Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[sdegutis]

I’m not sure it’s exactly a matter of trusting their understanding when they are people of faith. Taking some leaps of trust is part of faith. But all human people of faith on earth have finite minds. Even those of Christian faith. And each understands an infinite God as they understand Him to be, to the best that they can within their finite minds.

So basically you’re an agnostic. Understood.

 

[JonNC]

Of course: my answer is that the infallible Magisterium has given us an interpretation which tells us that the Oneness Pentecostals are wrong. What’s your Lutheran church’s reasoning, which believes that the Magisterium can and has erred? Why do they think they are right and the Oneness Pentecostals are wrong?

How do you know the Magisterium is infallible? How do you know it is right when, say, the Orthodox claim also to be the One true Church? How do you know that one see, the See of Rome, alone, is right, and the other sees,* in unity*, are wrong?

Our Church’s belief - you mentioned the Trinity - is based on what scripture tells us, AND the fact that the undivided Church, in council, confirms the Trinity.

Jon

 

[sdegutis]

How do you know the Magisterium is infallible? How do you know it is right when, say, the Orthodox claim also to be the One true Church? How do you know that one see, the See of Rome, alone, is right, and the other sees,* in unity*, are wrong?

There are good answers to these questions. But we have to proceed in order. First we need to come to the understanding that there must be an authoritative interpreter of Scripture on earth which carries the same authority of Scripture itself. Only after we come to this conclusion can we decide where or what it is. And it seems like you believe it existed in some form or another in ancient times but you aren’t coming out clearly in saying this and defining it.

Our Church’s belief - you mentioned the Trinity - is based on what scripture tells us, AND the fact that the undivided Church, in council, confirms the Trinity.

You’re still not answering the question. Why do you grant any authority on interpreting Scripture to these councils?

 

[sdegutis]

JonNC:

Without knowing exactly what your position is on where authority really lies, it’s hard not to end up making a straw man argument. So I’ve been trying to understand your position. But for the sake of expedience, let me assume a few things and you tell me where I’m mistaken and how.

The Lutheran position is that Scripture alone is the only infallible authority (sola scriptura). Yet you claim over and over that the ancient councils and creeds are just as authoritative. This appears to be a contradiction. Clearly the Lutheran position recognizes that to keep its interpretation it needs sources aside from Scripture to support it, otherwise Oneness Pentecostals have just as much of a right to interpret Scripture in contradictory ways to Luther. But the official stance of sola scriptura negates this. So we must decide which is right, sola scriptura or not. Common sense tells us it should not be true for the aforementioned reason of contradictory interpretations. So now we should be able to admit that there must be an infallible, authoritative interpreter on earth of the Scriptures. Figuring out what it is comes next, but only after we agree that it must exist.

 

[JonNC]

=sdegutis;9414671]There are good answers to these questions. But we have to proceed in order. First we need to come to the understanding that there must be an authoritative interpreter of Scripture on earth which carries the same authority of Scripture itself. Only after we come to this conclusion can we decide where or what it is. And it seems like you believe it existed in some form or another in ancient times but you aren’t coming out clearly in saying this and defining it.

I agree. The authoritative interpretor where the early councils. I’ve said this, and you earlier and in this post seem to reject that.
So, we are agreed we need an authority to intepret. Now please respond to my question:

How do you know the Magisterium is infallible? How do you know it is right when, say, the Orthodox claim also to be the One true Church? How do you know that one see, the See of Rome, alone, is right, and the other sees, in unity, are wrong?

You’re still not answering the question. Why do you grant any authority on interpreting Scripture to these councils?

Why would I not?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Without knowing exactly what your position is on where authority really lies, it’s hard not to end up making a straw man argument. So I’ve been trying to understand your position. But for the sake of expedience, let me assume a few things and you tell me where I’m mistaken and how.

The Lutheran position is that Scripture alone is the only infallible authority (sola scriptura). Yet you claim over and over that the ancient councils and creeds are just as authoritative. This appears to be a contradiction. Clearly the Lutheran position recognizes that to keep its interpretation it needs sources aside from Scripture to support it, otherwise Oneness Pentecostals have just as much of a right to interpret Scripture in contradictory ways to Luther. But the official stance of sola scriptura negates this. So we must decide which is right, sola scriptura or not. Common sense tells us it should not be true for the aforementioned reason of contradictory interpretations. So now we should be able to admit that there must be an infallible, authoritative interpreter on earth of the Scriptures. Figuring out what it is comes next, but only after we agree that it must exist.

The bolded is where you are wrong. Sola scriptura does not negate the use of outside sources. It only says that those outside sources are not equal, in terms of norming, to scripture. So, from a Lutheran POV, this from our confessions:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

The sole rule and standard by which doctrine, teachers, dogma, are judged. No where does it say anything about those dogmas, etc. being negated. So, what is said about these things?

