Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

actually constatine started up the roman catholic church, in scripture you will find that the early Christians were known to be part of ‘the way’

Prove it and I will leave the CC. Constantine asked the CC leaders of the CC to convoke and settle the matter regarding what should be considered sacred scripture and what shouldn’t. How could he start something that existed long before him? Constantine did not invent Catholicism, he simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian.

If you are right then you should have no problem identifying the true church founded by Jesus, that traversed the centuries leading up to the CC, and continued traversing the centuries alongside the CC? Please identify…

 

[moondweller]

Constantine asked the CC leaders of the CC to convoke and settle the matter regarding what should be considered sacred scripture and what shouldn’t.

No he didn’t. He commissioned Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea - not even the Bishop of Rome. The western church didn’t take on the moniker “The Catholic Church” (claiming catholicity) until much later; at the time of the schism when the eastern church took on the moniker “The Orthodox Church” (claiming orthodoxy). The Bible never mentions nor addresses either of them.

How could he start something that existed long before him? Constantine did not invent Catholicism, he simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian.

Constantine recognized “Christianity,” which was later legalized and became the state religion. “Catholicism” was a religious development by men.

If you are right then you should have no problem identifying the true church founded by Jesus, that traversed the centuries leading up to the CC, and continued traversing the centuries alongside the CC? Please identify…

As I pointed out to you before, Joe, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3).

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.
2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.
3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.
4. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

.

• Josiah

.

thx, but you haven’t answered my question regarding what you believe regarding the dogma of the Real Presence, using Sola Scriptura as the basis.

Read what you quoted from me.

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Read what you quoted from me.

.

Thanks for clarifying.

So you and JonNC, both Lutherans and both adherents to Sola Scriptura, have diametrically opposing views regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Properly using the practice of sola scriptura, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession sites scripture, and its proper reflection of it by the ECF’s and the whole of the Church, east and west, in attesting to the Truth that, as it says, “that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present”.
Jon

Hi Jon I would like to jump in here if I may. I would like to address the term “substantially present”. I’m assumning by this you/they mean that the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into the “substance” of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Well, this just is not the case. I can assure you that if you did a chemical analysis of the host before and after consecration you would find that they are unchanged. The host remains a pasty bread type not even remotely similar to flesh and blood. What does this mean then. Well, it means that you believe that Christ submits Himself to the whims of sinful man. He becomes a god without senses relying on man for mobility for seeing, for hearing etc. This god becomes in every sense of the word symbolic. So, I guess you need to ask yourself. Is this somethig Jesus would institute. consider this:

Ex.20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Would Jesus institute a practice that is clearly against this commandment. Well, I don’t think so. I think that the institution of the eucharist is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of scrripture. Here’s part of the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession as you posted it.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same.

You will notice that the reason given for believing that Christ is “substantially present” is
1Cor.10:16 Let’s have a look. 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Verse 17 starts to explain what Jesus is saying in v. 16.
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. It says “we being many are one bread” when we partake of that one bread." That one bread is the words of Jesus that lead to eternal life.
1Cor.12:13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Cor.12:27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
When we believe that Jesus lived and died to take away our sins. We become members of His body. When we take communion we are memorialising that fact and through His word we continue to have communion with one another and with Him.

Jn.6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

(The bread that the fathers ate was real bread similar to the host)

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

(Jesus here equate faith in Him to partaking of the bread of life)

Jn.6: 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In v. 33 Jesus says the bread that came down from heaven (Him) gives life. In v. 63 He says His words are spirit and life. So, the bread that came down from heaven is the word of God Jn.1:14 that gives us life and communion is a rememberance of our faith in that Word and through that Word we have communion with one another.

 

[Pax]

Ok, here’s your points. Let’s go through them one by one to see how or if they relate to “sola scriptura” Now to be clear I am using my definition of “sola scriptura” that being that scripture is all sufficient to manefest to us Jesus Christ, His sacrifice and all that is required of us to recieve eternal life, that Jesus and His sacrifice are manifest completely and totally in the bible (scripture) and are not contingent upon His church or what you refer to as “oral tradition” a term not found in the bible by the way. We must also be clear that these are answers to my question that is emboldened below.

