How does protestant settle issues concerning enterpretation of Scriptures when these issues arise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And, therefore, Lutherans view Catholic clergy and sacraments as valid, just as we view our clergy and sacraments as valid.

Jon
ok, Jon

why cant you just answer how your authorities got their authority? did they get when they read the Bible? were they ordained by the Bible?

we know that the CC has an unbroken line of succession all the way back to the Apostles.
that is the Church.

but if you are not in the CC, who ordained those in authority over you? how did all begin?
 
ok, Jon

why cant you just answer how your authorities got their authority? did they get when they read the Bible? were they ordained by the Bible?

we know that the CC has an unbroken line of succession all the way back to the Apostles.
that is the Church.

but if you are not in the CC, who ordained those in authority over you? how did all begin?
The authority of the Church does not necessarily require AS. Even the Catholic Church has practiced presbyter ordination, and recognized the right of Churches to ordain. Lutherans have that same authority, handed down to the Church.

Jon
 
The authority of the Church does not necessarily require AS. Even the Catholic Church has practiced presbyter ordination, and recognized the right of Churches to ordain. Lutherans have that same authority, handed down to the Church.

Jon
handed down from whom?
 
handed down from whom?
Christ, of course. You see, the Catholic (and Orthodox) reliance on AS is valuable, desirable, important, but not exclusively the Tradition from which the Church receives the power to bind and loose. The Lutheran reformers would have loved to have maintained it (some Northern European Lutherans actually did and still do. This desire to maintain it is clear in the Confessions. But the confessions also make clear that valid, presbyter ordination by divine law is also available when AS is not.

So, your attempt to limit authority only AS in general, and the CC in particular, is not a concept we feel tied to. History shows that presbyter ordination holds that authority necessary to teach, as well. Arguing from your position that only through AS does the Church have the authority of the Apostles won’t change our minds.

I will say this, however, I believe when corporate unity is arrived at, this will not be a particularly difficult obstacle.
Jon
 
we Know that Jesus said to take to the Church. we know that is what Catholics do.

how about protestants, how do you settle those issues when discordia on Scriptures arises?

i appreciate productive discussions with truth to back up. you must speak the Truth, nothing but the Truth on this issue. no insults please.

St. Paul called the Church the “body” of Christ, not the “soul” of Christ. Bodies are visible and souls are invisible. John Salza
The redefinition is more than the non-Biblical “invisible Church”:
[bibledrb]Mt 5:15-16[/bibledrb]
The “Church” is no longer “the pillar and foundation of the truth”:
[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]
Protestant praxis typically means “Church” shopping for the individual, or in the case of a group the formation of a new denomination or “non-denomination” that accommodates their contradictory “truths.”

This verse is nonsensical for Protestants:
[bibledrb]Matthew 18:15-17[/bibledrb]

There can’t be contradictory truths so there can be only one Church. If, for example, Presbyterianism is true then necessarily all other Protestant denominations that are not in complete agreement with Presbyterianism are in some way false.
 
but protestants have different ideas of what the Church is. some say the Church is made up of true believers a gathering of people from different churches that are saved. some say that the church is their own churches. some say the church is invisible to our eyes which i think is the same is the same as a gathering of the saved ones.

then we have the CC the visible Body of Christ.
 
wisdomseeker,

i assume you are looking for the “truth”. what you have to realise is that protestants handle “truth” differently from catholics.

i asked jonnc in another thread why lutherans believe in the doctrine of the real presence, while calvinists didn’t, despite both denominations using sola scriptura to define their respective dogmas. jon replied that lutherans believe in the real presence, and left it at that. no lutheran is in an authoritative position to tell the rest of the protestants that the real presence is actually the TRUTH, because that would imply that the Calvinists and others are in ERROR regarding the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

protestantism therefore leaves the truth-seeker somewhat dissatisfied, because the truth-seeker hears contradictory answers from protestants, all purporting to be the “truth”.

the catholic church on the other hand, claims to proclaim the “infallible truth” in its official teaching. one may choose not to believe it, but at least the teaching is unambiguous.
 
wisdomseeker,

i assume you are looking for the “truth”. what you have to realise is that protestants handle “truth” differently from catholics.

i asked jonnc in another thread why lutherans believe in the doctrine of the real presence, while calvinists didn’t, despite both denominations using sola scriptura to define their respective dogmas. jon replied that lutherans believe in the real presence, and left it at that. no lutheran is in an authoritative position to tell the rest of the protestants that the real presence is actually the TRUTH, because that would imply that the Calvinists and others are in ERROR regarding the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

protestantism therefore leaves the truth-seeker somewhat dissatisfied, because the truth-seeker hears contradictory answers from protestants, all purporting to be the “truth”.

