Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[PRmerger]

They exegete the text to discern the conclusion.

Can you tell me where Scripture says we are to do this?

I have already stated when it comes to scriptural interpretation, the magisterium appears to do that very rarely, If for example we disagree on Romans 11 as we did earlier, can we ask the church what the true meaning is? I don’t think they have put out any infallible interpretation of it…

Right. We understand it in the context of the Church’s entire infallible teaching, its infallible proclamation regarding soteriology.

My other response would be; how does one know that Rome is the true church which can give you this interpretation?

Oh, I love this question! I’ll come back to it.

Seems there are other bodies that also claim this infallibility.

Who else claims the charism of infallibility? (And please cite your source!)

 

[Lincoln7]

What I meant by that is that we must always interpret Scriptures in the context of the Faith that gave us the Scriptures–and it is in that that we have the assurance of infallibility. Not with each specific verse.

I would say that this one depends upon when you think the scriptures became discerned in the church. if like I do you ascribe to a very early view of canon development, then ‘the faith that gave us the scriptures’ is seen in the scriptures and extra biblical literature prior to this dating period is very slim.

But I am uncertain how this applies to our discussion here. We understand that each and every verse, and our personal interpretation of such, cannot contradict the kerygma. Thus, while the Church has not infallibly defined the verses we’re discussing, it HAS infallibly defined and proclaimed our soteriology, so I don’t see a problem here. You have a fallible interpretation. We have an infallible one.

Kergyma? Is that a typo for 'dogma? Anyways… As I’ve said in my last post, this presupposes that Rome is indeed this true and infallible church, what of the other bodies that also claim this? It’s hard to test an absolute authority…

I am very interested in how you see confession in light of John 20. I didn’t notice in the article you cited the author making any reference to John 20.

Well I would say that the verses in John 20 gives the apostles and thus in some respect, church elders, the authority to proclaim the forgiveness of sins. Calvin (as usual haha) here: m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.x.iv.html

Could you tell me, then, how many Christian denominations there actually are (and please cite your source.)

If I may ask you’re source for the 33,000 number? There is a post on aomin about it here:aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218

Not sure what you mean here. What teaching has changed? (I’ll take the “overnight” to be a hyperbole here.)

And I think that you are mistaken in maintaining that the Church has ever had a “new” dogma. If a dogma is defined that doesn’t mean that it’s “new”. Take, for example, the Trinity. When was it defined? Does that mean that it wasn’t believed from the earliest days of Christianity?

As in, for example Papal infallibility; Catholics were free to debate and disagree with it, and indeed did prior to the Vatican council. After it however it is part of the deposit of faith and they have to believe it. You are quite right with the Trinity, it has always been believed, scripture is abundantly clear on it… That’s why I accept it, it’s in scripture, Nicea, Chalcedon all are in agreement with scripture. They testify to what has universal witness from the earliest days, but some things now held as dogma in the CC don’t have this.

Some of my musings… Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

If I am ask you’re source for the 33,000 number?

Not sure where you’re getting 33,000. I said tens of thousands.

You said that was incorrect.

What, then, is the correct number, and how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

I don’t subscribe to the view that the canon was utterly unknown until it was decided by the church, im sure there are some posts between me and Gary on this earlier in the thread…

I haven’t proffered that the canon was “utterly unknown” until it was decided by the Church.

Only that you, today, ONLY know that Revelations is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not because of the Church.

And the Church was infallible in making this judgement–unless you believe she made an error somewhere?

 

[PRmerger]

Ratehr the canon is ‘received’ or ‘discerned’, the books of scripture are authoritative as they are the word of God, not because the church declares them to be.

Right. The Church has never proclaimed that Hebrews is inspired because she declared them to be.

I am simply making this point: each and every time you quote from the book of Hebrews as inspired, you are giving tacit acknowledgement to the authority of the Church in discerning, for you, that this is indeed *theopneustos. *

 

[PRmerger]

Kergyma? Is that a typo for 'dogma?

No, I meant kerygma.

It is the good news, as spread by the Apostles, both in written and oral form. IOW: the Word of God.

 

[Lincoln7]

Can you tell me where Scripture says we are to do this?[exegete the text]

“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Acts 17:11

The Lord seemed to hold the pharisees accountable for knowing what scripture meant;

“Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures’: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” - Matthew 21:42

"But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” - Matthew 22:29

“And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,” - Acts 17:2 - Paul did just this very thing; he exegete the text in debate…

“for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.” - Acts 18:28 - Appolos did the same.

