Do you think st.paul was evangelical 1cor.12

[Taxx]

Do you think st. Paul was a evangelical as described in Corinthian s? 1cor.12
He seemed to be teaching being filled with the Holy spirit. And do the 9 gifts of the spirit ministry examples. And he says that he prayer in tongues more than them all? So it seem 2 b important.
Your thoughts?

 

[po18guy]

Define “evangeliacal”

 

[Zach]

In the list of gifts in verse 28 speaking in tongues is last. Then he teaches the higher gifts in chapter 13 with love being the highest, without which tongues or any other gift is nothing.

 

[TheBomb.Com]

That doesn’t sound very evangelical to me.

In the list of gifts in verse 28 speaking in tongues is last. Then he teaches the higher gifts in chapter 13 with love being the highest, without which tongues or any other gift is nothing.

 

[po18guy]

If you mean bible alone, that was not possible (and never desirable) until about 380-384 AD, when the bible’s contents were defined.

Saint Paul was a preacher, so does that mean that he was a Dominican (Order of Preachers)?

No. He preached. Others baptized and still others conducted the liturgy.

 

[Fauken]

Saint Paul was a preacher, so does that mean that he was a Dominican (Order of Preachers)?

Well we wouldn’t be opposed to it…

 

[De_Maria]

Do you think st. Paul was a evangelical as described in Corinthian s? 1cor.12

No.

He seemed to be teaching being filled with the Holy spirit.

That’s Catholic Teaching.

And do the 9 ministry examples.

Never heard of that.

And he says that he prayer in tongues more than them all?

He also says:

1 Corinthians 14:5
King James Version
I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

So it seem 2 b important.
Your thoughts?

St. Paul was a Catholic Teaching Catholic Doctrine.

 

[po18guy]

Saint Paul traveled to Jerusalem - under extremely trying circumstances (distance, by foot or animal, threat of robbers, persecution etc.) to make certain that his Gospel accorded with that of Peter and James.

As well, Saint Paul wrote many letters. If all he wrote was about the charisms., he would still be teaching the Gospel of the Apostles.

The question is actually asked backward. Are evangelicals Pauline, Christian or what? Their movement does not trace to Jerusalem, or even Wittenberg,. Rather, the evangelical movement was a split-off from Methodism in the UK in the 18th century.

Hmmmm…

 

[Hodos]

Depends on your definition of evangelical. If your meaning of evangelical is in the original sense of the word, which is that his view was determined by the gospel of Jesus Christ, then yes, Paul is absolutely evangelical, and I would argue gives us the clearest articulation of what the gospel is in his epistles.

 

[De_Maria]

Depends on your definition of evangelical. If your meaning of evangelical is in the original sense of the word, which is that his view was determined by the gospel of Jesus Christ, then yes, Paul is absolutely evangelical, and I would argue gives us the clearest articulation of what the gospel is in his epistles.

Amen! And that Gospel, is Catholic. Because it is the Catholic Church which has preserved all the Teachings of Jesus Christ, in Sacred Tradition.

 

[Hodos]

Amen! And that Gospel, is Catholic. Because it is the Catholic Church which has preserved all the Teachings of Jesus Christ, in Sacred Tradition.

We have never implied that the gospel is not catholic (small c). Again, if you read our doctrine, Augsburg Confession, our ecclesiology is based on the community gathered around Christ’s word and sacraments. We could argue on the faithfulness of Sacred Tradition and what constitutes Sacred Tradition I am sure, but I think we are both in agreement that the gospel provides the universal rule of faith.

 

[De_Maria]

We have never implied that the gospel is not catholic (small c).

It’s all Catholic, capital C. The Protestants have watered down the Gospel.

Again, if you read our doctrine, Augsburg Confession, our ecclesiology is based on the community gathered around Christ’s word and sacraments.

I have read it. But I haven’t memorized it. Tell me, which sacraments to do you accept?

We could argue on the faithfulness of Sacred Tradition and what constitutes Sacred Tradition I am sure, but I think we are both in agreement that the gospel provides the universal rule of faith.

The Word of God provides the universal rule of faith. We believe it is handed down in Sacred Tradition and Scripture through the infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Hodos]

The Protestants have watered down the Gospel.

