Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[JonNC]

Jon is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, LCMS. This is a very conservative assembly of the Lutheran Church. They accept Transubstantiation and, I believe, they still use a confessional. I don’t think he’s trying to confuse you.

Thanks, Newsy. Yes, we do believe in the Real Presence (we don’t express it as Transubstantiation), and confession.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And here is where the issue lies. When,where and who decided what is true definition of SS?

Good friend Nicea,
Is it fair to assert that since Dr. Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, Lutherans should get first dibs on how the practice is defined and how it works?

A blessed Epiphany,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8800905]Hi Jon,

I still see a lot of energy being expended by you to defend your system using things inside the system. Needless to say, this is futile. You can’t defend something using circular logic.

Passer,
What else would you propose that I defend my faith with? Do not Catholics defend their faith from their system - Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium? Should I accuse this as being circular? “The pope is infaalible ex cathedra. This is true because the pope said so, and he is infallibile ex cathedra.” I don’t use argumentation such as that.

So I hope you will come around to realizing this and try to first show justification for believing IN THE SYSTEM you/Luther/or someone else proposed.

If you cannot provide such reasons, needless to say, there is no reason for anyone to be Protestant

I can’t provide a defense for anyone else to be protestant. I can provide a defense for being Lutheran. It may not be the defense you wish to hear. I don’t know. But of course I will defend my faith from within my “system”.

Jon

 

[Safia]

Good friend Nicea,
Is it fair to assert that since Dr. Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, Lutherans should get first dibs on how the practice is defined and how it works?

A blessed Epiphany,
Jon

Nope, as individual Lutherans are going to differ in opinion – and who shall decide between them?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I must confess … it did take me a while to compose myself… ‘Judge Judy’!.. That was pretty good!

My hope is that Telesstia gives us the answers … 'Inquiring minds want to know…!"

Now, I would appreciate a clarification on an item you wrote. Do you have a source for speculating about Jerome having, " … Manichean ways …"?
Thanks

God bless

Yes,

Haste…The post by Telestia was confused by me as saying that Jerome and Augustine were Manichean…

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. **

If referencing the writings of Telestia I believe the implication is that it was in reference to Augustine not Jerome.

 

[Safia]

Passer,
What else would you propose that I defend my faith with? Do not Catholics defend their faith from their system - Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium? Should I accuse this as being circular? “The pope is infaalible ex cathedra. This is true because the pope said so, and he is infallibile ex cathedra.” I don’t use argumentation such as that.

See, this is where you’re wrong, Jon.

The justification for the CC’s papacy, apostolic succession, and infallibility isn’t circular.

It’s spiral:

1. Scripture is historically accurate (premise).
2. Scripture says that Christ established a divine Church possessing the charism of Infallibility.
3. The Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so.

Take it or leave it, but, properly understood, this is not circular logic; the conclusion is in no way stated or assumed by the premise.

 

[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.”

Here is the real question. How can you make a statement as to what is believed if you have not looked. Greater souls than you have looked and found what you do not see. You cannot find what you do not look for. This is Catholic Answers. Have you honsetly looked to verify that the material sufficient for beliefs is not there…?

 

[JonNC]

Nope, as individual Lutherans are going to differ in opinion – and who shall decide between them?

I don’t believe there will be differences of opinions within Lutheranism. Then again, I’ve seen Catholics here recently disagree about Transubstantiation, so I guess it is possible. regardless, I posted a while back what the confessions say.

Jon

 

[Safia]

I don’t believe there will be differences of opinions within Lutheranism. Then again, I’ve seen Catholics here recently disagree about Transubstantiation, so I guess it is possible. regardless, I posted a while back what the confessions say.

That’s the thing. Individuals will always disagree. Catholics can disagree all they want. But we have Christ’s Church to tell us whether or not we’re heretics (thank God! – can you imagine a world without a Magisterium, because I definitely cannot) . Give this a read when you have a chance.

