Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822848]I think, as I have read in history (I am not a historian so this is not first hand knowledge) is that the whole issue was of political nature. Constantinople grew in power over the other Eastern Patriarchates.** But historically, they always listened to the Roman decisions and even asked for help from Rome in clarifying matters. **
Have you studied this part of history? Perhaps any references that indicate to the contrary?

Well, I think the Orthodox here will tell you it was more than political. But on the bolded, that is my understanding, too. If you look back aways, posts 233 and 234, I responded to coptic christian about this. There’s no doubt in my mind that in the first millenium, the Bishop of Rome held a position of honor, first among equals, etc.

What I mean to say is that Scripture is a collection of words. As you probably have first hand experience as well, it can be interpreted in infinitely many different ways. So how does one use Scripture without Tradition for guidance?

I think, first, we need the Church to interpret scripture as far as doctrine goes. Hermeunetics is the role of the Church, clearly. Beyond that, people can use scripture in their daily lives for guidance, certainly. But as a Lutheran, I rely on my communion in its teaching role.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Well, I think the Orthodox here will tell you it was more than political. But on the bolded, that is my understanding, too. If you look back aways, posts 233 and 234, I responded to coptic christian about this. There’s no doubt in my mind that in the first millenium, the Bishop of Rome held a position of honor, first among equals, etc.

So do you keep this Tradition or do you abandon it till consensus? Why?

I think, first, we need the Church to interpret scripture as far as doctrine goes. Hermeunetics is the role of the Church, clearly. Beyond that, people can use scripture in their daily lives for guidance, certainly. But as a Lutheran, I rely on my communion in its teaching role.

But how does your communion know it is right or has authority to interpret correctly?

The difficulty I see is that without Tradition & Authority, it seems that one can only read scripture privately and speculate as to what is taught, no?

If the Lutheran church was confronted with Contraception issue for an example, how would it respond? Or Gay marriage, which I believe split the Lutheran Church in Canada?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Passer_by,

By analogy, in the Army there is two type of marching: marching to get someplace and marching in place (where one just picks their feet up and down but does not move forward). Right now we are marching in place.

If I were to tell you that I am a Catholic and I am greatly scandalized by the California Bishop that fathered two children - while being a bishop - (here is the link: foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04/catholic-bishop-in-los-angeles-resigns-after-revealing-is-father-2-children/ ) and that I was going to leave the Catholic Church because of this documented public scandal - what would you say?

My argument is that this behavior is wrong and that if this guy who should know better, does evil, how am I going to be able to do the right thing? My argument then switches to “Well, if this guy comes back to the Church and undoes the evil that he did, then I will return!” what would you then say?

Now, on to the topic - The Great Schism of over 1,000 years duration - is a public scandal but my Faith is in Christ and not on the actions of sinful men. If there is a great reconciliation between the schismatics and the Church - hey that is great … but, I am not waiting for this to continue my journey with Christ through His Church. It really is an issue of what is it that we believe in. If we claim to believe in Christ - yet fret about the misdeeds of others so that it derails my focus on Christ - then we are truly a noisy gong and a tinkling cymbal. Staying focused on Christ through the Grace of God - is all we have, but, it is more than enough.

Now, let’s get back on SS and how it trashes the Word of God.

God bless

I don’t see why this is important. The Orthodox and CC both agree that Tradition is equal in authority. So why the need to wait?

Once again, this is an issue on a very specific doctrine. I don’t see why this effects your belief on Tradition and Scripture having equal authority?

If anything, then you will have to reject Scripture too for the time till they arrive at reconciliation. Do you? Why not?

 

[passer_by]

Hi, Passer_by,

By analogy, in the Army there is two type of marching: marching to get someplace and marching in place (where one just picks their feet up and down but does not move forward). Right now we are marching in place.

If I were to tell you that I am a Catholic and I am greatly scandalized by the California Bishop that fathered two children - while being a bishop - (here is the link: foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04/catholic-bishop-in-los-angeles-resigns-after-revealing-is-father-2-children/ ) and that I was going to leave the Catholic Church because of this documented public scandal - what would you say?

