No doubts about converting from LCMS

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikecnorthwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What, may I ask…is the correct Bibllical Exegesis? And what will the standard be for measuring the correct Biblical Exegesis?

The correct Biblical exegesis is every doctrine found within scripture alone. Tradition although permissible and useful can not be made dogma. The standard for that is Scripture.

And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?
Scripture!!!
Umm, I believe that the early Christians looked to the apostles to help them interpret Scripture. “How can I understand what it is saying unless someone explains it to me?” (the eunuch to Phillip) And, even the apostles needed Jesus to show them what the Scriptures said about Him. The “Scripture interprets Scripture” view would seemingly help to explain why there have sprouted up 25,000-plus denominations over the past 500 years. All believe that they, with the help of the Holy Spirit, interpret Scripture correctly. Obviously they can’t all be right since they are in disagreement about so many important doctrines, the result of which is further fragmentation among believers, which breaks God’s heart. 😦
 
Well…do you hold the Lutheran confessions as authoritative, in that you subscribe to them totally and without reservation?

Yes but not because they themselves hold authority but confess biblical doctrine and reject the traditions that contradict the former. Much the same way we view the Apostles, Nicean, and Athanasian creeds as not being scripture but being a confession of what scripture teaches. So again we subscribe to Scripture totally and without reservation therefore we subscribe to the creeds and Lutheran confessions as long as they remain truthful to biblical doctrine.

But the question is…how does God or Jesus exercise authority here on earth?

Through his means of Grace: His word and Sacraments. We believe Jesus is the Word incarnate and therefore when the Bible speaks Jesus speaks.
 
So I’ve heard. 😛

In all seriousness, if Rome and Wittenberg were to find a comprehensive solution to Justification that didn’t require caveats from each side like the JDDJ did, and a workable exception/answer to Universal Immediate Jurisdiction can be found (because if that’s fixed, I’m not sure Rome and Constantinople could even remain separate), then I’d happily cannonball into the water - because at that point, we’d be in the same river.
The issue of our sad division boiled down to its two component parts, and were they reconciled, our unity restored. 👍

Jon
 
First your opinion appears two appears two view Scripture as indecipherable by anyone. Although obviously the world is at odds with certain sections or verses of Scripture. But there is much we agree on the meaning of.

Scripture is the standard (in the original languages). Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Passages that are difficult to understand should be viewed by what the rest of Scripture says. We read contextually, literally, and historically.

Again scripture. “All scripture is God breathed.”
'“Let Scripture interpret Scripture” has been a miserable failure even in the Lutheran Church. There are various synods LCMS WELS ELCA that vary on what scripture teaches
especially regarding justification and morals.
.
We see this in the signing of the JDDJ. The Wels and LCMS did not sign it; the ELCA did. There is a huge Concord book to teach what Scripture is REALLY teaching. That seems to be for Pastors alone and not taught to the laity. Why the need for Luther’s small and large Catechism and the Concord book if Scripture alone is enough? It speaks to an authority outside Scripture and that is Luther.
Mary
 
=MaryT777;11796414]’“Let Scripture interpret Scripture” has been a miserable failure even in the Lutheran Church. There are various synods LCMS WELS ELCA that vary on what scripture teaches especially regarding justification and morals.
I would say, Mary, that nothing in scripture leads people to believe that, say, same-gender marriage is valid. One must step outside of scripture to come to that conclusion. Scripture interprets scripture simply means we look at the entirety of scripture, not simply proof-texting in order to understand the meaning, but it is not an excuse to deviate from the practice of using scripture as the final norm, even if there is tension between verses.
.
We see this in the signing of the JDDJ. The Wels and LCMS did not sign it; the ELCA did. There is a huge Concord book to teach what Scripture is REALLY teaching. That seems to be for Pastors alone and not taught to the laity.
Not sure where you get the idea that the Book of Concord is not for the laity, but let me ask you; how many Catholics, average Catholic Christians in the pew, have read the Catholic Catechism in its entirety? The CCC is similar in length to the BoC. Most Lutheran and Catholic Christians just don’t take the time to read it.
Why the need for Luther’s small and large Catechism and the Concord book if Scripture alone is enough? It speaks to an authority outside Scripture and that is Luther
I love you as a Christian sibling, but you are entirely wrong here.
The need for the Small and Large Catechism, just like the need for the three ancient creeds, which are first in the BoC, is for the Church to fulfill its teaching role and, yes, authority. In the “Great Commission”, Christ clearly instructs the Church to: * Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:…*

Teaching comes in many forms. The Church has historically used music and art, statues and icons to teach, and catechisms and creeds are a standard way of teaching, as well.
Where the BoC teaches doctrine, it is a reflection, a witness to the truth of scripture, not over it, not equal to it, not instead of it. And the BoC says so, precisely.

