Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Safia]

No need to make one up, David.

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

Jon

And you think that this is the interpretation Christ intended?

 

[Safia]

Also, again, I ask:

(1) Why does Luther have the right to choose what early teachings to follow? He thinks Lutheranism is the “ancient church” of the apostles and fathers yet notes that the Fathers were often wrong (even en masse, not just in isolated cases) in their theology:

I tell you it is difficult to stand before the impact (Puff) of the argument that holy people such as St. Augustine and others were subject to error. For about twenty years I have been greatly concerned about this matter, have argued with myself about it, and have been troubled by the fact that one does not believe all the pope says; likewise, that the church should be in error, and that I should really believe all that the fathers say. This view certainly had a great appearance and reputation, for they were considered great teachers of the church, and all emperors, kings, and princes of the world held to them and their teaching; and all the multitudes in the papacy (which possesses the kingdoms and the goods of the world) hold to their view. What are we compared to them? A small, poor, lowly flock . . .

No one believes what a great obstacle this is and how deeply it offends a person to teach and believe something contrary to the fathers. I, too, have often had this experience. Again, it is an offense to see that so many fine, sensible, learned people, nay, the better and greater part of the world, have held and taught this and that; likewise, so many holy people, as St. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Nevertheless the one Man, my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must certainly mean more to me than all the holiest people on earth, nay, more even than all the angels of heaven if they teach otherwise than the Gospel teaches or if they add anything to, or detract anything from, the teaching of the divine Word. When I read the books of St. Augustine and find that he, too, did this and that, it truly disconcerts me very much. When to this is added the cry: Church! Church! that hurts most of all. For it is truly a difficult task to conquer your own heart in this matter and to depart from the people who enjoy a great reputation and such a holy name, aye, from the church herself, and no longer to rely on and believe her teaching. But I mean that church of which they say: The church has decreed that the rule of St. Francis and St. Dominic, and the order of monks and nuns, is right, Christian, and good. This truly offends a person. However, I must, in a word, answer that I need not pick up everything that anybody says; for a man may be a pious and God-fearing person and yet be in error. (sermon on John 3:23-24 on 16 March 1538)

(2) Can you identify for me the very moment, under which influence, the sweeping corruption of the Catholic Church took place that detracts from your ability to be a part of it?

Here’s how I see it: “The mythical “case against Catholicism” weakens and starts to collapse in direct proportion to how specific it is, and with attempted content and substance. Lutheranism is the ancient Church, but at the same time it isn’t, because all those fathers were mere men and erred constantly, and we must follow Christ alone and the Bible, etc., etc. ad nauseum. This is the self-contradiction running through the whole Lutheran claim regarding its ancient pedigree. It is only “ancient” when it agrees with Catholic teachings. When it does not, it isn’t ancient; it is a novelty and corruption. It’s really as simple as that. (source)”

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

(3) Thoughts?

Luther could be remarkably deferential to Catholic Tradition when it served his purpose. Perhaps the most striking instance of this occurred in his treatise, Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, from 1528 (LW, vol. 40, 225-262):

[231] In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible.

. . . We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, [232] the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints.

. . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures.

. . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. . . .

. . . [256] if the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false . . . [257] If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom.

(LW, vol. 40, pp. 231-232, 256-257)

Luther was equally adamant about the true tradition of the Holy Eucharist:

Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, – which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, “I believe in a holy Christian Church,” to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: “Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,” and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: “The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.”

(Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532, cited by Philip Schaff in The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff’s own; partially cited also in Roland Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, 26; from WA, Vol. XXX, 552)

Schaff, writing in The Reformed Quarterly Review (July, 1888, p. 295), cites the passage and (apparently due to better sources) translates one portion a little differently (my italics):

The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to* no sectaries* against it.

So he claims to be upholding the “sacrament of the altar” yet he has ditched eucharistic adoration and the notion of the sacrifice of the mass, which were every bit as much of the ancient Christian understanding of the Holy Eucharist as the Real Presence (that he retains without accepting a complete change of substance; in 1520 he called transubstantiation “a monstrous idea” and the Mass “wicked”). Therefore, if the Church went off the rails in these matters, it did so very early on. At least (given the choice) Luther have preferred transubstantiation to the bare eucharistic symbolism of Zwingli and the Anabaptists:

Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.