Right. We understand it in the context of the Church’s entire infallible teaching, its infallible proclamation regarding soteriology.

Again, this presupposes Rome is infallible…

Who else claims the charism of infallibility? (And please cite your source!)

Jehovas Witnesses - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses see the footnote they put…
LDS in some way claim to be the final and correct church - see their wiki page…

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

I haven’t proffered that the canon was “utterly unknown” until it was decided by the Church.

Only that you, today, ONLY know that Revelations is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not because of the Church.

And the Church was infallible in making this judgement–unless you believe she made an error somewhere?

ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/authority-and-canon/ - Ligonier on canon.
This does not mean the church is infallible… There was no infallible pronouncement on the canon until Trent, and people got on fine before this knowing they had the right books.

I am simply making this point: each and every time you quote from the book of Hebrews as inspired, you are giving tacit acknowledgement to the authority of the Church in discerning, for you, that this is indeed theopneustos.

I’m giving glory to God for giving us his living word, received in the first century by his church, handed down through the ages. It does not mean that it took an infallible body to say they are correct… This line of discussion is why I posted the link to that book… It’s a simply massive historical discussion were trying to put in the comment boxes!

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

No, I meant kerygma.

It is the good news, as spread by the Apostles, both in written and oral form. IOW: the Word of God.

Lincs feels slightly silly… How I didn’t register that word… Ah well!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wasn’t thinking infallibility but here’s a link.

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&sa=U&ei=9CuLT7SkI-r20gHxocjtCQ&ved=0CBsQFjAC&sig2=SqojkJ0f44k5nZnCw7Vl9w&usg=AFQjCNF69GF8IgUrWlJanPsYhz3oF1Qiog

I get the impression that the Reformed congregation is still in a state of evolution. Yet still holds to the idea of the elect, and still contemplating the Biblical Covenants?

610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles “on the night he was betrayed”. On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men:

“This is my body which is given for you.” “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant:

“For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.” CCC

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Matthew 14:19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

Matthew 15:36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people

John 17:19 “And I sanctify myself for them, that they shall be sanctified in the truth.”

Matthew 26:20 And when it was evening he reclined with his twelve Disciples.

Matthew 26:19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

Mark 14:17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve.

Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.

Thus who has the authority to Consecrate the Eucharist?

The Church is the body of Christ with Christ as its head. All are rightfully called to its supper.

I still see no way around this Covenant, or the Priesthood established through Apostolic Succession in it , which is acknowledged in other than Rome

 

[Lincoln7]

Wasn’t thinking infallibility but here’s a link.

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm&sa=U&ei=9CuLT7SkI-r20gHxocjtCQ&ved=0CBsQFjAC&sig2=SqojkJ0f44k5nZnCw7Vl9w&usg=AFQjCNF69GF8IgUrWlJanPsYhz3oF1Qiog

I get the impression that the Reformed congregation is still in a state of evolution. Yet still holds to the idea of the elect, and still contemplating the Biblical Covenants?

610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles “on the night he was betrayed”. On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men:

“This is my body which is given for you.” “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant:

“For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.” CCC

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Matthew 14:19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

Matthew 15:36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people

John 17:19 “And I sanctify myself for them, that they shall be sanctified in the truth.”

Matthew 26:20 And when it was evening he reclined with his twelve Disciples.

Matthew 26:19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

Mark 14:17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve.

Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.

Thus who has the authority to Consecrate the Eucharist?

The Church is the body of Christ with Christ as its head. All are rightfully called to its supper.

I still see no way around this Covenant, or the Priesthood established through Apostolic Succession in it , which is acknowledged in other than Rome

Who has the authority to administer or direct the celebration of the Eucahrist? Well scripture is pretty clear that it’s to be done by the elders of the church. There is no disagreement with us here Gary. I don’t see however in any of these verses posted any sort of proof of a propitiatory Eucharistic sacrifice or a sacrificial priesthood… Just scriptural indications that when celebrating the Eucharist, there should be people in authority presiding over it… We have already I think stated our differences on this in previous posts.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Who has the authority to administer or direct the celebration of the Eucahrist? Well scripture is pretty clear that it’s to be done by the elders of the church. There is no disagreement with us here Gary. Lincs.