Richard in Christ,

Thank you for bringing into focus a couple of points in the discussion that I have been hammering on, but inadequately articulated.

Your argument and definition have an internal contradiction. You have formerly used the term “all sufficient” and now you are going so far as to say “manifest completely and totally” and not contingent upon the church. Likewise, you say that there is no contingency upon “oral tradition” a term which is not found in the bible.

First of all the term “oral tradition” is synonymous with the terms used by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15. The term “oral” is defined in the dictionary as “uttered by the mouth; spoken”. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul says:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the **traditions **which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Your inclination to attack the term oral traditions has left me scratching my head, particularly since you have used the terms “all sufficient” as well as “manifest completely and totally” when scripture never once uses those terms or anything remotely resembling them. There are no synonyms in scripture for your contentions as there is for “oral tradition.”

Likewise, I have pointed out numerous times that scripture speaks of the “sure word as taught.” Now take careful notice of this. The “sure word” is scripture. Scripture and what it means is “taught.” The “as taught” part of that scriptural phrase is the tradition and constant teaching of the church.

What you are doing is saying that you believe that everything that scripture says is “all that is needed” which I would agree with, if it were understood and articulated properly. Instead, your view of that terminology by way of “sola scriptura” denies some of the very things explicitly stated in holy writ. Your position denies the “as taught” part stated in scripture. Your position denies the proper position of the church as explicitly articulated in scripture, especially in terms of the church’s power and authority. Your position denies the role of tradition whether it be oral[by word of mouth] or written.

That is where the internal contradiction occurs in your arguments. Let me use an analogy much like I did before to illustrate what I am getting at. Let’s compare an automobile to the bible:

-Both provide us with a means of getting somewhere.
-A car has many components.
-Scripture has many components.
-The car has an engine and the crankshaft, which is inside of it, is considered the heart of the engine.
-Scripture has a new covenant and the heart of the new covenant is Jesus Christ and his redemptive work as Lord and Savior.

So far this analogy, however imperfect, serves to illustrate in a broad sense what we can agree upon in scripture and about automobiles. Likewise, it goes along with your statements on scripture and the redemptive work of Christ.

The problem, and where we diverge, is in terms of the other components contained in each of the two main objects used in the analogy.

-There are important components within the car that are important to the engine and crankshaft.
-All of these other important components within the car are dependent in some way on the engine and its heart, the crankshaft.
-There are important components within scripture other that are important to the New Covenant and Jesus Christ and his redemptive work.
-All of these important components are dependent on the new covenant and its heart, Jesus Christ.

-Remove the crankshaft from the engine and the car will no longer operate as a means of transportation.
-Remove Jesus from the New Covenant and the New Covenant will no longer provide salvation.
-Remove the engine from the car and the car will not provide transportation.
-Remove the New Covenant from scripture and you will have removed that which provides salvation.

Likewise try the following:

-Remove or disable important components within your car such as the steering system or brakes, and you will no longer have a means of transportation. You will, instead, have a crash waiting to happen.

-Remove or disable important components within the New Covenant such as the authority of the church and the role of Tradition and you will no longer have the fullness of truth necessary for salvation. You will, instead, have destructive doctrines. Paul illustrates the difficulty in Rom 16:17 by stating that there will be:

dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught

Paul is talking about opposition to the “sure word as taught.”

Paul goes on in Eph 4:13-14 saying that we need to grow in:

the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the **fulness **of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,

Without the church and Tradition we will, indeed, be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind on doctrine. We will be like the car without steering and braking systems.

Paul warns against

“…human precepts and doctrines[Col 2:22]”

He also tells Timothy, a bishop, to

“remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,[1 Tim 1:3].”

That is the church at work steering the flock in truth, putting on the brakes, and preventing errant doctrines from causing a wreck. Paul also points out that the Church is the body of Christ. The Church isn’t teaching human precepts and doctrines. As the body of Christ the Church is teaching that which is divinely protected and that which is the “sure word as taught.”

Sola scriptura is self contradictory. You simply cannot read scripture and then arrive at “sola scriptura.” Scripture makes no such claims directly or indirectly for itself.

Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians believe scripture to be the inspired word of God. Catholics fully accept and incorporate all that the inspired word of God says about the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura, by its very design, contradicts itself by operationally denying what the inspired word says about the church and about tradition. Moreover, those that are proponents of “sola scriptura” also make claims for scripture that are not made by scripture itself. So far no one on this thread that is advancing the claims of sola scriptura has shown where scripture makes that claim for itself, and no one has overcome what scripture claims for the church and tradition.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

You countered my reference to mentioning how I had talked about the Bereans as part of my arguments against sola scriptura.

You responded with this:

Well the Bereans where in Berea. The Thesssalanicans were in Thessalonica. So I’m not sure what you are talking about here.

Please read my post # 1027 on this thread and the link that was in the post.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

You quoted scripture as follows:

1Jn.5:9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

You then asked:

What is “the record that God gave” is it not the WORD OF GOD, the bible. So let me ask you again Pax. What can you, your church, or any man (I would add your churchs’ tradition) give that is needed more than this?

I answered this, with among other things, the following:

I already answered your question by pointing to the actions taken by the first council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts. They made a decision on circumcision that was not found in scripture.

You responded with:

First of all this point has absolutely nothing to do with sola scriptura as per my definition ie. it has nothing to do with Jesus or His sacrifice. Second because you preface your statement with “I already answered your question” you seem to be saying that this decision is needed more than the biblical record of Jesus and His sacrifice. So, it is you that is pitting your so called argument against sola scriptura (which is no argument at all, given my definition of it) and not me.

Please be advised that I already tore this gambit to shreds. This is not an argument pitting the role of the church and tradition against the biblical record concerning Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

Moreover, the biblical record says a lot more than the quote that you gave. Are we to believe that the other things said in scripture are unimportant based upon your efforts to use the heart of the gospel, which is the salvific work of Christ, as a club against all of the other truths revealed and mentioned in scripture about the Church and Tradition? There is no logic in saying or doing such a thing. It makes absolutely no sense.

Try thinking of this in terms of the fulness of truth revealed in scripture which includes the role and purpose of scripture, the role and purpose of the church, and the role and purpose of tradition in **“relationship” **to the sacrifice of Jesus and his redemptive work on the cross. Looking at the three in this light will help you appreciate the Catholic position vis-a-vis sola scriptura.

I brought up the Council of Jerusalem and its decision on circumcision because it makes a point that utterly undermines sola scriptura. That point does not undermine the scriptural record concerning the meaning and importance of the sacrifice of Jesus and his redemptive work on the cross. Likewise, that point does not mean, and in absolutely no way even suggests, that the decision at that council is needed more than the sacrifice of Jesus and his redemptive work on the cross. No one is saying such a thing and no one is suggesting such a thing. It is a straw man argument and pursuing any discussion along those lines is simply not going to help your case.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

I said the following:

The canon of scripture comes to us as tradition established by Church decree and is not to be violated.

and you responded:

This one is a joke right? Scripture is not tradition it is the divinely inspired WORD OF GOD.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and I will assume that you have simply misunderstood what was said because I did not fully explain the statement.

I am not claiming that tradition created or wrote scripture. Scripture was written by men, and it is the inspired word of God given to men in the language of men. You should have seen that in some of my earlier posts, but I can see where statements can be missed or overlooked.

Now the canon of scripture is a tradition. That statement does not mean that the tradition is the cause of inspiration. God is the cause of inspiration. The canon is that group of written works that met the “measurement” of what is and what is not the inspired word of God. It is important to note that there were many pious and truth filled works that many thought should be included in scripture and that there were many that thought certain works were not to be included in scripture. There was some serious disagreement about this and the issue had to be settled as to what truly was and what truly was not the inspired word of God.

Scripture itself does not tells us which or how many books belong in the bible. Scripture itself does not tell us which version of a gospel should be included in scripture. There were for example longer and shorter versions of Matthew’s gospel. So which version is to be considered the inspired word of God? Scripture didn’t tell us which version to use. Scripture did not come with a table of contents.

The canon was not established by scripture itself. The canon was established by the careful decisions of the Church and has been handed down to us through the tradition/teaching that is the result of all those deliberations.

This is not a joke and you should consider this carefully. It clearly has ramifications for sola scriptura. Do you think that you know better than the church as to which books belong in the bible?