My argument is that this behavior is wrong and that if this guy who should know better, does evil, how am I going to be able to do the right thing? My argument then switches to “Well, if this guy comes back to the Church and undoes the evil that he did, then I will return!” what would you then say?

Now, on to the topic - The Great Schism of over 1,000 years duration - is a public scandal but my Faith is in Christ and not on the actions of sinful men. If there is a great reconciliation between the schismatics and the Church - hey that is great … but, I am not waiting for this to continue my journey with Christ through His Church. It really is an issue of what is it that we believe in. If we claim to believe in Christ - yet fret about the misdeeds of others so that it derails my focus on Christ - then we are truly a noisy gong and a tinkling cymbal. Staying focused on Christ through the Grace of God - is all we have, but, it is more than enough.

Now, let’s get back on SS and how it trashes the Word of God.

God bless

I totally agree with you. But Jon seems to say that he does want to listen to the Apostles but he isn’t sure which one to pick.

So I want to find out

1. Why he abandons the Tradition that Rome held primacy (which he agrees to)
2. How he relies on his own Communion to correctly interpret and teach from Scripture

Because so far I can’t see Scripture being of any importance from his view other than a book which the word of God but no one is sure what it says other than what the Catholics and Orthodox agree on so far.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Couponfit,

Almost.

You are quite correct about there being big differences between the various groups that, for simplicity, are generally characterized as Protestant. But, when it comes to linking any doctrines they claim to have - it is linked by to their doctrine of SS - and NOT to the Bible. What we see is simply their interpretation of the Bible. This is the single biggest reason why there are 30,000+ groups all claiming SS is the way to go but, only their interpretation is the correct one. If the groups really did believe everything the others were teaching, there simply would have united - and there would not be 30,000+ groups. Each is quite individual in its character and the reason why it splintered off the group they were previously with.

I think this is an important distinction to make.

God bless

Look you’re look at this too too broadly. Each protestant church is really independent. Methodists and Pentecost’s are very different. Most have doctrine, and normally they link their doctrine directly to the bible.

In a way it almost makes sense. Almost! I think what I have to do to understand solo scriptura is to imagine the intention was to cut off the protestants from the church. Further, solo scriptura is easy for a cessationist to accept if you consider that the basic element of solo scriptura is that the revelation of God and Christ in the old and new testament is complete. Thus it doesn’t really take a lot of effort to accept that the bible alone is enough for our salvation. Yet, you’d be hard pressed to find any protestant churches who do not have doctrine, creeds, and assemblies. So we always go back to the concept that Protestantism is designed to justify breaking from the church during a time when it appeared to many priests and laity that the church leadership at the municipal level was filled with corruption and vice. Having read of a catholic priest who just got sentenced to 3 years in prison for embezzling and another two Bishops who resigned I can almost see their view point. But there’s a big big difference between a pastor or priest succumbing to sin during weakness and attempting to discredit the doctrine and dogma of the church and the magistarium.

I guess to really understand we would have to see ourselves in Luther’s shoes at a time when the rich could buy salvation, when rape and vice was common with the ordained, and at a time when serfs were murdered and left to die with the blessing of the church. Or at least that’s how the common person saw it. Like I said, it almost makes sense.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822934]So do you keep this Tradition or do you abandon it till consensus? Why?

I keep the belief in the extent of the primacy we spok - the first millenium. That isn’t the way the CC views it now.

But how does your communion know it is right or has authority to interpret correctly?

The reformers relied on the teachings of the early Church, the ECF’s, and the norm of scripture.

The difficulty I see is that without Tradition & Authority, it seems that one can only read scripture privately and speculate as to what is taught, no?

I already agreed with this. The Church has the teaching and hermeunetic roles.

If the Lutheran church was confronted with Contraception issue for an example, how would it respond? Or Gay marriage, which I believe split the Lutheran Church in Canada?

Its some of the main reasons I am in the LCMS, and no longer ELCA. ust as there are Catholics who believe in these things, sadly there ae Lutherans too.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

I keep the belief in the extent of the primacy we spok - the first millenium. That isn’t the way the CC views it now.

