Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lutherans follow the Bible along with the writings of Luther (Large Catechism, Small Catechism, etc). Reformed and Presbyterians follow the Bible along with the writings of John Calvin. Etc.
Quoting from the Southern Baptist Faith and Message, a kind of governing doctrinal document:

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and **the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. **All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”

Tradition is not ruled out. Much like Lutheranism, all teachings and doctrines are accountable to scripture as the final norm.
There is nothing…nothing!…in the Bible that is contrary to anything in the Catholic Faith and there is nothing in the Catholic Faith contrary to anything in the Bible! By the time the canon of the Bible was finally determined in the 4th century, Catholic beliefs – such as the sacrifice of the Mass, the importance of apostolic succession and Tradition, the structure of the Pope, bishops, and priests, confession to a priest, prayers to the saints and for the dead (implying communion of saints and purgatory) – were already well-established.

Why do Protestant Christians trust the Bible if its canon of books was determined by the Catholic Church? Or better yet, why do Protestant Christians accept the canon of the New Testament but not the other contemporaneous well-established beliefs?
 
=Erich;9562683]There is nothing…nothing!…in the Bible that is contrary to anything in the Catholic Faith and there is nothing in the Catholic Faith contrary to anything in the Bible! ]By the time the canon of the Bible was finally determined in the 4th century, Catholic beliefs – such as the sacrifice of the Mass, the importance of apostolic succession and Tradition, the structure of the Pope, bishops, and priests, confession to a priest, prayers to the saints and for the dead (implying communion of saints and purgatory) – were already well-established.
Hi Erich,
A few thoughts:
I think communion of saints was more than implied, though you are right that while purgation was already in place, Purgatory is, as you impy, a later development.

The issue of the fourth century local councils esbalishing the canon remains a problematic one, but I will grant that, even though some of the books continued to be disputed, Hippo, etc. did lay out a basis for the canon.

With due respect, I think you you overstate the point by saying " the structure of the Pope " was already well esbablished, certainly not the implication of supremacy, universal jurisdiction, or infallibility ex cathedra.

On invocation of the saints, and prayers for the dead, you are correct, and Lutherans, at least, while we do not reject prayers for the dead, ought to be mindful of that regarding invocation.
Why do Protestant Christians trust the Bible if its canon of books was determined by the Catholic Church?
Because there is no reason to believe that the undivided Church was wrong about the books, neither in terms of the universally attested books, nor in terms of the disputed ones. The dueterocanon and the NT Antilegomena are disputed, not rejected.
Or better yet, why do Protestant Christians accept the canon of the New Testament but not the other contemporaneous well-established beliefs?
About the canon, see above. What contemporaneous well-established beliefs are you referring to? The ones you mention above?

Jon
 
What contemporaneous well-established beliefs are you referring to? The ones you mention above?
Yes!

Re: the sacrifice of the Mass – From this link: In the Didache or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, the oldest post-Biblical literary monument (c. A.D. 96), not only is the “breaking of bread” (cf. Acts 20:7) referred to as a “sacrifice” (Thysia) and mention made of reconciliation with one’s enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matthew 5:23), but the whole passage is crowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv).
Re: the importance of apostolic succession – To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Re: the importance of Tradition – From this link:The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

Re: the structure of the Pope, bishops, and priests – From this link:The Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the Rock on which He would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. They also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Clement I, in the year 80, certainly implied that he had supremacy and universal jurisdiction when he wrote:“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58—59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Re: confession to a priest – Matthew 9:6-8 tells us:“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men." (note the plural).

After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”
Re: prayers to the saints – Yes, the communion of saints was more than implied. The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

Re: prayers for the dead and purgatory – actually this is not a later development as you (incorrectly) suppose that I imply. If a dead person is in heaven, they don’t need prayers, and if a dead person is in hell, they cannot be helped. So the only dead people who could possibly benefit from our prayers, are those in purgatory. That is why St. Paul prayed for Onisephorus in 2 Tim 1:18. If Onisephorus was in hell, prayers couldn’t help him, and if Onisephorus was in heaven, prayers wouldn’t be needed. So where else might Onisephorus be, that St Paul would pray for his soul? Purgatory.

Whether purgatory is a place or a process, it’s how we get from “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) to “nothing unclean shall enter heaven” (Rev. 21:27). Indeed, “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Cor. 3:15) We don’t suffer loss in heaven, and there is no salvation in hell.