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Obviously, the writers felt the early Church had a level of authority to make these statements (creeds) about the apostolic faith. Nothing in SS requires us to exclude or reject them.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t know about no, Coptic. Unless I am misunderstanding which is possible, here might be some who when asked if it was inerrant, said no.

religioustolerance.org/inerran4.htm

Matt,

You are correct. Historically the Fundamentalists arose as a response to those Protestants that did not hold to this as well. I suppose I should have said within the context of those that post on this forum however then I would have to say that then there if Roy5. T generalized to include the notion of Sola Scriptura and probably should restate that there are Protestants that do not accept the infallible word of God as Scripture and for them…etc…this would suggest that those Protestants are more Catholic than they realize for they accept what the OHCAC accepts. The difference is that it is accepted not on account of the Book but on account of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth that says so.

 

[CopticChristian]

coptic,

I am not Evangelical. I am Methodist. We do believe in a christianity based on experience of faith and love of God.

Rob

Sub,

It makes a difference to clarify this. The Methodists as I understand it are experiential and grew out of Anglican thought. I know that the Vatican has submitted for the faithful to read thoughts on John Wesley. I guess I don’t see the Methodists as Evangelical.

My expereince with the Evangelical of America is that they accept dispensationalism and I don’t recall Methodists being in that camp.

 

[sdegutis]

Obviously, the writers felt the early Church had a level of authority to make these statements (creeds) about the apostolic faith. Nothing in SS requires us to exclude or reject them.

So the stance then is that everything must be subjugated to Scripture, and therefore if any council or creed adheres to Scripture then it is worthy of belief, and if it doesn’t then it is to be rejected as false. Is this how I am to understand the Lutheran position?

Yet the Oneness Pentecostals can simply make the claim that they reject the early councils and creeds which claim there is a Trinity, citing that Scripture denies that doctrine, and so any council or creed which supports it must therefore be false.

 

[CopticChristian]

JonNC:

Without knowing exactly what your position is on where authority really lies, it’s hard not to end up making a straw man argument. So I’ve been trying to understand your position. But for the sake of expedience, let me assume a few things and you tell me where I’m mistaken and how.

The Lutheran position is that Scripture alone is the only infallible authority (sola scriptura). Yet you claim over and over that the ancient councils and creeds are just as authoritative. This appears to be a contradiction. Clearly the Lutheran position recognizes that to keep its interpretation it needs sources aside from Scripture to support it, otherwise Oneness Pentecostals have just as much of a right to interpret Scripture in contradictory ways to Luther. But the official stance of sola scriptura negates this. So we must decide which is right, sola scriptura or not. Common sense tells us it should not be true for the aforementioned reason of contradictory interpretations. So now we should be able to admit that there must be an infallible, authoritative interpreter on earth of the Scriptures. Figuring out what it is comes next, but only after we agree that it must exist.

Sdeg,

I appreciate your wanting to understand as you say. I agree with what you believe. I am going to make a suggestion. If you really truly want to understand what someone believes then just ask that question. I once went through a dialogue with JonNC about the Eucharist. I believe I asked a question like this…

Do you believe that the Eucharist that you receive in your church is a mode of grace and is sacramental. The answer I got was “YES”. I then stopped asking questions and accepted that this was what JonNC believes. You will never get that answer from a One Pentacostal as far as I know.

I suggest if you want to know something ask a question withou interposing it with qualifiers or elements of argument. Here are some examples…

Do you believe that the Bible is your sole Authority? Y/N

Do you accept that it is necessary to have something or someone other than yourself interpret this book Y/N

Do you believe that etc…

When you get answers to all the direct questions you can then formulate an understanding of the question.

So, Jon, you believe that the Bible is the word of God, do you not…?

Somehow that question will put you on a footing that is not argumenative…I can be argumenative and I find that this produces fewer answers.

 

[CopticChristian]

The bolded is where you are wrong. Sola scriptura does not negate the use of outside sources. It only says that those outside sources are not equal, in terms of norming, to scripture. So, from a Lutheran POV, this from our confessions:

The sole rule and standard by which doctrine, teachers, dogma, are judged. No where does it say anything about those dogmas, etc. being negated. So, what is said about these things?

Obviously, the writers felt the early Church had a level of authority to make these statements (creeds) about the apostolic faith. Nothing in SS requires us to exclude or reject them.

Jon

Jon,

Is it fair to say that you are a Christian of Lutheran beliefs, confessional Lutheran?

Is it fair to say that you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

Is it fair to say that you accept some but not all the teachings that I would ascribe as coming from the OHCAC, ie councils.

Is it fair to say that your beliefs as compared to the OHCAC beliefs are closer to uniform than the Oneness Pentacostals, Fundamentalists, Evangelical Free Churches and the like as compared to the OHCAC?

 

[JonNC]

Coptic,
Thank you for the previous post. I have been thinking about submitting something similar to sdegutis, but coming from you is probably a better guidance.

=CopticChristian;9414792]Jon,

Is it fair to say that you are a Christian of Lutheran beliefs, confessional Lutheran?

Yes.

Is it fair to say that you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

Yes. And further, I recognize that the source of compilation is the undivided OHCAC.

Is it fair to say that you accept some but not all the teachings that I would ascribe as coming from the OHCAC, ie councils.