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

I pointed to Church authority referencing Matthew 17:18.

You responded with:

Here’s Matt.17:18 18And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

I stand corrected. I transposed the chapter and verse. The reference should have been Matthew 18:17 which says:

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Richard in Christ,

I stated that:

Your question has also been answered by the evidence of scripture’s own witness where Peter says that “Paul’s letters have things in them that are difficult to understand” and that “no prophecy[teaching] of scripture is a matter of individual interpretation.”

You then responded:

I don’t understand why some scripture is hard to understand and is inspired by the Spirit of God is any argument that that scripture is not all sufficient to reveal the Son of God and why would you think this is needed more than the record of Jesus? Because you say it is when you say “Your question has also been answered” not me.

You simply need to think about this in terms of what I have been saying over the course of this thread. Scripture can be hard to understand and it is therefore not “all sufficient.” Material sufficiency, which I’ve already explained, is not enough and scripture makes that clear by the many passages that I have already quoted including the one from Peter.

I will, however, give another passage of “scriptural witness” to the important point of all of this. Acts 8:27-31 says:

And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

This is another instance where scripture itself provides a witness against sola scriptura. The Ethopian eunuch is an educated man. We know this because he was a minister in charge of he queens treasury and he was able to read. Since he was an Ethiopian he was most likely reading from the Greek Septuagint scriptures of the OT manuscript of Isaiah. Furthermore, he was a religious man. He had come to Jerusalem to worship. Even so, this man said that he could not understand the scriptures that he was reading unless he had someone to guide him. And look who was there to guide him. The apostle Philip was there to guide him. Philip, as an apostle, was a member of the first teaching office/magesterium of the church.

The Bereans could not come to Christ without someone like Paul teaching them and guiding them so as to understand the scriptures either.

We need the guidance of the church when it comes to the scriptures. I see nothing in the scriptures to support sola scriptura, but I see plenty that denies it.

Your claims really only meet the standard of what I refer to as the “material sufficiency” of scripture and that does not give one cause for “sola scriptura.”

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Hi Jon I would like to jump in here if I may. I would like to address the term “substantially present”. I’m assumning by this you/they mean that the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into the “substance” of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Well, this just is not the case. I can assure you that if you did a chemical analysis of the host before and after consecration you would find that they are unchanged. The host remains a pasty bread type not even remotely similar to flesh and blood. What does this mean then. Well, it means that you believe that Christ submits Himself to the whims of sinful man. He becomes a god without senses relying on man for mobility for seeing, for hearing etc. This god becomes in every sense of the word symbolic. So, I guess you need to ask yourself. Is this somethig Jesus would institute. consider this:

Ex.20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Would Jesus institute a practice that is clearly against this commandment. Well, I don’t think so. I think that the institution of the eucharist is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of scrripture. Here’s part of the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession as you posted it.

You will notice that the reason given for believing that Christ is “substantially present” is
1Cor.10:16 Let’s have a look. 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Verse 17 starts to explain what Jesus is saying in v. 16.
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. It says “we being many are one bread” when we partake of that one bread." That one bread is the words of Jesus that lead to eternal life.
1Cor.12:13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Cor.12:27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
When we believe that Jesus lived and died to take away our sins. We become members of His body. When we take communion we are memorialising that fact and through His word we continue to have communion with one another and with Him.

Jn.6:29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

(The bread that the fathers ate was real bread similar to the host)

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

(Jesus here equate faith in Him to partaking of the bread of life)

Jn.6: 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In v. 33 Jesus says the bread that came down from heaven (Him) gives life. In v. 63 He says His words are spirit and life. So, the bread that came down from heaven is the word of God Jn.1:14 that gives us life and communion is a rememberance of our faith in that Word and through that Word we have communion with one another.

Richard in Christ,

This is a subject for another thread. I would suggest looking for existing threads on the topic particularly those that were started by someone named “SocratesforJesus.” You will get a tremendous education on the “real presence” and every conceivable argument on both sides of the issue. There is a lot of material to read in those threads, but no stone is unturned. You will also find the outcome of those threads to be intriguing.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

=Richard Kastner;6365991]Hi Jon I would like to jump in here if I may. I would like to address the term “substantially present”. I’m assumning by this you/they mean that the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into the “substance” of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Well, this just is not the case. I can assure you that if you did a chemical analysis of the host before and after consecration you would find that they are unchanged. The host remains a pasty bread type not even remotely similar to flesh and blood. What does this mean then. Well, it means that you believe that Christ submits Himself to the whims of sinful man. He becomes a god without senses relying on man for mobility for seeing, for hearing etc. This god becomes in every sense of the word symbolic.