the catholic church on the other hand, claims to proclaim the “infallible truth” in its official teaching. one may choose not to believe it, but at least the teaching is unambiguous.
Correct. We, as Lutherans and Protestants will leave it between the believer, the Bible (which is authoratative) and God. We know who wrote the Bible, and with the exception of Mark, Luke and possibly the writer of Hebrews, all of the authors of the New Testament either walked with Christ for three years or in the case of Paul were personally taught by Christ. No other humans since that time can claim that type of experience, which in turn gives that type of authority. That is why I don’t agree that the Catholic church is infallable, and why I’m not a Catholic.
 
wisdomseeker,

i assume you are looking for the “truth”. what you have to realise is that protestants handle “truth” differently from catholics.

i asked jonnc in another thread why lutherans believe in the doctrine of the real presence, while calvinists didn’t, despite both denominations using sola scriptura to define their respective dogmas. jon replied that lutherans believe in the real presence, and left it at that. no lutheran is in an authoritative position to tell the rest of the protestants that the real presence is actually the TRUTH, because that would imply that the Calvinists and others are in ERROR regarding the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

protestantism therefore leaves the truth-seeker somewhat dissatisfied, because the truth-seeker hears contradictory answers from protestants, all purporting to be the “truth”.

the catholic church on the other hand, claims to proclaim the “infallible truth” in its official teaching. one may choose not to believe it, but at least the teaching is unambiguous.
Many Prostestants seem to believe the Holy Spirit allows them to go in any direction they believe they feel called to go, to discern for them selves, no need to consider other authority outside themselves.
 
.

I think two different issues are going on…

ANY association may create policies regarding membership and conflict resolution. To my knowledge, all denominations do that (including mine). FOR THAT ASSOCIATION (club, group, organization, whatever), that applies to those IN THAT association. If I belong to the Toyota Owners’ Club and one polity is that members must own a Toyota, and I sell my Toyota, then I may no longer be a member of that organization. Now, most congregations and denominations have a creedal statement somewhere (often in their constitution) stating not only what that congregation and/or denomination believes, but also MAY require those in official membership to ascribe to such. If there is a dispute, it MAY have a prescribed way to resolve that issue, and if one is clearly in violation of the agreed-upon polity, one may be excluded from the organization. In THIS sense, it can be argued that The Catholic Church had the “right” to kick out anyone that it its own determination according to its own creedal position, could be removed (call it what you like). If that organization is the LDS and one holding official membership in that group comes to view the RCC as correct, it would be within the “rights” of the LDS to “remove” that person from the organization’s membership. It’s a whole other issue whether that person is WRONG or a non-Christian or no longer a part of CHRIST’S church - but any organization can remove anyone from it’s membership roles if such is done in comformity with the polity of that organization. In THAT sense, The Catholic Church had the “right” to remove Luther (we’re talking POWER here, nothing more). It’s a separate issue whether it did so in comfority with it’s own polity and if Luther was wrong.