(in Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 376; from the early 1520s; cf. LW, vol. 37, 317)

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

Again in 1538 Luther writes:

Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede – as we must – that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore, faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. . . .

Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy” . . . And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.

(Exposition on John 16:1-2; 1538; LW, vol. 24, 304-305; WA, Vol. 46, 5 ff.)

Luther’s self-contradictory thought can be seen in the remarks in the same context that were passed over by the ellipses above:

On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet . . .

So the Catholic Church is or was the true Church but it wasn’t and isn’t (and/but it is, nonetheless, despite almost universal apostasy, else Lutheranism couldn’t have received all the truly Christian endowments from it). If Luther wasn’t given to such extreme rhetoric back and forth, perhaps his message could at least be self-consistent. But he can’t sit there in the face of massive contrary historical facts, and say that Lutheranism hasn’t changed anything that was orthodox and true and good from the previous 1500 years."

(4) How do you account for this:

I myself have documented that Luther took different views in no less than 50 areas, just in the three treatises of 1520 alone:

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

Now, would anyone in their right mind suggest that these 50 things changed nothing that was present in the “ancient Church”? Obviously, they can easily be traced back, with plenty of documentation. I’ve done much of this myself. I just showed in a paper, for example, that St. Augustine believed in all seven Catholic sacraments. But Luther retained only two (see above: #11, 12, 15, 28, 33, 37, 42, 43, 44, 50). So for 1500 years according to Luther, five of the sacraments were an aspect of the “church of Satan” and no part of Christian truth. That would come as strange news indeed to the Church fathers.

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

(5) How do you feel about this?

Grisar provides several instances of Luther’s own dishonesty in presenting the (alleged) opinions of St. Augustine:

Luther cannot assure us sufficiently often that man is nothing but sin, and sins in everything. His reason is that concupiscence remains in man after baptism. This concupiscence he looks upon as real sin, in fact it is the original sin, enduring original sin, so that original sin is not removed by baptism, remains obdurate to all subsequent justifying grace, and, until death, can, at the utmost, only be diminished. He says expressly, quite against the Church’s teaching, that original sin is only covered over in baptism, and he tries to support this by a misunderstood text from Augustine and by misrepresenting Scholasticism.

Augustine teaches with clearness and precision in many passages that original sin is blotted out by baptism and entirely remitted; Luther, however, quotes him to the opposite effect. The passage in question occurs in De nuptiis et concupiscentia (1., c. xxv., n. 28) where Luther makes this Father say: sin (peccatum) is forgiven in baptism, not so that it no longer remains, but that it is no longer imputed. Whereas what Augustine actually says is : the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven, etc.
(“dimitti concupiscentiam carnis non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur”). And yet Luther was acquainted with the true reading of the passage which is really opposed to his view as he had annotated it in the margin of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, where it is correctly given. Luther, after having thus twisted the passage as above, employs if frequently later. In the original lecture on the Epistle to the Romans he has, it is true, added to the text, after the word “peccatum,” the word “concupiscentia,” as the new editor points out, in excuse of
Luther. But on the preceding page Luther adds in exactly the same way in two passages of his own text where he speaks of “peccatum,” the word " concupiscentia," so that his addition to Augustine cannot be regarded as a mere correction of a false citation, all the less since the incorrect form is found unaltered elsewhere in his writings. . . .

Luther was able to introduce the continuance of original sin into Augustine’s writings only by forcing their meaning (see above, his alteration of concupiscentia into peccatum, p. 98).

(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, six volumes, translated by E. M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 2nd edition, 1914, vol. 1, 98-99, 156)

This thus leads us to the following argument:
A. Lutherans claim to revere the opinions of the Fathers, too, though not quite granting their consensus the authority that Catholics do. They do not claim to be ahistorical, or to have no concern about what the early Church widely held.

B. Lutheranism (and larger Protestantism) claimed to be a “reform”; i.e., going back or restoring what was before, in the early Church, not a “revolution” (introducing sheer novelties which were practically nonexistent before that time).

