Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[Lincoln7]

Does Lincs always speak in the third person when he’s feeling slightly silly?
I thnk there’s a few different Lincs.

I thought humor would keep things cool! Just the one of me…

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”?

The verses show us a few things: That Jesus Christ held people responsible for examining and testing things to the scriptures, and that Paul praised those who tested his teaching to scripture…

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

No I don’t… I’ve sat down and had my views adjusted before after a lengthy examination of scripture. If however one already has a body claiming infallibility then one can’t change their view… All one can do is look for the teaching of the church in scripture. If it can’t be found or someone points out a contradiction between scripture and the church (as I’ve been doing with Hebrews), then one seems to have to conclude that it’s all their opinion and mist be wrong as it goes against the church. Which as is shown above; when the Pharisees held that they were correct as they were the authority, they were strongly rebuked, being told what?: “Have you never read in the Scriptures”? Matt 21:42…

I think this shows what I hinted at earlier: Church alone. The church claims to be the only body capable of rightly discerning the extent of the canon, claims to be the only one who can properly interpret the books of this canon. Claims to be the one who defines the extent of what’s the Tradition and what’s not, and the only interpreter of Tradition. As such it can’t be equal to or below these things, but above them…(1). Church alone, rather than scripture alone. Hope tis does not come across as aggressive, just an observation!

Regarding the answer on ‘how do you know Rome is the true church’:
Point 1: This doesn’t actually get quite right how Protestamts actually view the church…Of course it’s around 2000 years old, I also accept a lot of what was said up until the Reformation was good and proper and right. But a lot wasn’t, it went a tad of course, and needed reforming…
Point 2: Yes… See the concepts of church visible and invisible on this one… Again this point is a bit of a critique against what we’re not actually saying.
Point 3: See the book link I posted earlier on… It received them, early on.
Point 4: Whilst not wanting to disagree for the sake of it, apostolic succession comes from following the apostles teaching, not by standing in a line to them. The Galatians elders could appeal to the fact that they were heirs of Paul, but they still departed from his teaching.
All of the following facts then, when one knows what Protestants mean when they speak of the church dont really work… Visible and invisible.
It also shows one has to use private interpretation to decide Rome is the true church, there is no more certainty in in, as this decision was a fallible one… (2).

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?

Read the Calvin link. It works in a way very different to Romes, which with respect, works very differently to how it worked in the early church

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.

But with things such as this, people did disagree and oppose it before it was formally defined… So it seems hard to accept it as being a universal belief but just formally defined later on, rather appears to me an example of some of what I said above, it’s held because the church says so, not because one can find evidence for it. Indeed there is ample evidence against it being held or practiced earlier, the episode regarding pope Honorius for example.

As for my slight error (haha) regarding that wiki page… I’d say a couple of things: they still claim to have some sort of divine guidance. Secondly, well… We all make mistakes, I’m not infallible

Regards

Lincs.

1 & 2 - Dr James White, debate vs Fr Mitch Pawca, ‘sola scriptura’, San Diego, 1999

 

[GaryTaylor]

Agreee’d I should have put a K on Linc as I was referring to all the theological thinking by many who study theology as mentioned. I found one particular dialogue interesting which I would have go back to and re-linc Even the dialogue on Baptism leaves a vague indication of to the solid belief in how to proceed.

Well many aspects of Faith come to mind. I see many theological views. Most denied in 2000 years of the Apostolic Churchs. As I mentioned in another thread as the churchs fought heresy, the first 7 ecumenical councils became their guideline. Even as we approach the later theology of Rome, we still cannot get around those 7-Councils as to this thread.

As always the issues becomes.

Faith Alone

Justification

Predestination

The Sacraments of the Church

Those rightly ordained to perform the Liturgy of the Eucharist, “Altus Christus” confessors, the ordained whom dispense the Sacraments. The remission of sin cannot be attained except through confession and the act of penitence and by those correctly Ordained

Calivins view on the Eucharist, Luthers view in Justification, I see the morph in theology of the two as I mentioned above.

When we say the Church? What does the Bible state in NT about this Church Christ established on earth with His Apostles. He mentioned Church but once in the Bible.

And as always the Mother of God and Christs Saints.

