Lutherans

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Hi littlesheep. I have a few questions that I would appreciate if you answered.

If sola scriptura is the way that Christianity is supposed to be run, then please explain why no Christians in the world practiced it until 1500.
How did the first Christians learn about Jesus? By reading the Bible, or by listening to the teachings of the Apostles? Did the Apostles practice sola scriptura?

And, most importantly, why is it impossible for Protestants to believe that Jesus would leave an authoritative office to help his Church stay true to his teachings??? That, to me, seems much more believable than Jesus rising from the dead, being fully God and fully man, born of a virgin, and one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit. Yet Protestants believe these things without question. I think the authority of the Church is just as clear in Scripture as any of those things.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[IanS]

littlesheep:

Then are you NOT equating tradition to law, right? See because I’m trying real hard to put the best construction on that statement. So please explain what you mean by “He came to fulfill Tradition, not abolish it"

By fulfillment I mean completion through the New Covenant (Eucharist).

It may be helpful for me if you were a little more specific on what traditions you were talking about Him having such a big problem with.

Exactly what Jewish traditions or Jewish customs did Jesus hate so much? Did he really hate the traditions themselves or just the attitude of those who practiced them without faith?

 

[littlesheep]

Rand Al’Thor Before 1500? Hummm! Let’s see. Just what heresy was condemned without Scripture but with just an appeal to Tradition? Lets see Hummm Know what? I don’t know of any, do you? Oh and would any of those heresies been condemned if they didn’t go against Scripture?

Now let me ask both you and Ian another question. Just what Tradition do you have today that is not from Scripture? Then please prove to me that those have been passed on for 1900 years without error. Was it not sometime in the 1800s that the Pope was declared Infallible when he spoke from the Chair? And yes you can use the Church Fathers.

Ian Exactly? I’ll try to work up a list of Jewish tradition from that time That might take awhile, because you see I’m not a Jewish Scholar (In other words I’m going to put that question off for a little while which really means I’m pussyfooting around that question) but I will see what I can come up with.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Traditions?

First of all, we can say that some of the Big T traditions are the ones that are the biblical ones that are implicitly determined thru scripture such as:

Trinity
Immaculate Conception
The Assumption of Mary

Other Tradtitions are some taken from the Judaic church, such as singing of the Psalms, psalms means song and is meant to be sung not quoted and read from.

The paschal candle that is part of our ceremony. T

The general lighting of candles for the service.

The presence of light candle that is kept burning at all times.

As having visited a Jewish service I can say our service is a continuatin and perfection of that service.

A priest or scholar of the Catholic church can answer the question more thoroughly but I will leave you with this from this web sites tracks:

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

 

[JoeyWarren]

I would encourage to read the tracts from this:

catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

littlesheep:

Rand Al’Thor Before 1500? Hummm! Let’s see. Just what heresy was condemned without Scripture but with just an appeal to Tradition? Lets see Hummm Know what? I don’t know of any, do you? Oh and would any of those heresies been condemned if they didn’t go against Scripture?

I sure do know of some! Almost every single one. Do you know why Tradition was appealed to in combat against heresy? Because in most cases, the heretics were using the SAME SCRIPTURES to support their heretical beliefs. The Arians thought that Jesus was not God, and they were reading the same Scriptures as Christians. The Gnostics used some of the same Scriptures, but others were apocryphal, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Tradition had to come in and say, “No, Arius, the Apostles did not teach that Jesus was simply a man. They taught that he was God. Therefore, your interpretation of Scripture is in error.” Tradition had to come in and say, “No, Gnostics, the teachings found in the scriptures you’re using were not what the Apostles taught. They taught what we find in THESE Scriptures. Therefore, your scriptures are not inspired.”
Just like today…JWs and Mormans both use the Bible, but their interpretation is erroneous. Would you simply stand and quote Bible verses back and forth with them? They would do the same with you. No, you show them that up until their respective religion was founded, the beliefs they teach were not held by any Christians. They are not following the TRADITIONAL interpretation of Scripture. The same applies to the Protestant Reformation. No Christians had ever believed the things that the first Reformers taught because the Apostles had not taught those things. The Reformers simply had just another erroneous interpretation of Scripture (like the Arians, Gnostics, Albagensians, Manachaeins, Nestorians, ect.) and, once again, these Reformers were using the same Scriptures as the Church used. Just like all the other heresies over the years.