I am not sure I understand. If Rome had Primacy, and if that doctrine has now been officially stated by Rome it-self (whether it be lesser or larger than the original), shouldn’t you still believe in it?

The reformers relied on the teachings of the early Church, the ECF’s, and the norm of scripture.

Norm of Scripture?

Also, as you said the early Church believes in a Primacy of Rome and exclusiveness of the Apostles in deciding matters of interpreting Scripture. How do the reformers not get in to trouble here?

I already agreed with this. The Church has the teaching and hermeunetic roles.

But doesn’t what you say above contradict it?

Its some of the main reasons I am in the LCMS, and no longer ELCA. ust as there are Catholics who believe in these things, sadly there ae Lutherans too.

I am not quiet sure I understand the comparison. There are Catholic who believe otherwise yes. But the teaching of the Church it-self is crystal clear.

In the LCMS and ELCA, you just have two groups who both claim they are right and teach separate things. There also appears to be no grounding to convince the other as to which is right.

So doesn’t all this become arbitrary over LCMS’s interpretation and ELCA’s interpretation?

If I were an Atheist Jon, what should I believe?

Also Jon, I want to ask again the following question.

If I was an Atheist, and I agree from historicity that Christ rose from the dead and therefore I want to follow him and learn about him, what should I do next? Where do I go from there?

 

[David]

Its some of the main reasons I am in the LCMS, and no longer ELCA. ust as there are Catholics who believe in these things, sadly there ae Lutherans too.

Jon

Hello Jon,
There is a difference here with SS believers. They may just start there own Protestant church. I don’t know what LCMS and ELCA stand for, but I assume they are two different Protestant churches. You seem to think that the one you approve of, is the one that teaches truth.
John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

The Catholic Church teaches the truth, no matter what individual Catholics may choose to believe.

Matthew 23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Peace brother
David

 

[mrjinx777]

What are your view about Jesus comments to the pharasees, " in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrins the commandements of man" and so on and so fort ?

 

[passer_by]

What are your view about Jesus comments to the pharasees, " in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrins the commandements of man" and so on and so fort ?

A very interesting quote which raises the issue of the importance of interpretation, Tradition and Authority.

I assume you are probably interpreting this as Jesus condemning all forms of doctrines and commandments put forth by any church?

The Catholics would interpret this as specifically condemning man-made doctrines and commandments such as Primacy of Scripture over Tradition etc. Since the Church merely authoritatively teaches and commands what is Divinely Revealed or what God wants to reveal, the Church would say that the statement by Jesus does not apply to her.

But as you might see now, there are more interpretations of that specific passage possible but unless you hold Tradition and someone interpreting it as Authoritative, then all of them will just be interpretations and which one you pick would be arbitrary.

This is why I said to Jon that without Tradition and an Authority, the Bible will be a book which has divine revelation but no-one knows how to interpret. So in a sense, it’s like treasure locked up without a key.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Couponfit,

I really am confused about several things you have posted … and I would appreciate a clarification.

In a way it almost makes sense. Almost!

This is where it begins … are you making a joke? Things either makes sense, or they don’t. Considering that a great number of people believe SS, even though it is strictly a tradition of men - I think it should be clearly identified as not only not making sense, but a genuine hazard to one’s immortal soul.

I think what I have to do to understand solo scriptura is to imagine the intention was to cut off the protestants from the church.

Whose intention? Luther & Co voluntarily left the Catholic Church through apostasy. The truth is they willfully cut themselves off from the Church founded by Christ. They initiated and enacted a revolt - Luther may have started out to reform some genuine practice abuses , but apparently was drawn in by the power he thought he control. His actions in the Peasants War of 1524 shows that he was willing to do whatever was necessary to stay in power. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Murderous,_Thieving_Hordes_of_Peasants

Further, solo scriptura is easy for a cessationist to accept if you consider that the basic element of solo scriptura is that the revelation of God and Christ in the old and new testament is complete. Thus it doesn’t really take a lot of effort…vice.