Jon
 
Perhaps that pastor could answer your question. My question to him would be, even if you believe Christ’s presence has departed, why would you treat where He has been with such disregard and disrespect. :mad:
Well, he did say that by scattering the leftover bread for the birds, he was at least “returning it to God’s creation” (or something along those lines). At least he wasn’t trampling it underfoot or tossing it into the trash or using it as sandwich bread.

Hmm, it occurs to me as I write this, that the same question (“why would you treat where He has been with such disregard and disrespect?”) could be asked of those – not on this thread – who don’t hold Mary in any kind of high regard.
 
=Erich;11796689]Well, he did say that by scattering the leftover bread for the birds, he was at least “returning it to God’s creation” (or something along those lines). At least he wasn’t trampling it underfoot or tossing it into the trash or using it as sandwich bread.
Perhaps, but it is completely unnecessary. Place it in an ambrey. Use it for the sick and shut in. There’s just no excuse for what he does.
Hmm, it occurs to me as I write this, that the same question (“why would you treat where He has been with such disregard and disrespect?”) could be asked of those – not on this thread – who don’t hold Mary in any kind of high regard.
Good question.

Jon
 
Umm, I believe that the early Christians looked to the apostles to help them interpret Scripture. “How can I understand what it is saying unless someone explains it to me?” (the eunuch to Phillip) And, even the apostles needed Jesus to show them what the Scriptures said about Him. The “Scripture interprets Scripture” view would seemingly help to explain why there have sprouted up 25,000-plus denominations over the past 500 years. All believe that they, with the help of the Holy Spirit, interpret Scripture correctly. Obviously they can’t all be right since they are in disagreement about so many important doctrines, the result of which is further fragmentation among believers, which breaks God’s heart. 😦
I’m pretty good at quoting scripture but not always book, chapter, and verse. “The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone.” When you construct a building after you lay its foundation you don’t rip out every time you start to build on top of it nor are there multiple foundations only one. Where can I hear the apostles, prophets, and Christ speak today?Through scripture.

“In those days the Lord spoke to us through apostles and prophets, in these last days he speaks through his Son.” Who is the Son but the word made flesh. How do I know I don’t need another man to interpret basic scripture for me? Because I take God at his word when he says “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ.” Again where can I hear His Word - the Bible.

I have always found it interesting that so many believe the Bible to be indecipherable without the help of a special person. Every other way God has interacted with humanity has been very personal. Certainly there are parts of scripture that are not easily understood, but tell me one doctrine in scripture that is pertinent to my salvation that is not clearly taught. To maintain the position that you and I can’t understand scripture I believe borders on if not falls directly in line with the heresy of Gnostics that only some people have "special knowledge of the scripture. In fact this was one of many reasons the Council of Nicea met to canonize recognized scripture. Not because the books believed to be inspired were not all ready well known; rather to combat heresies like you can’t understand the things of God with out special gnosis (knowledge).

And regarding the fracturing of Christendom. Scripture tells us this is the path of the world till the day of judgement. God did not promise the church to be a monolith till the end, he just promised it would not be overcome by Hell. That may mean there very well could be handfuls of believers left on the last day.
 
Where can I hear the apostles, prophets, and Christ speak today?Through scripture.
And what about those folks who lived in the years between the death of St. John and the canonization of the New Testament? They heard the apostles, prophets, and Christ speak through the successors of the apostles whom Christ sent as his ambassadors.

God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36)

Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” (John 20:21)

Jesus sends these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

The Apostles, then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a Superior Authority, Jesus Christ.

“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me”
How do I know I don’t need another man to interpret basic scripture for me? Because I take God at his word when he says “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ.” Again where can I hear His Word - the Bible.
If one takes this to mean that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will receive one from God then the multiplicity of interpretations should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very well.

Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?

Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?

Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?

Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?
I have always found it interesting that so many believe the Bible to be indecipherable without the help of a special person.
The Bible tells us that Jesus established a church. And what does the Bible tell us about the Church founded by Jesus Christ? In 1 Tim 3:15, the Bible tells us that this Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. In other words, it is the upholder and foundation of the truth. The Bible also tells us, in Ephesians 1:23, that this Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Body of Christ and is the “fullness of Him Who fills all in all.” The Church is the fullness of Jesus Christ - the Bible is very clear on that. And Jesus Christ says in John 14:6 that He is the truth. So, if the Church is the fullness of Jesus Christ, as the Bible says, and Jesus Christ is the truth, as the Bible says, then the Church founded by Jesus Christ contains the fullness of the truth that has been given to us by Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the Bible tells us, in John 16:13, that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to guide His Church into all truth.