I don’t see St Paul as usual being the cornerstone to define what the Apostolic Churchs believe through scripture. Yet St Paul was one Apostle who no doubt played a major role in a crucial period, in partcular with Octavia.

Yet all the Apostles such as St James, St Andrew, St John, St Peter, Mark who traveled to Alexandria and founded the Church of Alexandria, which today is claimed by the Coptic Orthodox Church, Luke etc… All contributed to the foward motion of this Apostolic Church in time. St Paul must be understood in relation to his role in his letters, and his postion within the one Apostolic Church which he so firmly upheld and believed in, and literally died for in Christ.

Its interesting to discuss scripture, but to view this in understanding differently than the Church Christ established and prayed for? Its something which should be discerned and contemplated very cautiously.

google.com/url?q=http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/11/indefectibility-of-church.html&sa=U&ei=9iGMT7WxM4-x0AHYru3aCQ&ved=0CBcQFjAB&sig2=wLbYSoN_EF_GbQi01p18qQ&usg=AFQjCNEughIDMZ-xuHAj_bW0r9gAX0O-6Q

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/indefectibility.htm&sa=U&ei=uZvSTrzjOIL20gHtppAJ&ved=0CCEQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNE23YCQUA3lslll4i9V4iCdQvEHuA

 

[PRmerger]

The verses show us a few things: That Jesus Christ held people responsible for examining and testing things to the scriptures, and that Paul praised those who tested his teaching to scripture…

Fair enough.

But I asked what Scripture tells us to do if 2 people disagree with their interpretation of Scripture. The verses above, as you correctly maintain, tell us that it’s praiseworthy to read and examine and test things to the Scriptures…

but they don’t tell us what to do if 2 people disagree on interpretation.

No I don’t… I’ve sat down and had my views adjusted before after a lengthy examination of scripture.

If you’re willing, would you share what view you had previously, and what you adjusted it to, and who it was that was able to change your view on this?

If however one already has a body claiming infallibility then one can’t change their view.

Let’s just take this one step back, Lincs, in this “circle of truth” and examine this example: Let’s say you’re in a discussion on religion with an atheist. He dismisses this discussion because he says that you’re not going to change your view because you already have “a body claiming infallibility” (here, the body is the Holy Bible).

So we can agree that having a “body claiming infallibility” is not an impediment to discussion, right? Rather, it’s actually a good thing, no, to be able to know that you have the truth, infallibly revealed?

If you can’t agree that infallibility is a good thing, then you won’t be able to use the Scriptures as your “infallible guide” in a discussion with an atheist, Muslim, pagan, etc etc etc. And that, friend, will be greatly to your detriment.

 

[PRmerger]

Read the Calvin link. It works in a way very different to Romes, which with respect, works very differently to how it worked in the early church.

Just did that.

I’m still unclear as to how your elders “retain” sins. Could you please give an example of how this is done in your present day church by your elders?

 

[PRmerger]

But with things such as this, people did disagree and oppose it before it was formally defined… So it seems hard to accept it as being a universal belief but just formally defined later on,

Think about what you’re saying here, Lincs, and apply it to the dogma of the Trinity.

Does the fact that lots of early Christians disagreed and opposed the Trinity before it was formally defined mean that it was not a constant belief held from the earliest days of Christianity? (And please note, that I used “constant belief”, not “universal belief” as you did.)

As for my slight error (haha) regarding that wiki page… I’d say a couple of things: they still** claim to have some sort of divine guidance**.

Well, now, that’s a different argument than there are “other bodies that also claim this infallibility”, which is what your original claim was.

We all make mistakes, I’m not infallible

Indeed, yes. We all do. :sad_yes:

So that brings me back to my question: how do we resolve your fallible interpretation with my fallible interpretation, unless there’s an Infallible Authority to assist us in discerning God’s revelation?

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t taken the time to read all these posts, and this point likely has been raised already.

 Most Protestants I know treasure their freedom of thought, their right as individuals to view the sacrifice of Christ in whatever way they find authentic. This means that there are strict fundamentalist Protestants who may emphasize either predestination or being born-again as the only paths to salvation. Then there are very liberal Protestants who see the crucifixion more as a symbol of the suffering of the innocent that should awaken in us a desire to struggle for compassion and justice. Many others take a 'middle' position. 

