I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[pablope]

Any theologian has the right to start a church if they see the so called “one church” sinning. Martin Luther saw the lust and the sin going on in the Catholic church and wanted to rise ABOVE said sins. As I say this note how few churches have been started. The catholic church is so infiltrayed with man made rules it, seems to be blind to Christ’s rules.

Really…and look at the result…over 30,000 different protestant denoms…each one wanting to be their own pope…different teachings, different doctrines…and you thinks this is in accordance with the Bible?

Look at the example of St. Paul

From Gal 2…1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,** I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain**.

Paul submits his gospel to the apostles at Jerusalem…so that what he is preaching…to make sure what he is teaching is not in vain.

Is this an example of someone taking matters and establishing a church of his own?

Then, in Acts 13…2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Here, Paul and Barnabas are ordained…laid hands own…before going on their first missionary journey…in other words, Paul submits to authority. He does not go out on his own.

So, may I ask, is going out to establish one’s own church biblical or not? Or do you think humility is required first, and submission to proper authority, not one’s own authority?

 

[gerhardc]

Don’t get me wrong, its not that I believe that the Church of Christ vests in an organization of any type, especially not one whose members claim that it is the ‘genuine article’ based on a doctrine that was devised by itself (the doctrine of apostolic succession) on the back of an interpretation of Scripture which is taught to have been revealed personally by the Holy Spirit, and, a claim that this privilege (interpretation of Scripture by the Holy Spirit) can never be be repealed or repeated, ever, no-matter how greatly its actions have departed from Scripture. And so, attempts here have been made to lead us to believe that this doctrine of succession secures the movement as the “Church started by Christ”. Moreover, attempts have been made to lead us to believe that this doctrine is a straight-forward succession of men appointed by God to fill the shoes of the ‘primary apostle’ - the ultimate ruler of God’s church. It is an honour bestowed only to’one man who is appointed by God and knows no living equal’. That is it - no if’s and but’s, it is a simple succession of men - from the first to the current. Not so fast says Wikipedia:"Pope Saint Linus (d. ca. 76) was, according to several early sources, Bishop of the diocese of Rome after Saint Peter. This makes Linus the second Pope. According to other early sources Pope Clement I was the Pope after Peter. Linus is the only person specifically mentioned in the New Testament, other than Peter, considered by the Catholic Church to have held the position of Pope. The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” The Oxford Dictionary of Popes interprets Irenaeus as saying that Linus was the first bishop of Rome. Linus is presented by Jerome as “the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church”, by Eusebius, as “the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter” John Chrysostom says “This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”, while the Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office. The Liber Pontificalis (“pope’s diaries”) also presents a list that makes Linus the second in the line of bishops of Rome, after Peter; but at the same time it states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, for the priestly service of the community, devoting himself instead to prayer and preaching, and that it was to Clement that he entrusted the Church as a whole, appointing him as his successor. Tertullian too makes Clement the successor of Peter. And while, in another of his works, Jerome gives Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter” (i.e., fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that “most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle.” The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus’s successor by Irenaeus and the others cited above who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.”

According to modern standards the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches). Not only did he act out of turn to ordain ‘the pope’ ahead of the guy who Peter ordained as ‘pope’, he also openly and unashamedly and without recanting rebuked the first ‘pope’ - the Apostle Peter. Not knowing the boundaries of appropriate protocol he went even further - calling the ‘pope’ a hypocrite, accusing him as having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others astray: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16). I just cannot seem to figure out how to reconcile what has been taught here with what is recorded in Scripture. But, I am sure there will be good explanations for all of this, …

 

[JonNC]

BTW - nobody is actually “sola Scriptura.” Go into any Protestant church on a Sunday and you’ll get a “sandwich” - a song, announcements, 2-3 more songs, prayer, a sermon, maybe an altar call and a closing song. This is tradition.

Yet these have nothing to do with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is about the Church setting doctrine, and its teaching authority. Additionally, sola scriptura does not exclude tradition or Tradition.
So, to say that singing hymns during worship, for instance, sets aside sola scriptura is a statement that implies a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura actually is.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Yet these have nothing to do with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is about the Church setting doctrine, and its teaching authority. Additionally, sola scriptura does not exclude tradition or Tradition.
So, to say that singing hymns during worship, for instance, sets aside sola scriptura is a statement that implies a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura actually is.

Jon

Jon, could you explain how SS includes Sacred Tradition?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, could you explain how SS includes Sacred Tradition?