So, this Church that the Bible tells us was founded by Jesus Christ; this Church that the Bible tells us is the pillar and ground - the upholder and foundation - of the truth; this Church that the Bible tells us is the fullness of Jesus Christ - the fullness of the truth; this Church that the Bible tells us is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth; this Church must teach us what?! Error?! No! This Church must teach us truth…it cannot teach us error. The Church founded by Jesus Christ must teach the truth…the fullness of the truth. It cannot teach error!
And regarding the fracturing of Christendom. Scripture tells us this is the path of the world till the day of judgement. God did not promise the church to be a monolith till the end, he just promised it would not be overcome by Hell. That may mean there very well could be handfuls of believers left on the last day.
Jesus prayed “that they may be one.” Not fractured.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?
 
Hi Don,
Just curious, why ask the admittedly poorly-catechized to comment? Why not those who have been taught well, profess it and do not plan to leave? That said, I join you in praying that betsybug is blessed in Word and Sacrament in her new communion.
I was not looking for an answer from an LCMS apologist, but more of one from somebody who doesn’t have that bias. Of course bb is very excited about joining the Church, but I didn’t think she would give an anti-Lutheran answer and of course, she didn’t. In addition, I was looking for an understanding of how well catechized Lutheran initiates are (usually) in regards to those anti-Catholic statements. In short, I wanted an answer absent the Lutheran spin, but it looks like I got one anyway.
I am aware of where Lutherans and Roman Catholics disagree. That some take offense at the wording of the Lutheran Confessions or the anathemas from the Council of Trent is beyond either communion’s control.
You make it sound (‘that some take offense’) as if there really isn’t anything for Catholics to be upset about in the Lutheran Confessions. Furthermore, are you suggesting that the Lutheran Confessions are beyond the control of Lutherans? You after all have admitted that you personally agree with those statements, which makes you, personally, responsible for what they say.

Plus, are you really saying that you consider the anathemas of Trent to be equivalent to the anti-Catholic statements in the Lutheran Confessions?
Yup, I was fairly well-catechized.
Fair enough. That means that you ‘own’ those statements as they stand and as they are written.
It’s pretty straightforward in our Confirmation Rite, which is noted in this thread. We pledge to remain true to God and church, even at pain of death. Just as our Confessions state, “To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter…” There is no room for personal interpretation within our communion; only what our church understands to be the right interpretation.
You say that there is no personal interpretation in your communion, and YET, Lutheranism (and thus Protestantism) was founded on personal interpretation – Luther’s.

Lutherans supposedly do not have the right to challenge the Lutheran church on doctrinal matters, and YET, that ‘right’ to challenge and refute is built into your organizational DNA. If you really believe that the members of a church do not have the right to reject the doctrinal teachings of their church, then you would have to agree that Luther was wrong to do so against the Church. You can’t have it both ways.

As a matter of fact, there is more than ample evidence that Lutherans in fact DO exercise their private judgment all the time. In fact, even before Luther was cold in the grave there were significant doctrinal disagreements within Lutheranism, which in fact required the Confessions to sort out what was and what was not ‘Lutheran’. And yet, that certainly did not solve the problem. After all, there are now how many doctrinally independent Lutheran bodies worldwide? Isn’t it really a three digit number? If you belong to a particular Lutheran communion and you don’t like what they are teaching, you can simply follow your private judgment, leave and join another Lutheran communion, or a different tradition altogether. Or you can form your own Lutheran communion as happened in the 1830’s when the LCMS was formed as a doctrinally independent body.

In reality, Luther set the precedent on using HIS private judgment to leave his (Catholic) Church, and as such, no Lutheran and no Protestant can do a thing about it when someone wants to leave yours. Luther claimed that ‘right’ for ALL, and then, when he finally woke up and withdrew it, it was TOO LATE. He had based his Revolt on His Private Judgment and so nobody on down the line (from him) has any way to uphold the unity of their own communion.

The fact is that because of the ‘justification’ that Luther ‘used’ to split from the Church, neither Lutheranism nor Protestantism as a whole as ANY way to maintain doctrinal unity. Protestantism has NO way to adjudicate doctrinal disputes and as a result, it will continue to split into even more doctrinally independent denominations.