SS is all about interpretation - it has nothing to do with whatever may be written. With 30,000+ examples of groups that actively believe in SS - take any verse, or passage or chapter or book in Scripture - and it can be interpreted to mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean. All Protestant doctrines seem to spring from Scripture - yet, there are 30,000+ because none of them agree with one another. This is a major issue and one that deserves to be addressed clearly. It appears to me that you are confusing things.

But there’s a big big difference between a pastor or priest succumbing to sin during weakness and attempting to discredit the doctrine and dogma of the church and the magistarium.

I agree with you on this - but, I do not see how you logically arrived at this position from your presentation above.

I guess to really understand we would have to see ourselves in Luther’s shoes at a time when the rich could buy salvation, when rape and vice was common with the ordained, and at a time when serfs were murdered and left to die with the blessing of the church. Or at least that’s how the common person saw it. Like I said, it almost makes sense.

I see this quite differently. While you may try to see things through the eyes of this apostate German monk, the apparent distortion you have introduced warp any real understanding of what took place. Yes, there were abuses in the Catholic Church at the time - but, maybe the role model you are seeking is St. Catherine of Siena 1347 -1380 (newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm) She not only witnessed public scandal in Christ’s Church - she actively worked to correct the abuses without revolting as Luther did. Luther had the example of Catherine before him - and he simply chose to ignore her good example.

As a matter of fact, salvation has never been purchased because it can not be sold. This was true when Paul reprimanded Simon the magician, it was true in the 16th Century and it is true today. And, if your concern was about the murder of serfs, don’t look to the Catholic Church for this butchery, but rather to the Princes with Luther as their cheer-leader. For another source on this matter: mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/EU/EU06-05.html

Your presentation makes no sense and really flies in the face of established history. Maybe you would like to supply some references that support your position?

God bless
]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an excellent source for dialogue and discussion.

Let me try my hand at responding to your inquiry.

What are your view about Jesus comments to the pharasees, " in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrins the commandements of man" and so on and so fort ?

I think it would be best to look at the context of this partial quote you provided. Take a look at Matthew 15
**
“1a Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2b “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?* They do not wash [their] hands when they eat a meal.” 3He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God* for the sake of your tradition? 4c For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ 5* But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” 6need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 d ‘This people honors me with their lips,* but their hearts are far from me; 9e in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’” 10f He summoned the crowd and said to them, “Hear and understand. 11It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” 12Then his disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13He said in reply,* “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14g Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.””**

Here is the link, and there are some excellent footnotes here: usccb.org/bible/matthew/15

Like Passer said, the condemnation from Christ was for the Jewish leaders setting aside the Laws of God for the traditions of men. You will note, that not much has changed since the 1st Century when this was said! For example, Christ made statements concerning the following:

1.) necessity for baptism (John 3)

2.) giving Peter the power to bind and lose whatever he chose and the Keys as a symbol of this authority (Matthew 16)

3.) His Flesh is Real Food and He has required that we eat it if we are to live (John 6)

4.) giving the power to forgive or retain the sins of men (John 20)

5.) providing the Holy Spirit to His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) to give it all truth (John 16)

Yet many have left the Church of Christ to follow the traditions of men in such areas as they themselves have created. Much of this confusion and dissension is a direct result of Sola Scriptura (the thread we are posting to) which has its origin with Luther. So, we see Christ’s condemnation as having real meaning today for those who interpret away the Words of Christ to satisfy their own ends.

Those are my thoughts on your question, hope that was helpful.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8823010]I am not sure I understand. If Rome had Primacy, and if that doctrine has now been officially stated by Rome it-self (whether it be lesser or larger than the original), shouldn’t you still believe in it?

Yeah, like I said, I do still believe it in the sense that the early Church did. It seems to me, and this seems to be the belief of many communions who maitain AS but are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that universal jurisdiction is an innovation.

Norm of Scripture?

Yes, the final norm of scripture.

Also, as you said the early Church believes in a Primacy of Rome and exclusiveness of the Apostles in deciding matters of interpreting Scripture. How do the reformers not get in to trouble here?