The other issue is what interpretation is correct? This ASSUMES two things: First of all, that the Rule is Scripture (otherwise, interpretations don’t matter) and secondly that all teachers/interpeters are ACCOUNTABLE. Thus, the question of this thread is one that Catholics, Mormons, as well as all members of all the cults are exempt. ** They all reject that Scripture is the authority and that teachers are accountable. ** The question is MOOT coming from any of them, and frankly, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to address an issue they regard as moot. Their position is: One is correct if one says, “I’m right so I’m right, therefore I’m right so I’m right, so there. Just accept whatever I say with docility.”
For for those that regard God as the Authority (not self alone) and regard all we teachers as accountable for what we say and for what we insists God says (wasn’t it Jeremiah who stated that God has a particular distain for those who say “God says” when God said no such thing?), then the issue of correctness comes into play. As a Lutheran, I believe that we are to look to the church, for I believe that God gave His Word to the church (not exclusively to ME) and that God leads His church (not exclusively ME). This CORPORATE view of the church that Lutherans and Orthodox Christians embrace means we are not simply to look to SELF for this arbitration, but to the church. Lutherans do that for our teachings - looking to the 3 Ecumenical Creeds and the true ecumenical church councils - although, like the Orthodox, we don’t view OUR arbitrations as infallible. Our “problem” is the same as that felt by the Orthodox (whether Oriental or Eastern) - true ecumenical councils are impossible (the OO I think embraces only the first 4 - and not as infallible, the EO embraces the first 7 although again not infallible). The last true council ended around 800 if my memory off the top of my head is correct. The struggle for power between East and West, the constant attempt of the West and the Bishop of Rome to take more and more and more power, to be regarded as unaccountable, all that pretty much terminated any sense of the church as Christians and replaced it with all the ME-ism, institutionalism, denominationalism we see today. In a lot of ways, I agree with the Orthodox - Christianity was shattered, but worse, it was politicized, polerized, institutionalized, and the embrace of truth became overwhelmed by the quest for power/authority/control/lording it over others. In the absence of any possibility of a true ecumenical council, there is no clear answer for how to resolve conflicts BETWEEN various positions - only for within them. As a Lutheran, I join the Orthodox in lamenting this. We need to work to restore a sense of humility, community, accountability. We have a LOT of work to do, for I disagree with many that things got better in the 20th century, I think what is seen as improved humility and community is instead increased relativism and a lack of concern from truth. Right now, the best we can do is seek resolution on an individual level - among us - and work to form a consensus. Don’t be TOO discouraged: that’s EXACTLY how the early church did it.
Not entirely correct.

The bolded portion suggests that Catholics reject scripture as authority, at least in part. Better to say that Catholics reject the notion that Scripture is the sole authority on matters of faith, wouldn’t you agree?

As well, the claim that Catholic teachers (and I assume you mean Pope and Bishops i.e. the Magisterium) act independantly of God and are such unaccountable to God is in error. If I understand you correctly, nothing could be further from the truth. Catholic understanding is that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and as such is accountable to God for any deviation from such teachings.

Your position is curious; critical of the authority of the Magisterium while accepting the authority of the Pastors and Synods of the Lutheran Church (speaking, of course, of the concept of authority in general).

As well, the claim that the Catholic Magesterium is “right” because it says it is “right” is a false notion. If that were the case, the same could be said about the authority of the Lutheran Synods. The Authority of the Magisterium has biblical roots, whether or not you agree that the interpretation of such roots is valid. This is not dissimilar in the Lutheran Church; you claim Synodical (sp?) authority, and to be consisant it must be biblically based, no?
 
Well, my Church uses the following paradigm for the basis on which we are supposed to understand what the Church believes. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. All three must be employed in every case. We also affirm that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation. So traditions that have no mention, even indirectly, in scripture, are not seen as required for believe. An example of this might be the assumption of Mary. Anglicans may believe this, and it may be true, but it is not considered to be a requirement for understanding Christianity.

Where do we find out what our Church actually teaches? The national bodies of the Anglican communion have documents. There are the writings of people like the Church Fathers, and the Anglican Divines. But mostly Anglicans have looked to their liturgy to explicate our belief. This is where our theology has been written down. There have been serious problems with this in recent years, since many Anglican provinces have adopted new liturgical forms similar to the Roman Catholic ones. There has been a change in liturgy which was not approved as a change in theology - but given how Anglicans understand their theology, it has resulted in chaos. Especially since the liturgy has not changed everywhere.

On the issue of authority. In Anglicanism, active authority resides within the Bishops. They are subject to a number of things, but they must in a sense subject themselves to these things - Scripture, Tradition, the Instruments of Unity such as Lambeth. THe national Churches, for example the Anglican Church of Canada, have been responsible for producing things like prayer books and so forth, but it is up to the individual bishops to implement them. This is also true for things like decisions made at Lambeth - individual Bishops must implement them.

In the past the rule of thumb has been that the level at which changes can be made depends on the nature of the change. A national church might introduce a new lectionary, while it would be up to the whole communion to make a decision like amending the Nicean Creed.

Recently this system has begn to break down somewhat, because Bishops in the West have not respected these things which they are to subject themselves to. What the result will be is hard to say in the long term, as the majority of the Communion is not in this position.

It seems like in the West there may be areas of overlapping jurisdiction developing, but I can’t help but think that this will ultimately result in two different groups, one which follows the old model, and one which doesn’t. This is scary to me, because as far as I can tell under the new model is simply leaves Bishops in the position of being an authority which is subject to no one, other than their own view of what God wants.
 
To put it simply the only answer is to return to the unity Christ desires for his entire flock.
It is to acknowledge once again fully the Apostolic Church which began on Pentecost.