As long as people like Preus (and Fisk, the next generation) are in charge of the LCMS, there can be no significant progress towards a REAL reunion. With no realistic hope of a ‘general reunion’ with Lutheranism, ecumenical efforts need to be directed towards reunification with individuals.
Lutherans ought to know what they believe and why. I would hope that our pastors would impress upon their flocks the importance of spiritual knowledge and solid catechesis. But we are sinful, foolish, silly beings - sometimes we don’t teach as well as we should. Poor understanding or knowledge can hardly be insinuated to be a reason people ‘haven’t left’ a given faith; this holds true for your Communion, as well. Would the growing percentage of co-habitating, unmarried Roman Catholics be shocked to learn that they are living in sin? That under normal circumstances they ought not to receive the Eucharist? That homosexual relations are inherently sinful? 🤷
What I was asking is whether anyone would leave the LCMS once they learned of those hateful statements. Personally, I have enough faith in humanity, and also in Lutherans as Christians, to believe that there WOULD be a significant number of people who would leave the LCMS upon learning what they were ‘supposed’ to ‘uphold’.

God Bless You Don, Topper
 
I’m pretty good at quoting scripture but not always book, chapter, and verse. “The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief cornerstone.” When you construct a building after you lay its foundation you don’t rip out every time you start to build on top of it nor are there multiple foundations only one. Where can I hear the apostles, prophets, and Christ speak today?Through scripture.
But that is not the only place you can hear them speak, if you will only listen. 😉
“In those days the Lord spoke to us through apostles and prophets, in these last days he speaks through his Son.” Who is the Son but the word made flesh. How do I know I don’t need another man to interpret basic scripture for me? Because I take God at his word when he says “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ.” Again where can I hear His Word - the Bible.
And yet your denomination’s name is based on the name of a man who you believe to have interpreted Romans correctly.
I have always found it interesting that so many believe the Bible to be indecipherable without the help of a special person. Every other way God has interacted with humanity has been very personal. Certainly there are parts of scripture that are not easily understood, but tell me one doctrine in scripture that is pertinent to my salvation that is not clearly taught. To maintain the position that you and I can’t understand scripture I believe borders on if not falls directly in line with the heresy of Gnostics that only some people have "special knowledge of the scripture. In fact this was one of many reasons the Council of Nicea met to canonize recognized scripture. Not because the books believed to be inspired were not all ready well known; rather to combat heresies like you can’t understand the things of God with out special gnosis (knowledge).
I never said the Bible is indecipherable without the help of a special person. I have attended many wonderful Protestant Bible studies over the years and gained a great deal of knowledge of Sacred Scripture. But the fact that there is so much division in Protestant circles over important matters - well, that is hard to ignore.
And regarding the fracturing of Christendom. Scripture tells us this is the path of the world till the day of judgement. God did not promise the church to be a monolith till the end, he just promised it would not be overcome by Hell. That may mean there very well could be handfuls of believers left on the last day.
I strongly disagree. (Although I would have agreed with you at one time when I was looking at the world from a Protestant viewpoint.) Fracturing may be the path of the world, but it should not be the path of Christ’s Church. Our God is a God of Order, not chaos. There is one Christ, and therefore there is one Church that he founded. Do you really believe that the Church will go out with a whimper? Not sure where you get that from Scripture. It kind of flies in the face of Matthew 28 where Jesus tells his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations.” The Catholic church has done just that and continues to do it. When I traveled to Jordan two summers ago (over 90% Muslim) I was very impressed to see a strong presence of Catholic charities there.

Jesus also prayed in the high priestly prayer for all believers “that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” That is why I said that disunity breaks his heart. I, for one, do not want to break his heart when I love him so much. Since I now know after much study and prayer, that the Catholic Church is truly the church Christ founded, it would be disobedient of me to reject Her authority.
 

appears two appears two view Scripture as indecipherable by anyone. Although obviously the world is at odds with certain sections or verses of Scripture. But there is much we agree on the meaning of.

Scripture is the standard (in the original languages). Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Passages that are difficult to understand should be viewed by what the rest of Scripture says. We read contextually, literally, and historically.

It is not an opinion…it is a question. As you stated, you go by correct biblical exegesis.

So this brings the further questions…How does Scripture interpret Scripture?

Can you show an example.
Although obviously the world is at odds with certain sections or verses of Scripture. But there is much we agree on the meaning of.
And what has caused this disagreements? Isn’t it everyone trying to decipher Scripture?
Originally Posted by pablope
And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?
Again scripture. “All scripture is God breathed.”