Would it be correct to say that the three creeds of the Church are part of Sacred Tradition? If so, the Formula of Concord says:

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[Marybeloved]

Additionally, sola scriptura does not exclude tradition or Tradition.

So what does “sola” stand for in sola scriptura? Then I would say that you, like Apostolic churches, adhere to something closer to sola verbum, the Word alone- not sola scriptura. Because sola scriptura is scripture alone.

Was it not formulated to reject the Church’s authority? So just where would tradition come in w/out the Church’s authority?

 

[JonNC]

So what does “sola” stand for in sola scriptura? Then I would say that you, like Apostolic churches, adhere to something closer to sola verbum, not sola scriptura. Because sola scriptura is scripture alone.

The sola stands for this: “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” From the Formula of Concord.

Dogmas and teachers are of and from the Church. What the Church teaches is accountable to scripture - alone. The “alone” refers to the final norm. It does not refer to an exclusion teachers and teachings. It does not refer to an exclusion or an undermining the authority of the Church to teach or set doctrine. It simply sets scripture as the final norm to hold those teachings and doctrines accountable.

Jon

 

[Marybeloved]

The sola stands for this: “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” From the Formula of Concord.

Dogmas and teachers are of and from the Church. What the Church teaches is accountable to scripture - alone. The “alone” refers to the final norm. It does not refer to an exclusion teachers and teachings. It does not refer to an exclusion or an undermining the authority of the Church to teach or set doctrine. It simply sets scripture as the final norm to hold those teachings and doctrines accountable.

Jon

That verse in Psalms says “word” not scripture. So I’m tempted to count you among us “the word alone” or sola verbum believers rather than sola scriptura. But that’s rude and a sort of bullying so I’ll respect your own descriptions of your beliefs.

But I think I may understand what you’re saying though I can’t agree with it- Scripture must be interpreted, so how can it be the final norm? The teaching of those with authority to interpret it are judged against it - by whom? Others without the authority to interpret it or the same people with authority to interpret it?

 

[JonNC]

That verse in Psalms says “word” not scripture. So I’m tempted to count you among us “the word alone” or sola verbum believers rather than sola scriptura. But that’s rude and a sort of bullying so I’ll respect your own descriptions of your beliefs.

But I think I may understand what you’re saying though I can’t agree with it- Scripture must be interpreted, so how can it be the final norm? The teaching of those with authority to interpret it are judged against it - by whom? Others without the authority to interpret it or the same people with authority to interpret it?

Well, who interprets scripture in your communion? As Lutherans, our Church interprets scripture. Through the lens of the confessions, the creeds, etc. I have been taught the faith by the Church.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8540264]The sola stands for this: “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” From the Formula of Concord.

Jon, as a hypothetical SS proponent, couldn’t I just insist, as my sister does:

If the sole rule and standard (according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged) - are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, then why do I even need the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church the Creeds, the Lutheran Confession, or the early Ecumenical Councils?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, as a hypothetical SS proponent, couldn’t I just insist, as my sister does:

If the sole rule and standard (according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged) - are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, then why do I even need the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church the Creeds, the Lutheran Confession, or the early Ecumenical Councils?

The scripture recognizes the teaching role of the Church, for one. Additionally, scripture tells us of the gifts of Baptism, confession/Absolution, and the Eucharist, IOW the means of grace that are available only in His Church.

Beyond that, why even mention teachers, teachings, doctrine, dogmas if the practice of sola scriptura were not a Church practice?

Jon

EDIT: More simplistically, why would Christ say he would build a Church if he didn’t want us to have and use one? :whacky: The Church is scriptural.

 

[Marie_Gregg]

@JonNC -

Yet these have nothing to do with sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is about the Church setting doctrine, and its teaching authority. Additionally, sola scriptura does not exclude tradition or Tradition.
So, to say that singing hymns during worship, for instance, sets aside sola scriptura is a statement that implies a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura actually is.

Jon

I know what Sola Scriptura means. I was merely poking fun.

Maybe SS is not supposed to exclude tradition, but it can and often does. For example, there are groups who insist upon acapella singing in worship services. Their reasoning is that Scripture, as the sole guide and authority, never mentions the earliest Christians using any kind of instruments in their meetings. Now, granted, that is taking the idea to the extreme, but nevertheless it is a logical conclusion to make.

