Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[benhur]

Mary’s status might be classified as "non-essential"or of less concern.

Hi La ,

Agree with the line of reasoning of essential/non essential partly but maybe it is more “more essential and less essential”, but still essential, per the CC. Marion dogma must be believed by faithful Catholics. It is essential. Agree with you though that something like believing in Christ as Savoir dogma is more essential than say believing in IC , if that is what you are saying.

Councils with official doctrine are a response to heresy/major objections to organic beliefs already within the Church. Nicea was a response to Arianism. II Nicea a response to Iconoclasm and of course Trent a response to reformers, etc…

I think what you are saying is that if marion dogma was wrong there would some kind of counciliar repudiation .OK The only repudiation that I have have heard of was midway in first millenia. I think a pope put out a list of heretical books and I think a few of them had Marion stories possibly the assumption in one of them. Not sure. Of course there is also the Dominican/Franciscan century old debate, full of anathemas over Marion doctrine . I also think Jerome or Ambrose says that , "of her end no one knows’, speaking perhaps of her death and I would say possible assumption.

I’ve admitted there is really no pastristic writing on the Immaculate conception. And if there is, I am unaware of it.

Unfortunately, Augustine lays some ground work . While saying that scripture says all have sinned, he goes on ,almost bowing to a possible tradition, that Mary is an exception.

While one may say Mary having children is "new’’, some say the ever virgin was birthed in an atmosphere where marriage and children were taught as not as spiritual a life as the contrary. Jerome pretty much says to marry is not to sin, but to be virgin is to do good. He spoke much that a priest should not marry because sex and prayer/ministry /do not mix. Monatsicism also grew out of this partly. So not sure that is the healthiest environment to push forth developing Marion doctrine.

Mother of God, free of personal sin and ever-virgin. They also share the belief that she was assumed.

OK

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La ,

Agree with the line of reasoning of essential/non essential partly but maybe it is more “more essential and less essential”, but still essential, per the CC. Marion dogma must be believed by faithful Catholics. It is essential. Agree with you though that something like believing in Christ as Savoir dogma is more essential than say believing in IC , if that is what you are saying.
I think what you are saying is that if marion dogma was wrong there would some kind of counciliar repudiation .OK The only repudiation that I have have heard of was midway in first millenia. I think a pope put out a list of heretical books and I think a few of them had Marion stories possibly the assumption in one of them. Not sure. Of course there is also the Dominican/Franciscan century old debate, full of anathemas over Marion doctrine . I also think Jerome or Ambrose says that , "of her end no one knows’, speaking perhaps of her death and I would say possible assumption.
Unfortunately, Augustine lays some ground work . While saying that scripture says all have sinned, he goes on ,almost bowing to a possible tradition, that Mary is an exception.

While one may say Mary having children is "new’’, some say the ever virgin was birthed in an atmosphere where marriage and children were taught as not as spiritual a life as the contrary. Jerome pretty much says to marry is not to sin, but to be virgin is to do good. He spoke much that a priest should not marry because sex and prayer/ministry /do not mix. Monatsicism also grew out of this partly. So not sure that is the healthiest environment to push forth developing Marion doctrine.
OK

Blessings

Hi Benhur, sure the Marian dogmas must be believed now, but i personally think they never even become official if the reformers don’t get too carried away with their opinion on her. Our teachings on her would likely still resemble that of the Orthodox church.

I need to find that quote from Augustine you refer to. I’ve read much of his work but did not know he held that opinion, or at least toyed with the notion. He is considered patristic so that is interesting.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Romans 3:23 is saying every person is guilty of sinning? (personal sin)

 

[spedteacherita]

Well, I wasn’t exactly saying you *shouldn’t *be more concerned with RC teaching than with Lutheran teaching, just that I find it surprising.

I’m a “seeker” by nature always wanting to understand what I don’t understand. I’m intrigued by what Catholics believe and want to learn more. By seeking in the Catholic forums I have learned more about the LCMS as well as the RCC. I want to learn more and what better place than in a forum that has some excellent people to answer my questions. As one who has only known Sola Scriptura I want to understand more about the Traditions and the Magisterium and am slowly (repeat that slowly) beginning to understand.

Thanks for questioning me Peter. I think what you ask is valid and it caused me to pause and take a look at why I am asking at all.