We get in trouble only if we are unwilling to dialogue sincerely with the goal of the Reformation being eventual unity. And as a western Christian, I see that as unity generally with the whole Church, specifically in the west with the western see. The Reformation, in my personal view, is incomplete without reconciliation.

But doesn’t what you say above contradict it?

Not at all. Like I’ve said, I am a Lutheran in the LCMS, and while I think division (for which all of us are to blame) is sad and against the call of Christ, I am bound by the teachings of the Lutheran Church and confessions. I leave the teaching and hermeunetics role there.

I am not quiet sure I understand the comparison. There are Catholic who believe otherwise yes. But the teaching of the Church it-self is crystal clear.

In the LCMS and ELCA, you just have two groups who both claim they are right and teach separate things. There also appears to be no grounding to convince the other as to which is right.

So doesn’t all this become arbitrary over LCMS’s interpretation and ELCA’s interpretation?

Of course they have the right. That’s not the question. The historic teaching of the Church Catholic, of which our confessions claim to be a part of, is in opposition to these things, just as they are woemn in the clergy and openly gay pastors. While I love my Lutheran siblings in the ELCA, thehave frankly strayed from scripture and the confessions.

If I were an Atheist Jon, what should I believe?

You should believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…

In response to this and the great commission, if you are able, as a Catholic, with the help of the Spirit, to bring that atheist into the Catholic Church, then I say Amen.

If I was an Atheist, and I agree from historicity that Christ rose from the dead and therefore I want to follow him and learn about him, what should I do next? Where do I go from there?

I would obviously invite you to attend Adult Education classes at my parish. and if you said to me, I’d rather look into the Catholic Church instead, well I’d give you Father Larry’s (the local Catholic priest) phone and email address. My attitude is not relativist, but I’d rather see you in a parish that I think has errors in doctrine than in no parish at all (though there are some denominations I might try to lead you away from).

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Yeah, like I said, I do still believe it in the sense that the early Church did. It seems to me, and this seems to be the belief of many communions who maitain AS but are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that universal jurisdiction is an innovation.

I am still not sure I understand your reasoning.

1. You do say that in matters of doctrine, the church’s did give primacy to Rome.
2. But then you want to say that you refuse to believe in it because NOW there is no consensus on it

Do you realize why that does not make sense?

So according to your reasoning, if we take a doctrine like Christ’s divinity even, if someone disagrees with such doctrine, then it is free for you to not believe in it.

Just saying Jon, I think you haven’t really considered the logical consistency of your current position.

Yes, the final norm of scripture.

And how and where do you get that from?

We get in trouble only if we are unwilling to dialogue sincerely with the goal of the Reformation being eventual unity. And as a western Christian, I see that as unity generally with the whole Church, specifically in the west with the western see. The Reformation, in my personal view, is incomplete without reconciliation.

But what if the whole basis for the reformation was unfounded? For 600 years after the Orthodox Schism, there were no reformers. This whole reason to breakaway was WRONG. Luther was like a Judas.

Right now you are trying hard to justify this person when he is not even an Apostle. I don’t understand a single reason for your adherence to the Reformation.

Not at all. Like I’ve said, I am a Lutheran in the LCMS, and while I think division (for which all of us are to blame) is sad and against the call of Christ, I am bound by the teachings of the Lutheran Church and confessions. I leave the teaching and hermeunetics role there.

How are we to blame for your division? If you want to stand outside the Catholic Church, that is your fault and responsibility.

You keep saying you are BOUND by the Lutheran Church. But how? How did you go from Christ is risen to “Now I am bound by the Lutheran Church”?

Of course they have the right. That’s not the question. The historic teaching of the Church Catholic, of which our confessions claim to be a part of, is in opposition to these things, just as they are woemn in the clergy and openly gay pastors. While I love my Lutheran siblings in the ELCA, thehave frankly strayed from scripture and the confessions.