C. Therefore (if Lutherans are correct in this), we should expect to see something akin to Lutheranism dominating in the early Church, over against something akin to Catholicism.

D. To the extent that we do not find such a state of affairs, the Lutheran claim of (broad) fidelity to the fathers (more so than Catholic fidelity to same) is suspect and historically incorrect.

(6) “The early Church and the Fathers (particularly St. Augustine) did not believe in Faith Alone (sola fide) or imputed, extrinsic justification, whereas Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon made this one of the two “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation.” It is true that the fathers did not accept this … Augustine did not believe in extrinsic, imputed justification. That’s a simple historical fact. So Lutherans cannot trace their beliefs to him or any other major father, in this regard. I find that striking, and one disproof (of many) of these particular Lutheran claims of “reforming” the Church to what it supposedly was before.”

(7) “The early Church and the Fathers (particularly St. Augustine) believed in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Luther and Calvin threw it out as an abomination, sacrilege, and idolatry …” In agreeing with Luther’s view, “you are willing to base a rejection of an ancient, universal belief and practice, based on a “novel position” developed by Luther under duress and the stress of debate, when the inconsistencies of his position were pointed out to him (which has been exactly my opinion as well, of the historical origin of sola Scriptura). So, in effect, Luther has more authority than the entire Church of the previous 1500 years. It didn’t and doesn’t matter what that Church held, if Luther disagreed with it. That’s why I have referred to Luther as a “super-Pope.” No Catholic pope ever had remotely this much authority, to overturn so much of what existed previously.”

(8) “In a 2007 survey of half of all the pastors in the LCMS (3000), it was discovered that: “50.2% of the pastors in the synod actually restrict communion to those with whom we are in fellowship” (the “official” LCMS policy). That means that for half of the pastors in this denomination, it is unimportant to have doctrinal agreement before partaking of Holy Communion: a grossly uncatholic and unbiblical position to take. The Bible is clear on this, but LCMS pastors clearly don’t think so or else they would follow suit and have closed communion: display the courage of their convictions.”

Cheers.

 

[David]

No need to make one up, David.

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

Jon

Are you implying that all Protestants use Luther’s Catechism?

Peace
David

 

[David]

First, the Catholic Church has always been free from error in regards to matters of faith, salvation, doctrines, and dogmas, and we know this not only because it tells us this is true, but because historically, the Church has defended Truth under the guidance of the Spirit.

I totally agree with this, but for some reason Protestants believe the Holy Spirit could protect the writers of Scripture, from error, for thousands of years. From the time of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. Yet they don’t believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Church from teaching error for a few 100 years.

Peace
David

 

[Telestia]

Again in 1538 Luther writes:

[deletions]

To be cont…

Safia, your 50 points give many reasons for me not to want to be Catholic.

I am no fan of Augustine, he proved that it was impossible for people to live on the opposite side of the earth, because they would fall down. He abandoned his wife and 17 year old son to become an abstinence servant of God. On sex, I believe it was a poor choice to have him make policy on sexual norms, as he swung from one extreme to the other extreme, and his disallowing priest to Marry along with Jerome I consider to be a grave mistake. The Council of Nicea voted that Priest may marry, and so did the Apostle Paul. Paul warned against those who would ban marriage.

Jerome BTW had serious doubts about the Apocrypha as being included in the Bible. And Augustine was not an early Church Father. The Church was already 400 years old when when he made his contribution to Catholic Theology, and was somewhat influenced by Platonic and Manichean ideas. The early Church would be the first 100 years from when Jesus was crucified. And Leo in the 5th Century was a big influence on founding the Papal succession by declaring that the papal succession consist of all Bishops of Rome were Popes, and he himself was a Bishop of Rome and he became Pope.

And based on the scriptures, I am convinced that salvation does not come from sacraments, but to all who accept the blood covering of Jesus blood shed on the cross will be saved, and that we are transformed to do the good God created us to do by the indwelling Holy Spirit whom dwells in all Christians.

So what say you?

Sincerely,

Telestia

 

[passer_by]

The teaching of the Church.

Let me repeat my question Jon, which church? How did you find this church? If this church is the one down the street, what form of rational discourse did you follow to go from “Jesus Christ as my personal savior” to that church?

This is what I refer to.

Why?

Because there is no reason behind any of it. If I tell you to hold that a flying Spaghetti monster is true, would you? Why? I assume your rational answer would be NO because there is no reason to do so.

Before going on, I’m curious. In more than one instance, you use the bolded phrase, which in my experience is unusual for Catholics. What’s your reasoning for this usage?

I am merely being concise in summarizing popular reasons why Protestants claim to become Protestants. I in no way doubt their claimed personal experience. However, what I doubt is their rationale for going from the experience to a Church, Pastor, Book or Religion etc.

again, the quote I gave from the confessions speaks to the rationale.

I am not sure if you realize that your quote can not provide the answer to my question. I am asking how you arrived at the system. You cannot answer that question by giving me a quote from the system. That would be a circular answer and hence invalid, right?

Again, I’m confused by your use of the phrase.

I am just accommodating my argument for the people who probably arrived at Religion through a personal experience. Because usually when I raise this objection to Protestantism, I usually get “I came to the Bible/Church/Solas through my personal experience with Christ”. So I want anyone who might be reading this post to realize that there is no reasonable points to go from that experience to Protestantism.

No, you have it backwards. Of course I know scripture is true, just like you do. The conflicts within tradition are not the cause of it being true.

Jon, my point was that if your measuring stick is “does it have conflicts in Tradition? If so then I abandon”, then Scripture is going to have to be abandoned as well.

No, it doesn’t, on a number of fronts. There has always been different traditons on which books are considered canon.

And that is exactly my point.

That question can be asked of any faith. regarding their teachings. Still not seeing the point.

Hence one of the ways how a rational person figures out that Catholicism is the only true religion.

Since Protestantism, just like these other faiths, fail to give reasonable points to converting, no one should be a Protestant.

Not in terms of the councils, and I’m only speaking of Lutherans here. Prtestants can speak for themselves.

Lutherans are Protestants, are they not?

Then the question back to you; how can you consider your teaching true through As when it is different from others whose teachings come through AS?

As I said before, this goes on to a different area of argument that is irrelevant. Regardless of how I may resolve the differences, and regardless of whether I can resolve the differences, it is clear that listening to Apostles is the natural and logical thing to do.

But Protestants suggest otherwise. They have to give reason for doing so. What I am arguing is that Protestants have no such reasonable grounds for what they hold as their principles.

So regardless of whether you can answer the question of AS and resolving differences, the only thing clear is that one cannot definitely be a Protestant.

(next post)

 

[passer_by]

Again, confused by the phrasing.

Jon, all I am saying is that you have some reason you turned to religion. Or a reason you believe it is true. For most Christians, its usually through personal experience or a rational/historical understanding that Christ rose from the dead.

My point to you, or any other Protestant is that there is no rational basis to go from all these first forms of believing to the Bible, Solas, or confessions etc.

Not invalid, just not certain.

In either case, it means that there is no reason to believe it true.

i think it should be very uncomfortable for all of us.

Exactly, which is why this Protestant position is rather baffling.

The difference is Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) claims infallibility in its teachings. Who is right? Who are the heretics?

As I said before, lets not wander. First lets fix the issue relevant to both of us. After that, we can discuss this issue.

Not sure how this response relates to my comment.

Because you seem to think that the inability to pick between Catholicism and Orthodox gives you reason to be Protestant. I am just pointing out that it does not logically follow. This is very similar to the logic used by many atheists in their defense. Unfortunately, just as its invalid for them, its invalid for you as well.

That phrase again. Since we come to faith by Baptism and hearing the word, your usage sound to me like cart before the horse.

You first have to decide to be baptized. If your parents baptized you, when you are confronted with questions like mine, you have to think of the rationale behind your faith. All I am asking for, is this rationale under Protestantism.

It is what scripture says, passer. Faith comes from hearing the word.

Jon, you are still answering from the system. You can’t defend the system by things inside the system. I am asking for reasons to adopt your system. You have given none.