God bless!

Rita

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur, sure the Marian dogmas must be believed now, but i personally think they never even become official if the reformers don’t get too carried away with their opinion on her. Our teachings on her would likely still resemble that of the Orthodox church.

I need to find that quote from Augustine you refer to. I’ve read much of his work but did not know he held that opinion, or at least toyed with the notion. He is considered patristic so that is interesting.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Romans 3:23 is saying every person is guilty of sinning? (personal sin)

I am not sure where I read it.I do remember specific mentioning of all have sinned ,except for Mary. He does have other quotes of her sinlessness but not joined to the scripture of all have sinned. He ,like others , did not believe she was born immaculate

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty (Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin).

I do think all have sinned , or fall short of the glory of God that is to be in us, save Christ.That is ,missing the mark ,the bulls eye, which could mean just not being as good as we should, irregardless of any wrongdoing.

I have heard some claim there can always be exceptions to any rule. For example: " it is given unto every man to die once and thereafter to go to judgement" But we have Enoch and Elijah, who did not. Of course we know that exception because it is very dramatically explicit in scripture (well at least Elijah).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Sounds interesting. It was a time of great challenge for the orthodox faith. Many attempts arose to challenge important matters. I imagine She saw an importance to keep the member’s devotion protected from an overwhelming distraction of “morbidly curious outsiders”, while still seeing a need to provide an educational setting for instructing.
This seems significant to me, regarding Sola Scriptura! I realize you do not embrace I.B. but Lutherans, and most denominations do.
I don’t understand why these actions are opposed to one another, or have to be considered ‘one or the other’? The infant is definitely required to believe, AND the Holy Spirit has personally washed away the sin that separates them from God. Paul, in Corinthians I believe, comments about children of believers being made clean. I see this as likely evidence of being Baptized. And not merely on account of water Baptism, but through the faithfulness of even one Christian parent. Because that is what brought the child to the Water.

I don’t like to base what I believe about Baptism and Sacraments on how people react to them or what they think afterwards. I have seen equally disturbing reactions from Evangelicals who were raised as such and are in their 40’s yet still are not Baptized and have trouble understanding what Baptism means. They then have to construct a meaning which does not conform to Scripture’s Teachings about it. And they place little importance on it, since they have to conclude that it does not impart forgiveness of sins.

HI RC

Agree that we should not make doctrine based on people’s reaction. That is not to say we should not have a reaction to Truth, to a doctrine. I mean it is a solid doctrine for so Christ loved us to die for us that we may have eternal life. We all have a reaction to that statement, one unto life and one unto death.

As far as believers holding out or not being baptized, tough to say if their fruits would be any different after baptism. Pretty sure Baptist per say do not have their baptismal doctrine derived from folks who were not baptized. Scripture is explicit that unbelievers go to hell, not unbaptized believers. I am not willing to say that these holdouts are ‘non believers’,especially if they act Christian otherwise.

But I am with you.My experience is that 99.99% of believers get baptized in water at least.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You used singular for the words “canonization” and “tradition”; keep in mind there were a few different rival canonizations and rival “strict and serious” traditions of various books being “inspired”.

In other words, it is not like an autopilot that led inevitably to one canon, but a discretionary, controversial selection of certain works, based on certain traditions, and rejection of other scriptures, based on other traditions. You might say the Early Church Fathers supported this canon; but we can say that now because some visible human authority that chose the canon also designated certain scholars as “Early Church Fathers” and declared other scholars, with “strict and serious” traditions who promoted other canons, as heretics. As a Catholic I put confidence not in a blind ancient process but a specific magisterium, which I think is the same one we see today.

We both agree it was God who inspired the canon.

Hi c,

Ok understand. I would say there kind of was an auto pilot , in the Holy Ghost. I am also encouraged when a magisterium gets it right also,as well as a patristic writing,a theologian ,an individual.

I also think we have precedence in OT where the Auto Pilot is seen to be working in establishing authoritative Holy Writ without any formal canonization.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

HI RC

Agree that we should not make doctrine based on people’s reaction. That is not to say we should not have a reaction to Truth, to a doctrine. I mean it is a solid doctrine for so Christ loved us to die for us that we may have eternal life. We all have a reaction to that statement, one unto life and one unto death.

Yes.

As far as believers holding out or not being baptized, tough to say if their fruits would be any different after baptism. Pretty sure Baptist per say do not have their baptismal doctrine derived from folks who were not baptized. Scripture is explicit that unbelievers go to hell, not unbaptized believers. I am not willing to say that these holdouts are ‘non believers’,especially if they act Christian otherwise.

The parable Jesus gives of the two sons, comes to mind. There are those who say, “Yes” to God, but do not do His will… and there are those who say, “No” but do what is right.

But I am with you.My experience is that 99.99% of believers get baptized in water at least.

I see your point, yet we never know what God judges in their Day.

I think, as LA referenced earlier, that the Spirit coming over the Gentiles before Baptism was unique. Not that it never happens. But Peter made an interesting reaction to it. He COMMANDED them to be Baptized afterwards! Doesn’t this contradict the “Anabaptist” theology that the believer chooses when to make his/her Baptism? Because I see these believers claiming to be Christian while refraining from Baptism for years!

I realize these churches probably don’t encourage refraining from Baptism, but Peter was a lot less passive in the matter, to say the least! It was enough to command they be Baptized.

I feel the Catholic faith sees Baptism in this same level of importance. Yes, proper instruction and consent is required of the person in the age of reason. The Gospel and doctrines should be put before the candidate to allow for willful consent.

 

[benhur]

Can we put this in the context of Paul’s wisdom regarding a Christian married to an unbeliever?

1 Cor.

*To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.14For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.15But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.16Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Now, I don’t want to make a mountain of theology over this passage. But can we agree that Paul Teaches the faith of a believer does place his/her child in a clean state before God?

I won’t assume he is referring to Baptism, but that we can at least see that our children are unclean as offspring of unbelievers, yet made clean as a child of a believer?

This, to me, gives stronger evidence that we have a right to bring them to Baptism than hindering them. Especially when both parents are believers.

Though I think it’s possible Paul is implying the unbeliever, in the example, has allowed the believer to follow his/her faith to bring the children into Baptism. And in this way, the unbeliever is also consecrated through not resisting the faith, even though they may not be fully accepting it themselves.

You see, we consider “belief” and “Baptism” to be bound together. And as for an infant, the belief is on behalf of the parents until the child is able to accept or reject. And in the meantime, they are made (and being made) clean through the forgiveness of Baptism and the commitment to instruct and provide exemplary faithful lives for their children.

Hi rc,

Do not think Paul is saying the unbeliever is sanctified in the same way a believer is sanctified. Something good is there, but I think the good is only how God views the unbeliever, in relation to the believer, and for the sake of the believer, with the ultimate end of personal justification and sanctification of said unbeliever. Do not think the unbeliever is clean like the believer is but the relationship between the two is ‘clean’, set apart for God’s holy purposes.

Again the big presumption is on the baptized infant, that they are indeed born again. You say they are to accept or reject the faith later on, say confirmation, yet how can one accept the faith, believe in the faith, unless they are indeed born again ? (and of course the CC teaches that they are).

We also know one can accept the faith both truly on one hand but others in name only, much like Nicodemus. At least with baptist views, the child is dedicated as an infant, and reared towards the Lord, but with the explicit intent that the child must drink on his own eventually, and meet the living God personally , and beyond a tradition or third party. He must be born again, for he certainly was not as an infant. No ambiguity or assumption, for he was not baptized.

Just my thoughts rc.Thanks.

Blessings.

 

[benhur]

Yes.

The parable Jesus gives of the two sons, comes to mind. There are those who say, “Yes” to God, but do not do His will… and there are those who say, “No” but do what is right.

I see your point, yet we never know what God judges in their Day.

I think, as LA referenced earlier, that the Spirit coming over the Gentiles before Baptism was unique. Not that it never happens. But Peter made an interesting reaction to it. He COMMANDED them to be Baptized afterwards! Doesn’t this contradict the “Anabaptist” theology that the believer chooses when to make his/her Baptism? Because I see these believers claiming to be Christian while refraining from Baptism for years!

I realize these churches probably don’t encourage refraining from Baptism, but Peter was a lot less passive in the matter, to say the least! It was enough to command they be Baptized.

I feel the Catholic faith sees Baptism in this same level of importance. Yes, proper instruction and consent is required of the person in the age of reason. The Gospel and doctrines should be put before the candidate to allow for willful consent.

Agree that baptisms were immediate upon believing in most cases in scripture, if not all, and we should follow suit.

Now for sure we should admonish to hold off till we believe, and count the costs. Perhaps that is why the CC and others have catechumens, or folks who put if off. It is interesting that catechumens are usually referred to a “believers”.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Again the big presumption is on the baptized infant, that they are indeed born again. You say they are to accept or reject the faith later on, say confirmation, yet how can one accept the faith, believe in the faith, unless they are indeed born again ? (and of coure the CC teaches that they are).

We also know one can accept the faith both truly on one hand but others in name only, much like Nicodemus. At least with baptist views, the child is dedicated as an infant, and reared towards the Lord, but with the explicit intent that the child must drink on his own eventually, and meet the living God personally , and not thru a tradition or third party. He must be born again, for he certainly was not as an infant. No ambiguity or assumption, for he was not baptized.

Just my thoughts rc.Thanks.

Blessings.

Hmmm… there is a birth into the faith of these Baptized Infants! They are brought into the saving Ark of Jesus through their parents. And they are made clean.

The complication comes when some never wilfully accept this when reaching the age of reason.

The Anabaptist says when these accept for themselves, they should be properly Baptized “anew”. The Catholic Faith says they should confess their doubt and rejection of the Gospel, yet they need not be “washed” completely. They were already forgiven the uncleanness of Original Sin.

It gets further complicated when parents who baptize their Infants live lives of hypocrisy and are in a state of Mortal sin! This is truly an affliction for any child!

 

[rcwitness]

It is interesting that catechumens are usually referred to a “believers”.

Blessings

Well, I don’t know why? As per adults, you and us would have a very similar view. That is, we are compelled to convert and repent before Baptism. Only we problem believe our Baptism is a part of that process, while you say it is an outward sign of what has been completed. We believe forgiveness is not complete, until received in Baptism (save certain situations where desire exists, yet oportunity and awareness are absent).

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am not sure where I read it.I do remember specific mentioning of all have sinned ,except for Mary. He does have other quotes of her sinlessness but not joined to the scripture of all have sinned. He ,like others , did not believe she was born immaculate

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty (Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin).

I do think all have sinned , or fall short of the glory of God that is to be in us, save Christ.That is ,missing the mark ,the bulls eye, which could mean just not being as good as we should, irregardless of any wrongdoing.

I have heard some claim there can always be exceptions to any rule. For example: " it is given unto every man to die once and thereafter to go to judgement" But we have Enoch and Elijah, who did not. Of course we know that exception because it is very dramatically explicit in scripture (well at least Elijah).

Blessings

Thanks for that quote, benhur. .

I ask your feelings about Romans 3 because that was my final major objection to the Catholic church. Seemed very clear to me that everybody is guilty of sin according to that. But upon further examination of that chapter we see that Paul is referring to Psalm 14 and that Psalm is talking about the non-believers as it distinguishes between God’s people in 14:4.

It’s kind of like my former ingrained view of Jesus on the cross saying “Why have you forsaken me” in Matt 27:46. We know he quotes from the Psalms there but I was taught as a protestant that at this moment God is not with Him because of sin, which seems plausible on the surface, but not so much when you consider the belief in Trinity.

And I do think there are exceptions as we know Jesus did not sin, and i think retarded people don’t sin, neither do babies.

Thanks for the talk.

The Lord be with you.

 

[rcwitness]

It’s kind of like my former ingrained view of Jesus on the cross saying “Why have you forsaken me” in Matt 27:46. We know he quotes from the Psalms there but I was taught as a protestant that at this moment God is not with Him because of sin, which seems plausible on the surface, but not so much when you consider the belief in Trinity.

Hey Lenten,

Not to divert, but this is interesting to me! And I confess it’s a deep and profound mystery, what happened in His hour!

But I lean towards that view that “God” did leave His flesh and blood. This was God not “sustaining” His Son, on account of sin. Therefore He actually died! But knew that God would restore the Spirit back to Him, in the flesh, to glorify Him, in the flesh, with all power!

This is why His flesh and blood are of advantage to us, when we eat in good conscience. It is receiving the Word, just as we receive the Written Word.