 

[JonNC]

=Safia;8805716]See, this is where you’re wrong, Jon.

The justification for the CC’s papacy, apostolic succession, and infallibility isn’t circular.

You missed where I said I don’t use that kind of argument. But such as it is, why should I, a simple Lutheran, accept papal infallibility when none of the other early sees do?

It’s spiral:

1. Scripture is historically accurate (premise).
2. Scripture says that Christ established a divine Church possessing the charism of Infallibility.
3. The Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so.

Take it or leave it, but, properly understood, this is not circular logic; the conclusion is in no way stated or assumed by the premise.

The scriptures are inspired because they are God’s word. I actually agree with 1. Regarding #2, where does Tradition state (leaving scripture aside for the moment),that the charism of infallibility is only on the chair of St. Peter in Rome? where, in the early councils, at speak of Alexandria as having equal jurisdiction in its area to that of Rome’s in its, say that the Bishop of Rome has this charism ex cathedra? And if they did say this, why to all the other sees reject it? Was Peter not also in Antioch? Why is that infallibility not there?

Jon

 

[Safia]

Regarding #2, where does Tradition state (leaving scripture aside for the moment),that the charism of infallibility is only on the chair of St. Peter in Rome? where, in the early councils, at speak of Alexandria as having equal jurisdiction in its area to that of Rome’s in its, say that the Bishop of Rome has this charism ex cathedra? And if they did say this, why to all the other sees reject it? Was Peter not also in Antioch? Why is that infallibility not there?

How does this sound?

One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church; the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy; the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii); the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century; and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).

Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent’s letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: “Rome’s reply has come: the case is closed” (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x); and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that “all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory” (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they “are compelled” to condemn the heresy of Nestorius “by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome.”

Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.”

More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”

After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.”

Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted. (source)

The source lists also the numerous Scriptural proofs for papal infallibility, which should answer your question RE: Peter, if the above didn’t.

 

[dcointin]

While I haven’t read the entire thread, I would like to make a comment about how Lutherans view scripture that I think may be beneficial. Unlike fundamentalist churches such as Baptists, Lutherans do not adhere to the view that we should only do something if it’s stated in scripture, and not do it if it’s not so stated. Luther believed that tradition is helpful and should be preserved insofar as it does not contradict scripture, which means that practices such as the liturgy, vestements, church calendar, etc. should be preserved. This is a distinction that many don’t understand, but necessary when discussing scripture with Lutherans.

 

[Safia]

And more specifically:

The scriptures are inspired because they are God’s word.

You know this because the Church tells you so. The only way to know for sure that Scripture = God’s word is if God came from Heaven to tell us.

I actually agree with 1.

Cool. That’s a start.

Regarding #2, where does Tradition state (leaving scripture aside for the moment) that the charism of infallibility is only on the chair of St. Peter in Rome? where, in the early councils, at speak of Alexandria as having equal jurisdiction in its area to that of Rome’s in its, say that the Bishop of Rome has this charism ex cathedra? And if they did say this, why to all the other sees reject it? Was Peter not also in Antioch? Why is that infallibility not there?

I hope the above answers this. It did for me. There’s absolutely nothing historically that suggests otherwise in terms of infallibility.

 

[Safia]

While I haven’t read the entire thread, I would like to make a comment about how Lutherans view scripture that I think may be beneficial. Unlike fundamentalist churches such as Baptists, Lutherans do not adhere to the view that we should only do something if it’s stated in scripture, and not do it if it’s not so stated. Luther believed that tradition is helpful and should be preserved insofar as it does not contradict scripture, which means that practices such as the liturgy, vestements, church calendar, etc. should be preserved. This is a distinction that many don’t understand, but necessary when discussing scripture with Lutherans.

Thank you!

