Is it the job of the church to resolve doctrinal differences when they occur?

[joe370]

Certain non-Catholics claim that other non-Catholics (as well as Catholics) - contradict the word of God, regarding the Lord’s Supper, and both camps defer to what they claim is the only source that is above all other sources for Christian instruction.

How can one know which of these 2 non-Catholics is contradicting scripture when scripture itself is not settling their dispute?

Thus far, only 2 non-Catholics, here at CAF, have said that it is the job of the church to resolve the matter.

Are they correct?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Certain non-Catholics claim that other non-Catholics (as well as Catholics) - contradict the word of God, regarding the Lord’s Supper, and both camps defer to what they claim is the only source that is above all other sources for Christian instruction.

How can one know which of these 2 non-Catholics is contradicting scripture when scripture itself is not settling their dispute?

Thus far, only 2 non-Catholics, here at CAF, have said that it is the job of the church to resolve the matter.

Are they correct?

NO, the Catholic Church has no businness in settling disputes. The Curch states its Doctrine and either you accept or not.
How can we know who is the winner? By seeing who is winning. …
Like someone said in the Actes of the Apostles: “If that doctrine is not of god, it will disappear; if it is of God, you cannot fight it”.
I do not know for others, but for the Catholic Church, this Church is doing pretty well.

 

[joe370]

NO, the Catholic Church has no businness in settling disputes. The Curch states its Doctrine and either you accept or not.
How can we know who is the winner? By seeing who is winning. …
Like someone said in the Actes of the Apostles: “If that doctrine is not of god, it will disappear; if it is of God, you cannot fight it”.
I do not know for others, but for the Catholic Church, this Church is doing pretty well.

I said the church, not the catholic church…

 

[JonNC]

**NO, the Catholic Church has no businness in settling disputes. The Curch states its Doctrine and either you accept or not.**How can we know who is the winner? By seeing who is winning. …
Like someone said in the Actes of the Apostles: “If that doctrine is not of god, it will disappear; if it is of God, you cannot fight it”.
I do not know for others, but for the Catholic Church, this Church is doing pretty well.

Then why were there councils, other than to settle disputes within the Church?

Jon

 

[joe370]

Then why were there councils, other than to settle disputes within the Church?

Jon

Jon, I think maybe he meant that the CC has no right to settle disputes for those outside the confines of the CC? For example, if a Lutheran and a Pentecostal have a disagreement, the CC has no authority to step in and settle the matter for them.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I think maybe he meant that the CC has no right to settle disputes for those outside the confines of the CC? For example, if a Lutheran and a Pentecostal have a disagreement, the CC has no authority to step in and settle the matter for them.

Hi Joe,
Oh, I see. Ok. Well, first since Lutherans and Pentacostals are of different communions to start with, one can rest assured there will be differences. It would be up to our leaders and their’s to discuss the differences.

To answer your specific question regarding the Eucharist, Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession references scripture first, followed by the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west, then the ECF’s. I don’t believe those who dispute the RP would have that many arrows in their quiver, so to speak.

Jon

 

[Bluegoat]

Certain non-Catholics claim that other non-Catholics (as well as Catholics) - contradict the word of God, regarding the Lord’s Supper, and both camps defer to what they claim is the only source that is above all other sources for Christian instruction.

How can one know which of these 2 non-Catholics is contradicting scripture when scripture itself is not settling their dispute?

Thus far, only 2 non-Catholics, here at CAF, have said that it is the job of the church to resolve the matter.

Are they correct?

Wow, this sentence is making my eyes cross.

If we are taking Scripture as the rule, and we can’t settle the dispute with it, then I think there are two possibilities:

One is that one group has erred so grievously that they have for all intents and purposes put themselves outside the Church.

The other is that while it may be important, this is not an essential, salvation doctrine, and thus variation within the Church is possible, even if not really desirable.

Which is more likely would I guess depend on just what was being said.

 

[Radical]

To answer your specific question regarding the Eucharist, Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession references scripture first, followed by the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west, then the ECF’s. I don’t believe those who dispute the RP would have that many arrows in their quiver, so to speak.