I agree with Vile Servant,Protestantism leaves many who seek the truth not completely sure, as something not quiet right, somewhat off, because there is so much contradiction in the answers given by different denominations all differing ,all claiming to be truth.

The Catholic Church proclaims the infallible truth in it’s official teaching, One may choose not to believe it, but at least Her teaching is clear and precise.Amen, God bless us all with his full Truth and Peace, Carlan
 
Would Roman Catholics agree that even the Pope, the Catechism, or a church council cannot contradict, countervene or trump revealed Truth in Scripture?

I assume that we (Protestants) and the Catholic Church agree that our own pronouncements cannot go against the teaching of Scripture. Now, we do disagree on interpretation. But that requirement to hold firm to the revealed word of God holds for both of us, correct?

Do we have common ground on this?

Jeff
 
To put it simply the only answer is to return to the unity Christ desires for his entire flock.
It is to acknowledge once again fully the Apostolic Church which began on Pentecost.

I agree with Vile Servant,Protestantism leaves many who seek the truth not completely sure, as something not quiet right, somewhat off, because there is so much contradiction in the answers given by different denominations all differing ,all claiming to be truth.

The Catholic Church proclaims the infallible truth in it’s official teaching, One may choose not to believe it, but at least Her teaching is clear and precise.Amen, God bless us all with his full Truth and Peace, Carlan
So we should all join with the Orthodox?

Are clarity and precision in themselves important if they are clear about incorrect information?

One could make this same argument about Christianity - “Christianity must be inadequate because so many groups teach different things”. It isn’t valid in that case, and it isn’t valid when used in relation to Protestantism either.
 
Would Roman Catholics agree that even the Pope, the Catechism, or a church council cannot contradict, countervene or trump revealed Truth in Scripture?

I assume that we (Protestants) and the Catholic Church agree that our own pronouncements cannot go against the teaching of Scripture. Now, we do disagree on interpretation. But that requirement to hold firm to the revealed word of God holds for both of us, correct?

Do we have common ground on this?

Jeff
If you mean our own interpretations can not go against Scripture as we understand it to be revealed, yup you have agreement with me. But then I might be a bit more ecumenical than most Catholics here. I am big on the Truth Whom unites us being far greater than any differences in interpretations. Peace.
 
What beginning are you talking about? The beginning of the world?

who call Abram? Moses? Ruth and Ester? How about David? the Judges? the prophets? Noah?

How about the Apostle Paul? it wasn’t Peter. maybe it was one of the other disciples who called from the light?

yes i’m being a smarty pants, and I know it. But your question makes no logical sense to me with God in charge. You have locked God into a box that I don’t think he can fit. 1 minute I read posts that say that God can do anything he wants to because he is God and then I read posts like this.

what I say, i am saying about myself as a human being. We tend to throw God into a box and throw away the key when he is the holder of the key. God is the Creator and we are the created not the other way around. Because of this fact,God can do anything he pleases.

God can use all of us, to his Glory, if we just let him.

my rant is over now thank you
Great post. 👍

No, I’m pretty certain Christ was the light Paul saw. 😉 And you are correct. God is far larger than to fit in a single box. And who are we to say He isn’t? And you are correct. God can do as He pleases and choose anyone to serve in His glory at anytime. And who are we to say He can not. Peace on your walk with Him. God bless.
 
So we should all join with the Orthodox?

Are clarity and precision in themselves important if they are clear about incorrect information?

One could make this same argument about Christianity - “Christianity must be inadequate because so many groups teach different things”. It isn’t valid in that case, and it isn’t valid when used in relation to Protestantism either.
no, the Church of the Creed is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and not Orthodox. so, all must return to her.

there is only one Church by the Title of Catholic Church from the beginning and remains so. it never changed to any other name neither took this title from no other.
 
True Carlan. Emphasis on The Catholic Church proclaims.
You believe and I believe as Catholics, that Christ’s revelation is passed on down to us through His Apostles and successors, the Bishops and Priests. The Apostolic Church.:rolleyes::p;):)Right Matt???Carlan
 
we Know that Jesus said to take to the Church. we know that is what Catholics do.

how about protestants, how do you settle those issues when discordia on Scriptures arises?

i appreciate productive discussions with truth to back up. you must speak the Truth, nothing but the Truth on this issue. no insults please.
By schism, apparently.

I would think that the fissiparity of many Protestant churches would be the most glaring evidence against Scriptural perspicacity, but that’s just me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top