Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[PRmerger]

Can I ask as I did earlier how one knows Rome is the true church? Isn’t it just private interpretation of church history and scripture that leads to one embracing it?

I don’t think so. How can history have a “private interpretation”? Either President Lincoln was president during the Civil War , or he wasn’t. There’s no such thing as interpreting history privately.

So when we say that church history demonstrates that Catholicism can trace its roots all the way from today to Jesus, each of our bishops being anointed by another bishop who was anointed by another bishop <snip 2000 years> who was anointed by Christ.

No other church can claim this except for the Orthodox.

Those are facts that can’t be argued with.

And history is quite clear that Lutherans derive their theology from Martin Luther. There was no one who called himself a Lutheran in the 12th century. But there certainly were those who identified themselves as Catholics then!

 

[Lincoln7]

Mohler/-] Lincoln7

is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

So what we’ve established here is that any appeals to the argument that goes along the lines of ‘that’s your private interpretation’ just ends any discussion were having. I use it in scripture and even some of the best exegeses that scholars and theologians can do is just this ‘private interpretation’ and thats that. And at the same time, you have to use it to discern which church is the true church capable of giving you an infallible and correct interpretation and in discerning when it has or has not used this infallibility. This sort of argument just ends discussion sadly…

Best regards

Lincs.

 

[pablope]

So to put it simply: Private interpretation is wrong. The option now being to privately interpret church history and scripture to conclude which infallible or ultimate church authority to pick. Catholic, Orthdox, Coptic, JW… All claim in some way to be the true church and expression of it.

Hope this does not sound sarcastic, not my intention just genuine thoughts I have on this.

Regards

Lincs

First, let me ask you…prior to 1521, the protestant reformation…someone, wanting to join Christianity…which church would that person join?

Let us bring it back further…in 1000AD…which Christianity would you join? in AD800? in AD500?

Hmmm…but there is a guide from Scripture. Let me point them out to you:

from Luke…Luke 10:16 (Douay Rheims)
16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Let me cite the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

This fulfills this: Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Further…Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

This fulfills the passage below:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands. Then they are sent out to their mission. Paul, by the laying of hands, first becomes an Apostle, he gains apostolic authority, thereby, the Churches he founds have apostolic succession.

In other words…know who “sent” the preacher you are listening to?

The Catholic, since the time of the Apostles…have been practicing this. Again, I will cite Clement of Rome…

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

Let me ask you then…Who sent Calvin? Who did he submit his message, his preaching to?

For all the other claimants as being the true Church…who fulfills the passages above?

 

[PRmerger]

But you’ve already admitted you’re fallible.

So why should I believe your interpretation versus any other man’s (whether he claims fallibility or not)?

Fire away.

But if you could one of the questions I asked— where do the Scriptures say that the apostles committed all their teachings to writings?

Oh, and another would be a quite citation for how many Christian denominations there actually are in the world?

Oh, and one other question which should be easy to answer: do you agree that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were infallible when the penned the gospels?

 

[pablope]

In the same way Calvin does with scripture then?

Are these Traditions traceable to the firs century? If they really are the sort of things Paul tells people to hold to in Thessolonians it should be pretty easy to find them very early in church history…

Regards

Lincs

Absolutely…a book recommendation…

amazon.com/Signs-Life-Catholic-Customs-Biblical/dp/0385519494/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334600368&sr=8-2

amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Eucharist-Unlocking/dp/0385531842/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1334600368&sr=8-10

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not in alignment with scripture?

We confess the Nicene Creed in that we believe in Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the one holy Catholic and biblical church.