This is relatively clear to me as a statement, but only confuses me further in terms of Lutheran practices. Where did the tradition start? The Catholic Church. Why aren’t Lutherans Catholic? Because one individual decided he didn’t like it. Roman infallibility was unquestioned for centuries. You can throw out random assertions – oh, this and this council didn’t say this or that – but you cannot deny that the Roman tradition (2000+ years) has been steady and strong, and in terms of papal infallibility, specifically, the Pope has spoken ex cathedra a significant limited # of times, but these infallible teachings have prevented the further destruction of the Church Christ intended.

 

[CathApol]

Sorry for the delay in the reply. Now, I do not have all of the answers to your questions. The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says.

Have you seen ANY verse which states Scripture is to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian Church? This is a 16th century innovation. It is not scriptural nor is it historically Christian prior to the 16th century.

I want Bible verses as evidence, not what people think is logical.

I’m joining in late here myself, what evidence from the Bible are you seeking?

I also have a hard time believing that the Popes really are descendants of the Apostles. Is there any historical evidence?

There’s plenty of historical evidence! Throughout the Early Church Fathers, orthodoxy is shown through valid lines of valid bishops - which is the office (“bishoprick” according to Acts 1:28, KJV) of the Apostles.

It’s not that I don’t believe God wouldn’t be capable of keeping his Church together, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s Church, because how do I know if the Church has really kept true to the Apostles’ teachings?

Well, consider that Christ promised to build His Church (singular). We have to have faith that He kept His promise, right? So, if He built this ONE Church, then we need to look at history and see WHICH Church could possibly be that ONE. For the first 1000 years of Christendom there was indeed ONE Church! In 1054 that Church divided, and in the 16th century that Church divided again, and again and again. But again look at the first 1000 years! The lines of bishops are WELL documented! Was every act of every man IN the Church good and holy? No! But even in times of heresy, such as in St. Athanasius’ day where most of the Church turned toward Arianism - the True Church ultimately prevailed.

How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God? I need evidence to believe. I believe in God, because there is evidence. If I believed in the Catholic Church, I would need evidence of it being Christ’s Church.

Demanding evidence is a sign of a lack of faith. If you have faith, and are open to hearing and seeing the evidence - then it is overwhelming! If you have no faith, then no amount of evidence is going to suffice. Christianity is not a religion of evidence, even though we have plenty of it - but it is a religion of FAITH.

May God richly bless you on your journey to true faith,

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Safia,

I guess there will always be an obligatory “My Aunt Emma” type argument presented. Yes, there will always be someone available who somehow provides the example one wants to use to make some point. As I recall, Father Luther once believed in transubstantiation - then stopped believing … but, then he claimed to believe in the Real Presence - but, only on his terms…

Most individuals, as far as I know, do not make authorative pronouncements - no matter how they like to characterize their opinions… Papal authority has been a real problem for a lot of people for a long time - Luther had to take a number and just wait in that line! But, you know, the Jewish leaders did not take kindly to Christ claiming to be God and making authorative pronouncements. How they responded to Peter - Christ’s appointed leader on Earth, is well documented in Acts.

Your analogy of a spiral is right on - it only appears circular if one has a circumscribed view.

God bless

That’s the thing. Individuals will always disagree. Catholics can disagree all they want. But we have Christ’s Church to tell us whether or not we’re heretics (thank God! – can you imagine a world without a Magisterium, because I definitely cannot) . Give this a read when you have a chance.

 

[Nicea325]

Good friend Nicea,
Is it fair to assert that since Dr. Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, Lutherans should get first dibs on how the practice is defined and how it works?

A blessed Epiphany,
Jon

Indeed, SS is usually linked to Luther. Obviously I am not a supporter of SS in doctrine,practice or whatever one chooses,but I have read and heard many different understandings and definitions of SS by other denominations. Unless I am incorrect?

 

[David]

Good friend Nicea,
Is it fair to assert that since Dr. Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, Lutherans should get first dibs on how the practice is defined and how it works?

A blessed Epiphany,
Jon

Hello Jon,
I would recommend you don’t open that can of worms. People may raise some of the following questions.
Where did Martin Luther get the right to redefine covenant, church, and salvation. After all those were already defined for 1500 years.