Jon

You might need to rethink that quiver capacity Jon. In deciding that matter, I would reference scripture first (and in that regard I have the same scripture as Melanchthon). I would also consider the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west (which of course would now include almost 500 years of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians that Melanchthon couldn’t consider…together with many Catholics and Orthodox who reject a RP and who Melanchthon also couldn’t consider) and then the early Church fathers ( and in that regard we have more works now than we did 500 years ago)…oh, and I would also look and see what exactly happens (did Melanchthon consider using his senses?) It would seem that I have one more arrow and that my quiver is bigger than your quiver…and you wanted to suggest that size matters?..

 

[joe370]

Wow, this sentence is making my eyes cross.

If we are taking Scripture as the rule, and we can’t settle the dispute with it, then I think there are two possibilities:

One is that one group has erred so grievously that they have for all intents and purposes put themselves outside the Church.

The other is that while it may be important, this is not an essential, salvation doctrine, and thus variation within the Church is possible, even if not really desirable.

Which is more likely would I guess depend on just what was being said.

All Christians believe that the Lord’s Supper (do this in remembrance of me…) - is essential. How do we know which group has erred when both groups claim that their interpretation of scripture, regarding the Lord’s Supper, is the right one?

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical, so you would look to scripture, the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west (which of course would now include almost 500 years of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians) - and the early Church fathers, regarding the question:

How can one know which of these 2 non-Catholics is contradicting scripture when scripture itself is not settling their dispute?

1. They both do as you said and defer to scripture, and scripture is not settling their dispute so we can rule that one out.
2. The ECF’s? Now that would be a really good idea.
3. The testimony of the universal Church which is now comprised of both non-Catholics and Catholics? As you know that would not resolve their dispute.

Thanks for the feedback…

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC;8463227]Hi Joe,
Oh, I see. Ok. Well, first since Lutherans and Pentacostals are of different communions to start with, one can rest assured there will be differences. It would be up to our leaders and their’s to discuss the differences.

To answer your specific question regarding the Eucharist, Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession references scripture first, followed by the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west, then the ECF’s. I don’t believe those who dispute the RP would have that many arrows in their quiver, so to speak.

Like I mentioned to Radical:

Both hypothetical non-Catholics do as you said and defer to scripture, and scripture is not settling their dispute.

The ECF’s? Awesome idea.


The testimony of the universal Church which is now comprised of both non-Catholics and Catholics?

We get conflicting testimonies from folks belonging to the fractured universal Church which is now comprised of both non-Catholics and Catholics, so sadly, that would not resolve their dispute.

 

[Radical]

Hey Radical, so you would look to scripture, the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west (which of course would now include almost 500 years of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians) - and the early Church fathers, regarding the question:

you left out one thing…the senses. Go figure.

How can one know which of these 2 non-Catholics is contradicting scripture when scripture itself is not settling their dispute?

if scripture doesn’t settle it, then is either contradicting scripture?

1. The ECF’s? Now that would be a really good idea.

and an honest look would reveal that opinions were both varied and evolving in the first centuries…a certainty achieved by consensus didn’t exist in 200 AD and didn’t exist in 2000 AD…nothing new under the sun.

 

[joe370]

Radical;8464321]you left out one thing…the senses. Go figure.

Not on purpose. Sorry. Both claim to be employing their senses and still cannot find any resolution.

if scripture doesn’t settle it, then is either contradicting scripture?

and an honest look would reveal that opinions were both varied and evolving in the first centuries…a certainty achieved by consensus didn’t exist in 200 AD and didn’t exist in 2000 AD…nothing new under the sun.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Deference to the ECFs might help answer the following question but most sola scriptura advocates will only defer to sacred scripture:

All Christians believe that the Lord’s Supper (do this in remembrance of me…) - is essential. How do we know which group has erred when both groups claim that their interpretation of scripture, regarding the Lord’s Supper, is the right one?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I said the church, not the catholic church…

Sorry…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Then why were there councils, other than to settle disputes within the Church?