Just in observing the way you have phrased things, at least from a Lutheran perspective, your objection comes from a misunderstanding. then again, maybe I’m misunderstanding you because of your phrasing.

I don’t think there is a misunderstanding. I am simply asking

Given there is a system/religion on learning truths about the Faith called Protestantism, what is the reasonable basis for a non-believer to adopt that system after realizing that God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, personal experience of Christ etc etc.

All I am saying is that Protestantism lacks such a basis. Which brings in to question why so many are Protestants.

 

[komeeks18]

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

And, nice to chat with you, too. So, let me address a couple of items that we differ on…

Hi Tom, Good to chat with you again.
Sure there’s documentation. Look at the some of western councils since the schism.

This is where being vague is simply not helpful. My guess is you are talking about councils since the 11th century but before Trent? If this is the time range you are addressing, what specific council declarations are you in disagreement with?

Actually, there was an effort on the Lutheran’s part, not long after the Reformation began. And there is significant energy today in ecumenism with the East.

I was not really aware that Luther was interested in joining the Orthodox – my guess is that if there were objections from the various German princes about sending money to Italy – I can’t see them agreeing to send it to the Middle East! Any idea why Luther’s efforts failed, or why none of the others in the Revolt never went in the direction of joining the Orthodox?

See, Tom, this argument assumes that the Holy Spirit only protects the see in Rome. We don’t see it that way.

This is really critical: WHY don’t you see it that way? None of those in the Revolt ever claimed Christ appeared to them – much less Christ told any of them that He was revoking His Promise to Peter in Matt 16:18. So, all I can say is that Luther and the others decided they did not like what they were seeing and decided on their own to form man-made religions, that claimed to have Christ as their model, but refused to accept that He could work with sinful men who were leaders of the Church He founded on Peter. Now, that is my view – I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Its the innovations regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and his infallibility ex cathedra that Lutherans and many others, even those in apostolic succession, idsagree with. Please inform me where Christ authored papal infallibillity.

You know, one of the more interesting things about Christ are the things that He didn’t do. For example, He did not give Peter a set of ‘blue prints’ on the organizational structure of His Church. And, He did not hand off a ‘Book’ of God-breathed Scripture before He ascended into Heaven. Ultimately, He left it to the Spirit to guide the men He selected to develop the details. And, it is here, in Matthew 16:18 that we find that Christ covered all bases with, “WHATEVER you bind…”. There simply are no limits on this. And, since Christ is God, no one can say that He did not know what was going to happen with such a statement or what the implications would be 1500 years later.

There were no sub-group of ‘protesting Apostles’ coming up with their own doctrine, claiming Peter was not the leader picked by Christ or that God would protect His Church from teaching error.

Certainly it isn’t explicit in scripture, since it is a post-apostolic era practic. And yes, I know the CC rejects it.

The ability to claim that SS is not ‘explicit’ in Scripture is a good start. It is not ‘implicit’, either. And, when you get right down to it – SS is directly contrary to the Holy Spirit working with the Church founded by Christ, because everyone can make their own interpretations of Scripture. Here is a practical example – you embrace SS because you think this is acceptable based on what you have been taught and the way you interpret Scripture.

You reject the explicit, ‘WHATEVER you bind on earth…’ statement because it simply contradicts SS head on as a tradition of man. I think when you look around – even at other Lutherans – you see major differences on doctrine so that more are coming over to the Catholic Church (Home…) articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/20/news/mn-24210 I think this is an important change – and one not unnoticed by Anglicans and some others.
God bless

 

[passer_by]

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

Hi there,

The problem with believing the Bible is that this need to believe in it comes out of nowhere. By accepting the usual things we do before we come to know that the Bible is true (like God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, I had a personal experience of Christ etc), it does not lead to the Bible or Sola Scriptura automatically.

So there must be some reason to believe in Sola Scriptura, the Bible or the Lutheran Confessions etc. One cannot justify this belief in the Bible using the Bible it-self either. Because that would be a fallacy known as begging the question i.e. assume that the Bible is authoritative to prove the Bible is authoritative.