I agree Scripture is God breathed…but the question is…as you said you go by correct Biblical exegesis…so the question remains… who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?
 
I was not looking for an answer from an LCMS apologist, but more of one from somebody who doesn’t have that bias.
I know what you were looking for. You simply traded one bias for another. Ask a Roman Catholic what that Roman Catholic thought about Lutheranism… seems like anyone could figure out what the answer would be. 🤷
In addition, I was looking for an understanding of how well catechized Lutheran initiates are (usually) in regards to those anti-Catholic statements.
Probably about as well-catechized as Roman Catholics are regarding the anti-Lutheran Anathemas of Trent. Catechesis is often a sore point for both of our communions, at least in most of the Western World. I would further state the obvious generality (to which there are, of course, exceptions): individuals who leave one communion for another generally were not well-catechized in the first, or they wouldn’t have left. Think about it. Your communion teaches that leaving the RCC for another denomination puts an individual’s soul at risk. Why would you be surprised that we Lutherans, including Preus and Fisk, teach the same?
You make it sound (‘that some take offense’) as if there really isn’t anything for Catholics to be upset about in the Lutheran Confessions. Furthermore, are you suggesting that the Lutheran Confessions are beyond the control of Lutherans? You after all have admitted that you personally agree with those statements, which makes you, personally, responsible for what they say.
That’s just silly, and I think you know that. If one seeks it, offense can be found - on both banks of the Tiber. But Christ calls us to be one. So why not work toward His command?
Plus, are you really saying that you consider the anathemas of Trent to be equivalent to the anti-Catholic statements in the Lutheran Confessions?
I consider the Anathemas of Trent to be more so. The Lutheran Confessions do not pass a judgement on any individual; only against certain (to Lutherans, erroneous) teachings. The Anathemas, on the other hand, make it personal and condemn “anyone who holds ________… let him be anathema!” Now tell me. What’s more offensive? Telling someone that their practices may be sinful, or announcing that they are cursed and condemned a sinner?
You say that there is no personal interpretation in your communion, and YET, Lutheranism (and thus Protestantism) was founded on personal interpretation – Luther’s.
:sigh:
If you really believe that the members of a church do not have the right to reject the doctrinal teachings of their church, then you would have to agree that Luther was wrong to do so against the Church. You can’t have it both ways.
I thought you were familiar enough with the Lutheran Confessions that you would know the very next line in that quote. Forgive me for assuming. Here it is again, but a bit fuller:

To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.
On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused…[then continues several paragraphs about why we believe our protest to be right]
After all, there are now how many doctrinally independent Lutheran bodies worldwide? Isn’t it really a three digit number?
I wouldn’t trust statistics; apparently there are 226 different Catholic denominations - all in communion with Rome. :rolleyes:
If you belong to a particular Lutheran communion and you don’t like what they are teaching, you can simply follow your private judgment, leave and join another Lutheran communion, or a different tradition altogether.
Nothing to stop a Roman Catholic from doing this either, despite what our communions teach. 🤷
Or you can form your own Lutheran communion as happened in the 1830’s when the LCMS was formed as a doctrinally independent body.
That’s not at all accurate, but I won’t address that jab in this thread.
What I was asking is whether anyone would leave the LCMS once they learned of those hateful statements.
I know what you were asking. :rolleyes: So I’ll return the question to you; would anyone - perhaps of the more liberal persuasion - leave the RCC if they learned that Pope Francis doesn’t actually condone homosexual unions? Would any RCC members leave if they knew what their church taught about other Christians at Trent?
Personally, I have enough faith in humanity, and also in Lutherans as Christians, to believe that there WOULD be a significant number of people who would leave the LCMS upon learning what they were ‘supposed’ to ‘uphold’.
:blackeye:
 
What, may I ask…is the correct Bibllical Exegesis? And what will the standard be for measuring the correct Biblical Exegesis?
The correct Biblical exegesis is every doctrine found within scripture alone. Tradition although permissible and useful can not be made dogma. The standard for that is Scripture.

Exegesis is Exegesis is the branch of theology which investigates and expresses the true sense of Sacred Scripture…newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

Exegesis means interpreting Scripture, not determining doctrine, as I understand it. So again…how can you determine the correct Biblical exegesis or interpretation from the incorrect one? You have to have a standart, correct? So what standard will you use to determine the correct exegesis from the incorrect one?

But your response elicits another question: How can Scripture alone determine every doctrine is the Canon of Scripture itself is not in Scripture?