littlesheep:

Now let me ask both you and Ian another question. Just what Tradition do you have today that is not from Scripture? Then please prove to me that those have been passed on for 1900 years without error. Was it not sometime in the 1800s that the Pope was declared Infallible when he spoke from the Chair? And yes you can use the Church Fathers…

I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for here. We don’t have anything in Tradition that CONTRADICTS Scripture. Not all of it is explicitly stated in Scripture, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Sola fide is not explicitly stated in Scripture, nor is sola scriptura, yet you are quick to say that it is implied. There are certainly traditions (lower-case) that are not found in Scripture, but that is not what we are discussing here (at least I don’t think that’s what you are referring to; if you are then by all means let me know so I can better answer your question). Papal infallibility is another topic altogether, and a long one at that. If you want to discuss that, start another thread and we’ll use it instead of taking up a lot more space in this one.

Now let me ask you a question. Can you cite me any passages in the Bible that explicitly (or even implicitly) refer to sola scriptura? And let’s stick to passages other than Paul telling us that all Scripture is profitable for learning because we all know that is not telling people to use sola scriptura.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[littlesheep]

Mormons I know for sure clam revelation, JWs I not sure if they clam revelation or not. Not that familiar with their founding. Some of the Protestant bodies clam revelation IE “God spoke to me and said something goofy like I’m going to die next week if I don’t get that $10 million raised to get my new Hummve” I don’t think that is what Luther had in mind when he stated Scripture alone

I’m see two different mindsets (philosophies if you will) between the RCC, EO and Lutherans.

The repercussions of Tradition is that there is nowhere else to go when Church doctrine is or could be corrupted It is a he said, she said situation. The” we have always said that”, against the “we have always said that”. type of situation . In another thread, I used a couple of quotes from the Church Fathers to make a point that the Church did not always teach the point I was making. The person that answered pointed right back to Scripture.

So Who is right? How can the jaxposition be resolved? There must be an absolute Truth. You must have a true reference. You are going to say Yep the Church and it’s teachings.

And I’m going to say Scripture is that only place. Scripture is the only inspired infallible source. See I don’t have that kind of faith in fallible men as you seem to do. Men (which the Church is made up of) can and have made serious doctrinal errors, Scripture has not.

Take for an example the Council of Trent which did correct some serious errors of doctrine, in the RCC. (But created a couple of more. In my option not yours.) If men before that council did not make those errors in the first place there would have been no need for that Council. If Vatican II did not create an error (that was misunderstanding I’m told) then there would have been no need for a reinterpretation of what was said later

I’m sorry but I will take my - Rule of faith- from Scripture. I’ll have to stand with Luther on this one. If that makes me a heretic in the eyes of the RCC then so be it.

When (or if becuse I’m sure you don’t think I will make it, and I can not judge your heart) we meet in heaven, Then we can go to the God-Man Himself to find out who is right and who is wrong. .

Gods blessings to you and yours

 

[TamaraS]

littlesheep:

Mormons I know for sure clam revelation, JWs I not sure if they clam revelation or not. Not that familiar with their founding. Some of the Protestant bodies clam revelation IE “God spoke to me and said something goofy like I’m going to die next week if I don’t get that $10 million raised to get my new Hummve” I don’t think that is what Luther had in mind when he stated Scripture alone

I’m see two different mindsets (philosophies if you will) between the RCC, EO and Lutherans.

The repercussions of Tradition is that there is nowhere else to go when Church doctrine is or could be corrupted It is a he said, she said situation. The” we have always said that”, against the “we have always said that”. type of situation . In another thread, I used a couple of quotes from the Church Fathers to make a point that the Church did not always teach the point I was making. The person that answered pointed right back to Scripture.

So Who is right? How can the jaxposition be resolved? There must be an absolute Truth. You must have a true reference. You are going to say Yep the Church and it’s teachings.