Right have that, where we resided before. Apostolic Succession.

What I’m saying, perhaps I missed the link about the statement of faith in which the church does believe. I see many theological ideas and thoughts, and open end thinking asking for feedback? I don’t see the absolute belief of the Congregation. Did I miss it?

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Lincs feels slightly silly… How I didn’t register that word… Ah well!

Does Lincs always speak in the third person when he’s feeling slightly silly?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Does Lincs always speak in the third person when he’s feeling slightly silly?

I thnk there’s a few different Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Acts 17:11

The Lord seemed to hold the pharisees accountable for knowing what scripture meant;

“Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures’: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” - Matthew 21:42

"But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” - Matthew 22:29

“And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,” - Acts 17:2 - Paul did just this very thing; he exegete the text in debate…

“for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.” - Acts 18:28 - Appolos did the same.

Lincs, let’s say I am a stranger from outer space and you’re trying to show me what the Bible says about what to do if 2 people read Scripture and come to completely different understandings…

And you say, “Read these verses, Martian, and you’ll understand what we’re supposed to do!”

I think it would be fair to conclude that the Martian would respond with, “Huh? Those verses say that people read the Scriptures and discussed them…but none of them addresses what to do if 2 people have differing opinions!”

So, to bring it back to our discussion, where do we go from here? You say the Scriptures mean and I say the Scriptures mean . Now what do we do? Continue to “examine the Scriptures daily”?

Nope. That’s not going to lead either of us to any changes. You know that.

So in your paradigm, how do we resolve this?

 

[PRmerger]

I thnk there’s a few different Lincs.

Who knew that Gary Taylor could be funny?

 

[PRmerger]

My other response would be; how does one know that Rome is the true church which can give you this interpretation?

Best. Answer. Ever.

Discerning the Church which Christ founded.

There are a few things we know about this true church:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that His church must be about 2000 years old. This face alone eliminates the vast majority of churches.
2. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18) hence there is only one.
3. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and which declared and decreed which books are to be contained in the New Testament.
4. Jesus handed His Authority to His Apostles (Mat 28:16-20), therefore His Church must be able to trace its chief pastors back in a line of succession to The Apostles.

Also, ask them to consider the following facts:
Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by Abraham about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
source: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=661958

 

[PRmerger]

Well I would say that the verses in John 20 gives the apostles and thus in some respect, church elders, the authority to proclaim the forgiveness of sins. Calvin (as usual haha) here: m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.x.iv.html

Excellent! We are then on the same page (at least in the same chapter?) on this!

So, John 20 t also gives “church elders” the ability to retain sins, then, too, right?

How does this work in your church, this “retaining” of sins?

 

[PRmerger]

As in, for example Papal infallibility; Catholics were free to debate and disagree with it, and indeed did prior to the Vatican council. After it however it is part of the deposit of faith and they have to believe it. You are quite right with the Trinity, it has always been believed, scripture is abundantly clear on it… That’s why I accept it, it’s in scripture, Nicea, Chalcedon all are in agreement with scripture. They testify to what has universal witness from the earliest days, but some things now held as dogma in the CC don’t have this.

Some of my musings… Regards

Lincs.

I think you are mistaken about what it means when dogma is defined.

What has been solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point, nor does it indicate that Catholics are free to disagree until it has become a formal dogma. We must give religious assent to what has been the constant teaching, or kerygma, of the Church.

Take this analogy:

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 4-14 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

Thus, the solemn declaration of the dogma of Infallibility was not newly formed at Vatican I. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly.

However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the times of the apostles. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose Vatican I as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

 

[PRmerger]

Who else claims the charism of infallibility? (And please cite your source!)

Jehovas Witnesses - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses see the footnote they put…

Um, Lincs? Is this a time when you’re going to have to speak in the third person again for being “slightly silly”?

For the example you gave says exactly THE OPPOSITE of what you’re claiming.

According to your citation, the JWs do NOT claim infalliblity. (Disclaiming means to deny)

Originally posted in the Wikipedia article cited by Lincs: The religion’s leadership, while **disclaiming **divine inspiration and infallibility

Originally posted in the Wiki footnotes:
^ “Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible?”. The Watchtower: 19. February 15, 1981. ““True, the brothers preparing these publications** are not infallible. **Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)””