Jon

Sorry, the question is so vast that whatever you say it is wrong.
But as you said: councils, priests, nuns (St. Theresa of Avila) etc. those are the ones to try to settle disputes within the Church.
But do not pay mucch attention to what I said. The question is not clear, so I ccept whatever anybody says and I do not know if what I say go to tht point of the OP.
God Bless You.

 

[Radical]

Sorry. Both claim to be employing their senses and still cannot find any resolution.

How do you think Jon employs his senses to form his understanding?

That doesn’t answer the question.

well, I guess you’ll have to learn to live with that unanswered question

All Christians believe that the Lord’s Supper (do this in remembrance of me…) - is essential.

what do you mean by essential?..I don’t know of any Christian that claims: Only those who believe as I do wrt the Lord’s Supper can possibly be saved.

How do we know which group has erred when both groups claim that their interpretation of scripture, regarding the Lord’s Supper, is the right one?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any doubt about which group is wrong. If uncertainty in this regard is preventing you from loving your neighbour etc., then maybe the solution is for you to refocus on that command (as opposed to hunting for an answer to your question).

 

[joe370]

Radical;8465577]How do you think Jon employs his senses to form his understanding?

And yet we don’t agree on certain things, which is my point.

what do you mean by essential?..I don’t know of any Christian that claims: Only those who believe as I do wrt the Lord’s Supper can possibly be saved.

Someone mentioned that the Lord’s supper was a non-essential so I was merely covering all the bases. The Lord’s Supper is viewed as the real presence of Christ by some, and symbolically by some. How is a person to know who is right and who is wrong? Jesus is no longer here to tell us.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any doubt about which group is wrong.

And my sister would say: I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any doubt about which group is wrong. You both can’t be right even though you both adamantly claim to be right.

I don’t have any doubt about which group is wrong either, but it’s not because of my interpretation of my bible. I trust the church’s authoritative decision.

If uncertainty in this regard is preventing you from loving your neighbour etc., then maybe the solution is for you to refocus on that command (as opposed to hunting for an answer to your question).

Not sure what you are talking about…My answer to the question, how can we know who is right and who is wrong, about the Eucharist, is to take it to the church for resolution.

What is the sola scriptura way of reaching resolution when 2 sola scriptura proponents cannot agree?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Radical,

=Radical;8464087]You might need to rethink that quiver capacity Jon. In deciding that matter, I would reference scripture first (and in that regard I have the same scripture as Melanchthon).

True indeed.

I would also consider the testimony of the universal Church, both east and west (which of course would now include almost 500 years of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians that Melanchthon couldn’t consider…together with many Catholics and Orthodox who reject a RP and who Melanchthon also couldn’t consider) and then the early Church fathers ( and in that regard we have more works now than we did 500 years ago)…

I’m sure you agree that Luther was no tinkerer when it comes to the ECF’s. Here is what he says.

" Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? … Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Is there something new from the ECF’s that Lutheran and Melanchthon may have missed, or that Walther or Piepkorn were not aware of?

oh, and I would also look and see what exactly happens (did Melanchthon consider using his senses?)

And so he did. From the Apology:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

This is the mystery of the sacrament: we see, taste, feel mere bread and wine. We receive orally, spiritually, sacramentally, His true body and blood. The reformers knew what their senses said. They also knew that Christ’s words are to be believed even more than our senses.

It would seem that I have one more arrow and that my quiver is bigger than your quiver…and you wanted to suggest that size matters?..

Not size, what the weight of evidence, starting with Christ’s own words.

Ist ist ist.

Blessings, my friend,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

How do you think Jon employs his senses to form his understanding?

When it comes to faith, I employ my senses secondarily to His word. In Baptism, I sense water, but I know that it is water and the Word that forgives sin. In the Sacrament of the Altar, my senses say bread and wine, but by faith I know they are not mere bread and wine. By faith I know that this bread IS the body of Christ, and this wine IS the blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon