Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13727251]Pride Jon. You know it, and I know it. But politics definitely played a part, and do to this day. But as you said earlier, majority means nothing. If it did, Arianism would be true, as something like 80% of Christendom believed in it. It is hard for Orthodox to prove ever, that would be putting words into the mouth of Eastern bishops of the first four centuries. In reality, they are silent.

Perhaps they are silent because his primacy was never considered supremacy, never considered universal jurisdiction.

Cyprian, whom you quoted earlier is an interesting case. He had no problem with papal supremacy, until the supremacy was exercised on him. Was the conflict with the pope the sin of his that both Augustine and Jerome say only his martyrdom redeemed? Something to think about. Also, as was shown earlier, when Victor exercised supremacy, the East in the end did what he had asked of them. It is funny that not one bishop of the East never wrote that he did not have the power to do that.

I don’t see how you can claim Victor exercised supremacy, as opposed to primacy, but be that as it may, the issue remains. If pride is the issue, it is on both sides, as I’m sure you would agree.

Jon, we read the same Bible as Lutherans, {except for the disputed books) but we draw different conclusions. How can that be?

Actually, we read those books, too. But the answer is clear: human sin. It isn’t Tradition, or scripture, or how we come to use them in hermeneutics. It isn’t whether or not one believes the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church. ISTM that even if we cannot yet take each others’ hand in unity, we should both take the Spirit’s hand, so He can lead us together.
I pray that be the case.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

You are joking correct? As was posted earlier, the rabbis quite correctly viewed the Torah alone as incomplete, and impossible to understand without the Oral Tradition, which also has the backing of the Holy Spirit.

There are at least three passages in the New Testament that contradict your view that Scripture is clear. They are Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts. Second Peter where he states no prophecy is open to private…And Second Peter, where he says Paul’s writings are hard to understand. They would not be hard to understand if they were clear. There would never be a need for councils if Scriptures were clear. The fracturing of Protestantism, with all holding to a view that Scripture is clear, quite obviously shows you to be wrong.

Two last questions and an observation. For any Protestant whose denomination does not hold that it is a sin to miss Sunday services, why go? Do you go for fellowship? Because if Scripture is so clear, surely that preacher cannot possibly teach you anything from the Gospels, that you should not already have arrived at if you’ve read the clear Bible.

1. I didn’t argue against tradition , it is authoritative
2. The Etheopian did not have the Holy Spirit because he was unsaved , he needed it explained to him
3. Second Peter didn’t attack my statement
   4.the Fracturing of reformation churches proves nothing but that we are sinful people
4. As to your last statement, your leaving human sin , and flawed understanding out of the equation
5. Scripture has clarity , but is also difficult to understand at the same time , tradition ( the councils , fathers , reformers etc ) brings more clarity to it , as it is authoritative

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

This seems stupid to say or ask, but I thought Jerome thought the apostle John greater than Peter, because Peter was married and John was not.

I know the context is to marry or not to, but if the apostles are equal to begin with, then maybe marriage could be a hampering. But if Peter were the greatest, then Jerome is saying quite a bit about what marriage can do negatively. It seems to knock down Peter below John by two notches (from greater, to equal, to less than).

What a mess.

Blessings

" But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although
elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends
upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a
head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why
was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age,
because Peter was the eider:…Peter is an Apostle, and
John is an Apostle - the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter
is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a
prophet. " #788 Jerome against Jovianus

patriarchywebsite.com/bib-patriarchy/Jerome-Against-Jovinianus.txt

Hi Ben. Cannot someone be greater than another, but the other person still have authority over you? Here is a very nuanced answer to the passage you quote. biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num53.htm

 

[Duane1966]

Perhaps they are silent because his primacy was never considered supremacy, never considered universal jurisdiction.

But then you run into a problem with Clement telling, not advising, the Corinthians what to do. And he says if they disobey him, they are sinning against God. How can it be a sin against God to disobey someone who has no jurisdiction over you? Would not the real sin be someone trying to exercise jurisdiction when they have no right to it?