 

[commenter]

Hi c,

Ok understand. I would say there kind of was an auto pilot , in the Holy Ghost. I am also encouraged when a magisterium gets it right also,as well as a patristic writing,a theologian ,an individual.

I also think we have precedence in OT where the Auto Pilot is seen to be working in establishing authoritative Holy Writ without any formal canonization.

Blessings

 

[commenter]

Hi c,

Ok understand. I would say there kind of was an auto pilot , in the Holy Ghost. I am also encouraged when a magisterium gets it right also,as well as a patristic writing,a theologian ,an individual.

Blessings

Keep in mind the Gnostics, the Mormons, the Muslims (Koran refers heavily to Christ), and many ancient Christian religions also claim God as their “autopilot” for** their** scriptures, for their canon. Those Christians who now seek to add some books to the NT, and who print bibles omitting Paul’s passages about homosexuality and marriage, also claim the same divine guidance - or autopilot.

Among various competing “divine” autopilots, on what basis does one choose which autopilot is trustworthy?

As more New Testaments are printed with the Gospel of Mary, not in an appendix but mixed among the familiar 4, the role of the Magisterium in 2016 will become clearer.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hey Lenten,

Not to divert, but this is interesting to me! And I confess it’s a deep and profound mystery, what happened in His hour!

But I lean towards that view that “God” did leave His flesh and blood. This was God not “sustaining” His Son, on account of sin. Therefore He actually died! But knew that God would restore the Spirit back to Him, in the flesh, to glorify Him, in the flesh, with all power!

This is why His flesh and blood are of advantage to us, when we eat in good conscience. It is receiving the Word, just as we receive the Written Word.

Matt 27:46 is fascinating no matter how it’s viewed, rc

Thing is, we can’t separate God from God, can we?

newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm

I feel like this another mistake protestants make about the objection as Mary being mother of God. They say well, she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus. But that is not possible since a divine person came out of her womb. He didn’t become divine after He left Mary’s womb.

What’s more likely is He merely speaks these words in Matt 27:46 in the NAME of humanity, completely identifying with us and our condition, but since He is a divine person, He can never actually be forsaken by the Father.

And now my brain hurts lol

 

[commenter]

Hi La ,

While one may say Mary having children is "new’’, some say the ever virgin was birthed in an atmosphere where marriage and children were taught as not as spiritual a life as the contrary. Jerome pretty much says to marry is not to sin, but to be virgin is to do good. He spoke much that a priest should not marry because sex and prayer/ministry /do not mix. Monatsicism also grew out of this partly. So not sure that is the healthiest environment to push forth developing Marion doctrine.

Just as a caution, the hardest cultural bias to notice is the one that impacts our own time and place. We naturally tend to regard our own cultural bias as “enriched insight” while the bias of another culture as a limitation, or blinder - or, “not the healthiest environment”.

A few decades ago I would have said sex was King in America. Now it is a god. To put it another way, 2016 America I am “not sure this is the healthiest environment” to objectively evaluate another culture’s attitude on sex. We have too much blinder and limitation. We don’t know how much enriched insight the people who developed ancient marian doctrine, monasticism, celibacy, etc may have had, that our own culture has lost.

 

[PJM]

I read them and agree.

.

Thank you my FRIEND!

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I have never heard such a claim before
of course they are widely accepted by Sola Scriptura practicing Christians

My friend, I’m unsure of exactly what you mean “by SUCH a claim”? If you’d cafe to explain further, I’d be happy to reply, amplify and explain the TRUE meaning so fht shared passages.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[rcwitness]

Matt 27:46 is fascinating no matter how it’s viewed, rc

Thing is, we can’t separate God from God, can we?

newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm

I feel like this another mistake protestants make about the objection as Mary being mother of God. They say well, she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus. But that is not possible since a divine person came out of her womb. He didn’t become divine after He left Mary’s womb.

What’s more likely is He merely speaks these words in Matt 27:46 in the NAME of humanity, completely identifying with us and our condition, but since He is a divine person, He can never actually be forsaken by the Father.

And now my brain hurts lol

lol! I’m not suggesting the Father forsook His Son in that sense. We know that Jesus went down to the Spirits in prison, yet His body was in the tomb. I’m suggesting, that during His passion and for three days, the Father forsook (sacrificed) the body and blood of His Son. This Body and blood did all that the Spirit willed, yet still tasted of death!