But according to you, all this means is that there is no consensus like the issue of Primacy of Rome. So just like you abandon that Primacy, you should abandon all these controversial teachings and remain neutral

You should believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…

I am not sure anyone can believe that until they accept it as a teaching. What they can first find out is that Christ indeed rose from the dead. I am only asking how you go from there to believing that he is the only begotten son etc?

In response to this and the great commission, if you are able, as a Catholic, with the help of the Spirit, to bring that atheist into the Catholic Church, then I say Amen.

Haha. You are just sounding nice but your sentences are empty.

According to you, Christ founded a church that no rational person can arrive at through reasoning. They would just have to make blind jumps of faith. Quiet the Christ you believe in.

I would obviously invite you to attend Adult Education classes at my parish. and if you said to me, I’d rather look into the Catholic Church instead, well I’d give you Father Larry’s (the local Catholic priest) phone and email address. My attitude is not relativist, but I’d rather see you in a parish that I think has errors in doctrine than in no parish at all (though there are some denominations I might try to lead you away from).

This doesn’t make sense. I am asking how an atheist even knows that I should attend some Church. Perhaps he could reason that Christ was a great figure who took care of everything and he should just live his life. It is a possibility after all.

So how does Mr. John Atheist go from what he has discovered as historical in the resurrection then go on to even feel the need to join a Church?

Even if he did, why should any rational person join a Lutheran community which can’t even decide whose right on Gay marriage?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW:-

1. If I had belief in a Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if there were no reasons to believe there was such a being, would it be rational for me to believe in it?

So how is a belief in Luther, his confessions, or even the Bible rational if that is by “Blind Faith”?

1. If there was consensus on Tradition as holding equal Authority as Scripture in the early church. Even if you couldn’t say which Tradition is correct now, shouldn’t you still hold that Tradition does also hold equal Authority?

In short, the fact that you don’t have access to knowing what is the correct Tradition (Your claim) would only mean that you are missing a large chunk of Authoritative information that you need in reading the Bible. If you don’t have it, the Bible is just a text without much value till you discover it. Do you realize that?

1. Since the early Church gave Rome the Primacy on teaching matters, and Rome has defined Infallibility and Primacy and all the other doctrines, shouldn’t you like the early Church believe what Rome teaches?

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8825306]I am still not sure I understand your reasoning.

1. You do say that in matters of doctrine, the church’s did give primacy to Rome.

1. But then you want to say that you refuse to believe in it because NOW there is no consensus on it

Describe the primacy that the Bishop of Rome received in the ealy Church. Was it universal jurisdiction? Not according to nicea. Infallibility ex cathedra? Not that I have found.

Do you realize why that does not make sense?

So according to your reasoning, if we take a doctrine like Christ’s divinity even, if someone disagrees with such doctrine, then it is free for you to not believe in it.

Just saying Jon, I think you haven’t really considered the logical consistency of your current position.

What I am saying is the current teaching of universal jurisdiction is not the teaching (doctrine) of the early Church. What I have said is that if the other sees of the Church would indeed recognize it, I would, too.

And how and where do you get that from?

The thread is originally about sola scriptura.

But what if the whole basis for the reformation was unfounded? For 600 years after the Orthodox Schism, there were no reformers. This whole reason to breakaway was WRONG. Luther was like a Judas.

Of course there were. Jan Hus as an example. Can you find anywhere for me where the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, speaks of Luther in this manner?

Right now you are trying hard to justify this person when he is not even an Apostle. I don’t understand a single reason for your adherence to the Reformation.

My adherence is to the word of God, and the Word of God. Now, I’m not and haven’t questioned your integrity regarding your faith. in fact, I respect it and thank God for it.

How are we to blame for your division? If you want to stand outside the Catholic Church, that is your fault and responsibility

From the CCC:

In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

You keep saying you are BOUND by the Lutheran Church. But how? How did you go from Christ is risen to “Now I am bound by the Lutheran Church”?

This is back to your original question which I have answered. Certainly, it isn’t to your satisfaction, but I can do no more.