 So, to discuss the 'Protestant view' of Christ's sacrifice seems to miss the reality that there are many views among Protestants as to how to interpret the death (and resurrection, too) of Christ. This is both a strength and a weakness of Protestantism. It has stimulated many opinions over the centuries leading to many denominations. On the other hand, many Protestants, especially mainline Protestants, would choose this allowance to think freely over what they see as a Catholic requirement that every communicant think alike on such central questions. In a typical mainline Protestant church, and in a typical Bible study group within such churches, there is a spectrum of opinion on this and many other issues without pressure on everyone to think alike.

 

[CopticChristian]

I haven’t taken the time to read all these posts, and this point likely has been raised already.

 Most Protestants I know treasure their freedom of thought, their right as individuals to view the sacrifice of Christ in whatever way they find authentic. This means that there are strict fundamentalist Protestants who may emphasize either predestination or being born-again as the only paths to salvation. Then there are very liberal Protestants who see the crucifixion more as a symbol of the suffering of the innocent that should awaken in us a desire to struggle for compassion and justice. Many others take a 'middle' position. 

 So, to discuss the 'Protestant view' of Christ's sacrifice seems to miss the reality that there are many views among Protestants as to how to interpret the death (and resurrection, too) of Christ. This is both a strength and a weakness of Protestantism. It has stimulated many opinions over the centuries leading to many denominations. On the other hand, many Protestants, especially mainline Protestants, would choose this allowance to think freely over what they see as a Catholic requirement that every communicant think alike on such central questions. In a typical mainline Protestant church, and in a typical Bible study group within such churches, there is a spectrum of opinion on this and many other issues without pressure on everyone to think alike.

Most Protestants I know do not treasure freedom of thought because the mind is the devils workshop. They negate the right to think and reference things that must be believed like the fundamentals that exist in various forms. Statements of Faith are part and parcel of attending any Protestant church and they hold to it. Too many that fall away they say think what they like and poison the well of the congregation. There is little spectrum of opinion and almost uniformly I hear “Christ died for me”.

I disagree with you.

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t taken the time to read all these posts, and this point likely has been raised already.

 Most Protestants I know treasure their freedom of thought, their right as individuals to view the sacrifice of Christ in whatever way they find authentic.

Not quite true.

Most Protestants have a circle of what they consider to be true–now while it’s wider than the Catholic circle, it’s a circle nonetheless. With limits as to what they will accept as true.

So, it’s really not any different than what Catholicism professes: there is truth, and it has been revealed in Jesus Christ.

It seems curious to me that some Protestants object to Catholicism proclaiming some things to be FALSE, while reserving for themselves this right.

 

[Lincoln7]

If you’re willing, would you share what view you had previously, and what you adjusted it to, and who it was that was able to change your view on this?

Sure thing: Eucharist, once held a more zwinglian view. Now it’s in line with what Calvin said. Both by reading his work, the work of others, by having them exegete scripture. I am of the conclusion what he said is in alignment with scripture.

I’m still unclear as to how your elders “retain” sins. Could you please give an example of how this is done in your present day church by your elders?

They both proclaim the forgiveness of sins to the repentant, as well as proclaiming the non-forgiveness of sins to those who refuse to repent. Those wo refuse to repent and turn to Christ are not forgiven, they proclaim this. I don’t see the verse as in some way supporting the late development oresent in the catholic church of private confession of all sins… After all… “Who can discern his errors?” Psalm 19:12…

Think about what you’re saying here, Lincs, and apply it to the dogma of the Trinity.

Does the fact that lots of early Christians disagreed and opposed the Trinity before it was formally defined mean that it was not a constant belief held from the earliest days of Christianity? (And please note, that I used “constant belief”, not “universal belief” as you did.)

The difference though is that The Trinity has ample and vast scriptural proof. Those who disagreed were going aganist scripture. Papal infallibility does not have this scriptural proof however, the case I was making with Honorius though was that it disproves papal infallibility, as I see him teaching error in his official capacity.