I don’t see how you can claim Victor exercised supremacy, as opposed to primacy, but be that as it may, the issue remains.

Jon, what does primacy entail? As I am sure you know, Victor threatened to excommunicate the Eastern bishops if they did not change their liturgical practice concerning Easter. Here is the story, from the same website as the OP:

Several popes tolerated these contrary liturgical practices, since each practice traced back to at least one Apostle. Pope Victor took a different course, deciding to unify the entire Church’s Easter calendar. He ordered the Asian churches to abandon their old practice in favor of the Easter Sunday dating. They refused. The Church historian Eusebius records their response, written by a bishop named Polycrates. Their basis for refusal is that this was the unbroken practice of the Apostle John, St. Polycarp, and others.

The letter has a few interesting characteristics. First, it refers to the Apostle “John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.” If these second-century bishops are to be believed, this means that the Apostle John wore the golden plate of a high priest (Exodus 28:36-38). This gives us a clear indication of the fact the early Church understood their clergy in a sacerdotal way: that is, we have priests, not just pastors.

Second, the letter answers Pope Victor’s demands by quoting Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than man.” But that’s St. Peter’s response to the high priest. It’s not the sort of thing you say to someone beneath you. So even in arguing that Victor has exceeded his authority over them, the Asian bishops aren’t really refuting that he has authority there. As Campion says, Pope Victor isn’t treated like a foreign power or an outside meddler.**

Third, both sides in the dispute are appealing to Tradition, to chains of unbroken practice from the Apostles down to the present (and since John seems to have instituted a different practice than the other Apostles, both sides of the dispute seem to be right). We have what could be a beautiful story about coexisting liturgical traditions, the embrace of different customs, and the diversity of the Body of Christ. Only that’s not how this story turns out. Instead, it was an ugly clash of obedience and authority on the one hand, with liturgical tradition on the other.

That’s because Pope Victor responded to the Asian bishops’ disobedience with a mass excommunication of those who refuse to switch to Easter Sunday. Other bishops — even ones who agreed with Victor — were, quite reasonably, shocked at the harshness of this punishment. St. Irenaeus (who held to an Easter Sunday date, and a believer in the Roman papacy) was one of the bishops who intervened to ensure that cooler heads prevailed. He pointed out that Pope Anacletus had communed with St. Polycarp, despite their difference on this matter.

It’s not entirely clear (at least to me, and to the sources that I’ve read) what happened to the excommunication after Irenaeus and the other bishops spoke up. Eusebius concludes his account by saying simply:

Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named [Irenaeus’ name comes from the Greek word for peace], became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches

This leaves open the question of why the question was moot. Was it because Victor recanted the excommunications? Or because the excommunications were there to stay? My hunch is the former, simply because we don’t hear of the excommunications later on, but that’s all it is: a hunch.

In any case, the ultimate outcome of the conflict is striking: Victor won. Asia Minor switched from Passover Easter (a tradition established by the Apostle John!) to Easter Sunday, at the demand of the pope. Within a relatively short period of time, those still holding on to the 14th of Nisan dating have been reduced to an insignificant pocket, and as far as I know, they have since gone extinct.

Notice Jon, those bishops felt he had exceeded his authority, not that he did not have authority over them. Jon, if any of the Church fathers thought Victor did not have the authority to do what he did, surely one of them would have written about it at a later date. Instead silence, from both East and West. Again, what is not refuted even the Protestant scholar Harnak realizes:

If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been an innovation then someone would have opposed it, as the Fathers were not slow in doing with innovations in the Church when they cropped up from time to time. However, the Primacy of Rome and the claims of its bishops was no secret or innovation. If it was, then not one single patristic opponent of the decisions of Rome ever claimed that Rome lacked the authority to render the decisive judgment on matters of doctrine or discipline. This is significant, because there were Fathers who had both doctrinal and disciplinary disputes with the Roman See from time to time

 

[Duane1966]

1. The Etheopian did not have the Holy Spirit because he was unsaved , he needed it explained to him

So, you are saying that anyone who does not understand a Scriptural passage does not have the Holy Spirit?

