Fallacies of sola scriptura

[Philthy]

Not really a very substantial list, when all is said and done. Other than the pride aspect that led Luther away, its hard to understand why he would so feel the need to separate.

Without having any clue as to how Luther’s pride may have influenced events, I agree that the list is pretty minimal and its hard to understand why he felt so strongly about separating from the Church as the means to reform it.
The biggest issue apparently is the Pope, but really the Pope is merely a form of “believing hermeneutics is best left to the Church” which is (almost) a quote of what Jon presented as Lutheran theology. Anyhow, its nice to have much in common (compared to, say, some of our hard core reformed guests) and I also appreciate Jon’s courteous, informative and non-inflammatory discourse.

 

[avflf]

This is a good summary of the heresy into which Arias fell. It may be that he did not grasp the mystery of the incarnation.

Very close to this flawed reasoning is that which was addressed regarding the Mother of Jesus, who, though a creature, was the Mother of God. Her humanity does not make Jesus less divine.

First of all I cannot take credit for the article I was quoting from. Secondly if the incarnation is a “mystery” how confident are you that you’ve cracked it?

Perhaps you can support or explain this assertion? It seems to me that, if they were “alarmed” by the presence of the Emperor, they would have more likely succumbed to embrace Arianism, which would have been his preference. Instead, they officially declared the Emperor’s belief as heresy!

Again you’re quoting from the article; but it seems you are going around in circles as there is nothing that you posted that shows Constantine to be pro-Arian.

What makes you think that Constantine wanted to suppress it?

This also refers to the article

No, avflf. There is no need for us to “reconicle” the OT with the NT. They are already reconciled. What needs to be reconciled is our mentality to the revelation of God. There is a seamless garment of His revelation, though we may have trouble with our fininte minds understanding it.

Apologetics is the defense of the faith we have received from the Apostles, not “assuming what someboty thought or meant”. The faith was once for all deposited to the Church, and we receive that faith. It is based upon the Revelation of God, not our assumptions and speculations.

You do because although the original writers of the Gospel did their best to fit the OT into the New they did not manage to do a good job of it thus apologetics was born, to defend the indefensible

It is not diametrically opposite. It is a continued moving in the direction of tolerance and non-retaliation

More apologetics. I thought that God “changeth not”, that he was the same “yesterday, today and tomorrow” but now you tell me that he is “progressive”? Can you really not see what nonsense you spouting?.

It does NOT mean that you should take no action, evel legal action if you are wronged. God did not change the Law. It is our understanding of His revelation that has changed.

He did not change the law but modified or repealed it according to your belief. Let’s see: We’re now allowed to eat what we want, don’t have to stone adulterers, homosexuals, incestuous behaviour, slaughter all the children and animals of the vanquished and we don’t kill folk that do not keep the sabbath. You know, I can see your point of how progressive God has been … I would even venture to say that he has “evolved”.

 

[avflf]

The only reason that baptism can, and does, wash away sin is because through it, we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. the Blood of Christ only can cleanse from sins. Baptism is the manner in which we are washed by Him, and the merits of His sacrifice on the cross applied to our souls.

The way you put it seems that the blood works as a scrubbing brush and baptism as a rinse. Is that it?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
The only reason that baptism can, and does, wash away sin is because through it, we are united to Him in His death and resurrection. the Blood of Christ only can cleanse from sins. Baptism is the manner in which we are washed by Him, and the merits of His sacrifice on the cross applied to our souls.

The way you put it seems that the blood works as a scrubbing brush and baptism as a rinse. Is that it?

Your sarcastic remark is unwarranted. Baptism is empowered by Jesus’ death for it was His death that enabled mankind to be freed from sin and Baptism is the way that freedom is applied to mankind. Why is that? Because that was the way God willed it and His will is made known to us in the deposit of faith Jesus entrusted to the Apostles.

 

[QuickCat]

Not only is it hogwash, but anti-scriptural as well!.

James 1
[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Hogwash? Anti-Scriptural? Explain the following Scriptures for me:

1 Cor. 15:1-4 - Paul says that this gospel saves us [vs 2]
Eph. 1:13 - Paul says that “In whom ye trusted, after ye heard the Word of Truth, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION [1 Cor. 15:1-4], IN WHOM ALSO YE BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE!”
Col. 2:9, 10 For in HIM dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, AND YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM…"
Rom. 8:16, 17 “The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our [human] spirit, that we are the children of God [sons]. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ - if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be glorified together.”
To whom did James write his epistle??? Which tribe do you belong to???