Under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is “entirely” the book of, by and for the Church. In reaction to the 16th century reformers Catholics affirmed a “two-source” theory of revealed Truth, that is the Bible and Tradition. Further refined in V-II by “Dei Verbum” [Word of God]

The NT leaves no doubt that Jesus intended continuing community of discipleship that is the church. There is also no doubt that he commissioned the Apostles to shepard that community under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. From the start disputes arose over faith and morals In the NT and in patristic literature of the first centuries. it is clear they were resolved and were to be resolved by appeal to the authority of the Apostles and the Apostolic Churchs. Later the appeal was the Bishops in Council, the Bishops being recognized as successors to the Apostles. Nicea 325 being the First Council is we exclude the Bible and Jer.

Admittedly it is a long and complicated path from the Apostles to the Bible to Nicea and on to todays excerise of the Magesterium, but in logic and in clear form it is one of continuity. It is the story of Jesus and the Apostles.

The division of East/West means that not all the Apostles are gathered together. That simple.

The theorys of Justification, Faith alone, decrease in the number of the Sacraments and their Validity, Confession, the Real Presence, Predestination and Double Predestination. Is just a short list that has never been part of the Apostolic Tradition. The fact that one reads this into the scripture doesn’t make them right.

The error always begins when we assume we are right and the Church is wrong. For the teaching literally has remained intact. Be it there may have been some maldramatic flowery, pious speechs etc. Howvever the Deposit of Faith has remained intact

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

I don’t think so. How can history have a “private interpretation”? Either President Lincoln was president during the Civil War , or he wasn’t. There’s no such thing as interpreting history privately.

So when we say that church history demonstrates that Catholicism can trace its roots all the way from today to Jesus, each of our bishops being anointed by another bishop who was anointed by another bishop <snip 2000 years> who was anointed by Christ.

No other church can claim this except for the Orthodox.

Those are facts that can’t be argued with.

And history is quite clear that Lutherans derive their theology from Martin Luther. There was no one who called himself a Lutheran in the 12th century. But there certainly were those who identified themselves as Catholics then!

Well now you see, I look at church history and see it very differently to you. I don’t see a papacy, or modern Catholic dogmas in much of it. It’s not there.

And this appeal to saying ‘no one believed what Luther did before him’ also is a historical… He doesn’t just invent his own stuff with no regard for history or the fathers, he utilises them in a massive way, why? To clarify things.

How can history have a “private interpretation”?

easily. Why was lincoln president, for example? You will find a fair many views on that… It’s the ‘why’ that matters a great deal of the time.

Best regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Who wants to reply first? Let’s try and keep it relatively organised, I find threads going between like 5 people get very confusing very quickly…

 

[pablope]

pablope;9190059:

So what we’ve established here is that any appeals to the argument that goes along the lines of ‘that’s your private interpretation’ just ends any discussion were having. I use it in scripture and even some of the best exegeses that scholars and theologians can do is just this ‘private interpretation’ and thats that. And at the same time, you have to use it to discern which church is the true church capable of giving you an infallible and correct interpretation and in discerning when it has or has not used this infallibility. This sort of argument just ends discussion sadly…

Best regards

Lincs.

That is why Jesus said to bring it to the Church…and as the bibles says…the pillar and bulwark of Truth is the Church…not the individual.

Also, look at my post 421.

Why do you think protestants have fractured to thousands of differing opinions and interpretations and endless splits?

Because they lacked “authority”…a teaching authority.

Look at the Orthodox…why have they not split in denominations like the protestants despite the schism?

Because they retained the apostolic tradition of hierarchy and authority…bishop-presbyter-deacon.

 

[pablope]

Who wants to reply first? Let’s try and keep it relatively organised, I find threads going between like 5 people get very confusing very quickly…

Take your time… I will bow out for a while…god bless…hopefully, you find our discussion enlightening.

 

[PRmerger]

Well now you see, I look at church history and see it very differently to you. I don’t see a papacy

You don’t see a papacy?

Perhaps you’ve gotten so used to saying that that you’ve forgotten what your original argument is: you don’t see a papacy in Scripture.

But to say that you don’t see a papacy in history, is, well, astonishing.