We will have to agree to disagree there.

Tell me, which sacraments to do you accept?

It depends on what you mean by your question. Do you mean which rites of the 7 sacraments of the Church we practice, or do you mean which of the 7 sacraments of the Church do we consider sacraments based on our differing definition of what a sacrament is? If you mean the first, what rites do we practice, then my answer is all of them. If you mean how many of the rites we are speaking about we call sacraments, then the answer varies. We definitely consider Baptism and Holy Communion as sacraments, and one could make the argument that Confession and Absolution is also a sacrament. However, again, we believe and practice confirmation, prayer and anointing of the sick, marriage, and ordination.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Tell me, which sacraments to do you accept?

It depends on what you mean by your question. Do you mean which rites of the 7 sacraments of the Church we practice, or do you mean which of the 7 sacraments of the Church do we consider sacraments based on our differing definition of what a sacrament is?

Thanks for the specificity. I didn’t know that any non-Catholic group except the Orthodox practiced the 7 sacraments.

Thanks for the interesting information.

If you mean the first, what rites do we practice, then my answer is all of them.

Ok.

If you mean how many of the rites we are speaking about we call sacraments, then the answer varies.

Varies according to what? Surely not Scripture?

We definitely consider Baptism and Holy Communion as sacraments, and one could make the argument that Confession and Absolution is also a sacrament. However, again, we believe and practice confirmation, prayer and anointing of the sick, marriage, and ordination.

Hm? I had no idea. Do you believe that these rites confer grace?

 

[Hodos]

Varies according to what? Surely not Scripture?

I would agree, the definition of the word “sacrament” is a tradition by it’s nature. It is an extra-biblical word that developed over time. This is why I don’t have any particular bugaboos about the number of “sacraments” a particular denomination has. To me it is a syntactical debate, not a de fide dogma. You may feel differently, and I will merely shrug indifferently because in practice it means nothing since I practice all 7. That being said, I think we would have different concepts about what is actually going on in some of the sacraments.

Do you believe that these rites confer grace?

Well no. Not necessarily. We might be using the word grace differently for one, but more to the point I think that these rites/sacraments are doing different things. What I mean by this is that Lutherans make a distinction between law and gospel. The law tells you how you ought to live in communion with God and one another; whereas the gospel tells you what God has done for you, justifying you through faith in Christ. So in that light, Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confession and Absolution, we consider means of grace the deliver the gospel to you in word as well as in tangible form. I think the same could be said for Anointing the Sick. Confirmation, Marriage, and Ordination is more associated with the Law, telling us God’s expectations for us. I would not take a hard and fast doctrinal position on this, but that is my inclination. Both law and gospel are vital to the life of the Christian.

 

[De_Maria]

I would agree, the definition of the word “sacrament” is a tradition by it’s nature. It is an extra-biblical word that developed over time. This is why I don’t have any particular bugaboos about the number of “sacraments” a particular denomination has.

To you, extra-biblical is a bad word. It sounds as though you equate it with invalid or carries no weight. But we believe that many extra-biblical words are in line with Scripture and in accordance with the Will of God. In fact, that makes them necessary for our salvation. Sacraments are such.

To me it is a syntactical debate, not a de fide dogma. You may feel differently, and I will merely shrug indifferently because in practice it means nothing since I practice all 7. That being said, I think we would have different concepts about what is actually going on in some of the sacraments.

But, actually, you don’t practice any “with faith”. And that is the key. You consider them all as unnecessary. We would say that you have emptied the Gospel of its power. In my opinion, you fall directly under the caveat mentioned by Jesus Christ.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I read that as, who ever does not believe and is baptized, will be condemned. Why? Because God looks into your heart and sees no faith, thus you are not credited with righteousness. And if you are not credited with righteousness, you are given a demerit. The coin that you had will be taken away from you.

Well no. Not necessarily. We might be using the word grace differently for one, but more to the point I think that these rites/sacraments are doing different things.
What I mean by this is that Lutherans make a distinction between law and gospel. The law tells you how you ought to live in communion with God and one another; whereas the gospel tells you what God has done for you, justifying you through faith in Christ. So in that light, Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confession and Absolution, we consider means of grace the deliver the gospel to you in word as well as in tangible form. I think the same could be said for Anointing the Sick. Confirmation, Marriage, and Ordination is more associated with the Law, telling us God’s expectations for us. I would not take a hard and fast doctrinal position on this, but that is my inclination. Both law and gospel are vital to the life of the Christian.