Lutherans make no claim regarding the disposition of the bread and wine. Christ made no explanation, except to say, “this is my body”. How this happens is a mystery. Certainly we would say that, at least sacramentally, it is no longer mere bread and wine. Chemical analysis is irrelevent to that fact.

Ex.20:4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Would Jesus institute a practice that is clearly against this commandment. Well, I don’t think so. I think that the institution of the eucharist is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of scrripture.

You seem to misunderstand. Humans do not make the Eucharist. It is Christ’s words and the power of the Holy Spirit. No one is making a graven image here, nor bowing down before one.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Ok, Pax I think we’ve come to the point were we are talking to ourselves and I see no reason to continue doing that. Let me leave you with a restatement of my position. Scripture was given to us for one reason and only one reason. that reason was to manifest to us God’s plan of salvation. The bible can be split basically into two parts. The Law and the Prophets. The law has one function and that is to show us that we are sinners and in need of a savior. The prophets show us the solution to that sin problem.
Rev.19:10b for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Now let me be clear. The bible talks of many things, but the underlying intent of all those things is the manifestation of Jesus Christ. Scripture (the bible) is all sufficient to accomplish that task.

Jesus instituted His church as a teaching organization to bring that message to the world. It was not instituted to develope doctrine or set dogmas. Christ’s church was given to us full blown. We don’t need to improve God’s word. What we as the body of Christ are instructed to do is shown in the great commission. Matt.28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The first use of the word teach is matheteuo which means to make disciples. The second use is the Greek word didasko which simply means to instruct. So, what Jesus is saying here is that we need to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations and the way we do that is to instruct “them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Where do we find “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Well, we find it in the bible. The word of God.

As for
2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

There is nothing in this verse that would lead me to believe that “the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word” are anything different than the epistles or the word of God The Bible. So, the bible is all we need to show us God’s plan of salvation. That plan is manifested in Jesus Christ and that’s enough for me and well, you to if you but come to Him in faith.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

1. There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.
2. This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.
3. Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.

1. Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura):** Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25**. There are more, of course.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: **Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 **There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

.- Josiah

.

Thanks for clarifying.

So you and JonNC, both Lutherans and both adherents to Sola Scriptura, have diametrically opposing views regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

You’re welcome.

No, as far as I know, Jon and I both embrace the doctrine of Real Presence. If you are a faithful Catholic, so do you. What I do not embrace as dogma is the unique Catholic one of Transubstantiation. If Jon does embrace that (and please quote him if he states that he embraces the 1551 position of Transubstantation as dogma), then Jon and I disagree on that - but not Real Presence, but first document that he either does not embrace Real Presence or does embrace the 1551 Catholic understanding of Transubstantation as dogma.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

I just read a list of scriptures you posted from the Scriptures, clearly stating that it is required of us to hold teachers accountable.

Yes. Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? Ergo…

.

 

[JonNC]

You’re welcome.

No, as far as I know, Jon and I both embrace the doctrine of Real Presence. If you are a faithful Catholic, so do you. What I do not embrace as dogma is the unique Catholic one of Transubstantiation. If Jon does embrace that (and please quote him if he states that he embraces the 1551 position of Transubstantation as dogma), then Jon and I disagree on that - but not Real Presence, but first document that he either does not embrace Real Presence or does embrace the 1551 Catholic understanding of Transubstantation as dogma.
.

Not possible to document either. I believe that, when consecrated, the bread and wine are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.
I’ve read nothing from you, Josiah, that we disagree on the real presence at all.


Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

You’re welcome.

No, as far as I know, Jon and I both embrace the doctrine of Real Presence. If you are a faithful Catholic, so do you. What I do not embrace as dogma is the unique Catholic one of Transubstantiation. If Jon does embrace that (and please quote him if he states that he embraces the 1551 position of Transubstantation as dogma), then Jon and I disagree on that - but not Real Presence, but first document that he either does not embrace Real Presence or does embrace the 1551 Catholic understanding of Transubstantation as dogma.