1. Second Peter didn’t attack my statement

Here is your quote:

As we’ve stated , Scriptural teaching is clear ,

Here is what second Peter says:

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,m 16speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand*** that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Again I say to you, if it is hard to understand, then it is not clear. And because it is hard to understand, it is being distorted to their own destruction. Why are they ignorant? Because it is unclear. I agree with you, kind of. Let’s say scriptural teaching is clear, til it ain’t.

1. As to your last statement, your leaving human sin , and flawed understanding out of the equation

Actually, I’m not. Since we are all sinners and flawed human beings, the chances of us reading many passages of Scripture and getting it right, without guidance, is a daunting task for most people, whether they have the Spirit, or not. But if you need guidance, in reality it is not clear to you yet.

1. Scripture has clarity , but is also difficult to understand at the same time , tradition ( the councils , fathers , reformers etc ) brings more clarity to it , as it is authoritative

And so Scripture can never be placed above Tradition, because without Tradition, it’s amazing how clear Scripture, suddenly becomes muddled. As an example, I give you Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Does Jesus allow divorce and remarriage for adultery? You look at official answers from some denominations, and they say it is clearly yes. Yet, I believe it is only one ECF that held that position. Or contraception. Or abortion. Or…fill in the blank.

Starwars, you might be onto something when you blame flawed understanding. I think the flaw is thinking an inspired, but inanimate book, which many people will twist the words to accommodate their life of sin, should be the final authority. When instead, Jesus set up shepherds, to guide and be the final authority. And since Jesus did set up the Church as the final authority, making an inspired, but inanimate, book the final authority, is perhaps the greatest sin of all.

 

[Duane1966]

So, you are saying that anyone who does not understand a Scriptural passage does not have the Holy Spirit?

Here is your quote:Here is what second Peter says:Again I say to you, if it is hard to understand, then it is not clear. And because it is hard to understand, it is being distorted to their own destruction. Why are they ignorant? Because it is unclear. I agree, kind of. Let’s say scriptural teaching is clear, til it ain’t.

Actually, I’m not. Since we are all sinners and flawed human beings, the chances of us reading many passages of Scripture and getting it right, without guidance, is a daunting task for most people, whether they have the Spirit, or not. But if you need guidance, in reality it is not clear to you yet.
And so Scripture can never be placed above Tradition, because without Tradition, it’s amazing how clear Scripture, suddenly becomes muddled. As an example, I give you Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Does Jesus allow divorce and remarriage for adultery? You look at official answers from some denominations, and they say it is clearly yes. Yet, I believe it is only one ECF that held that position. Or contraception. Or abortion. Or…fill in the blank.

Starwars, you might be onto something with your flawed understanding. I think the flaw is thinking an inspired, but inanimate book, which many people will twist the words to accommodate their life of sin, should be the final authority. When instead, Jesus set up shepherds, to guide and be the final authority.

 

[MaryT777]

Meaning of sola scriptura:

Bible the final authority
Tradition secondary authority , and authoritative

sola scriptura = prima scriptura , it dosent mean a lack of tradition

The Augs confessions are then considered Lutheran Tradition? Is that what you are saying?

Mary.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The Augs confessions are then considered Lutheran Tradition? Is that what you are saying?

Mary.

The Augsburg confession( 1530) is a part of Tradition, yes

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Agree.big time. That is the trouble with freedom of conscience. Still, I think the Lord knows all His sheep, despite many clusterings in His one big Pasture.

