only way we know about the Old Testament Scriptures is through the the nation of Israel its religious leaders and scribes, and that the nation of Israel, its religious leaders and scribes are forever guided by the Holy Spirit? After all, my friend, the O.T. Scriptures were written long before there was a church in Rome, or Constantinople.

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.

All true believers should unite under the authority of God’s inerrant/infallible Word. It’s above all parties. And based on the authority of those Scriptures we can actually know what brothers “in Christ” actually means.

That is why I am trying to see things from your perspective, which once use to be my perspective, as a former Lutheran

But I’m not a Lutheran. Anyway, why would you have to “try” to see things from a Lutheran perspective if you once were one?

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?

I do not.

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…?

I do not. There has never been a “split” in Christ’s church. The church wasn’t “built” (past tense) by Jesus on Pentecost. He merely began building it, through the Holy Spirit, on Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4-5), and is building it to this very day. But the day will come when she, His church, His bride, will be taken up to be with Him, forever - NONE will be missing (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Tim. 2:19a) - according to the Scriptures.

 

[joe370]

The only relevant aspect of your question is this: Are the Lutheran Confessions regarded as norma normans? No, they are not. I’ve already answered that several times. Jon has, too.

Agreed, the Lutheran Confessions are not regarded as norma normans, so you can stop answering that question and please start answering my question, if you wouldn’t mind.

As a layperson, when I officially joined the congregation, I was asked if I regarded LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM (it’s 8 pages long) to be a “CORRECT EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE.” I said that I do. Thus, I specificially said that I do NOT regard it as norma normans. It is, at most, norma normata.

Understood! Now, do I need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, **(which is not the norma normata) **- to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Or, can I reject all of it or parts of it and still be a member of the Lutheran church(es)?

Yes, if one desires to be an ordained pastor in my denomination, the polity of that denomination is that they are to subscribe to all the Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord) as A CORRECT EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE." That’s the polity of the denomination. It’s for clergy. And it makes it clear that the Confessions are NOT norma normans.

The rule/canon/norma normans in Lutheranism is Scripture.

Understood! The Lutheran Confessions make it clear that the Confessions are NOT norma normans.

I wasn’t asking if a Pastor must be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions; I was asking, if I want to be a member of the Lutheran church, (not in a pastoial capacity) - must I be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, which is not the norm?

 

[joe370]

Aj you said, the following is the correct definition of SS, and I agree:

An embrace of God’s inerrent, holy, written word as the final “Rule” (staight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Again, help me use God’s inerrant, holy, written word, which is the final “Rule” (straight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) or “norma normans” that serves as** the final Standard,** Plumb-line for Christians to evaluate the position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine?

I know you said that this final standard “cannot arbitrate or determine anything,” (which begs the question: why is it the final standard) - but I am still asking you to use your norm (the final standard for all Christians) - to evaluate the accurate/correct position regarding the Eucharistic doctrine, so that you can help my niece have a better understanding of this very important doctrine! Perhaps she will believe you since you are rabidly anti-Catholic, as she has become.

Really, you don’t need to keep sharing your opinions of the CC, for they are firmly ensconced in my long term memory. Plus, it is irrelevant to the thread. I can’t learn from you if you won’t answer my questions. You keep saying: I hope that helps, but it never does.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah

Read Acts 15:15-18.

OK…just did again!

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…”

OK.

*“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood.” *

The praxis of Sola Scriptura did not determine or arbitrate or judge anything; Peter, James and the elders did! They did defer to the norm (an old testament quote) - but the OT quote determined nothing, resolved nothing, and doesn’t even make mention of circumcision one way or the other. .

Josiah, Christians belonging to the CC are scriptura advocates as well, (just not sola scriptura advocates) - and they definitely defer to the authority of sacred scriptura, just as the early ecumenical councils did, and just as the church does today, and just as Protestants do, and we believe that Jesus left us with an authoritative interpreter of the authoritative, inerrant word of God, just as Protestants do. If the word of God is inerrant, then certainly an inerrant interpreter, which is impossible without the guidance by the holy spirit, just makes sense - right? Whoever you decide that to be is up to you of course; are we in agreement.

Note the following:

1. NO teacher or teaching was regarded as infallible/unaccountable - exempt from norming. Thus, the insistence of The Catholic Church for it itself exclusively was rejected.

Acts 15 in a nutshell can be expounded as such: Peter, James and the elders resolved, determined, arbitrated and decided that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us (James, Peter and the elders) - to lay upon Jesus’ fledgling church, no greater burden than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, but as far as those subverting your souls, by saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, we give no such commandment!