[SIGN]
And who will determine what is the correct versus the incorrect Biblical Exegesis?

Scripture!!![/SIGN]How will Scripture tell you which, or deternine which is the correct versus incorrect Biblical Exegesis?

Can you show an example?
 
Point taken Ambrose!!! This is why no I could never abandon Sola Scriptura, for the very reason that the one and only man who holds authority over me is Christ. If the history of the sinful world gave me one example of authority whether secular or religious who did not fall in love with its own authority discarding God’s superior authority, then I could hold to an earthly authority.
But the question is…how does God or Jesus exercise authority here on earth?

Through his means of Grace: His word and Sacraments. We believe Jesus is the Word incarnate and therefore when the Bible speaks Jesus speaks.

And who administers these sacraments here on earth?

By the way…how can the Bible speak?
[/QUOTE]
 
I have bolded the salient phrase. This is where private judgement has been preserved, and remains central and at the core of Protestantism. As long as you hold to a Sola Scriptura position, based on private judgement, you will be siding with Protestantism rather than Catholicity.

If you hold to a position where Church Authority, as found in Apostolic Succession and Holy Tradition interpret Scripture, you will be on the side of Catholicity and the dogmatic principle.

That is why all of this talk about Lutheran principles being common to Catholicism will always ring hollow and superficial, at least to me. IOW, you hold some beliefs in common with Catholicism, but it is accidental and not intentional. The Lutheran perception of “correct” Biblical exegesis, will always determine your beliefs.
Greetings in Christ AmbroseSJ and Pablope,

In my study I have found THREE SETS of salvation doctrines in circulation in our Catholic Church. – Of course only one set is genuine doctrines of salvation of the Catholic Church.

How can you believe three different sets of salvation doctrines/teaching which are in contradiction with each other?
You can believe only one set of doctrines from the three.

We have no choice, if we want to find the fullness of the truth, we must obey God’s COMMAND given to us for our PROTECTION described in 1 Thess.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27.

1 John 2:26-27; “… Concerning those who try to deceive you. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT ANYONE TEACH YOU; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning ALL THINGS, …”
Conditions:
  1. No private interpretation/exegesis.
  2. Accept the BIBLICAL EXEGESIS of the Holy Spirit!!!
In 1 John 2:26-27 we have God’s promise: If we obey His command given to us for our protection, we will never be deceived.

What do you think AmbroseSJ and Pablope, from the tree sets of doctrines which are in circulation in our Church, which set is the genuine salvation doctrines (fullness of the truth) of the Catholic Church?

FIRST SET OF DOCTRINES/TEACHINGS OF SALVATION:

In my opinion: These doctrines are genuine Church doctrines, concerning our salvation, THE FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH!!!
Faith in God’s grace alone, and by Christ’s merit alone. = Salvation.
All our works are done for: The GLORY OF GOD!!!

HOW TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT By Etienne Charpentier

Nihil obstate: Father Anton Cowan
Imprimatur: Monsignor John Crowley, VG Westminster, 28 May 1985

Quote: “There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become righteous and be SAVED?

We are NOT justified by what we DO (works, observing law) but by FAITH IN CHRIST.

Salvation is NOT a matter of achieving but RECEIVING IT FREELY from God hands, in faith.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE by James Akin

Quote: “In fact, in TRADITIONAL WORKS OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, one regularly encounters the statement that FORMED FAITH IS JUSTIFYING FAITH. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period. End quote. Emphasize mine.

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

3/17 Justification is SOLELY due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we RECEIVE IN FAITH, and NEVER CAN MERIT IT ANY WAY.

4/25 We confess together that sinners are JUSTIFIED BY FAITH in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of FAITH is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees FAITH as FUNDAMENTAL in justification. FOR WITHOUT FAITH, NO JUSTIFICATION CAN TAKE PLACE. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the RENEWAL OF LIFE by justifying grace, this RENEWAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION.

Continued on the next post.
 
Continuation

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS COUNT FOR ANYTHING:

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that one MUST be in a STATE OF GRACE, MUST be a member of the BODY OF CHRIST, MUST be SAVED, MUST be already JUSTIFIED before we do a SINGLE WORK that counts for anything.

Further conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL merit possible:

“The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the Church.” (Denzinger 1576, 1582)

JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING by Jimmy Akin

Quote: “The essence of supernatural love is unselfishness—doing something NOT BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW, but because we want to do it out of SHEER LOVE for the other person, whether that person is God or one of our fellow human beings out of the love of God.