So that brings me back to my question: how do we resolve your fallible interpretation with my fallible interpretation, unless there’s an Infallible Authority to assist us in discerning God’s revelation?

Well I could fallibly choose to accept Rome… But that gives me no more certainty, I could be wrong in my choosing. Why not choose the Orthodox? The sspx, who would say they are the true Catholics…? Or I can stay where I stand, that everything Nessecary for salvation is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. What when 2 of us disagree on what the Church teaches? As I’ve said before, this reasoning just pushes the issue back a step; we now need an infallible authority to interpret this one for us no?
Rather I still will stand with Jesus Christ as having all authority, with this expressed through scripture, that which is God Breathed, the church forms it’s views under scripture. Not above them.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure thing: Eucharist, once held a more zwinglian view. Now it’s in line with what Calvin said. Both by reading his work, the work of others, by having them exegete scripture. I am of the conclusion what he said is in alignment with scripture.

But then it does appear that you did not go by Scripture alone in your conversion to a different view, yes?

This confuses me as to exactly what you’re saying 2 Christians should do to come to a correct understanding of Scripture.

At first you say, “Go to the Scriptures!” (which you have not been able to show is the Biblical answer to the question: what do we do when we come to 2 different interpretations?)

Now you say that you studied and read “the work of others”.

 

[Lincoln7]

But then it does appear that you did not go by Scripture alone in your conversion to a different view, yes?

This confuses me as to exactly what you’re saying 2 Christians should do to come to a correct understanding of Scripture.

At first you say, “Go to the Scriptures!” (which you have not been able to show is the Biblical answer to the question: what do we do when we come to 2 different interpretations?)

Now you say that you studied and read “the work of others”.

It’s not opposed to Sola Scriptura? Sola scriptura does not mean “don’t read anything else other than scripture” or “have no tradition”.

What it means is Scripture is to be what all tradition or teaching is tested too.

 

[PRmerger]

They both proclaim the forgiveness of sins to the repentant, as well as proclaiming the non-forgiveness of sins to those who refuse to repent. Those wo refuse to repent and turn to Christ are not forgiven, they proclaim this.

Why does one need to receive the Holy Spirit prior to proclaiming that? That seems to be something that even the Jews understood, before the Holy Spirit became indwelling.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not opposed to Sola Scriptura?

No, it’s not opposed to Sola Scriptura. But it is opposed to your paradigm that you’ve proposed when 2 Christians disagree with an interpretation. You suggested that one had to “examine the Scriptures daily”. That’s not what you did to convince you to adjust your interpretation.

It was someone else, something else, some other entity that convinced you. Not simply by examining the Scriptures.

 

[Lincoln7]

Why does one need to receive the Holy Spirit prior to proclaiming that? That seems to be something that even the Jews understood, before the Holy Spirit became indwelling.

Barnes and Matthew Henry have great notes on this here: bible.cc/john/20-23.htm

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

No, it’s not opposed to Sola Scriptura. But it is opposed to your paradigm that you’ve proposed when 2 Christians disagree with an interpretation. You suggested that one had to “examine the Scriptures daily”. That’s not what you did to convince you to adjust your interpretation.

I did? I sat down with my Bible open and let Calvin open it up for me. What he did was point me to where to go… Aka 2 Christians sat down and opened up the scriptures…

Regards

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

The difference though is that The Trinity has ample and vast scriptural proof.

Well, then, Lincs, it appears now that your argument against the teaching on Infallibility is NOT that it was a “new dogma”, for you’ve already acknowledged that the Trinity was a latecomer in being defined, but still the “constant teaching” of the Church.

It’s actually that papal infallibility does not have ample and vast Scriptural proof.

If that’s your position, we can discuss.

But I want to make sure that this is what you’re actually arguing, 'kay?

 

[PRmerger]

I did? I sat down with my Bible open and let Calvin open it up for me. What he did was point me to where to go… Aka 2 Christians sat down and opened up the scriptures…

Regards

Lincs.

And how is that different from what the Church does for Catholics?

 

[Roy5]

It strikes me that PRMerger and CopticChristian have very little insight into and certainly only hostility toward that varied phenomenon commonly referred to as Protestantism. While Catholicism has a definite set of dogmas that must be believed to be a ‘good Catholics’ Protestantism is very different.