 

[QuickCat]

All of the Apostles were succeeded by bishops. The line of bishops presiding over the see of James in Jerusalem has remained unbroken from the day of his martyrdom until today.

There is no Biblical record of James [the bother of our Lord Jesus Christ] being replaced in Acts 12. This is in marked contrast with Acts 1:15ff where Matthias replaced Judas.

 

[QuickCat]

Quickcat,

Jesus ministered to the Jews because they were the pre-ordained chosen race to bring the good news to the nations. All of the Apostles (including Paul) were Jews. This is consistent with the rest of scripture.

Need I remind you that none of St. Paul’s epistles were written to you. If you were to e consistent in your logic, there would be nothing to redeem you

You continually talk about the body of Christ. Don’t you understand that Paul used that analogy to explain Jesus’s relation to the Catholic Church and the ralations of the members of the Church to each other?

Finally, When Peter addressed the crowds at Pentecost, he was explaining to them why the Christians were speaking in tongues. Remember, there was a great deal of confusion and some of the observers thought the Apostles were drunk. Peter clarifies that, explains how they came to know that Jesus was the messiah and when 3000 want to become Christians, he tells them to repent and be baptized. This brought them into the body of Christ, although he didn’t use that analogy.

You claim to be in the body of Christ, have you even been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Our Lord Jesus Christ ministered to the Jews [only] because He was fulfilling what the prophets foretold. Israel would have a Messiah, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He would set up a kingdom on earth, headquartered in Jerusalem. The 12 apostles will sit on the 12 thrones judging Israel during this kingdom reign.

Paul writes to members of the Body of Christ [that includes me]. His epistles contain the great doctrines for this Body.

Peter, on the Jewish feast day [Pentecost], was addressing a people {Israel] who were still in covenant relationship with God. He is not address the Body of Christ. The “church” there was entirely Jewish. The apostles were given the gift of languages in order to preach to the Jews who were from a myriad of countries. BTW, the “sign” people are the Jews [1 Cor. 1:22; 14:22]. Peter is offering the return of Messiah to set up the kingdom, dependent upon Israel’s repentance - Acts 3:19-21. You will note that Peter says that “all the prophets have spoken of these days.” You apparently don’t know it, but the prophets knew nothing of the Body of Christ.

Acts 2:38 does not put anyone into the Body of Christ. Paul tells us that we are “baptized by [God] the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ” [1 Cor. 12:13]. On the day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus Christ is baptizing Jews with the Holy Spirit, an entirely different thing. This baptism was an induement so that the 12 could perform miracles, wonders and signs for the Jews.

 

[avflf]

Your sarcastic remark is unwarranted. Baptism is empowered by Jesus’ death for it was His death that enabled mankind to be freed from sin and Baptism is the way that freedom is applied to mankind. Why is that? Because that was the way God willed it and His will is made known to us in the deposit of faith Jesus entrusted to the Apostles.

I do apologize if it offends you, but reading all the nonsense about the two I sometimes cannot help it. I would beg you to look at my remarks more as witty than sarcastic.
So you say that Jesus’ Death freed us from sin but on the other hand you say that Baptism is essential to get rid of sin and you really do not find anything weird about such statements.
The Church delivers unbaptized infants to the “Mercy of God” because it is not sure if they will really make it to heaven so, by your reasoning, the blood does absolutely nothing for that infant. I was taught in Catechism that they went to “Limbo” but I see now that it was never Church doctrine, yet it was taught as fact. I consider that deceitful…

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;6691372]An interesting list.

Thank you???

*]What does it mean to be the Western Patriarch?

The early council (Nice) set the suburban (western) jurisdiction under the Bishop of Rome, as other Bishops have their jurisdiction. I’m by far no expert on the polity of the early Church, but as western Christians, I would say that Lutheran efforts in the desire for unity are most strongly directed at Rome.

*]What do you think still separates us on justification?

Some of my Lutheran siblings would say it is still more than this, but I think primarily
the issue of umputed or infused righteousness.

*]What don’t you agree on about the mass, other than the fact that we believe you need to have a valid Priest to consecrate the host and bring about the real presence of Christ? Or is that it?