Since Peter, James and the elders were all fallible and accountable men then certainly they could have been wrong about the commandment they issued - right? Or, were they guided/moved by the HS in ways we can never know, to issue such commands? Norming can be a powerful tool, only if a determination or an evaluation can be reached through the arbitration of someone outside of that norm - right or wrong?

1. While several spoke, some Apostles and some not, we are told what the rule/canon/norma normans was at the meeting. We are told in the verse immediately AFTER Catholics always end the reference, Acts 15:15: “With this THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS (Scripture) AGREE” The text goes on to quote some of the Scriptures.

One Old Testament passage? Agreed.

It is obvious and undeniable that the rule/canon here was not the words of Barnabas or any other, not the “tradition” of any denomination (yours, mine or any other), but Scripture.

But just a passage of the OT was the rule/canon at this particular juncture, for the NT did not exist at this stage of Christianity, and just as the OT (in this case) - was the norm, arbitration was accomplished by Peter, James and the elders, and was the key to resolving the matter - right?

The rule was Scripture. The Rule of Scripture is otherwise known as Sola Scriptura.

Agreed! One passage of the Old Testament, in this case ,was the rule of scripture, otherwise known as sola scriptura, BUT again, arbitrated by the early church leaders???

continued…

 

[joe370]

As for the arbitration (which we should not discuss here)

Why not? This is the most important aspect of norming. Without it norming is useless.

…was clearly and undeniably according to this rule.

Agreed! The one passage in the OT is the rule, norm, which makes no mention of circumcision whatsoever, which again was arbitrated/resolved by teachers of the church built by Jesus Christ.

Continue to read where no Catholic does, Acts 15:19.

No catholic reads Acts 15:19??? Interesting assumption. Here it is:

*“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God…” Acts 15:19

The first and key word there is “THEREFORE…” The Rule of Scripture is noted, quoted, and then we have the arbitration which begins with, “THEREFORE…” BTW, we don’t know who served as the arbiters here, or how it was arbitrated. Perhaps that was not regarded as important enough to convey to us. But we ARE told what the rule/canon/norma normans was. Read the text. Acts 15:15-19.

Sure we know who served as the arbiters, as we will see in a minute.

Agreed, the Rule of Scripture (OT passage) - is noted, quoted, BUT, we don’t have the arbitration which you claim begins with, “THEREFORE…” - and therefore the arbitration on the matter of circumcision, is NOT settled by the words of the prophets of the preceding passage. The arbitration on the matter of circumcision is absolutely never settled by the words of the prophets “of the preceding passage,” for the words of the prophets make no mention of circumcision. Peter, James and the elders resolved the matter. Their determination via letter, is as follows, and it makes no use of the words of the prophets:

*Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. *

Matter resolved by the early church leaders.

Clearly the matter was judged when Peter spoke first and then James, no doubt the bishop of Jerusalem, who stood up and said: Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood…So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.

The Jerusalem Council is one of the classic, clear cases of the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

The praxis of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) - in this case, consisted of the Old Testament alone via the arbitration of the church leaders! Right or wrong? The praxis of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), admitted by yourself, can determine nothing, can arbitrate nothing, and that is why Peter, James and the elders were needed - correct? The OT, referenced by James, as the rule or norm, again, didn’t even mention circumcision:

*Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
*

If the Jerusalem Council was one of the classic, clear cases of the praxis of Sola Scriptura, then the praxis of Sola Scriptura certainly failed to directly address the question of whether or not circumcision was to be necessary, and it clearly did not make a determination regarding circumcision, again, considering the fact that it makes no mention of it.

Peter, James and the elders made a clear cut judgment on circumcision even though the words of the prophets make no mention of circumcision. James is simply saying: what Simon had declared:

*"Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” *

…the actual words of the prophets agree.

 

[joe370]

Md, I said:

Amen brother! Couldn’t agree more.

To which you said:

What you’re agreeing with is not what I am saying.
Quote:

We are not in agreement regarding the following?

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).

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.

As it should!

As I said to Aj, Christians belonging to the CC are scriptura advocates as well, (just not sola scriptura advocates) - and they definitely defer to the authority of sacred scriptura, just as the early ecumenical councils did, and just as the Catholic church does today, and just as Protestants do, and we believe that Jesus left us with an authoritative interpreter of the authoritative, inerrant word of God, just as Protestants do. If the word of God is inerrant, then certainly an inerrant interpreter, which is impossible without the guidance by the holy spirit, just makes sense - right? Whoever you decide that to be is up to you of course; are we in agreement.