Is it fair to say that your beliefs as compared to the OHCAC beliefs are closer to uniform than the Oneness Pentacostals, Fundamentalists, Evangelical Free Churches and the like as compared to the OHCAC?

Yes.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=sdegutis;9414770]So the stance then is that everything must be subjugated to Scripture, and therefore if any council or creed adheres to Scripture then it is worthy of belief, and if it doesn’t then it is to be rejected as false. Is this how I am to understand the Lutheran position?

Yes, but further, I am willing to accept those things coming from the early undivided Church, agreed to by both Rome and the East.

Yet the Oneness Pentecostals can simply make the claim that they reject the early councils and creeds which claim there is a Trinity, citing that Scripture denies that doctrine, and so any council or creed which supports it must therefore be false.

Their problem as I see it, and I am speaking from my limited knowledge of their beliefs, is they are therefore unwilling to consider the history of the early Church in these matters.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
Thank you for the previous post. I have been thinking about submitting something similar to sdegutis, but coming from you is probably a better guidance.

Yes.

Yes. And further, I recognize that the source of compilation is the undivided OHCAC.

Is it fair to say that you accept some but not all the teachings that I would ascribe as coming from the OHCAC, ie councils.

Yes.

Jon

Jon,

I would hope that Sedg sees that asking a direct question yields a direct answer and understanding. If understanding is sought then this is how you get it…

Thanks Jon

 

[sdegutis]

Yes, but further, I am willing to accept those things coming from the early undivided Church, agreed to by both Rome and the East.

Their problem as I see it, and I am speaking from my limited knowledge of their beliefs, is they are therefore unwilling to consider the history of the early Church in these matters.

Jon

Not at all, instead they claim that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, as some of the earliest witnesses, supported their claim; they interpret these ancient Fathers as being Oneness Pentecostals as well. How do we know they’re not correct?

Also, why give authority or credence to any Church Fathers if their interpretation disagrees with The Definitive Interpretation of Scripture (whatever that happens to be)? For we say that they were always Catholic and always believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist and in the holy priesthood of Apostolic Succession and such. So don’t you still always come back to Scripture as the final authority, and so dismiss (or reinterpret) any Church Fathers to suit your interpretation? In this case who is the judge as to whether your interpretation of Scripture is correct?

 

[JonNC]

Coptic, I missed this one,

Answer, yes, but this would be based on the fact that you accept councils beyond the first 7, which were not, before the Reformation, universally attested by the entire OHCAC.
That’s not to say there are not elements within those later councils that I accept. There are.
Jon

 

[CMatt25]

So basically you’re an agnostic. Understood.

No not at all. So I’m not sure you do understand. Anyway God bless and peace.

 

[sdegutis]

No not at all. So I’m not sure you do understand. Anyway God bless and peace.

An agnostic is someone who believes we can never know anything outside of this observable world with certainty. Anyone who says “we will probably never know exactly what God wanted to tell is” falls under this category. Does this not describe your belief?

 

[septimine]

septimine,

Big external difference between the Evangelical churhes and the mainstream protestant churches.

I will take up for those evangelicals at this point. To love God is an emotion and something we should never try to fool ourself about. It is Gods Law and should not be dismissed. Faith and love are emotions and the center of the christian religion and without them we are not christians. Otherwise we might be outside christians only. This is what the evangelicals are talking about. My church, the Methodist church, puts this first before all doctrines.

Faith isn’t really an emotion though. Faith is an action. I can think warm fuzzy thoughts but that’s not faith. It’s emotions, sure, but if you read the history of Judaism and Christianity, it’s true that the saints had “emotions” but it didn’t stop there. My fear is that people are thinking that they have a real faith when what happened is that they worked themselves into an emotional state. Emotions are good things, yes you should feel, but I think there’s a problem when a person thinks that the emotions are all there is.

You know if you love your mother or not. But something is missing here. We are to love God with all our heart and mind and soul. We should face God directly and deal with that issue. We should not hide ourself before God whether we are protestant or Catholic.
Rob

I’m not saying that I love my mother only because I do what she wants. But I think if you never ever listen and obey, you don’t really love the way you say you do. Talk is cheap. If you asked 90% of the people in the country would say “I love Jesus” but it’s not very obvious when you look around. In some cases, especially the prosperity gospels, I think you can end up with your own Jesus who bears no resemblance to the Jesus who came from heaven.

We do hide a lot, and it’s not good. I just see the emotional experiences as a good way to hide. I had an emotion at church, so everything must be OK, or I go, so I’m good. But i think the truth of any relationship would be the same – if having an emotion doesn’t make you a friend, how could it work if it’s God and you? If you claim to be my best friend, you can’t help but want to do the stuff I want to do.

 

[CMatt25]

An agnostic is someone who believes we can never know anything outside of this observable world with certainty. Anyone who says “we will probably never know exactly what God wanted to tell is” falls under this category. Does this not describe your belief?

That is not the definition of an agnostic in The Websters Dictionary I have in my hand at this very moment. So I certainly am not going to play an argumentative game with you about whether or not I am agnostic when I am a Christian. So I’ll just say God bless you and leave it at that.