Actually, the issue is whether or not the mass is propitiatory for the living and dead, whose sacrifice it actually is, etc. I do understand the Catholic position on succession, etc. Lutherans, except for those in Scandinavia who maintained succession, practice presbyter ordination, and we maintain it is valid by divine law. We also point to instances of its use by Rome prior to the reformation. Lutherans willingly accept the validity of Catholic clergy and sacrament.

*]Purgatory is the state where one enters prior to heaven to complete the purification process if it isn’t completed on earth. What are your objections to that? Indulgences are things you do on earth to purify yourself in advance.

The reformers greatest complaint was its limited support in scripture, and of course what they viewed as abuses in the medieval Church - selling indulgences, etc. There is an interesting comment from Father George H. Tavard,

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-212.shtml
Somewhere I saw that Pope Benedict XVI explains Purgatory in a similar manner. To this Lutheran, that is a view not far removed from what I believe; a cleansing at the moment of death for entry into the Church Triumphant.

Not really a very substantial list, when all is said and done. Other than the pride aspect that led Luther away, its hard to understand why he would so feel the need to separate.

I think if one reflects on those days, the pride issue kind of went both ways. Certainly, otherwise good Christian men on both sides did not always act in a way that glorified Christ, or preserved the unity of the western Church.
Again, my personal view, and not necessarily expressing a broader Lutheran view: I think much of the actions of the reformers was to abuses. Abuses of indulgences, Marian piety, the Mass, etc. And what we might be witnessing since Vatican II is a relaxing of the old polemics, at least among our leaders, making it possible to look back on what caused the separation, and deal with it in charitable dialogue.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I thi nk Lutherans believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation-We Catholics believe the Eucharist’s substance is literally transformed into Jesus’s body and blood, while Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ is “joined” to the bread and wine, like fire and iron.

Luterhans reject consubstantiation, and also impanation, on a number of grounds, not the least of which being that it attempts in metaphysical terms to describe mystery that cannot by described, similarly to why we don’t accept as doctrine transubstantiation.
Luther used the phrase sacramental union, that the true and substantial body and blood of Christ are present in with and under bread and wine. But even that isn’t meant as a metaphysical description. Upon the speaking of the words of institution by the pastor/priest, and by the power of the holy Spirit, the bread and wine *is * the body and blood of Christ.
Interestingly, the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Commission, studying Eucharistic expressions, offered this statement:

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. **The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

BTW, the website is a Franciscan site.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6691525
Sanctification, as far as I can tell, is basically irrelevant in all Protestant theology.
Unless you are prepared to say that there is an eternal consequence associated with sub-optimal sanctification, who cares?

Luther

There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.

There is no justification without sanctification. The consequences of a lack of sanctification is the Holy Spirit will not remain where there is rejection of Him. We have free will. And if the Holy Spirit is not in us, well, the eternal consequences are obvious.

Really? I didnt know that. So when Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” the Lutheran Church understands that as a reference to justification and not salvation? Interesting…

Well, without it we cannot be saved. But we view sola fide as the way we come to justification, which is made possible by the actions of Christ (Grace).

This is really splitting hairs IMHO. First of all, failing to do the right thing is a sin. Failing to do a good work that God has prepared in advance for us to walk in is a sin, no? So failing to do Gods Will (which includes the works he has prepared for us to walk in) constitutes a sin that can lead to a loss of faith. But then, somehow, its the “loss of faith” (whatever that now means) that causes a loss of salvation? That seems awfully academic to me. It presumes that we have a knowledge of our faith apart from how our lives are shaped by it. But that can’t be true because from the statement below works are the evidence of faith. So that is confusing to me.
Also, on a very practical level, its like saying, “If you play with fire you dont get burnt - its not playing with it that causes the burn, its the fire itself”. It’s a pointless distinction. And on this side of eternity, its a pointless distinction to say that although failing to do good works may cause you to lose faith which can lead to a loss of salvation, its not actually the failure to do good works that’s the problem. What is the point of such a distinction - especially when the works are the “evidence” of our faith?

For the reformers, the point was that they saw in the Church of their time abuses that appeared as works righteousness. They saw in these abuses a belief that one could earn salvation by indulgences and private masses, etc. That is not to say that that was offical Church teaching, but that is what they saw - abuses and corruption at that time.

I also don’t see it as a pointless distinction in the sense, at least for Lutherans, there is a distinct understanding of the role of Christ in our salvation, that we can add nothing to what he did to “earn” salvation. Therefore, we distinguish between faith and works, justification and sanctification, what part is monergistic, and how and when we must cooperate - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Catholics may not see the need for this expression, but Lutherans do in our Tradition. The question then becomes, is what we are each saying basically the same thing expressed differently within our particular traditions? If so, is a difference in expression necessarily Church dividing?

