Over 250 Protestant Leaders Sign 'Reforming Catholic Confession' on Essentials of Christian Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter simpleas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No they dont. But arent they trying their best to represent Christ? Are they not professing to be representing Christ?

Isnt that claiming to represent His authority?

If I say, “The Word of God means this, when it says such and such!”, do i not believe i am speaking with the authority of God?

They might as well own up to assuming His authority. At least the Catholic Church can face that much.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
BoomerangToo:
Does “sola scriptura” mean something other than “scripture alone”? As in, “sans Apostolic Tradition”? Are the protestants trying to now say that they have always believed in scripture+tradition? We know that’s not true.
Click to expand...
What the sola in sola scriptura has always meant is that scripture is the final norm in determining doctrine, that all doctrine and dogma, all teachings and teachers are held accountable to scripture. Tradition plays a very important role, but it is second to scripture.
That doesn’t exclude Tradition or the Church, which has the teaching role according to scripture. The Church determines doctrine, under the practice of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
What is the Church? Or did you mean "each individual church determines their own doctrine?
 
I can only speak for the tradition I was raised in and lived my whole life in until a couple of years ago. In Lutheranism, SS is a praxis, a practice of the Church intended to hold doctrine accountable to the final norm.
If anything, it is more like canon than doctrine
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
No they dont. But arent they trying their best to represent Christ? Are they not professing to be representing Christ?

Isnt that claiming to represent His authority?

If I say, “The Word of God means this, when it says such and such!”, do i not believe i am speaking with the authority of God?

They might as well own up to assuming His authority. At least the Catholic Church can face that much.
Click to expand...
I see your point. I think of authoritative a more doctrinal, but I guess one could look at it that way
 
The Confession itself explains the place of Scripture and tradition.
The Reformers were persons of one book – and one church. Accordingly, they had a healthy respect for tradition and councils alike. Tradition at its best is the biblically sanctioned practice of handing on the good news of Jesus Christ received from the apostles (see 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15, 3:6). Having set apart certain written witnesses to the gospel to form the New Testament documents, the Spirit proceeded to guide (and continues to guide) the church into a right understanding of these foundational texts (John 15:26; 16:13). While we repudiate the “traditions of men” (Mark 7:8) – teachings that conflict with or have no clear basis in Scripture – we affirm tradition insofar as it refers to the church’s continuous attention to and deepening understanding of the apostolic teaching through time and across space. Such tradition is a vital means by which the Spirit ministers the truth of Scripture and causes it to pass into the consciousness and life of the global church. This consensual understanding was first formulated in the Rule of Faith, itself a summary of and orientation to the storyline and subject matter of Scripture. Tradition plays the role of (fallible) stream from Scripture’s (infallible) source, a moon to Scripture’s sun: what light it offers ultimately reflects the divine revelation in Scripture, which is materially sufficient (semper reformanda – “always reforming”).

The Reformers acknowledged that church councils stand under the authority of Scripture, and can sometimes err. A conciliar decree is authoritative only insofar as it is true to Scripture. Yet, given the weight of orthodox judgment and catholic consensus, individuals and churches do well to follow the example of the Reformers and accept as faithful interpretations and entailments of Scripture the decisions of the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) concerning the nature of the Triune God and Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
 
So which Council decreed the Canon of Scripture?

If Scripture is the Supreme rule for Teaching, then wouldnt it have been of the highest priority to decree a Canon of Scripture?
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
The Confession itself explains the place of Scripture and tradition.
The Reformers acknowledged that church councils stand under the authority of Scripture, and can sometimes err. A conciliar decree is authoritative only insofar as it is true to Scripture. Yet, given the weight of orthodox judgment and catholic consensus, individuals and churches do well to follow the example of the Reformers and accept as faithful interpretations and entailments of Scripture the decisions of the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) concerning the nature of the Triune God and Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
It is difficult for someone with my Catholic mindset to grasp this.

A Concilliar decree is authoritative only insofar as it is true to Scripture. But I believe the people who signed the Confession would cite certain 4th century councils as confirming which books are in the New Testament, and not other councils that might appoint a different canon. Circular reasoning?

Councils teach us how to interpret scripture, whether it be Nicea, Vatican II, or gnostic councils. If they are reliable only to the extent the interpretation is scriptural, every council would by definition be reliable, and no council would “sometimes err” - unless there is a living Authority third party, outside Scripture and Tradition, who can deem that. You can refer to the weight of orthodox judgement and catholic consensus, but who, exactly, does the weighing?

What if the majority of Christians in Utah did the weighing in terms of what is orthodox judgement and consensus?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow, your argument sounds like a 3rd. grade elementary school class bantering over who got the most ice-cream at lunch. All of this is about 250 protestant scholars, as if we could only gather up this many in the protestant rank.

I personally know of almost half this number just in my area alone, and yes, they all are Apostolic. So what! Most protestant churches have stopped “protesting” years ago. They are unaware, however, of your protest of them, or, … do not care about Protestant v’s Catholic anymore.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The Reformers acknowledged that church councils stand under the authority of Scripture, and can sometimes err. A conciliar decree is authoritative only insofar as it is true to Scripture
Click to expand...
I agree with Itwin. great statement.
 