There are plenty of other examples of prayers for the dead (and the concomitant belief in purgatory) in writings that date back – in some cases – to the Apostolic Age itself.*
 
=Erich;9564479]Yes!
Re: the sacrifice of the Mass – From this link: In the Didache or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, the oldest post-Biblical literary monument (c. A.D. 96), not only is the “breaking of bread” (cf. Acts 20:7) referred to as a “sacrifice” (Thysia) and mention made of reconciliation with one’s enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matthew 5:23), but the whole passage is crowned with an actual quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as is well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c. xiv).
It is certainy Christ’s sacrifice, which we agree was once for all, and it is certainly our sacrifice of thanks and praise.
Re: the importance of apostolic succession – To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
The Lutheran Confessions confirm the importance of AS.
Re: the importance of Tradition – From this link:The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Lutherans support Tradition.
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).
Ok. Today, which succession of Bishops? For a thousand years now, there seems to be a disptue about this.
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).
Ok. Of course, Lutherans don’t do that.
Re: the structure of the Pope, bishops, and priests – From this link:The Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the Rock on which He would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. They also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Clement I, in the year 80, certainly implied that he had supremacy and universal jurisdiction when he wrote:
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians **1, 58—59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
And yet Tradition disputes supremacy - Nicea canon 6. And the bishops of the East continueto dispute it. Whom should I believe?

continued
 
[/INDENT]Re: confession to a priest – Matthew 9:6-8 tells us:“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men." (note the plural).
After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”
A practice to this day in Lutheranism.
Re: prayers to the saints – Yes, the communion of saints was more than implied. The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2).
Now none of this implies invocation of the saints. Luke 15:7 might be a better argument for invocation. Besides, I already granted you this in my previous post.
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: “[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God” (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that “the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Agreed. In fact, I have, on occasion ask in my prayers that God hear and listen to the prayers of His saints in Heaven on our behalf.
Re: prayers for the dead and purgatory – actually this is not a later development as you (incorrectly) suppose that I imply. If a dead person is in heaven, they don’t need prayers, and if a dead person is in hell, they cannot be helped. So the only dead people who could possibly benefit from our prayers, are those in purgatory. That is why St. Paul prayed for Onisephorus in 2 Tim 1:18. If Onisephorus was in hell, prayers couldn’t help him, and if Onisephorus was in heaven, prayers wouldn’t be needed. So where else might Onisephorus be, that St Paul would pray for his soul? Purgatory.
The western idea of Purgatory is a later development. the belief in purgation, which you and I share is a much earlier belief.
Whether purgatory is a place or a process, it’s how we get from “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) to “nothing unclean shall enter heaven” (Rev. 21:27). Indeed, “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Cor. 3:15) We don’t suffer loss in heaven, and there is no salvation in hell.
Even the Orthodox are not fond of the fire scenario, which, as I understand it, was why the Council of Florence didn’t use that kind of language.
There are plenty of other examples of prayers for the dead (and the concomitant belief in purgatory) in writings that date back – in some cases – to the Apostolic Age itself.
Prayers for the dead are fine.

Jon
 
A practice to this day in Lutheranism.
I realize you’re LCMS – which means you’re not ELCA, WELS, or LCMC (or one of the smaller “micro-synods”), so while auricular confession might still be routinely practiced to this day in LCMS Lutheranism I know plenty of ELCA and LCMC Lutherans for whom auricular confession would be a novel concept.
 
=Zenkai;9534868]Lutherans follow the Bible along with the writings of Luther (Large Catechism, Small Catechism, etc). Reformed and Presbyterians follow the Bible along with the writings of John Calvin. Etc.
The FACT is that NO protestant faith practices FULLY what the Bible teaches, proclaims and requires. NONE of them do.:o

God Bless,
Pat/PJM
 
The western idea of Purgatory is a later development.
Actually, the doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition.
Tertullian “De corona militis” mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in “De Monogamia” (chapter 10) he advises a widow “to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection”; he commands her also “to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise,” and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P.L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. “Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.” Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: "the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (P.G. IX, col. 332).
In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. “For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” (P.G., XIII, col. 445, 448).
The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: “Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man’s weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. “When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. “Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God” (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries–(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8).
The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses.
In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: “Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him” (P.L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; “some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness” etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who “have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable” (City of God XXI.24). Thus at the close of the fourth century:
  • not only were prayers for the dead found in all the Liturgies, but the Fathers asserted that such practice was from the Apostles themselves;
  • those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation;
  • from which when purified they “were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord”.
So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine “De Purg.”, lib. I, cap. xiii).
 