But according to you, all this means is that there is no consensus like the issue of Primacy of Rome. So just like you abandon that Primacy, you should abandon all these controversial teachings and remain neutral

I haven’t abandoned it, as I said earlier. I’ve said the current Catholic teaching on it is not consistent with the early Church.

I am not sure anyone can believe that until they accept it as a teaching. What they can first find out is that Christ indeed rose from the dead. I am only asking how you go from there to believing that he is the only begotten son etc?

Already answered.

Haha. You are just sounding nice but your sentences are empty.

I’m sorry yu feel that way, that my respect and admiration of the Catholic Church is mere empty sentences.

According to you, Christ founded a church that no rational person can arrive at through reasoning. They would just have to make blind jumps of faith. Quiet the Christ you believe in.

No. That’s according to you, as an accusation of me.

This doesn’t make sense. I am asking how an atheist even knows that I should attend some Church. Perhaps he could reason that Christ was a great figure who took care of everything and he should just live his life. It is a possibility after all.

You said he now came to faith. That means he no longer is an athiest. You asked me what I would then do. I told you.

So how does Mr. John Atheist go from what he has discovered as historical in the resurrection then go on to even feel the need to join a Church?

Even if he did, why should any rational person join a Lutheran community which can’t even decide whose right on Gay marriage?

No. I said I would encourage him to attend adult education classes in my parish, where there is no dispute about the issue.

continued…

 

[JonNC]

1. If I had belief in a Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if there were no reasons to believe there was such a being, would it be rational for me to believe in it?

So how is a belief in Luther, his confessions, or even the Bible rational if that is by “Blind Faith”?

Where in Christian teaching do we say faith is blind? Is there no baptism? Is there no hearing the word? Is there no Holy Spirit?

1. If there was consensus on Tradition as holding equal Authority as Scripture in the early church. Even if you couldn’t say which Tradition is correct now, shouldn’t you still hold that Tradition does also hold equal Authority?

I’ve answered this before, too. Which Tradition is equal to scripture?

In short, the fact that you don’t have access to knowing what is the correct Tradition (Your claim) would only mean that you are missing a large chunk of Authoritative information that you need in reading the Bible. If you don’t have it, the Bible is just a text without much value till you discover it. Do you realize that?

In this discussion, I have dialogued, as I said, not from scripture, but from Tradition, particularly Nicea. Where once did I mention scripture regarding this?

1. Since the early Church gave Rome the Primacy on teaching matters

Not the primacy it claims for itself now. Not that I can see from Tradition.
Nicea canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Where is universal jurisdiction entioned for the Bishop of Rome? Notice, passer, not from scripture do I make the argument, but from Tradition.

and Rome has defined Infallibility and Primacy and all the other doctrines, shouldn’t you like the early Church believe what Rome teaches?

But there has not been, not since the 7th council, not since the schism, a truly ecumenical council where this could be defined.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Passer_by,

In general terms, let me attempt to answer at least some elements of your post.

But what if the whole basis for the reformation was unfounded? For 600 years after the Orthodox Schism, there were no reformers. This whole reason to breakaway was WRONG. Luther was like a Judas.

Right now you are trying hard to justify this person when he is not even an Apostle. I don’t understand a single reason for your adherence to the Reformation.

At its very core, the Protestant Revolt (it really was not a reformation - they tried to trash everything they did not agree with and then simply left the Catholic Church) was not JUST a series of religious differences on steroids - it was also a political and economic event. It is difficult to really separate the two. Looking only at the religious component leaves everyone just scratching their heads wondering how such the abuse of some rogue clerics ‘selling’ indulgences - in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church could engulf Europe in an on-going crisis for hundreds of years and cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives (Peasants War and 30 Years War).