Maybe you can help me know how we know what is Scripture? Though i personally know how Catholics can know what is in our Canon. What council decided what is to be regarded as Scripture, and what is not?
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Maybe you can help me know how we know what Scripture is? Though i personally know how Catholics can know what is in our Canon. What council decided what is to be regarded as Scripture, and what is not?
Click to expand...
Then that leads to the question, since a council can err, how can we know if the council erred on the canon? Most Protestant defenses of the canon describe a passive voice kind of process.
  • “There were criteria” (who chose the criteria? Who decided if a book passed?)
  • “It was decided by the community” (which community? All 500 parishes? Even the gnostic parishes? Were the 500 or 1000 parishes unanimous on the canon?)
  • “The consensus of orthodox scholars was” (Who determined that a “consensus” existed? Who decided (without a bible) that A was an orthodox scholar, and B was a heretic?)
  • “These books over here were obviously not inspired, since they were written by gnostics” (Who decided, without a bible, that the gnostics would not get a vote in choosing the NT canon?
When I read Protestant defenses of the canon, there are no definite or specific subjects for active verbs. Everything “happened”; “was decided”; “it was agreed”, and “the consensus”.

So why didn’t the Confession address the derivation and confirmation of the canon? It seems like a crucial, foundational point, did they omit it because they were not in agreement, or some other reason?
 
Last edited:
“Yet we all value the Reformation solas, not simply because they distinguish us from Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians, but rather because they are salient reminders to the whole church that God alone saves in Christ alone through faith alone.”

This just struck me because it seems as though they take being thankful for division for granted.

I wish we could attain unity with our poor separated brethren.

I was wondering if anyone knows how best to follow the St Paul admonition to not fall into a party spirit. This does not mean party animal, but as in a spirit of breaking up into parties, like republican party vs democrat party, but I believe it is meant as related to the Church.
 
From the Statement:

“That these two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which some among us call “sacraments,” are bound to the Word by the Spirit as visible words proclaiming the promise of the gospel, and thus become places where recipients encounter the Word again. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper communicate life in Christ to the faithful, confirming them in their assurance that Christ, the gift of God for the people of God, is indeed “for us and our salvation” and nurturing them in their faith. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are physical focal points for key Reformation insights: the gifts of God (sola gratia) and the faith that grasps their promise (sola fide). They are tangible expressions of the gospel insofar as they vividly depict our dying, rising, and incorporation into Jesus’ body (“one bread … one body” – 1 Cor. 10:16-17), truly presenting Christ and the reconciliation he achieved on the cross. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper strengthen the faithful by visibly recalling, proclaiming, and sealing the gracious promise of forgiveness of sins and communion with God and one another through the peace-making blood of Christ.”

The language used in the description of these Sacraments is very close to Catholic Teaching, even of Transubstantiation!

In fact, when described as “encountering the Word again” we can see that the Word of God is not restricted to Scripture alone, but exists in the Sacraments! This places the Sacraments equal with Scripture!

However, the statement “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are physical focal points for key Reformation insights: the gifts of God (sola gratia) and the faith that grasps their promise (sola fide)” implies that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper support doctrines which the Reformation used against the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
2towers said:
All I can say is “Good fences make for good neighbors.”
Click to expand...
Is this comment in reply to my question?

Why, did they sign a document that said they were leaving the church?

I know very little about the reformation TBH.

Martin Luther was excommunicated I believe, I assume people who then ‘followed’ his lead were automatically excommunicated, but they couldn’t be un-baptised, so in a sense still members of the church, just not thee church in rome?
Just like people say, once a Catholic always a Catholic, even when not practising.

I read that Martin Luther did not want his name used for the new religion Lutheran, he said people should be followers of Christ, like himself, not followers of him.

I haven’t read all those 95? topics Luther wanted to debate with Rome, has anyone got a link to the original text? I’m curious as to what he had major issues with that drove him to ‘challenge’ rome, and wonder would any of us now agree with his issues.

Thanks.
 
No, not really. The only benefit I see in any ecumenism of any kind, including that between Catholics and Protestants is to clear up any myths one side might subscribe to about the other, such as old accusation that we worship Mary and concrete objects. There are sometimes common causes that spring up, both sides agree on, but outside of that, I see no good at all, what so ever for these feel good get together services, statements, confessions, any of that, between the two. I feel that they are even counter productive.

So in that light, good fences make for good neighbors. I am a Catholic, not a Protestant.

Thanks. Pax.

PS: I certainly meant no disrespect to you.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness, I’m sure you know the contrast between protestant and catholic on this issue.

Orthodox Protestants believe that the canon of scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. In other words we do not believe the Church was infallible in the formation of the cannon. However the books that were chosen are regarded as individually infallible.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. Not only the writings are infallible but the process of assembling the canon, the Church exercised an infallible ability to recognize and sanction those infallible books.
 
Ok, that doesnt make sense. It means you dont know if any given book of the Bible is infallible, since you dont know if it actually is infallibly declared Scripture.
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
rcwitness, I’m sure you know the contrast between protestant and catholic on this issue.

Orthodox Protestants believe that the canon of scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. In other words we do not believe the Church was infallible in the formation of the cannon. However the books that were chosen are regarded as individually infallible.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. Not only the writings are infallible but the process of assembling the canon, the Church exercised an infallible ability to recognize and sanction those infallible books.
Click to expand...
Very interesting post-
Can the non-Orthodox Protestants be pointed out for all those looking to find true Christians? Is there a mechanism in Protestantism that will let those seeking know what an Orthodox Protestant is?

You do agree the the writers of the scriptures were fallible men, yes? If God would choose fallible men to write the scriptures why wouldnt he use fallible men to collect them into the canon? It seems to me once you submit to the fact that God did use fallible men to do the writing the rest is the easy part.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top