One of my final classes last year was on theological interpretation of the Bible. We spent a great deal of time discussing the “rediscovery” of the early Church Fathers and the statements they made regarding interpretation and application of the Bible. (I won’t go into all the details here, but Daniel J. Treier’s book “Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice” is absolutely fabulous). Our discussions led me to believe that Prima Scriptura is perhaps a better way of understanding the relationship between Scripture and tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Would it be correct to say that the three creeds of the Church are part of Sacred Tradition? If so, the Formula of Concord says:

Not sure if I’m understanding.

Are you saying that your tradition (small “t”) accepts that God’s revelation includes 2 channels: Scripture AND Tradition (capital “t”)?

That is, you believe that Sacred Tradition is also a channel of God’s Word?

 

[JonNC]

Not sure if I’m understanding.

Are you saying that your tradition (small “t”) accepts that God’s revelation includes 2 channels: Scripture AND Tradition (capital “t”)?

That is, you believe that Sacred Tradition is also a channel of God’s Word?

It can certainly be a true witness to God’s word. I mentioned the three creeds as examples.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

It can certainly be a true witness to God’s word. I mentioned the three creeds as examples.

Jon

So your tradition would give a to this from our Catechism:

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

 

[joe370]

The scripture recognizes the teaching role of the Church, for one. Additionally, scripture tells us of the gifts of Baptism, confession/Absolution, and the Eucharist, IOW the means of grace that are available only in His Church.

Beyond that, why even mention teachers, teachings, doctrine, dogmas if the practice of sola scriptura were not a Church practice?

Jon

EDIT: More simplistically, why would Christ say he would build a Church if he didn’t want us to have and use one? :whacky: The Church is scriptural.

I agree that scripture recognizes the teaching role of the Church.

The idea that "the sole rule and standard…are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone is why my sister would say:

OK, then why do I even need the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church the Creeds, the Lutheran Confession, or the early Ecumenical Councils? After all, I have the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, which is the sole rule of faith.

Of course, I totally agree with you.

 

[JonNC]

So your tradition would give a to this from our Catechism:

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

Well, here is what the Formula of Concord says:

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

And Martin Chemnitz, second generation reformer:

We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I agree that scripture recognizes the teaching role of the Church.

The idea that "the sole rule and standard…are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone is why my sister would say:

OK, then why do I even need the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church the Creeds, the Lutheran Confession, or the early Ecumenical Councils? After all, I have the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, which is the sole rule of faith.

Of course, I totally agree with you.

Joe,
I would ask your sister, then, that what is the value of scripture if one does not do, or value, or follow in the teachings of said scripture? Leaving aside for the moment the argument of whether Peter or his confession of faith is the Rock, Christ says upon this rock I shall build my Church! To say we don’t need the Church is to contradict scripture, and therefore refute the practice of sola scriptura. In fact, from my perspective, without the Church there is no sola scriptura, no need for it, no use for it, since its intent to hold teachers and doctrines (effectively, the Church) accountable.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8541345]Joe,
I would ask your sister, then, that what is the value of scripture if one does not do, or value, or follow in the teachings of said scripture?

That of course,is a good point; you would think it would hold some sway, but it does not. She simply tells me that the church is invisible and is comprised of all Christians, “even some catholics” , and that the bible is all “I” need (as she marches off to be taught by her evangelical Pastor who demands 10% tithing every Sunday) - which then leads to things like, the catholic church adds unnecessary rules and rituals and teachings like the Eucharist and the priesthood… It just becomes one big exercise in both patients and futility, and a major headache. LOL… This is pretty much the typical argument of most of my family members.

I guess we have to choose our battles wisely… Some are just un-winnable…

 

[gerhardc]

I agree. Other than the church founded by Jesus, no one else has the authority to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost or the church of Christ reformed by such and such …

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

By your rationale, sir, the Apostle Paul acted quite out of turn on several occasions. Care to correct him on where he went wrong? According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches). Not only did he act out of turn to ordain ‘a pope’ ahead of the guy whom Peter later ordained as ‘pope’, he also openly and unashamedly and without recanting rebuked the ‘first pope’ - the Apostle Peter himself. Of course, not knowing the boundaries of appropriate protocol he went even further - calling the ‘pope’ a hypocrite, accusing him as having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others astray: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16). I just cannot seem to figure out how to reconcile what has been taught here as certain persons being Christ’s chief representative on earth with what is recorded in Scripture. But, I am sure there will be good explanations for all of this, … Care to help me understand where the Apostle Paul totally misunderstood what Church was really all about?