In short, Protestantism has no rational basis to go from reasonably knowable things (like God exists, Jesus rose from the dead) or things knowable by personal experience (with Christ) to five Solas, Bible, Lutheran Confessions, Denomination down the road etc. That is the problem here.

 

[Newsy]

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

Why didn’t Jesus just give the disciples the Bible before he ascended? BTW, who wrote the Bible?
You are not looking at Matthew 23 that says, “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.”. This does not condemn tradition, but up holds it.
The other problem with your reasoning is that you seem to think that Tradition, big T, is the same as man made tradition, small t. Man made tradition, small t, are disciplines or ways of doing things. Big T, Tradition, is the Oral Tradition that was handed down from the Apostles, the things that Jesus taught that weren’t written down. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”. The Canon of Scripture was compiled in the late 300’s, even if the Canon had been established earlier, most people were illiterate, therefore having a Bible to read would have been no help. So, teaching was passed on by Oral Tradition.

 

[David]

Protestantism dates to the 1500’s and the Roman Catholic Church dates to the time of Jesus.
sources
The Handbook of Denominations by Frank S Mead
The World Almanac and Book of Facts

The Bible was canonized in the 4th century by the Catholic Church. The New Testament could not have been based on distinct Protestant doctrines, as they were not yet invented.

Peace
David

 

[David]

Hello Komeeks,
Your profile says “Protestant(undecided denomination)”. Do you plan on a through study of all 30,000 Protestant denominations before deciding?

Peace
David

 

[Newsy]

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

Forgot to address your second verse, sorry!

If you take this text literally, then we would not have many books of the NT. It says do not go beyond what is written, Paul would have only had the OT books to refer to. This text cannot lend itself to SS, unless you read it under that pretext. I would guess that this passage is being misinterpreted by anyone who uses it to defend SS.

I understand that this verse is addressing the problems in the Corinthian church. Groups were developing based on who they thought was more important, some Paul, some Apollos, others Peter. This is strictly telling them that unity is priority in the Church.

 

[komeeks18]

Hello Komeeks,
Your profile says “Protestant(undecided denomination)”. Do you plan on a through study of all 30,000 Protestant denominations before deciding?

Peace
David

No, but I’ve been raised Southern Baptist, and my family have not been attending church for over a year, but we’ve been thinking about trying out a non-denomination church near us, where we know a family we used to go to church with at my old church. I don’t consider myself in any denomination, because I haven’t looked at the different denominations I’m interested in individually & truly studied them. I have Protestant ideals, and I haven’t joined a certain Protestant Church. Just last week I decided that once I get older (I’m a teen) that I was going to attend a Catholic Church & hopefully eventually join it, because I started to believe the ideas of the Church, but I began researching more, and became to disagree with the teachings of the Church. Yes, I am confused on what denomination I am & agree with, and yes, I’m struggling with deciding on what to believe, because I don’t know what is actually true and what’s not. That’s why I want to just go to a CHRISTIAN church, so there is no label, and just to focus on the Lord, not to worry about the unimportant things. I just want peace with the Father.

 

[CopticChristian]

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

I am so pleased with your conviction. The first order of business is for you to prove to me and anyone else why you believe that the bible is the sole authority. I am always pleased when someone comes with firm beliefs so that I may learn.

First tell me the history of the Bible. Where did it come from? How did it get to us today?

Second outline for me so that I may know that the Bible is the sole authority. I have waited and waited for someone to tell me. At last someone that believes this. Surely you can outline this for me.

In order to accept any propositions that follow this first belief of yours the first and second points have to be satisfied.

Thank you for your belief.

 

[Safia]

Just last week I decided that once I get older (I’m a teen) that I was going to attend a Catholic Church & hopefully eventually join it, because I started to believe the ideas of the Church, but I began researching more, and became to disagree with the teachings of the Church.

If I understand you correctly, in one week, you went from wanting to not wanting to join the CC?

Let’s start with the basics. Have you examined the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s available online.

Second, what teachings do you disagree with? Perhaps you’ve not been fully informed.

Third, are you seeing the responses people are giving you RE: Protestantism/sola scriptura? It’s illogical. It denies history. Scripture, if examined cohesively, teaches against it, etc. If you have specific questions, please ask.