This is THE ONLY KIND of love that ultimately pleases God and therefore the ONLY KIND that ultimately gets us a reward IN heaven.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

If we believe: Work is condition of our salvation, then our works can NEVER BE UP TO THE ABOVE STANDARDS because we do it for ourselves to purchase salvation not for love and for the Glory of God, and ALL our work goes up in smoke at the judgment. In reference 1 Cor.3:11-15.

CANNOT BE OVER EMPHASIZE: This is THE KEY to do supernatural merit that God accepts and recognize!!! – There is NO other way to achieve supernatural merit which is the only good works.

KEY POINTS:
“There is ONE CENTRAL QUESTION here: how can we become righteous and be SAVED?”
  1. We are NOT justified by what we DO (works, observing the law) but by FAITH in Christ.
  2. Whatever in the justified PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of faith is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.
  3. Catholic teaching emphasizes the RENEWAL OF LIFE by justifying grace, this RENEWAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO JUSTIFICATION.
  4. Justification/salvation ALWAYS remains the UNMERITED gift of grace.
These are above, the ORIGINAL doctrines of the salvation of the Catholic Church, the Church which Christ has founded. These doctrines still in operation today, and will be in the future until Christ will return.

SECOND SET OF DOCTRINES/TEACHINGS OF SALVATION:

This set of salvation doctrines/teaching is the so called “DO – IT – YOURSELF” salvation or “WORK SALVATION” which is:
Faith in God’s grace, and Christ’s merit + our own merit. = Salvation.
All our works are done for: The purchase of salvation.

CCC [1821] … “In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s ETERNAL REWARD FOR THE GOOD WORKS ACCOMPLISHED with the grace of Christ.”

CCC [2027] “No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we CAN MERIT for ourselves and for others ALL THE GRACES NEEDED TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE, as well as necessary temporal goods.

Quote: Apologetics and Catholic Doctrines 2001 Edition.
Page 444
“The just man BY GOOD WORKS TRULY MERITS ETERNAL LIFE, an increase of Sanctifying Grace and of glory hereafter.”

KEY POINTS:
  1. Justification is based on what we do, which means “works.”
  2. The just man BY GOOD WORKS TRULY MERITS ETERNAL LIFE.
  3. Apart from the initial grace, we CAN MERIT for ourselves and for others ALL THE GRACES NEEDED TO ATTAIN ETERNAL LIFE.
The PARADOX:

a. The MINORITY of the Catholics believe the salvation doctrines of their own Catholic Church. – The first set.

b. The MAJOROTY of the Catholics believe some form of a “do – it – yourself” salvation. – This second set.

c. ALL PROTESTANTS, (Evangelicals, Pentecostals) believe the salvation doctrines of our Catholic Church. – The first set.

Continued on the next post.
 
Continuation

CONCERNING THE ABOVE SO CALLED: “DO – IT – YOURSELF” SALVATION, PLEASE MEDITATE ON THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUOTES:

YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE By Peter Kreeft pages 230, 248, 249.
Peter Kreeft is one of the most popular and widely read Catholic authors today.

“Highly recommended to all those who want to deepen their spiritual lives. The beauty of this book is that it literally makes the [Bible] come alive.” – John A. Harden, S.J.

Quote: “The mistakes of the Corinthians were mistakes of addition; the mistakes of the Galatians was subtraction. The Corinthians had polluted the gospel. The Galatians had abandoned it for another religion, “a different gospel.”

No mistake could be more serious. Yet as we shall see, this is the single most common mistake in the Church today.

Galatians, like Romans, is about SALVATION BY FAITH.
The Galatians so missed this CENTRAL POINT that Paul called their heresy of self-salvation “another gospel” that is another religion, NOT Christianity.

MANY RELIGIOUSLY UNEDUCATED CATHOLICS still believe this Galatian heresy today.

Not a small minority but a large majority of the Catholics today not only don’t know the basic doctrines of the Catholic theology anymore, they don’t even know how to get to Heaven!

Until this unbelievable failure is remedied, it is pointless to pray to God for ecumenical peace and reunion between Christian churches.

It is not clear that one who does not even know how to get to Heaven can accurately be called a Christian.

I am not suggesting, as many Protestant Fundamentalists do, that most Catholics are not saved.

But I am suggesting that perhaps most will be saved as good pagans, as “anonymous Christians” rather than as Catholic Christians.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

THE CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA teaches the same thing as Peter Kreeft. Not exactly in the same diplomatic way.

Quote: “Most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation.” End quote.