Blessings

With regards to the ‘fracturing’, it could be claimed, and often is, that the Roman Catholic Church ‘fractures’. IOW, this seems to make the Church responsible for those who break away from it. Nonetheless, statistically, it is obvious that some ecclesiastical communities DO in fact break away, directly, from the Catholic Church. However it is just as obvious that, numerically, the ‘fracturing’ occurs at a MUCH higher rate with those communions which have already broken away from the Church than it does with the Church.

Given the above, it seems clear that the further you get away from the teachings of the Catholic Church, the greater the rate of the ‘fracturing’. Those communions which are 4th, 5th and 6th generation iterations after the initial break from the Church are the MOST likely to split again.

As for ‘freedom of conscience’ ben, where do the Scriptures say that a Christian should ‘follow their conscience’ and start up a new version of Christianity? I ask, knowing of course, that Scripture is very clear in calling us to unity.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

As for ‘freedom of conscience’ ben, where do the Scriptures say that a Christian should ‘follow their conscience’ and start up a new version of Christianity?

Hi Topper,

Where does it say not to be fully convinced, not to follow Him with your will, to against the conscience of the new man ?

The fact is all of us follow that which we have been* led* to believe is to be the Truth.

The fact is we do have the ability, even responsibility, to discern who has the words of eternal life.

Such dignity is highlighted when Jesus asks the apostles, as men, not apostles, "Whom do you say that I am ?’. The creator of the universe acknowledges, even challenges each individual, this free will, this ability to have discernment, even conscience, of Truth.

By the way, Jesus , Peter, and the apostles, and even we are considered by the once True religion of the world, Judaism, as having followed convictions/conscience and started our own “version”. They just do not believe we have revelation, as individuals and as a ecclesia, from the Father.

Scripture does not say just go start a new church. We are to be unified in Truth. But Scripture also says there will be division, and misinterpretations and false doctrines. Now we all discern as to when one is acting like a Korah, or a righteous prophet, truth giver. We also have to determine do we have righteous indignation to a schismatic, or unrighteous denouncement of a truth heralder. Both happened in the OT and I dare say also in the new down to today.

Blessings

PS- We are to stick together, even in imperfection. But there is also a time to split. It is like eating a fish. The meat is delicious and good, and once in awhile you pick out a bone. But if there are too many bones and difficult to get just the meat ? I am sure you have had to spit out the mouthful when you just can’t get all the bones out, and you dare not swallow, even with a Saint Blaise’s blessing.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben. Cannot someone be greater than another, but the other person still have authority over you? Here is a very nuanced answer to the passage you quote. biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num53.htm

OK. Took a look thanks.
I still like that Jerome at least admits the apostles are equal, and also have the keys. And again the context of John being greater is from being a virgin. To me has more bearing on Marion views, and why they are “fitting”.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

OK. Took a look thanks.
I still like that Jerome at least admits the apostles are equal, and also have the keys. And again the context of John being greater is from being a virgin. To me has more bearing on Marion views, and why they are “fitting”.

Blessings

Ben, John may be greater in the kingdom of heaven, but that does not mean that Peter did not have authority over him here on earth, after Pentecost. But your quote from Jerome actually proves my point, because Jerome is admitting right here, that to prevent schism, one of them had authority. Jerome just wonders why it is not John.

yet** one among the twelve is chosen** so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.

Now Chrysostom takes a view that James, John, and Peter are greater than the others. That’s why you see them at the Transfiguration, and He takes them into the garden of Gethsemane.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal,** but the three were above the rest; *and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact to the last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ ***And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’ And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbor ever so little, God will not overlook it.” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])

Something interesting to ponder about is this question. We know Jesus made them all priests at the same time, but did He make them all bishops at the same time? Some early saints say no.

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,

Where does it say not to be fully convinced, not to follow Him with your will, to against the conscience of the new man ?

Ben, when I read your appeal to the ‘conscience of the new man’, what I see is an appeal to the Private Judgment of the individual, and I think that we ALL recognize that Private Interpretation of Scriptures is primarily what has led to all of the ‘fracturing’ within Protestantism.