True, there are dogmatic Protestants of a more evangelical flavor - fundamentalists and other strong conservatives - who have fervent beliefs. Fine. 

 In this area (northeast) these are a minority among Protestants. Most Protestants here are mainline, in that they are Episcopalians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and certain moderate Baptists (ABC - American Baptist Convention). These denominations over the years tend to view one another as close brothers and sisters, as it were. Their clergy have been in clergy associations for 100 or more years - joined by Catholic clergy after Vatican II in many instances. They tend to be very ecumenical, without the idea that their denomination alone has the fullness of the truth - unlike Catholicism, which claims that. They also move easily from one denomination. A Methodist may move to Pittsburgh and join a Presbyterian church. A member of the UCC (Congregationalists in this area) may move to Atlanta and become a Methodist. Etc. These churches accept 'certificates of transfer' from one another. 

 They may say a creed (e. g., Episcopalians and Lutherans) or they may not. Most Congregational and Presbyterian churches I have visited do not recite creeds. But even where they do, they may not take them literally but symbolically. They have developed a basic attitude of 'think and let think'. The same parish may include conservative thinkers who, for example, would believe in the Virgin Birth, while others of the same parish may have doubts or reject it altogether. Probably the majority aren't very concerned about theological nit-picking. Ditto for Catholics, too, I have found.   

 Perhaps I have found the most curious the Episcopalians. Like the Catholics they tend to be a prayerbook faith, each and every service basically the same in each and every parish each and every Sunday. But if you chat with Episcopalians you will find an startling tolerance of different views, whether on such doctrinal issues as the Virgin Birth or such social issues as gay rights. A few, of course, have strongly opposed the ordination of women and of gays etc and have either formed their own group within the broader Anglican context or entered into the Catholic Church. 

 Methodists, the largest among these mainline denominations, is involved in a major battle over ordination of gays. This month its General Conference is meeting and that will probably be the key issue. Because the Methodists are strongest in the South and Midwest the ordination of practicing gays is likely to be voted down again. Major Presbyterian, Lutheran, Presbyterian and UCC denominations now permit such ordination. Akin to this issue, Methodists are likely to debate permitting their clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings, and this, too, is likely to be defeated.  

  I mention all this simply to make the point that Protestantism has an enormous diversity within its ranks. Traditional Catholics will likely see this as a weakness. It can create division and even schism. But it is in accord with the democratic nature of Protestantism, where individual opinions take precedence over rules and regulations handed down by a Pope and magisterium unelected by the people. Most Protestant denominations are democratic, set up more-or-less like the US, with a representative form of government.

 Most traditional Catholics reject this format, of course, and most of the comments on it I see here simply refuse to understand it. Thus, it is misrepresented, put down, and lampooned. As for me, different strokes for different folks.

 Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Let us treat the faith of one another with respect. Christ would like that. God bless those of every creed, color, culture and country.

 

[Lincoln7]

Well, then, Lincs, it appears now that your argument against the teaching on Infallibility is NOT that it was a “new dogma”, for you’ve already acknowledged that the Trinity was a latecomer in being defined, but still the “constant teaching” of the Church.

It’s actually that papal infallibility does not have ample and vast Scriptural proof.

If that’s your position, we can discuss.

But I want to make sure that this is what you’re actually arguing, 'kay?

Hmm… The Trinity has vast proof, it’s there. Nicea, Chalcedon, all in accord with scripture, based upon scripture.
With Papal infallibility I mean, I dont even see a papacy in the NT or early Chuch, hence why I see no papal infallibility. If that clarifies it?

After like 60 or 70 posts in this thread by me or whatever now, confusion can occur

Lincs.

 

[PRmerger]

Barnes and Matthew Henry have great notes on this here: bible.cc/john/20-23.htm

Regards

Lincs

Just read both of the commentaries. Neither addresses how one can receive the Holy Spirit yet retain someone’s sins, and why this would be something that needed to be proclaimed (that unrepentant sins are not forgiven), as the Jews already knew that, right?

So, how does one receive the Holy Spirit but retain sins?

And why does it need to be said that unrepentant sins are not forgiven?