So, where Ananias says to St. Paul, “hurry and be baptized and wash away your sins”, you don’t believe that your sins are washed away?

 

[Hodos]

To you, extra-biblical is a bad word. It sounds as though you equate it with invalid or carries no weight.

No, that’s not really true. I just don’t see the definition of sacrament as defined in scripture or necessary for salvation. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the practice of those rites you consider as sacramental. I would say that you are making a category error here. To give you a concrete example, the Trinity is not a Biblical word. Lutherans absolutely uphold the doctrinal teaching of the Trinity because that is what was revealed in the coming of Christ and the Holy Spirit and is recorded in scripture. The word itself is irrelevant, the teaching is essential. With regard to the sacraments, they were given for our benefit and we uphold them as such.

But, actually, you don’t practice any “with faith”. And that is the key. You consider them all as unnecessary. We would say that you have emptied the Gospel of its power. In my opinion, you fall directly under the caveat mentioned by Jesus Christ.

I am not sure how you are coming to this conclusion either. As stated earlier, my Church professes and practices ALL of the rites you call sacramental. Obviously we have faith in the efficacy of these rites to do what they were intended to do or we would not practice them. I will ignore your exegesis because I don’t particularly see it as sound hermeneutics or relevant.

So, where Ananias says to St. Paul, “hurry and be baptized and wash away your sins”, you don’t believe that your sins are washed away?

Again, I think you are making assumptions here. I want to say in an earlier thread we were both involved in I quoted scripture saying that baptism now saves you. Certainly your assertion that I don’t believe that we receive forgiveness of sins in baptism cannot be ascertained from the quote of mine you posted above this statement. There is nothing in what I said that would lead you to the conclusion that you jumped into. Also, you seem to be adding quotes that don’t exist in Acts 9.

 

[De_Maria]

No, that’s not really true. I just don’t see the definition of sacrament as defined in scripture

Not sure what you mean. You don’t see the definition of sacrament in Scripture? That’s true. It’s extra-biblical. It was coined and defined centuries after the New Testament was written. But there’s nothing wrong with that. It is how the Holy Spirit is bringing us to a better understanding of all that Jesus Taught.

or necessary for salvation.

Jesus said that a believer must be baptized to be saved. How is that not necessary for salvation?

This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the practice of those rites you consider as sacramental. I would say that you are making a category error here. To give you a concrete example, the Trinity is not a Biblical word.

Agreed.

Lutherans absolutely uphold the doctrinal teaching of the Trinity because that is what was revealed in the coming of Christ and the Holy Spirit and is recorded in scripture. The word itself is irrelevant, the teaching is essential. With regard to the sacraments, they were given for our benefit and we uphold them as such.

We see the Sacraments given for our justification and salvation. It is the New Testament way of receiving the saving grace of God. We call it, Sanctifying Grace.

I am not sure how you are coming to this conclusion either. As stated earlier, my Church professes and practices ALL of the rites you call sacramental.

But without faith in the power of God to effect through the Sacraments, that which is signified. For you, baptism is just a bath in water, with no sins removed. Am I right or wrong?

Obviously we have faith in the efficacy of these rites to do what they were intended to do or we would not practice them.

Ok, I’m confused. So, you believe that Baptism washes your sins away?

I will ignore your exegesis because I don’t particularly see it as sound hermeneutics or relevant.

No problem.

Again, I think you are making assumptions here.

I think you’re giving mixed messages. I’ve asked this question several times and I don’t remember a clear answer. Do you believe that Baptism washes away your sins? Yes or no?

I want to say in an earlier thread we were both involved in I quoted scripture saying that baptism now saves you. Certainly your assertion that I don’t believe that we receive forgiveness of sins in baptism cannot be ascertained from the quote of mine you posted above this statement. There is nothing in what I said that would lead you to the conclusion that you jumped into.