Here’s a list, historically documented, of every single pope in the past 2000 years.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

You can look at secular sources. They will tell you that Gregory IX was pope from 1227-1241.

OF COURSE you can see a papacy in history!

Here’s just the first 60 or so.

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)

 

[PRmerger]

Who wants to reply first? Let’s try and keep it relatively organised, I find threads going between like 5 people get very confusing very quickly…

I guess I won, pablope. I answered first.

I’m just competitive that way, I guess.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well now you see, I look at church history and see it very differently to you. I don’t see a papacy, or modern Catholic dogmas in much of it. It’s not there.

And this appeal to saying ‘no one believed what Luther did before him’ also is a historical… He doesn’t just invent his own stuff with no regard for history or the fathers, he utilises them in a massive way, why? To clarify things.

easily. Why was lincoln president, for example? You will find a fair many views on that… It’s the ‘why’ that matters a great deal of the time.

Best regards

Lincs.

When you see Benedict you are looking at he who sits in St Peters chair.

Linc there is no getting around Jesus and his words to St Peter in Matthew 16:18. There is no sola scriptura rationalization. Because it is the truth today. And if the gates of hell prevailed than the Apostolic Churchs would be a lie and we could all go about our way to a new religion or none.

Luther borrowed from the Saints. The Saints words do not and never have had authority over the body of Bishops speaking as one.

We see this in many ways with Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Whatever they may have thought, before the authority speaking on these topics, it became a use to be theory put to bed.

Luther had a romance with Augustine who literally thought as he wrote such as in Confessions.

Then removed canons which didn’t coincide with his Faith alone false doctrine. Unfortunate and look at what has evolved out of that?

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ll let you guys chat. And do some other reading,

Peace

 

[Lincoln7]

Off out for dinner, will reply when back…

Lincs

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7
Well now you see, I look at church history and see it very differently to you. I don’t see a papacy, or modern Catholic dogmas in much of it. It’s not there

.

And just because you cannot see it does not make you correct. Jehovah Witnesses claim not to see the Trinity anywhere and therefore they believe they are correct-are they? Modern Catholic dogmas? Name one modern Catholic dogma?

And this appeal to saying ‘no one believed what Luther did before him’ also is a historical… He doesn’t just invent his own stuff with no regard for history or the fathers, he utilises them in a massive way, why? To clarify things.

Sorry but Luther was more concerned with his own positions,agendas and will over the will of the Church,sorry but true.

easily. Why was lincoln president, for example? You will find a fair many views on that… It’s the ‘why’ that matters a great deal of the time.

Do our views have any bearing on the factual outcome? Lincoln was elected regardless of views.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Indeed, he who hears the procalamation of the Gospel and despises it despises Christ and he who despises Christ despises the Father.

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Yes, Paul went to check his revalation with the leaders plural, there is no mention here of Paul viewing Peter as a modern pope and submitting to him… It’s not in the text cited. He checks with a plurality of leaders. I also don’t see how this means somehow sola scriptura is wrong?

This fulfills this: Then from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Yes, we are from God. They have the truth about Christ and those who are predestined unto salvation will listen to their message. Those not from God will not. The passage simply demonstrates the Apostles are from God, and are to preach and find the sheep… I don’t see how this is going to be debated between us?

Further…Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…

Indeed, they unlawfully deposed their leaders, so the church leadership in Rome, their plurality of elders, took action and sent a letter, rightfully. Note the letter does not bear the name of clement, it’s from the church at Rome…

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Indeed, they commission them for mission, just as the Sprit instructs them to do…

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Romans 10:14-15 - yes, sent by God. The context gives indication that the sending Paul speaks of here is by God.

Let me ask you then…Who sent Calvin? Who did he submit his message, his preaching to?

Well from my perspective, Calvin is a truly great theologian, he submitted his teaching to the test of Holy Scripture, hence why those who read it did the same.