Peace
David

 

[passer_by]

Passer,
What else would you propose that I defend my faith with? Do not Catholics defend their faith from their system - Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium? Should I accuse this as being circular? “The pope is infaalible ex cathedra. This is true because the pope said so, and he is infallibile ex cathedra.” I don’t use argumentation such as that.

Actually no Jon. This where you make the mistake.

Catholics first have to defend arriving at the Catholic system or set of axioms. It can’t be a blind jump. We explain that by pointing out how the most intuitive and logical thing to do after realizing Christ rose from the dead is to turn to the Apostles for advice on teaching and their successors.

What I am asking is the same thing from Protestants. I feel, and as far as my analysis has shown, there is none.

I can’t provide a defense for anyone else to be protestant. I can provide a defense for being Lutheran. It may not be the defense you wish to hear. I don’t know. But of course I will defend my faith from within my “system”.

If I ask you “Why become Lutheran”, the logical error that most fall in to is start quoting Scripture and other elements of faith. That is not reasonable.

What you have to do is provide REASONABLE arguments for being Lutheran from outside the system. As in how to arrive that Lutheran axioms are the one to adopt from realizing Christ rose from the dead or that he is your personal savior.

 

[Telestia]

I’m not in a quandary by any means. I’m under God’s grace.

What you are saying here is that there are just a bunch of sinners here. …

That happens to be true. The only people who get saved through Jesus finished work on the cross are sinners, myself included. We know form 1 John 1:5-10, all Christians do sin, and do so regularly. Thus salvation is truly a gift to us from God.

What are you to do…you sure got me wondering how one person can solve any of this…

That’s easy, salvation comes by believing God.

copticChristian:

By the way show me how it is you came to understand this blood of Jesus and how one gets in on the action. What do you tell somebody they need to do to be transformed and to get the indwelling…I sure want to know.

Upon Jesus death on the cross, Jesus had kept the entire Mosaic Covenant throughout His entire life. JESUS FULFILLED THE ENTIRE MOSAIC COVENANT, EVERY LAST JOT AND TITLE OF IT. Jesus never sinned. This made Jesus the unblemished Lamb of God who takes away all our sins for all time, to all who accept The Blood of the Lamb of God as a covering and atonement for all our sins, past - present - and future.

For too long people sought to be saved by keeping the Law, a Sisyphean task, and the blood of the sacrificed unblemished Lamb was just another opportunity to keep the whole Law. In reality, it was the covering of the blood of THE PERFECT LAMB that covers our sins by which we are saved and transformed by God.

Upon Jesus death on the cross, God annihilated the Mosaic Covenant with its 613 laws. See Zechariah 11 7-14, Zec 1-6 is the prophecy of the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 AD).

Upon Jesus resurrection, The New Covenant was established, and for the first time, Jesus plainly proclaimed to His Apostles the Gospel of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.
And as Paul writes in Hebrews, Jesus is not a temporal priest according to the priesthood pf Levi. Jesus is a Priest according to the far superior Everlasting Priesthood of Melchizedek, and where there is a change of of Priesthood, there is a change of Law. And that no one can be saved under the Mosaic Law, but under the Laws of Jesus Christ, God Saves Us.

Even though God annihilated the Mosaic Covenant in its’ entirety, Clearly He did not leave us lawless, for through His only begotten SON - Jesus, we are now under a new set of laws of Jesus Christ, which are:

LAW 1 - The Royal Law of Love: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love others as you love yourselves.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

NC Commandment 2: The Law of Liberty: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by The Law of Liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGMENT.

NC Commandment 3: The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

Ro 8:1-11 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

1. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
2. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

{and thru verse 39 of Romans Chapter 8).

The Holy Spirit dwells in me and works in me to transform my very nature to do the good God desires we all do. I accept God’s gift, I am saved and will be with Jesus in Heaven.