When I asked you if the Sacraments conveyed grace, you replied:

“Well no. Not necessarily.”

So, I think I’m drawing the conclusions that you’re delineating. But, perhaps you can clarify.

 

[Hodos]

It was coined and defined centuries after the New Testament was written. But there’s nothing wrong with that.

That was my point. Not understanding why you are questioning someone’s salvation over a semantic term.

Jesus said that a believer must be baptized to be saved. How is that not necessary for salvation?

You are quoting me out of context. I said the definition of the term “sacrament” is not salvific.

We see the Sacraments given for our justification and salvation. It is the New Testament way of receiving the saving grace of God. We call it, Sanctifying Grace

I already kinda laid out my view on the sacraments. I think you are using the terms justification and salvation in a different manner than we use the terms.

But without faith in the power of God to effect through the Sacraments, that which is signified. For you, baptism is just a bath in water, with no sins removed. Am I right or wrong?

You are wrong. If you read both my comments above you would see I said nothing even approaching what you just said. I think for the purposes of trying to drive a square peg into a round hole you are attempting to put words in my mouth that I have never said. Period. For the record, I believe that Christ’s death and resurrection atoned for my sins and that through baptism I am called by God, given faith and the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s death and resurrection are applied to me personally. So yes, baptism washes away my sins.

When I asked you if the Sacraments conveyed grace, you replied:

“Well no. Not necessarily.”

So I think I’m drawing the conclusion that you’re delineating.

No, I think you missed my point entirely. You believe there are 7 sacraments. So in my explanation I looked at those individually since they are 7 separate rites, each with a different function and purpose. Some of those rites do convey God’s grace through word and tangible means that I am a forgiven child of God (gospel). Some of those rites convey God’s expectations of me in the temporal realm (law). Those two things have different functions. One conveys grace, the other conveys law. We in the Lutheran faith make a distinction between law and gospel because it is a useful way of keeping people from getting confused. So my point was, some of the sacraments convey grace, some convey law. I make a distinction between those two things.

 

[De_Maria]

That was my point. Not understanding why you are questioning someone’s salvation over a semantic term.

It’s a rose by any other name. The Sacraments are necessary, no matter what you call them. That is why Jesus said, “those who believe and are baptized will be saved”.

I’ve been told that the Orthodox call them “Mysteries.” They are still essential to our salvation.

You are quoting me out of context. I said the definition of the term “sacrament” is not salvific.

I guess I don’t understand what you mean. The definition of sacrament is not salvific? That’s like saying, “your name is not you.” It’s understood that the words used to explain the sacrament are not salvific, but they explain that the sacrament is salvific.

I already kinda laid out my view on the sacraments. I think you are using the terms justification and salvation in a different manner than we use the terms.

Agreed. I’ve always found that confusing. I think it has to do with the idea of “forensic” vs “real” justification.

You are wrong.

Ok.

If you read both my comments above you would see I said nothing even approaching what you just said. I think for the purposes of trying to drive a square peg into a round hole you are attempting to put words in my mouth that I have never said. Period. For the record, I believe that Christ’s death and resurrection atoned for my sins and that through baptism I am called by God, given faith and the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s death and resurrection are applied to me personally. So yes, baptism washes away my sins.

Wonderful! That leaves no room for discussion. You believe that Baptism washes away your sins. Great!

Now, remember, I’m trying to ascertain which Sacraments you believe. How about Confession. Do you believe that a priest can absolve you of sins in the name of Jesus Christ?

No, I think you missed my point entirely. You believe there are 7 sacraments. So in my explanation I looked at those individually since they are 7 separate rites, each with a different function and purpose.

Agreed. I think that is what the Church Teaches, as well.

Some of those rites do convey God’s grace through word and tangible means that I am a forgiven child of God (gospel). Some of those rites convey God’s expectations of me in the temporal realm (law). Those two things have different functions. One conveys grace, the other conveys law. We in the Lutheran faith make a distinction between law and gospel because it is a useful way of keeping people from getting confused. So my point was, some of the sacraments convey grace, some convey law. I make a distinction between those two things.

I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church Teaches that all the Sacraments convey grace. So, that’s an important distinction.

Which of the Sacraments convey grace and which law, in your opinion?