Transubstantiation is an **Aristotelico-Thomistic doctrine **regarding the mystery.

“Recent advances in biblical scholarship have shown us how biblical terms must be understood in the light of the mentality of the times in which they were used, and the discovery of the original meaning has called for changes in the theological interpretation of these terms. An even stronger case can be made out for the re-interpretation of the terms used in dogmatic definition. Hence we are entitled to go back beyond Trent in our search for the true meaning of the word ‘substance’ used in the definition of transubstantiation” (Fr Davis on transubstantiation, Sophia, Vol. 3 No. 3, October, 1964)

 

[JonNC]

Transubstantiation is an **Aristotelico-Thomistic doctrine **regarding the mystery.

“Recent advances in biblical scholarship have shown us how biblical terms must be understood in the light of the mentality of the times in which they were used, and the discovery of the original meaning has called for changes in the theological interpretation of these terms. An even stronger case can be made out for the re-interpretation of the terms used in dogmatic definition. Hence we are entitled to go back beyond Trent in our search for the true meaning of the word ‘substance’ used in the definition of transubstantiation” (Fr Davis on transubstantiation, Sophia, Vol. 3 No. 3, October, 1964)

Is this related to discussions among Catholic scholars (and in Lutheran/Catholic dialogues) that transubstantiation can be understood in a sacramental sense? If so, ISTM that it reduces the distance between our understandings of the real presence.

Jon

 

[Pax]

Ok, Pax I think we’ve come to the point were we are talking to ourselves and I see no reason to continue doing that. Let me leave you with a restatement of my position. Scripture was given to us for one reason and only one reason. that reason was to manifest to us God’s plan of salvation. The bible can be split basically into two parts. The Law and the Prophets. The law has one function and that is to show us that we are sinners and in need of a savior. The prophets show us the solution to that sin problem.
Rev.19:10b for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Now let me be clear. The bible talks of many things, but the underlying intent of all those things is the manifestation of Jesus Christ. Scripture (the bible) is all sufficient to accomplish that task.

Jesus instituted His church as a teaching organization to bring that message to the world. It was not instituted to develope doctrine or set dogmas. Christ’s church was given to us full blown. We don’t need to improve God’s word. What we as the body of Christ are instructed to do is shown in the great commission. Matt.28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The first use of the word teach is matheteuo which means to make disciples. The second use is the Greek word didasko which simply means to instruct. So, what Jesus is saying here is that we need to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations and the way we do that is to instruct “them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Where do we find “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Well, we find it in the bible. The word of God.

As for
2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

There is nothing in this verse that would lead me to believe that “the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word” are anything different than the epistles or the word of God The Bible. So, the bible is all we need to show us God’s plan of salvation. That plan is manifested in Jesus Christ and that’s enough for me and well, you to if you but come to Him in faith.

Richard in Christ,

You claim that the Church was not instituted to “develope doctrine or set dogmas”. You say that it was only established to manifest Jesus. You say all of this contrary to and against the teaching of Jesus himself who gave **the keys of the kingdom **to Peter and the power to "bind and loose."

You say all of this contrary to the scriptural data that shows the Church making doctrine at the first Council of Jerusalem.

You say this and create a self contradiction by accepting the very scripture which the Church canonized as inspired and distinguished from all other documents. This canon is bound on earth and in heaven. The canonization of scripture was an action taken by the Church that denies all of your claims.

2 Thess 2:15 says:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

You claim that:

There is nothing in this verse that would lead me to believe that “the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word” are anything different than the epistles or the word of God The Bible.

In that passage it’s pretty obvious that traditions given by word[oral tradition] are set in contrast to those that are written[letter/epistle]. Scripture which is the inspired word of God just told you that not all traditions/teachings are written down, yet you again appear to deny what scripture is telling you. You are really trying to stretch things in suggesting that the traditions given by word are the very same ones given by letter. That is clearly wrong because if they were the same, then there would be no point in Paul making the distinction between the two in the first place.

Scripture says it, and you deny it. I don’t get it.

God bless.