Let’s take a look at the comments of two

“Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial translation of the Bible into the vernacular……. **It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation. **

When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” (of course Luther never said “Here I stand…….” –Topper) Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4

When did man’s totally fallible conscience become to be placed in such a presumably infallible role?

Lutheran Biographer Scott Hendrix comments on Luther’s statement at Worms:

“….Luther made is final statement: ‘Unless I am convinced otherwise by evidence from scripture or incontestable arguments, I remain bound by the Scripture I have put forward. **As long as my conscience is captive to the word of God, **I neither can nor will recant, since **it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. **God help me. Amen.

It was a loaded reply that it still debated. What were ‘incontestable arguments’’? Any argument can be contested. What did ‘conscience’ mean to Luther in 1521?" “Martin Luther, Visionary Reformer”, Scott H. Hendrix (2015)

With regard to the ‘conscience’ the celebrated Lutheran Theologian Paul Tillich informs us:

“It is Luther who derives a new concept of conscience from the experience of justification through faith; neither Paul nor Augustine did so.” Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 145

At Worms, and before at Augsburg with Cajetan, and Leipzig with Eck, Luther demonstrated that he placed his own personal, independent, private understandings and his conscience above all the popes and Councils with all of their thousands of Theologians, On the face of it it seems pretty rash doesn’t it? If everybody else did that, then wouldn’t it lead to the massive ‘fracturing’ that we have seen over the last 500 years?

Given the history of ‘fracturing’ within Protestantism over the last 500 years, does it seem possible to you ben that the unity that Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture called for could possibly be maintained IF the individual consciences rule over the interpretations of the Church that Christ established on earth for ALL?

In order to advance our dialogue ben, could you give me an example of what Luther called an incontestable argument, one that once presented, would HAVE to be accepted as Truth by ALL?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

Ben, when I read your appeal to the ‘conscience of the new man’, what I see is an appeal to the Private Judgment of the individual, and I think that we ALL recognize that Private Interpretation of Scriptures is primarily what has led to all of the ‘fracturing’ within Protestantism.

Hi Topper,

Private judgement as a scriptural term, ala Peter, refers to wrong interpretations apart from God’s original Spirit led Writ. Private judgement can be done by an individual , by a cleric/office, by a magisterium, by a council. To apply “private” to individual" only is misleading to the Petrine quote.

Agree that all wrong interpretations lead to fracturing, no matter who does it. While some churches have more fracturing (P’S) other may have a different problem, of members abiding/remaining in leaven doctrine/practice (but not fracturing). It is a fine balance, done in glass houses. We see each others weaknesses, and could be for the better, challenging our “walk”.

Blessings

 

[ericc]

Hi Topper,

Private judgement as a scriptural term, ala Peter, refers to wrong interpretations apart from God’s original Spirit led Writ.

Who decides it is right/wrong? Self? If it is self, then it falls right back to private interpretation. The individual has no way to know. The individual has no assurance nor authority to decide. The individual can not bind on earth/heaven. Self -given authority is no authority. The authority has been given to the Church.

I think the biggest hurdle is authority.

 

[ericc]

Then the question remains, why did none of the eastern patriarchates side with the Bishop of Rome in 1054 (please don’t tell me politics, as that was a thousand years ago)? Their claim, not mine, has for more than a thousand years is that St. Peter’s primacy is not one of power, or jurisdiction, or supremacy, but of honor.
Their claim remains today, that Peter is an apostle, but he did not have, ever, supremacy.

Jon

The responsibility to feed,lead the lambs and sheep was a direct instruction to Peter by Christ himself. Christ didn’t charge the other apostles with this added responsibility.