And I’m going to say Scripture is that only place. Scripture is the only inspired infallible source. See I don’t have that kind of faith in fallible men as you seem to do. Men (which the Church is made up of) can and have made serious doctrinal errors, Scripture has not.

Take for an example the Council of Trent which did correct some serious errors of doctrine, in the RCC. (But created a couple of more. In my option not yours.) If men before that council did not make those errors in the first place there would have been no need for that Council. If Vatican II did not create an error (that was misunderstanding I’m told) then there would have been no need for a reinterpretation of what was said later

I’m sorry but I will take my - Rule of faith- from Scripture. I’ll have to stand with Luther on this one. If that makes me a heretic in the eyes of the RCC then so be it.

When (or if becuse I’m sure you don’t think I will make it, and I can not judge your heart) we meet in heaven, Then we can go to the God-Man Himself to find out who is right and who is wrong. .

Gods blessings to you and yours

I am no expert on the Council of Trent, but I think you are mistaking or mixing up Doctrine with other things. And also, they don’t just “make up” a new doctrine. Take for example the canon of the old testament. Protestants like to say that the Council of Trent added the 7 books that the Catholic Church has in their canon. That is simply not true. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS recognized those books as Sacred Scripture along with all the others. In other early Chuch writings or documents whenever the books were listed, those 7 books were listed there right along with all the others. At Trent it had to be “officially defined” because those books were suddenly being rejected. Often times, when a Doctrine is defined (not sure if I’m wording this right), it is usually to reaffirm or say “Hey, this IS what we believe”, usually to respond a heresy that comes up. There isn’t a new Doctrine that pops up that was not already accepted and believed already. The truth is in scripture and the Holy Spirit is always guiding the Church into an even fuller understanding.

 

[littlesheep]

Tradition of the RCC says that Christ is building His Church on the person Peter.
Tradition of the EO says that Christ is building His Church on the Faith of Peter.

Scripture says Christ is building His Church on this rock
Scripture says Christ is this Rock

Who is right?

Tradition of the RCC says that the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven RCC says you must believe this EO says you can believe it or not

Tradition of the EO says that the Virgin Mary died and was buried RCC says you can’t believe this EO says you can believe it or not

No scripture

Who is right?

Tradition of the RCC says Mary was born without sin One of two people in the whole world that was. Adam and Eve were created. RCC says you must believe this EO says HUMM Strange Tradition

Tradition of the EO says Mary was born without sin. But they also believe that all children are born without sin. RCC says you can’t believe that all children are born without sin, EO says Why not?

Scripture says “full of grace” ambiguous, no other scripture defines that statement.

Who is right?

See our thinking on what it means by scripture and tradition are two different mind sets.

See I know what is Truth – Scripture Alone is the only inspired and infallible Truth.

I’ll keep my mind on Christ and Him Crucified and what that means for me and you and the rest of the world. and I will do that by Grace Alone, and by Faith Alone.

God Blessings on you and yours

 

[littlesheep]

After thought:
And up until Vatican II You had to believe thses or you were headed to Hell.

 

[TamaraS]

littlesheep:

Tradition of the RCC says that Christ is building His Church on the person Peter.
Tradition of the EO says that Christ is building His Church on the Faith of Peter.

Try reading some early church fathers- they also show that Peter was our first Pope and that we should all be united to the church in Rome.

littlesheep:

Scripture says Christ is building His Church on this rock
Scripture says Christ is this Rock

Scripture also says Peter is the Rock- Matthew 16:13-19

littlesheep:

Tradition of the RCC says that the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven RCC says you must believe this EO says you can believe it or not

Tradition of the EO says that the Virgin Mary died and was buried RCC says you can’t believe this EO says you can believe it or not

I could be wrong, but the RCC doesn’t say whether or not she actually dies or if she was still alive, but they do say her body was taken up to Heaven. After we die, we should all hope to be united with our glorified bodies one day.

littlesheep:

Tradition of the RCC says Mary was born without sin One of two people in the whole world that was. Adam and Eve were created. RCC says you must believe this EO says HUMM Strange Tradition

Tradition of the EO says Mary was born without sin. But they also believe that all children are born without sin. RCC says you can’t believe that all children are born without sin, EO says Why not?