It is certainy Christ’s sacrifice, which we agree was once for all, and it is certainly our sacrifice of thanks and praise.
The thread title is, “Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?”

How many Protestants would agree that their weekly worship (which they have substituted for the Mass) is a sacrifice?
 
The Lutheran Confessions confirm the importance of AS.
However, the Lutheran Confessions don’t understand the term “apostolic succession” the same way that the terma had been understood for the previous 1,500 years. For one thing, the LCMS places its church authority in the congregation, rather than in the bishop.

Apostolic Succession doesn’t just mean that today’s bishops are successors of the apostles in that the functions they perform are the same as the Apostles had performed; as this link puts it, the Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.

God is the source of this mission and authority. He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”). Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, * so I send you,” “go and make disciples”). The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15). The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum.

When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel. Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess.

In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.*
 
I realize you’re LCMS – which means you’re not ELCA, WELS, or LCMC (or one of the smaller “micro-synods”), so while auricular confession might still be routinely practiced to this day in LCMS Lutheranism I know plenty of ELCA and LCMC Lutherans for whom auricular confession would be a novel concept.
Not novel, if they are well catechized. Its in Luther’s Small Catechism, which is the basis for Lutheran confirmation in most synods. Now to be sure, American Lutherans have neglected auricular confession, but even corporate confession is to the pastor, who states following, “As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of you sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Jon
 
However, the Lutheran Confessions don’t understand the term “apostolic succession” the same way that the terma had been understood for the previous 1,500 years. For one thing, the LCMS places its church authority in the congregation, rather than in the bishop.

Apostolic Succession doesn’t just mean that today’s bishops are successors of the apostles in that the functions they perform are the same as the Apostles had performed; as this link puts it, the Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.

God is the source of this mission and authority. He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”). Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, * so I send you,” “go and make disciples”). The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15). The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum.

When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel. Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess*.

In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

The fact that the polity within Lutheran synods varies, and that some Lutherans are reticent about AS doesn’t mean that the confessions are. The major difference is the view that AS, while important and desirable, is essentially a human construct, and not a requirement for validity.

Jon
 
The thread title is, “Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?”

How many Protestants would agree that their weekly worship (which they have substituted for the Mass) is a sacrifice?
Don’t know about other protestants, as they can speak for themselves. The issue of the sacrifice remains one of discussion between our traditions.

Jon
 
I realize you’re LCMS – which means you’re not ELCA, WELS, or LCMC (or one of the smaller “micro-synods”), so while auricular confession might still be routinely practiced to this day in LCMS Lutheranism I know plenty of** ELCA** and LCMC Lutherans for whom auricular confession would be a novel concept.
Yep. Confession is a Catholic thing (to people in elcaland). 😉
 
Yep. Confession is a Catholic thing (to people in elcaland). 😉
I can’t speak for the ELCA as I’ve been away from it for nearly a dozen years now, so I’m not up on things there anymore, but I would find it rather strange, having grown up LCA/ELCA for well catechized Lutherans to consider private confession a “Catholic thing”. Clearly we’ve done a poor job in America of offering and encourgaing it (I blame the influence of Reformed protestantism, in part), but many parishes and at least the LCMS and WELS are again offering and encouraging it.

I thought this link regarding the LCMS would add to the thoughts of the thread.

weedon.blogspot.com/2007/07/private-confession-and-absolution.html

Also in my search, I noticed that a number of WELS parish websites list their times for private confession on the schedule of worship, etc.

Jon
 
Not novel, if they are well catechized. Its in Luther’s Small Catechism, which is the basis for Lutheran confirmation in most synods. Now to be sure, American Lutherans have neglected auricular confession
Yes, there’s Individual Confession in the Small Catechism and the LBW, but all the Lutheran pastors I know will nonetheless agree with you that their congregations have, as you put it, “neglected auricular confession.”
but even corporate confession is to the pastor, who states following, “As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of you sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Lutherans’ Brief Order for Confession and Forgiveness is probably analogous to Catholic’s Penitential Rite – which offers forgiveness for all venial sin but is not a substitute for the confession for mortal sin.