No mere man or religious institution should be considered by any true believer as possessing the same authority or greater than God’s Word preserved in theopneustos, Holy Writ.

The bible alone is our one and only authority and no other authority is greater than God’s Word preserved in theopneustos, Holy Writ. Got it! Is the following also true:

No one man’s interpretation, or the interpretation of any one church leadership, (regardless of church affiliation) - of the Christians one and only authority, (God’s Word) - should be considered by any true believer, the ONLY true reflection of truth regarding any one doctrine?

Opposition to God’s Word arises when men claim their own teachings to be “kanon,” and in reality claim greater authority than God’s Word itself. Demonstrated by your following comment:

"I will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as my interpretation agrees with the CC,

Thereby placing your Church in higher authority than the Scriptures.
Quote:

So, the mistake I am making is putting my trust in the teachings and interpretations of the CC, instead of putting all my trust in God’s Word - is that correct?

just as you will always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the Lutheran Confessions - correct???
Incorrect. I’m not even Lutheran.

Oops, I apologize! However, you did not answer the question. What is your answer? Will you always appeal to sacred scripture as long as your interpretation agrees with the interpretation of the church to which you belong, or will you simply appeal to sacred scripture via your own interpretation?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6163063]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?

Hi Joe. Correct!! Ground we’ve already covered. And one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Antioch.

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?

Even if the yard stick is scripture and Tradition, we have the same problem; "help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust?"

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.

I can only suggest to one who asks to listen to the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and compare - measure - what we teach to what scripture says. IOW, do not trust me or my decision. Again, the question goes both ways.

Joe: “I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision” to join the Catholic Church?

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?

Yes, I believe there is a way, though I’m probably not the one to ask what that way is (though I like the idea of a truly ecumenical council, Josiah’s earlier scenario notwithstanding).
Look at the landscape of the Church Militant since the end of the first millenium, and the answer to your last question is obvious, but that does not me that the gates of Hell have or will prevail!!

Now, Joe, answer for me the same questions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6164493]

Understood! Now, do I need to be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, **(which is not the norma normata) **- to be a member of the Lutheran church(es)? Or, can I reject all of it or parts of it and still be a member of the Lutheran church(es)?

As a layperson, there are parts of the Lutheran Confession that are clearly polemics, or dated. For example, the office of the papacy is regarded in parts of the Confession as anti-Christ. This is polemical in modern discourse because the meaning of the term is dated. The intention was to express that the papacy was teaching error, and therefore opposed to Christ (which could be said by any communion that disagrees with another). The modern hearing of anti-Christ is distorted by the notion of some end-times beast. I do not know a Lutheran who believes the pope is an end-times beast, or is not Christian (I’ve said here often I consider John Paul II to be the greatest Christain of my lifetime, hardly the anti-Christ). So, I feel quite free to disagree with the dated material.

Were one to reject all of it or large parts of it - well, it wouldn’t make sense to remain - but
no, while they maintain membership, they certainly would not be Lutheran.

I wasn’t asking if a Pastor must be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions; I was asking, if I want to be a member of the Lutheran church, (not in a pastoial capacity) - must I be ready and willing to defer or yield to the supervision and direction of the Lutheran Confessions, which is not the norm?
One is asked to state, when becoming Lutheran, if they accept the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism (or wordings of that sort). Were that person to say “no”, well, the character of the event would sure change. I think it accurate to say “yes” to your question.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

Seriously,Moondweller, please take the material in the sequence presented by the Sacred Author, look at who is doing what, look at who makes the decision and look at how it was made. It is all there, in the black and white of Scripture.

James wasn’t agreeing with anyone at that point, he was making a judgment, a judicial decision:Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,…

Just stop right there, Moondweller,and just look how you are (with apparent intent) misstating the sequence of what is actually written in Acts 15 of your own abridged Bible!

Acts 15: 7-12 Peter has reviewed the issue (circumcision) before the council and renders the decision that it is not required. (The matter is finished - there is no one arguing for circumcision any more. James is not recorded as having spoken so far.)

Acts 15: 13-21 James agrees with the decision made by Peter about circumcision. James _ still speaking- (v 16-18) then quotes Amos 9 12-14 in what appears to be a Messianic sense of Christ’s return. This is not a reference to abolishing circumcision. James is not providing a scriptural basis for Peter’s decision. Peter made the decision under the direction of the Holy Spirit - this is a totally new diretion being established by God.