Based upon this divine instruction, Peter doesn’t need the consent of the other apostles to feed/lead lambs and sheep. Moses didn’t need the permission of the other tribes similarly. He has the mandate even though some didn’t really respect him that much with all that partying in his absence or complaints. The other apostles could all object if they so wish but that would not relieve Peter of his responsibilities of strengthening his brethren, whether they like it or not. Some, if not all, Patriachs of the other Sees have one time or the other, accepted Rome’s lead. Some have appealed to Rome for assistance, guidance, verification and so on. Unless you are claiming the other sees have NEVER EVER acknowledged Rome has the final say, then let us see some evidence. But if the other sees do have already historical precedence of accepting Rome’s lead position, subsequent Patriachs that reject Rome only managed to show rebellion or defiance but not prove that Rome’s lead role never existed or is invalid.

 

[JonNC]

The responsibility to feed,lead the lambs and sheep was a direct instruction to Peter by Christ himself. Christ didn’t charge the other apostles with this added responsibility.

Based upon this divine instruction, Peter doesn’t need the consent of the other apostles to feed/lead lambs and sheep. Moses didn’t need the permission of the other tribes similarly. He has the mandate even though some didn’t really respect him that much with all that partying in his absence or complaints. The other apostles could all object if they so wish but that would not relieve Peter of his responsibilities of strengthening his brethren, whether they like it or not. Some, if not all, Patriachs of the other Sees have one time or the other, accepted Rome’s lead. Some have appealed to Rome for assistance, guidance, verification and so on. Unless you are claiming the other sees have NEVER EVER acknowledged Rome has the final say, then let us see some evidence. But if the other sees do have already historical precedence of accepting Rome’s lead position, subsequent Patriachs that reject Rome only managed to show rebellion or defiance but not prove that Rome’s lead role never existed or is invalid.

Who said that St Peter, or even the Bishop of Rome didn’t or doesn’t have a leadership role. That is evident from scripture. What is not evident is that this means the Pope has supremacy. You can phrase it as rebellion and defiance if you want, but ISTM that approach has worked particularly well over the last thousand years in returning the one True Church to unity.
As for your claim that the pope doesn’t need the other’s consent, that seems to make councils irrelevant. I would disagree with that position.

Jon

 

[ericc]

Who said that St Peter, or even the Bishop of Rome didn’t or doesn’t have a leadership role. That is evident from scripture.

I didn’t . You must have mistaken me for someone else who said that

What is not evident is that this means the Pope has supremacy. You can phrase it as rebellion and defiance if you want, but ISTM that approach has worked particularly well over the last thousand years in returning the one True Church to unity.

But I am not establishing what is working or not. Scriptures did indicate that Christ charged Peter to feed/lead lambs/sheep? And Christ didn’t require Peter to seek approval from his fellow brother apostles, right? And if Peter were to ask (name removed by moderator)uts from his fellow apostles, it is his prerogative and good brotherly manners. But it is not mandatory compulsion.

As for your claim that the pope doesn’t need the other’s consent, that seems to make councils irrelevant. I would disagree with that position.

Of course councils are relevant. You need everyone there to discuss and present evidence and make a case for the issues on hand often times quoting tradition and scriptures.

And of course there were times when Rome wasn’t invited. Does that make the
council irrelevant? But without Rome’s assent to the proposed canons, those will never be recognized as universal. We have seen line veto of canon e.g. everything else is ok except xyz.

What I am trying to establish is that Peter’s leadership role is clearly scriptural and that is a responsibility Christ charged him personally to carry out. If you agree with this so far, we can discuss how wide ranging Peter’s jurisdiction lies and the manner on how he is supposed to carry out this responsibility. Whether we agree on the process and coverage is a separate matter. Whether his fellow bishops wanted to cooperate or not is also a separate matter. I want to establish that a special leadership role for Peter is commonly agreed and not just a cosmetic special place of honor. Jesus won’t ask him 3 times just to be a pretty flower vase but to actually strengthen his brothers. Those who refuse to cooperate with his chosen representative are actually telling his Master that they are rejecting his chosen representative. It is not inappropriate to regard that as rebellion. Something similar to that of Korah.