More about “As a called and ordained servant of Christ” below.
The fact that the polity within Lutheran synods varies, and that some Lutherans are reticent about AS doesn’t mean that the confessions are. The major difference is the view that AS, while important and desirable, is essentially a human construct, and not a requirement for validity.
Whose view? And “a human construct and not a requirement for validity”? But that’s contrary to the way *God *set it up!

God the Father (the superior authority) sent Jesus Christ “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36). Jesus, in turn, sent the Apostles “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21). Jesus sent these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.” “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

The first generation of Apostles took care to not only pass along the message, but also creates new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message: “And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23). “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit. 1:5). “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

Note the appearance of the word “entrust” in this last passage. St. Paul expects that St. Timothy will “guard what has been entrusted” to him, and then later “entrust” that same mission and authority “to faithful men.” There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

Now, about the “called and ordained” part… in an earlier post I mentioned that a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man. Since Scripture shows that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message, only one option remains for those who think AS is merely a human construct: to claim to have been appointed directly by God, as Moses, the Apostles (St. Paul in particular), and Jesus Himself were (that is, by extraordinary means).

Scripture teaches that this supernatural, extraordinary calling by God directly is the exception, not the rule. The rule is appointment by succession (as in the case of the kings, prophets, and the second generation of apostles). In the exceptional, extraordinary case (Moses, the Apostles, and Jesus Himself), Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity (see Ex.4:1-9, Ex. 6:29-7:3, Acts 3:1-9, Acts 4:29-30, Acts 6:8, Acts 19:11-12, and Heb. 2:3-4 for examples).

Where are the miracles that must attend the ministry of anyone claiming to have been called directly by God as verification of his extraordinary calling? If even Jesus submitted to this proof-test (John 5:31-36), how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?

It all comes down to the question of authority.
 
=Erich;9569403]Yes, there’s Individual Confession in the Small Catechism and the LBW, but all the Lutheran pastors I know will nonetheless agree with you that their congregations have, as you put it, “neglected auricular confession.”
Fortunately, that seems to be changing. whether it is a “Catholic thing” or not isn’t the question. Is it a practice we should do, and the answer is yes. Hopefully, in the last 60 years, one of the things we can say is that there are things we can learn from each other - auricular confession we can learn from you, a return to communion under both species you seem to have learned from us. That’s a good thing!
Lutherans’ Brief Order for Confession and Forgiveness is probably analogous to Catholic’s Penitential Rite – which offers forgiveness for all venial sin but is not a substitute for the confession for mortal sin.
We do, obviously, view mortal sin differently.
Whose view? And “a human construct and not a requirement for validity”? But that’s contrary to the way *God *set it up!
Is seems true that the office of bishop grew out of presbyter.
God the Father (the superior authority) sent Jesus Christ “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36). Jesus, in turn, sent the Apostles “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21). Jesus sent these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.” “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)
Agreed.
The first generation of Apostles took care to not only pass along the message, but also creates new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message: “And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23). “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit. 1:5). “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)
No problem
Note the appearance of the word “entrust” in this last passage. St. Paul expects that St. Timothy will “guard what has been entrusted” to him, and then later “entrust” that same mission and authority “to faithful men.” There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.
Now, about the “called and ordained” part… in an earlier post I mentioned that a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man. Since Scripture shows that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message, only one option remains for those who think AS is merely a human construct: to claim to have been appointed directly by God, as Moses, the Apostles (St. Paul in particular), and Jesus Himself were (that is, by extraordinary means).
Wait. Where did the scriptures show Apostolic Succession, in the sense that you say here? There seems to be some missing steps. Within Lutheranism, btw, all clergy are odained by the Church. No single parish has aithority to ordain.
Scripture teaches that this supernatural, extraordinary calling by God directly is the exception, not the rule. The rule is appointment by succession (as in the case of the kings, prophets, and the second generation of apostles). In the exceptional, extraordinary case (Moses, the Apostles, and Jesus Himself), Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity (see Ex.4:1-9, Ex. 6:29-7:3, Acts 3:1-9, Acts 4:29-30, Acts 6:8, Acts 19:11-12, and Heb. 2:3-4 for examples).
Where are the miracles that must attend the ministry of anyone claiming to have been called directly by God as verification of his extraordinary calling? If even Jesus submitted to this proof-test (John 5:31-36), how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?
Not sure what you are talking about here.
It all comes down to the question of authority.
It always does.
Nicea canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.* Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan**, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.*

No mention here that all bishops are appointed by the Bishop of Rome. Authority is a big question.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top