Scripture says “full of grace” ambiguous, no other scripture defines that statement.

Who is right?

I disagree that "full of grace " is ambiguous.

littlesheep:

See our thinking on what it means by scripture and tradition are two different mind sets.

I can agree with you on this one!

littlesheep:

See I know what is Truth – Scripture Alone is the only inspired and infallible Truth.

Then why don’t you believe scripture that when it says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That verse is pretty self explanantory. Obviously, it doesn’t just mean anyone who follows Jesus. It meant an actual church! It couldn’t possibly mean just anyone who follows because people themselves don’t agree on what is truth.

littlesheep:

I’ll keep my mind on Christ and Him Crucified and what that means for me and you and the rest of the world. and I will do that by Grace Alone, and by Faith Alone.

God Blessings on you and yours

I thank God that he left us with the Church, and didn’t just leave us with a book for each of us to interpret the way that we want.
-Tamara

 

[littlesheep]

Are there Christians ouside of the RCC? If so are they not part of the body of Christ? What is the body of Christ if it is not the Church?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Littlesheep,

You just said that scripture was ambiguous. You disagree on so many interpretive points that you really think that God wanted a book for everyone to interpret as they see fit?

I have seen where people can justify slavery, abortion, multiple gods, and so many other evils with Scripture Alone.

We now have thousands of different “Christian” churches with different doctrines because of Scripture Alone.

I don’t believe the Bible anywhere says Scripture Alone.

No early church leader for 1500 years ever mentioned Scripture Alone.

And you are putting all of your faith in Scripture Alone.

Please consider the possibility that you may be wrong. God Bless You.

 

[Sentinel]

catsrus:

No.
I once was lutheran.
I now am Catholic. (thank God!)
BIG difference. HUGE.

+1

 

[TamaraS]

littlesheep:

Are there Christians ouside of the RCC? If so are they not part of the body of Christ? What is the body of Christ if it is not the Church?

(sigh) Yes there are Christians outside of the RCC. The RCC does not say that there are no Christians outside of it. We know there are many good and faithful Christians outside of Church. I have good friends that are more faithful than some Catholics I know. But the FULLNESS OF THRUTH is in the RCC. Yes, I can be a good Christian outside of the RCC, and I can receive salvation outside of it. But for me it would be like remaining outside of the house and just being able to look in the window, and being content with that. I don’t want just what is necessary for salvation, I have to jump in all the way. After looking at all evidence, not only does my heart tell me the RCC is the church Christ founded, but my head does, too. I am just speaking for myself, though.
Tamara
P.S.

 

[TamaraS]

littlesheep:

Are there Christians ouside of the RCC? If so are they not part of the body of Christ? What is the body of Christ if it is not the Church?

I was thinking of this verse earlier, but I couldn’t remember where it was.
Like I said, of course there are Chrisitans outside of the RCC. That made me think of Mark 9:38-39 (NAB): John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.”

I’m not saying that everyone who reads this scripture verse thinks of the same thing, this is just what I think of that verse.

P.S. Sorry- I misspelled TRUTH in my earlier post!

 

[littlesheep]

And what do all these different parts of Christ Body have in common besides Christ as the Head?

Now can those be interpreted differently? You bet, because it all comes back to the Garden Did God really say?

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone
And believe it or not that is what Martin Luther was right about.

From a “Heretical Lutheran” brother in Christ
May the good Lord bless you all and give you and keep you in the true faith.

Been nice chatting with you all. And the next time some” Lutheran” says something Goofy that you know goes against our BOC just give me a holler Better yet, read The Book of Concord for yourselves and point out he or she is going against their own confessios including “ The Power and Primacy of the Pope” LOL

And before someone other then those who have been following this thread jumps in and make some off the wall remark. Carefully read the whole thread including the questions I did not answer because there are reasons I did not answer them on this thread. Want to start a new thread? Just say Answer me this littlesheep Luther??? And I might be able to answer

 

[littlesheep]

Just another after thought:

And you are putting all of your faith in Scripture Alone

No I’m not putting my faith on Scripture Alone. My faith is in Christ’s promase of the forgivness of my sins, and that I’m am a child of God becuse of that.