"The issue at hand was whether or not the Gentiles were to come into the church as Gentiles or must they become Jewish converts via circumcision. James made a final judgment based on SCRIPTURE.

Totally wrong, Moondweller. Just read what is there - Peter, and not James, made the decision. Peter, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, decided. James was in agreement - but, there is no way you can claim this was done via SS. There is no way this quote from Amos given by James has ANYTHING to do with abolishing circumcision as the requirement that the Pharisees wanted to keep (along with the rest of the Mosaic Law).

James quotes the prophet Amos indicating that Gentiles will be brought into the Messianic Kingdom as Gentiles, hence, the church Christ is presently building are to come into it as Gentiles.

Peter has already brought the Gentiles in to the Church of Christ - and the members of this council are made aware of this fact. But, bringing them in is not the problem - once in, the Pharisees wanted to impose circumcision on them and Peter said, “No!”

Conversion to Judaism through circumcision is not required. Thanks to the direction of the Holy Spirit to Peter
James’ “Therefore…” judgment was ultimately based on Scripture, the Word of God, not merely the opinions of men. And now, your train has really left the track…

I realize that the sequence of what has taken place flies directly in the face of the SS fans - but, just read the Word of God as written in Acts 15 and realize that this is not an opinion of a man or of men - but the Holy Spirit - the same Spirit you believe came to the assembeled group on Petecost Sunday - inspires Peter to decide against circumcision. Peter decided and James agrees and provided a really vague verse to back up abolishing the covenant sign of circmcision.

As AJ said…Edited for brevity…normans.

The bottom line is really rather straight forward - either you believe the sequence as it is written (that Peter ruled against circumcision, James ageed and provide a scripture quote) or you believe something else.

Now, when it comes to the quote from Amos that James gives - if you believe that this OT quote is clear and to the point to explain that circumcision (the visible covenant sign between God and the Jews) is no longer valid - please tell me why, when Christ says in John 6 that, “…unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you,” and then later on at the Last Supper when He tells His Apostles that this (the Bread) is My Body and this (the wine) is My Blood - take and eat - you do not believe He means what He says? Honest if you can see your way clear to Amos but, can’t see Christ’s clearly spoken words, I would really like to know how.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I hope you do not mind me offering my two cents on this matter…

Hi Joe. Correct!! Ground we’ve already covered. And one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Antioch. Not the Catholic Church - and, let me tell you why. Even though you may like to think of the CC as just one of a group (or, in this case 1/50th of this example) it was this same CC that gave you the Bible - that you now claim an abridged version. None of the other churches had anything to do with the Bible except to accept it and the to modify it using the traditions of men!

Even if the yard stick is scripture and Tradition, we have the same problem; “help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust?” This is the quote that caught my eye. Ultimately, you embark on a most perilous journey to find such trustworthy teachers. Christ warns us of wolves amongst the sheep, of teachers with so much deceptive power as to possibly confuse even the truly committed! So, how can simple souls such as ourselves hope to find teachers who will lead us to Christ? Glad you asked!

The first requirement is to have Faith - and this is the Faith that believes that Christ came to earth with the Divine Mission to suffer and die for our sins - and that His death opened the Gates of Heaven for us.

The second requriement is - still working with Faith - is to review the Scripture and see what Christ did in Matt 16 - Christ founded His Church on Peter after Peter was inspired by God the Father to respond correctly to Christ’s question.

The third requriement is to follow that Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and see where you can join up with it today. Now, as you probably guessed, there are many who claim to be the Church of Christ - but, only one was founded by Christ. Yes, it is true - all of the other churches were founded by men on the human traditions of men. Some called their groupings after themsleves (e.g.,Luther, Clavin, Miller) some named their groupings after either what they believed or what others thought they believed (e.g., Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians) and some got confused and could not make up their mind on which way to go - and called themselves ‘Non-Demoninational’.

Merely following this with history will only get you so far. What is needed is the saving Grace of God to move us to see His Divine Will and Power as conained in Matt 16. Does this mean that Peter was now perfect? In the very next breath, Christ is calling the First Pope a devil!! This First Pople, denied Christ 3x, hid during Christ’s passion and death, was locked in a room for the resurrection and still had major ego issues. Fellas, just who in their right mind would even follow this guy to the Men’s Room?!!! it is easy to see from this that not making major screw-up decisions is not one of the benefits of being Pope. But, Christ promised He would guide the Church throught the Power of the Holy Spirit - and that is just what he has been doing since Penecost Sunday until today with Benedict XVI!!

But, look what happened on Pentecost Sunday.

I can only suggest to one who asks to listen to the teaching of the Lutheran Church, and compare - measure - what we teach to what scripture says. IOW, do not trust me or my decision. Again, the question goes both ways.
Luther was concerned with genuine abuses in the Church - but, he lost his balance and wound up becoming politically focused and lost his focus on actually helping to reform the Church of Christ. What is truly amazing at this time is that despire all of the mischief - no error was taught involving Faith or Morals.

Joe: “I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision” to join the Catholic Church?

The absolute best advice is to pray for the Grace of God to enlighten you into finding Him in your life every day.

God bless

 

[Monte1945]

I don’t think anyone feels that the bible is not the inspired word of God
which reveals God to man in that way… “written Word Of God”…

But that it isn’t the “only” Word of God. There is also the oral
word of God through the traditions of the church which is not
in written form. But that also reveals the truth of God.

And then there is just the Word of God… which is what john
calls Jesus. The Word of God is not just the bible…

 

[Cinette]

Hello Everyone!

This subject is interesting and never goes away - a bit like a tape worm… I am very busy but need to read more before getting into the debate…Time…!!

I hope there will be progress in this thread - that would make it all the more exciting.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

As a layperson, there are parts of the Lutheran Confession that are clearly polemics, or dated. For example, the office of the papacy is regarded in parts of the Confession as anti-Christ. This is polemical in modern discourse because the meaning of the term is dated. The intention was to express that the papacy was teaching error, and therefore opposed to Christ (which could be said by any communion that disagrees with another). The modern hearing of anti-Christ is distorted by the notion of some end-times beast. I do not know a Lutheran who believes the pope is an end-times beast, or is not Christian (I’ve said here often I consider John Paul II to be the greatest Christain of my lifetime, hardly the anti-Christ). So, I feel quite free to disagree with the dated material.

I had really never heard “polemics” used in this context before. I think of polemics as, “… the art or practice of disputation or controversy…” while something dates is…well…just dated, like a horse drawn carriage - or a typewriter!

I agree, John Paul II has been the greatest Christian of my lifetime, too - with Mother Teresa coming in a very close second!

Were one to reject all of it or large parts of it - well, it wouldn’t make sense to remain - but
no, while they maintain membership, they certainly would not be Lutheran.

One is asked to state, when becoming Lutheran, if they accept the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism (or wordings of that sort). Were that person to say “no”, well, the character of the event would sure change. I think it accurate to say “yes” to your question.

Actually, I think the same could be said for joining any private or civic club: do you promise to abide by the rules of the group - and, if not, what are you doing here?!

Luther’s polemitical writings against Pope Leo X in about 1520, while dated do show the spirit of the times back then. Were there clerical scandals back then? Yes, indeed - and maybe worse today then back then! But, the real issue isn’t about the sinfullness of man - no matter what role he has in life. (Just look at the First Pope - being called a devil by Christ, denying Christ under the inquiry of a servant girl, hiding during the crucifixion, not believing Christ would rise from the dead - and, of course all of these displays of ego that lead to all of his problems. This was Peter - and prior to Pentecost, few would have picked him to lead any group any where unless it involved fish!) The real issue is that - despite the sinfulness of man, Christ has triumphed over sin.

It certainly would have more to our liking as humans if Leo X was more like John Paul II … but, this would be like trying to play God! Both Leo and Martin have their place in God’s Divine Will - and ours is not engage in fanciful daydreaming. Rather, our work is to look at what is real and move forward in that direction. Christ is Real - His dying on the Cross and glorious Resurrection opened up the Gates of Heaven and His bountiful Graces have been blessings all of us directly since then. Christ really did establish His Church (Matt 16) - and from time to time, sinful men failed to follow the example of the Good Shepherd - but, that does not negate the Power of God. Our God is stronger then sin - and He proved it! Notice that the Church never taught that selling indulgences was appropriate - in fact, this practice was condemned. Certain sinful men distorted the message but never destroyed it.

Luther was right that a reform was needed - but, he lost sight of Christ and His Church and founded his own church. Over 100 years prior to Luther, the Catholic Church was rocked by other scandals - and a reformer marched forward to work with God to bring about change. If Luther needed a role model, he could have looked to Saint Catherine of Siena. Catherine worked hard to bring many hard-headed men (not just the Pope) back to their desire to follow Christ by carrying their daily cross…and not worshiping their own egos. This woman worked very hard with the Grace of God to bring about reform. I think there is a lesson here for all of us.

God bless

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6166429]Hi, JonNC,
I hope you do not mind me offering my two cents on this matter…

I think you know me, Tom, that constructive, charitable debate is always welcome.

=JonNC;6165939]
Hi Joe. Correct!! Ground we’ve already covered. And one of those 50 churches could be the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Antioch.

Not the Catholic Church - and, let me tell you why. Even though you may like to think of the CC as just one of a group (or, in this case 1/50th of this example) it was this same CC that gave you the Bible - that you now claim an abridged version. None of the other churches had anything to do with the Bible except to accept it and the to modify it using the traditions of men!

A couple clarifications: 1) I think you added an implication here that I did not author - that somehow I was belittling the CC as 1/50th. That may not have been your intent, neither was it mine. 2) The dispute of the D-C books, which dates back to the early Church and Jerome is interesting and often covered here at CAF.

In the bolded part you seem to imply, but provide no evidence that the Catholic Church of Rome, without the involvement of other patriarchs, compiled the Bible. No Lutheran that I know of denies credit to the early Church for compiling the scripture, as to do so denies history. But it is irrelevent to my point, since that Church is now in schism and division for a thousand years.

Even if the yard stick is scripture and Tradition, we have the same problem; “help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust?”

This is the quote that caught my eye. Ultimately, you embark on a most perilous journey to find such trustworthy teachers. Christ warns us of wolves amongst the sheep, of teachers with so much deceptive power as to possibly confuse even the truly committed! So, how can simple souls such as ourselves hope to find teachers who will lead us to Christ? Glad you asked!
The first requirement is to have Faith - and this is the Faith that believes that Christ came to earth with the Divine Mission to suffer and die for our sins - and that His death opened the Gates of Heaven for us.

The second requriement is - still working with Faith - is to review the Scripture and see what Christ did in Matt 16 - Christ founded His Church on Peter after Peter was inspired by God the Father to respond correctly to Christ’s question.

I agree with #1. On #2, even if I agree with your interpretation of Christ founding the Church on the man Peter alone, and not his confession of faith, which Church founded by Peter should I then believe? Did he not found more than one see?

The third requriement is to follow that Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and see where you can join up with it today. Now, as you probably guessed, there are many who claim to be the Church of Christ - but, only one was founded by Christ.

Again, which one? Since Rome and Antioch are not in communion, which one? This may sound flippant, but I don’t mean it that way. This is the discussion Joe and I have been having. Without unity of east and west, everything you say about today’s CC can be said about the Orthodox.

Yes, it is true - all of the other churches were founded by men on the human traditions of men. Some called their groupings after themsleves (e.g.,Luther, Clavin, Miller) some named their groupings after either what they believed or what others thought they believed (e.g., Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians) and some got confused and could not make up their mind on which way to go - and called themselves ‘Non-Demoninational’.

Actually, the early “Lutheran” reformers called themselves Evangelical or Evangelical Catholic. “Lutheran” was a slur started by some of Luther’s opponents, much in the way “Roman Catholic” was.

Merely following this with history will only get you so far. What is needed is the saving Grace of God to move us to see His Divine Will and Power as conained in Matt 16. Does this mean that Peter was now perfect? In the very next breath, Christ is calling the First Pope a devil!! This First Pople, denied Christ 3x, hid during Christ’s passion and death, was locked in a room for the resurrection and still had major ego issues. Fellas, just who in their right mind would even follow this guy to the Men’s Room?!!! it is easy to see from this that not making major screw-up decisions is not one of the benefits of being Pope. But, Christ promised He would guide the Church throught the Power of the Holy Spirit - and that is just what he has been doing since Penecost Sunday until today with Benedict XVI!!

But, look what happened on Pentecost Sunday.

Tom, you know I hold the CC in high esteem, and I know you are honest and sincere, and this is from your heart and strength of faith, but you haven’t answered the original question:
***“help me find the teachers that I can, ultimately trust” *** Those wonderful men of the Magisterium are teachers! How can I know for certain that they are to be trusted over the others, not even talking about the western reformers for now?

Joe: “I ask with the utmost respect, why should I trust your decision”

to join the Catholic Church?

The absolute best advice is to pray for the Grace of God to enlighten you into finding Him in your life every day.

That is excellent advice, for all Christians.

Jon