 

[benhur]

Who decides it is right/wrong?

Hi T,

I would also say the church, including magisteriums, presbyters/bishops, councils, and last I heard they are all compromised of individuals, participating as in the ecclesia.

Self?

Self is not immune from understanding, right from wrong, or divine revelation

If it is self, then it falls right back to private interpretation.

Again you are misrepresenting the term" private’’,in place of "individual’’.

The individual has no way to know.The individual has no assurance …

Topper, that is a bombshell. The full abdicating of the self dignity and deepest essence of man before God. The fruit a fully institutionalized religion.

Christ asks everyone,“whom do men (you) say that I am”. He did not say whom does the One Tue religion (Judaism at the time), or the magisterium, or the high priest, or the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees say that I am (though he knew their answers). The latter certainly felt that Peter, a disciple of a renegade “Rabbi”, had no authoritative way to know, with assurance that Christ was the Lord and Messiah. Divine revelation happens to all, who like Peter, genuinely declare Christ as Messiah and thus enter in to the eclessia.

“My sheep know my voice”. ''Little children, you have an unction from the Holy Ghost and know all things".

"…because that which is known about God is evident within them; for* God made it evident to them.*

“that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the* full assurance of understanding*, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself,”

“I thought, ‘Age should speak; advanced years should teach wisdom.’
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of* the Almighty giveth them understanding.”*

'Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God". We both agree that the Church is the prime conveyor of His Word. Now each individual must (and has) decide(d) for himself just which church discerns best.

The individual can not bind on earth/heaven.

Again, we both love the church, but you go too far in institutional separation, in the things of God.

Self -given authority is no authority.

Absolutely agree. The pointing finger goes both ways.

The authority has been given to the Church.

That is right. It certainly is not to secular rulers, nor other religions.

The church does have offices and giftings, all exercising authority. A layperson is not devoid of giftings and a share of authority.

Truth is authoritative, and rests by giftings and anointing on the Church, and seeks dominion over the world, till His return

I think the biggest hurdle is authority.

Agree.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

**“It is Luther who derives a new concept of conscience **from the experience of justification through faith; neither Paul nor Augustine did so.” Tillich, “The Protestant Era”, pg. 145

Hi Topper,

I am not Lutheran proficient, save as it is relevant to all P’s… Of course the CC must say it is new (just as Judaism said "Christianity " is new (as in wrong,private). Others would say restoration, which would make it new only for those at the time of restoration, but not to the originals.

If their is a newness in terminologies, they are only a response to existing conditions, which evolved and were not there as during Paul or Augustine’s time.

At Worms, and before at Augsburg with Cajetan, and Leipzig with Eck, Luther demonstrated that he placed his own personal, independent, private understandings and his conscience above all the popes and Councils with all of their thousands of Theologians,

Such self owned dignity of a Catholic clergyman. He certainly believed much and all from many popes, and many councils, and many theologians, some even contemporary.

On the face of it it seems pretty rash doesn’t it?

The times made it seem so. But he was not the first voice of reform. He was the beautiful crest of the wave, one finally allowed to ride all the way to shore.

If everybody else did that, then wouldn’t it lead to the massive ‘fracturing’ that we have seen over the last 500 years?

That is right. Now if the Church listened, maybe we could have been settled down like the Orthodox somewhat.

Given the history of ‘fracturing’ within Protestantism over the last 500 years, does it seem possible to you ben that the unity that Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture called for could possibly be maintained IF the individual consciences rule over the interpretations of the Church that Christ established on earth for ALL?

Again, unity at what cost ?

In order to advance our dialogue ben, could you give me an example of what Luther called an incontestable argument, one that once presented, would HAVE to be accepted as Truth by ALL?

Not sure of His 90 some points. I am sure one would be that infallibility is conditional.

Blessings

PS- Agree that Luther was a pivot point to where and how authority rests in the church. Thank you for quotes.