Please consider the possibility that you may be wrong

I have, But you know what? Even If I am wrong on Scripture Alone. Christ died for me and paid for that sin also.

 

[exoflare]

littlesheep:

I have, But you know what? Even If I am wrong on Scripture Alone. Christ died for me and paid for that sin also.

You must repent from your sins, if you want them forgiven.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

littlesheep:

Mormons I know for sure clam revelation, JWs I not sure if they clam revelation or not. Not that familiar with their founding. Some of the Protestant bodies clam revelation IE “God spoke to me and said something goofy like I’m going to die next week if I don’t get that $10 million raised to get my new Hummve” I don’t think that is what Luther had in mind when he stated Scripture alone

That’s not the point I was trying to make, though. Regardless of whether the Mormons, JWs, or other Protestants claim divine revelation, the fact remains that all of them use (at least some) of the same Scriptures to back up their beliefs. What I was trying to point out is that you, littlesheep, as a Lutheran (and therefore a Christian), would probably not have a whole lot of luck witnessing to Mormons or JWs using Scripture only because they will turn it around on you and place their own interpretations on it. You will quote John 1 to prove that Jesus is one with the Father. The JWs will quote a mistranslated John 1 to “prove” that Jesus is “a god” rather than “God”. The same held true with the heresies of early Christianity (I gave those other examples in my previous post).

littlesheep:

The repercussions of Tradition is that there is nowhere else to go when Church doctrine is or could be corrupted It is a he said, she said situation. The” we have always said that”, against the “we have always said that”. type of situation . In another thread, I used a couple of quotes from the Church Fathers to make a point that the Church did not always teach the point I was making. The person that answered pointed right back to Scripture.

Would you mind giving an example of the quotes of the Church Fathers?

littlesheep:

So Who is right? How can the jaxposition be resolved? There must be an absolute Truth. You must have a true reference. You are going to say Yep the Church and it’s teachings.

And I’m going to say Scripture is that only place. Scripture is the only inspired infallible source. See I don’t have that kind of faith in fallible men as you seem to do. Men (which the Church is made up of) can and have made serious doctrinal errors, Scripture has not.

Take for an example the Council of Trent which did correct some serious errors of doctrine, in the RCC. (But created a couple of more. In my option not yours.) If men before that council did not make those errors in the first place there would have been no need for that Council. If Vatican II did not create an error (that was misunderstanding I’m told) then there would have been no need for a reinterpretation of what was said later

Scripture is an infallible, inspired source. You are 100% correct in that statement, and if a Catholic disagrees with you then you need to tell them to get into their church quick for some catechizing. Trent did not correct any errors in doctrine; there were none to correct. What Trent did was correct some ABUSES of Church doctrines and redefine some others in the face of new Protestant opposition. Remember, if you look at the canons from most Church councils (and take them in context with what was going on at the time) you will see that most doctrines and dogmas have been formally defined because they were challenged. Take Christ’s divinity for example. It was not outright challenged until Arias (though the Gnostics challenged it as well, but they were more of an “underground” type of sect) so there was no need to infallibly define it. Take the Eucharist for another example. The doctrine of transubstantiation was not really challenged until the Reformation, so there was no need to formally define it until Trent. The Orthodox Church has the same belief, though they haven’t formally defined it the way the Catholic Church has because in the East it was not challenged like it was in the West.
But think about this though–if Scripture can be interpreted erroneously or can be misused by some, does it make Scripture uninspired? Of course not! Same goes for Tradition. Just because there have been some developments of doctrines and some abuses have been corrected it doesn’t mean that the message has changed or that Tradition itself is uninspired.
I’m sorry but I will take my - Rule of faith- from Scripture. I’ll have to stand with Luther on this one. If that makes me a heretic in the eyes of the RCC then so be it.
In the eyes of the Catholic Church you are a Christian and a brother in Christ. One is not a *formal *heretic unless one apostacizes from the Catholic faith. Most Protestants today (except, of course, for converts from Catholicism) would fall under the category of *material *heretics because they have inherited their beliefs and that they hold them is not through their own fault or choice.