Works alone do not save us, I agree, but this statement has another side which I consistently find Protestants unable to agree with. And that is: Failure to do good works is evidence of a lack of salvific faith. Can you agree with that statement? If not, why not?

I can, and do. It is quite a Lutheran statement.

I dont think this is quite what he was saying, but I could be wrong. I think he was saying that men, alone, can’t do it but that it requires the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit alone, also will not do it - we must cooperate with the Holy spirit.

You may have stated it better.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Our Lord Jesus Christ ministered to the Jews [only] because He was fulfilling what the prophets foretold. Israel would have a Messiah, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He would set up a kingdom on earth, headquartered in Jerusalem. The 12 apostles will sit on the 12 thrones judging Israel during this kingdom reign.

No, when interviewed by Pontius Pilate just prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Your have a misunderstanding of Revelations.

Paul writes to members of the Body of Christ [that includes me]. His epistles contain the great doctrines for this Body.

How do you figure? As you have said many tiimes in this thread, Read the envelope. He is writing to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philipians, the Galatians, the Hebrews, to Titus, Timothy and Philemon. Matthew, Mark, and John’s Gospels aren’t addressed to anyone. Luke’s two works, his gospel and acts, are written to Theophilus, which is greek for Lover of God.
2Peter is not address but refers to brothers. 1Peter and James are written to the dispersed Jews. 1John is unaddressed, 2John is to the chosen lady, 3John is to Gaius, which is a Greek name. Jude is to" those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ" Revelations is to the 7 churches in Asia. If we go by your view that the letters are only to those they were addressed to and have no appllicability otherwise, you would be limited to those that are not addressed: the Gospels, Acts, John1 and 2Peter. and to Jude. Why don’t you limited youself to those?

Peter, on the Jewish feast day [Pentecost], was addressing a people {Israel] who were still in covenant relationship with God. He is not address the Body of Christ. The “church” there was entirely Jewish. The apostles were given the gift of languages in order to preach to the Jews who were from a myriad of countries. BTW, the “sign” people are the Jews [1 Cor. 1:22; 14:22]. Peter is offering the return of Messiah to set up the kingdom, dependent upon Israel’s repentance - Acts 3:19-21. You will note that Peter says that “all the prophets have spoken of these days.” You apparently don’t know it, but the prophets knew nothing of the Body of Christ.

Apparently only the Corinthians and Ephesians know about the body of Christ, because they were the only ones to get letters referring to it as such.

Acts 2:38 does not put anyone into the Body of Christ. Paul tells us that we are “baptized by [God] the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ” [1 Cor. 12:13]. On the day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus Christ is baptizing Jews with the Holy Spirit, an entirely different thing. This baptism was an induement so that the 12 could perform miracles, wonders and signs for the Jews.

This is the most inconsistent thing you have said. You say that Paul tells us we are baptized by the Holy spirit into the Body of Christ. Peter says in Acts 2:
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

So how is being bapitzed and recieving the Holy Spirit different when Paul says it than when Peter says it?

 

[Philthy]

?

There is no justification without sanctification. The consequences of a lack of sanctification is the Holy Spirit will not remain where there is rejection of Him. We have free will. And if the Holy Spirit is not in us, well, the eternal consequences are obvious.

 

[Philthy]

I had said the following in response to some comments and a quote from the Concord:

This is really splitting hairs IMHO. First of all, failing to do the right thing is a sin. Failing to do a good work that God has prepared in advance for us to walk in is a sin, no? So failing to do Gods Will (which includes the works he has prepared for us to walk in) constitutes a sin that can lead to a loss of faith. But then, somehow, its the “loss of faith” (whatever that now means) that causes a loss of salvation? That seems awfully academic to me. It presumes that we have a knowledge of our faith apart from how our lives are shaped by it. But that can’t be true because from the statement below works are the evidence of faith. So that is confusing to me.
Also, on a very practical level, its like saying, “If you play with fire you dont get burnt - its not playing with it that causes the burn, its the fire itself”. It’s a pointless distinction. And on this side of eternity, its a pointless distinction to say that although failing to do good works may cause you to lose faith which can lead to a loss of salvation, its not actually the failure to do good works that’s the problem. What is the point of such a distinction - especially when the works are the “evidence” of our faith

For the reformers, the point was that they saw in the Church of their time abuses that appeared as works righteousness. They saw in these abuses a belief that one could earn salvation by indulgences and private masses, etc. That is not to say that that was offical Church teaching, but that is what they saw - abuses and corruption at that time.