Quote: Scripture and Vatican II: A very incomplete journey. by Fr Brendan Byrne SJ

Brendan Byrne, S.J., is professor of New Testament at Jesuit Theological College, within the United Faculty of Theology, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Pope John Paul II named him a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1990.

Quote: “It has to be said that the task of promoting the kind of biblical literacy asked for at Vatican II has received LITLE help and NO SMALL DEGREE OF HINDRANCE from prevailing tendencies in the Roman Curia.

The 1993 document of the Biblical Commission stands on a lonely eminence in the regard-and even it could have been negative in tone had not SEVERAL of the members of the Commission fought LONG and HARD to exclude gratuitous judgments in many areas.
THE HANDLING OF SCRIPTURE IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1994) IS SIMPLY DISGRACEFUL and many respects regresses not merely behind Vatican II but Divino Affante Spiritu itself.

When I asked at a session of the Biblical Commission why that Commission was not being employed or at least consulted during the preparation of the Catechism, my question was received in sullen silence: I HAVE VENTURED UPON SOME INTER-CURIAL TURF WAR.

JESUS AGAINST THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES in Matthew 23 in my own Church, I find myself unable to do so any longer:
THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES OCCUPY THE CHAIR OF MOSES.

You MUST therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say; but do not be guided by what they do since they DO NOT practice what they preach.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

St. Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, Funder of the Opus Dei.
Quote: “As I have not ceased to warn you, the evil comes from within (the church) and from very high up, …” End quote.

We can read the same warnings REPEATEDLY and CONTINUALLY throughout the Bible.
FOR EXAMPLE: Acts 20:29-32; Matt.7:15-16; Matt.24:4, 11, 24; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Pet.2:1-3; Jude 4.

2 Pet.2:1-3; “But there WERE also false prophets among the people, even as there WILL BE false teachers AMONG YOU, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive HERESIES, … and MANY will follow their destructive ways.”

Jude 4; “Certain people have SECRETLY INFILTRATED AMONG YOU.”

Continued on the next post.
 
Continuation

Please don’t be deceived by having a false security and to hide under Christ’s promise: “Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The Body of Christ the Universal (Catholic) Church has that promise.

The Catholic Church is only a part of the Body of Christ, the Universal (Catholic) Church. – This is Catholic teaching. [CCC 818]; [CCC 819]; [CCC 1271]

There is NO class system in the Body of Christ, the Church which Christ has founded. The Protestants are absolutely EQUAL with us in the Universal (Catholic) Church.

If we want the safest security, put our faith into the Word of God (John 5:24).
Obey God’s command given to us for our protection in 1 Thess.5:21, in the way as it described in Acts 17:11 and in 1 John 2:26-27 and accept the teaching and the interpretation of the Holy Spirit as it is described in
1 John 2:26-27.

And then AFTER THE TESTS we will know the doctrines of our Catholic Church and the doctrines of our uninvited guests.

The tests PRECEDES to know and to be able to distinguish between Church doctrines and the doctrines of our uninvited guests.

So, don’t make the fatal mistake, that you think you can do the test in the light of the Church doctrines, because the test is to DISTINGUISH between Church doctrines and secretly brought in doctrines of demons PRESENTED as genuine Church doctrines.

THIRD SET OF DOCTRINES/TEACHINGS OF SALVATION:

We could call this teaching of salvation: Universal Salvation.

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 05/22/1984
Quote: “MASONS ARE SONS OF GOD THE FATHER.”

[CCC 841] “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by John Paul II,
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1994
Quote: “BUDDHISM IS A RELIGION OF SALVATION.”

Ratzinger. Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Unuversality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 6 August 2000
Quote: “MANY FALSE RELIGIONS FALL WITHIN THE PLAN OF SALVATION … NON-CHRISTIANS CAN BE SAVED AS SUCH.”

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 07/06/1980.
Quote: “ALL MEN ARE SAVED.”

Ratzinger. Principles of Catholic Theology Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987
Quote: “THE GOD KHRISHNA IS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST AND REALITY.”

L’Osservator Romano, Vatican City, Italy, English edition 11/01/1993
Quote: “ALL DECEASED MEN ARE STANDING BEFORE GOD AS SAINTS.”

KEY POINTS:
  1. Buddhism is a religion of salvation. (In fact, ALL religion.)
  2. ALL men are saved.
  3. ALL deceased men are standing before God as saints.
With love in Christ,
LH.
 
…Lion Heart, what you’re saying sounds like Calvinism. “No salvation outside of the church,” seems pretty sturdy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top