 

[Lincoln7]

Why do you think protestants have fractured to thousands of differing opinions and interpretations and endless splits?
Because they lacked “authority”…a teaching authority.
Look at the Orthodox…why have they not split in denominations like the protestants despite the schism?
Because they retained the apostolic tradition of hierarchy and authority…bishop-presbyter-deacon.

I’ve been asked for a source the ‘thousands of denominations’ number. Can you provide your source for this?
Yet the Orthodox would state that Rome has in several rather important ways departed from the Tradition, with Rome also claiming the same of them…

 

[Lincoln7]

You don’t see a papacy?

Perhaps you’ve gotten so used to saying that that you’ve forgotten what your original argument is: you don’t see a papacy in Scripture.

But to say that you don’t see a papacy in history, is, well, astonishing.

Here’s a list, historically documented, of every single pope in the past 2000 years.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

You can look at secular sources. They will tell you that Gregory IX was pope from 1227-1241.

OF COURSE you can see a papacy in history!

Here’s just the first 60 or so

Let’s examine this list: Firstly to be noted is the assumption that even if this list is accurate (will get to that), is that all these men possessed the exact same powers of the modern papacy, and were viewed as such in the church. It’s hard to even begin engaging this list as the site gives no references as to where it gets its info from. Phillip Schaff notes in his History of the Christian Church, vol II, commenting on the possibility of Peter appointing a successor in Rome; quote: “(of which there is not the slightest historical evidence); and (5) that the bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, have always enjoyed and exercised an universal jurisdiction over the Christian church (which is not the case as a matter of fact, and still less as a matter of conceded right).” end quote (1). Thus reading a modern papacy into this period won’t hold up. If one is saying “there is a line of men in Rome” yes, but with none of what we see of as exemplifying a papacy. Indeed when we see one early bishop of Rome; Victor, attempting to excommunicate certain Asian churches over Easter dating, Irenaus strongly rebukes him. (2). Thus it’s clear whatever form the episcopacy in Rome had, it was held no where near as powerful as the modern papacy. This lack of acknowledgment by other churches of any sort of jurisdictional primacy on the part or Rome is amply seen in many other places; Tertullian for example and his mocking of the roman bishop as “pontifex maximus”(3). Cyprian of Carthage, who calls the bishop of Rome ‘colleague’ instead of father and who in the controversy over baptism, rebukes the bishop of Rome for attempting to exert a form of power and jurisdiction over other churches he has no right to. (4).

I think this demonstrates enough that producing this list does not prove at all a papacy resembling the modern one.

If the list draws on The Liber Pontificalis, classed by certain scholars as an “unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda.”(5) we have more room to doubt…

Regards

Lincs.
1,2,3,4 - History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Ante Nicence Christianity AD 100-325, Phillip Schaff, Oak harbor, WA, Logos Research systems inc, 1997 - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.x.html#v.vi.x-p0.1
5 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Pontificalis

 

[Lincoln7]

And just because you cannot see it does not make you correct. Jehovah Witnesses claim not to see the Trinity anywhere and therefore they believe they are correct-are they? Modern Catholic dogmas? Name one modern Catholic dogma?

No it does not, but I base my views on the evidence I see, which is pretty clear in many places…

By ‘modern catholic dogma’ I mean views held now by The Catholic Church I see either no evidence of in the early church or even direct contradiction of. See my last post on the papacy for example; modern claims of universal jurisdiction appear unheard of in the early church.

Sorry but Luther was more concerned with his own positions,agendas and will over the will of the Church,sorry but true.

If by this you mean he thought the Roman hierarchy in error, then yes, naturally he was not really to concerned by their will…

Do our views have any bearing on the factual outcome? Lincoln was elected regardless of views.

Yes they do, the factual outcome may be one or another dogma. The reason it became dogma is rather essential; is it down to scriptural exegesis and biblical proof, or not and does it contradict it?

Best regards

Lincs.