I dont quite see how this addresses any of the above, really. I mean if your simply trying to say that the Reformers were mistaken and misled by abusive church leaders as to what the Catholic faith actually was, and that based on that misunderstanding they felt compelled to “save the church”, so to speak, I get it. But the fact remains that they were mistaken and now, 500 years later, we all know that, and their confusion no longer justifies the divide between Lutherans and the Catholic Church.

I also don’t see it as a pointless distinction in the sense, at least for Lutherans, there is a distinct understanding of the role of Christ in our salvation, that we can add nothing to what he did to “earn” salvation. Therefore, we distinguish between faith and works, justification and sanctification, what part is monergistic, and how and when we must cooperate - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Did you not just say above that sanctification, which is a requirement of the Holy Spirit remaining in us and which salvation is contingent upon, is something that we play an active role in? So no, we cannot “add” anything to what he did to earn salvation, be we must do things in order to manifest in our lives the salvation He earned for us. We “make up for what is lacking” in the Cross, as Paul said, and he means that Christ left us work to do to fulfill his mission for all of us.

Catholics may not see the need for this expression, but Lutherans do in our Tradition. The question then becomes, is what we are each saying basically the same thing expressed differently within our particular traditions? If so, is a difference in expression necessarily Church dividing?

You know that it is. If it werent you would call yourself Catholic and I would call myself Lutheran. The division is real and it remains a wound to the unity of the body of Christ.

I can, and do. It is quite a Lutheran statement.

Good to hear!

You may have stated it better.

You may be right!

Blessings!

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6693173]
I honestly dont know what you mean by this. Do you mean that sanctification precedes justification? I dont think so.

No. Of course not. Sanctification follows.

Do you mean that if you are not growing in sanctity then you never were justified? I dont think so, because you clearly speak of our free will ability to reject the Holy Spirit.

Correct. One can be justified, and then lose his justification. You, as a Catholic, might say being in a state of mortal sin, or not in a state of Grace.

Do you mean, in a general sense, that sanctification always accompanies justification? I dont think so for the same reason that we can always choose to reject the holy Spirit.

If you mean by “always accompanies” as so long as we have a living, salvific faith, yes.
Growth in grace is evident. Good works are produced, and we participate in the Church where we receive word and sacrament (confession/Absolution and the Eucharist) as He intended.

So, do you really mean to say that there is no SALVATION without sanctification? I think so.

I would reject the language of “no salvation without sanctification”, because it construes that our actions bring merit, when in fact it is Christ’s merit that brings salvation. But as Luther says, if there is no evidence of justification - that evidence being obedience to His commands - then justification is either rejected, or was never there.

I dunno Jon. It sounds to me that the Lutheran understanding of Salvation involves an initial point of entry into fellowship with God known as being “justified” (aka born again, regenerated, saved, etc). This initial entry is by grace alone through faith alone. Good so far?

Ok.

This entry into fellowship with God (ie justification), however, does not guarantee that we will actually go to Heaven.

Yes, it does.

In order for that to happen we must cooperate with God by actually living the life he calls us to live(ie, love God and neighbor through the good works he has prepared for us, dying to self) becoming more conformed to the image of Christ. This latter process is known as sanctification and it is also a necessary requirement to gaining entry into Heaven. Am I missing anything?

Actually, we would say these things you mention are evidence that what is required, justification by grace alone through faith, is present.
The Augsburg Confession says:

Article VI: Of New Obedience.

1] Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification 2] before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

Except for how the Sacraments fit into this I really dont see the big deal.
How do you see the sacraments fitting into this?

Sure you can argue that 500 years ago the reformers perceived that the Church was advocating a works based entry into fellowship with God (I was careful to avoid using the usual terms there), but we all know that that is not now and never was the position of the Church. So what remains - today - the big obstacle to returning to the Church that the reformers separated from?

I assume you continue to mean Lutheran reformers. I gave a list above regarding what I see as the big issues that continue to leave us separated from each other. One was the role of the Pope. For me, and I think for a significant number of Lutherans/Anglicans, this issue could be all but solved if Rome was able to resolve it with Orthodoxy, because at least Lutherans interpret the role of the Bishop of Rome in ways similar to Orthodoxy, based on the early councils.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Philthy;6693174I dont quite see how this addresses any of the above, really. I mean if your simply trying to say that the Reformers were mistaken and misled by abusive church leaders as to what the Catholic faith actually was, and that based on that misunderstanding they felt compelled to “save the church”, so to speak, I get it.

No, they were not mistaken! What they saw - abuses and corruption (Tetzel and the like), were very much real. And yes, I believe it truly was Luther’s intent to raise the alarm, in loyalty to the Pope.

But the fact remains that they were mistaken and now, 500 years later, we all know that, and their confusion no longer justifies the divide between Lutherans and the Catholic Church.

I would say there were mistakes all around. It is 500 years later, and much has gone under the bridge, so to speak. But I hope that we, our leaders today, can end the confusion and with the help of the Holy Spirit bring us together.

Did you not just say above that sanctification, which is a requirement of the Holy Spirit remaining in us and which salvation is contingent upon, is something that we play an active role in? So no, we cannot “add” anything to what he did to earn salvation, be we must do things in order to manifest in our lives the salvation He earned for us. We “make up for what is lacking” in the Cross, as Paul said, and he means that Christ left us work to do to fulfill his mission for all of us.

I can agree with you that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Through our growth in grace, we do play an active role, and we in joyful thanksgiving do as you have said here.

You know that it is. If it werent you would call yourself Catholic and I would call myself Lutheran. The division is real and it remains a wound to the unity of the body of Christ.

Of course, and I sadly agree that the body of Christ, and His ministry, are wounded by our division.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

if the incarnation is a “mystery” how confident are you that you’ve cracked it?

Where did there emerge a requirement that I “crack” the mysteries of the faith?

Are you suffering from some form of hubris that makes you believe we are able to apprehend the mysteries of all that is a higher power than we ourselves?

there is nothing in the article shows Constantine to be pro-Arian.

80% of the Empire had fallen to Arianism, and Constantine leaned in that direction Himself. He did not seem to care which way the council ruled on the matter, except that he wanted commerce not to be damaged by the disagreement.

You do because  although the original writers of the Gospel did their best to fit the OT into the New they did not manage to do a good job of it  thus apologetics was born, to defend the indefensible

One has to wonder why you are here.

More apologetics. I thought that God "changeth not", that he was the same "yesterday, today and tomorrow" but now you tell me that he is "progressive"? Can you really not see what nonsense you spouting?.

No, I said that our understanding of Him is progressive.

He did not change the law but modified or repealed it according to your belief.

He fulfilled it.

Let’s see: We’re now allowed to eat what we want, don’t have to stone adulterers, homosexuals, incestuous behaviour, slaughter all the children and animals of the vanquished and we don’t kill folk that do not keep the sabbath. You know, I can see your point of how progressive God has been … I would even venture to say that he has “evolved”.

You seem to wish to use this as an opportunity for mockery.

 

[guanophore]

Your sarcastic remark is unwarranted.

Given the mocking tone, it seems clear that his primary purpose for being here is to make just such remarks.

One does not make an effort to insult and berate that which is of no importance to himself. Methinks he is kicking against the goads.

 

[guanophore]

Hogwash? Anti-Scriptural? Explain the following Scriptures for me:

1 Cor. 15:1-4 - Paul says that this gospel saves us [vs 2]
Eph. 1:13 - Paul says that “In whom ye trusted, after ye heard the Word of Truth, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION [1 Cor. 15:1-4], IN WHOM ALSO YE BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE!”
Col. 2:9, 10 For in HIM dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, AND YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM…"
Rom. 8:16, 17 “The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our [human] spirit, that we are the children of God [sons]. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ - if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be glorified together.”
To whom did James write his epistle??? Which tribe do you belong to???

You are setting up a false dichotomy between religion, and a relationship with teh Lord Jesus. Scripture itself testifies that there is no such dichotomy. You claimed that religion is man’s attempt to find God, but Scripture contradicts this view.

 

[guanophore]

There is no Biblical record of James [the bother of our Lord Jesus Christ] being replaced in Acts 12. This is in marked contrast with Acts 1:15ff where Matthias replaced Judas.

Judas was chosen by Christ as one of the 12, and threw away his part in the ministry. He was replaced because God had ordained a special ministry for the 12 Apostles. Jesus gave the Authority to Peter and the other Apostles to replace Judas, as well as to annoint their successors, the bishops.