Adding to the complexity of this issue is that the Protest Revolt was not a monolithic force but, initially ad hoc groups acting in different ways in the different countries of Europe. Luther’s Germany was comprised of competing princes unified in their desire to have more power for themselves and keep what they considered to by ‘their’ money in Germany and not having it go to Rome. Here are a couple of interesting links:

lepg.org/religion.htm

edwin-vargas.suite101.com/the-political-context-of-the-reformation-a135538

The common denominator was that the ruler of each country had the power to dictate the religion. While this was just in the various waring provinces in Germany and France, it took on whole-country wide aspects in England and Switzerland. Once established in the various countries (like Henry VIII’s confiscation of Church property to take care of his friends and reduce the impact of his poor tax policies) it became a matter of state policy to keep things they way they were. In England. Queen Mary attempted to undo the damage caused by her father, but ran into difficulties and combined with poor health and a short reign (compared to Elizabeth I) left that was not ultimately undone. October 2011 the English law was changed so that the monarch can marry a Catholic bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607. Old habits die hard!

These are truly only some of the aspects of why the Protestant Revolt took root and maintained its presence. With everyone being able to be their own pope (heretical doctrines of SS & priesthood of believers) it did not look like there was any need for anyone to return to the Catholic Church which claimed to interpret Scripture without error and had a rigorous training program for males who wanted to become priests.

The roots of the Revolt do not have to make sense - their continuation has more to do with on-going distractions where splintering into a new group is a way of life. (30,000+ groups that can not agree on anything in common except that the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong). The proof of that is the myth that Protestants only disagree on small items but agree on the big ones - well, these ‘small items’ are big enough to keep them disparaging one another’s interpretation of Scripture via SS. (bringthebooks.org/2008/07/is-protestant-unity-oxymoronic.html )

God bless

 

[passer_by]

Describe the primacy that the Bishop of Rome received in the ealy Church. Was it universal jurisdiction? Not according to nicea. Infallibility ex cathedra? Not that I have found.

Listen Jon, and please follow the argument carefully.

1. Bishop of Rome had Primacy on teaching matters – We both agree
2. At some point in time, Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome defined Papal Infallibility and other precepts of Primacy – History
3. Now since you accept (1) it automatically follows that you accept all that was defined in (2)

Your objection so far has been that since the elements in (2) were not accepted back in the day, I will not accept it. But that is irrelevant. Simply by the fact that you accept (1), you must accept elements of (2) as well simply because they are teachings taught by Rome.

This I believe is a good argument against Orthodox as well.

How do you answer this?

 

[passer_by]

Where in Christian teaching do we say faith is blind? Is there no baptism? Is there no hearing the word? Is there no Holy Spirit?

These are all arbitrary theological concepts unless there are reasons to believe that they are from a true source.

You see Jon, in order to believe in any Theological concept, first one has to accept some reason to believe it is from God. This grounding is accomplished by Christ. Since Christ proved to us that he was from God, then we listen to his teaching.

But as I have kept saying, just from Christ, it is not intuitive that the Bible is Divine Revelation. In order to make that step, OR ANY STEP TO DIVINE REVELATION, you have to go through his Apostles.

Do you understand what I am saying?

So to speak of Baptism, Holy Spirit are all arbitrary if you cannot make that connection from Christ to these matters. The only logical way any man on earth can do that is through Christ.

The other possibility is that Christ appears again to you personally and reveals the entire Divine Revelation to you again. But no one actually claims that as far as I know.

So this is the death knell of Protestantism (including LCM, ELCA, non-denominational etc etc). Implicitly, it advocates blind faith in picking to be Christian. It simply wants to by pass the Apostles and requests people to accept Scripture as a Primary source of Divine Revelation. But there is actually no apparent reason to do so.

Therefore to be a Protestant is to believe in a flying invisible Spaghetti Monster. In the case of Protestantism, the invisible monster is simply the Bible, Confessions of that denomination etc etc.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8829413]Listen Jon, and please follow the argument carefully.

1. Bishop of Rome had Primacy on teaching matters – We both agree

Not by himself! And that is the point.

1. At some point in time, Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome defined Papal Infallibility and other precepts of Primacy – History

And without the rest of the sees, leave protestants out of it for a moment, it isn’t a truy ecumenical council. There have been 7 general councils.

1. Now since you accept (1) it automatically follows that you accept all that was defined in (2)

Not the case, as you can see.

Your objection so far has been that since the elements in (2) were not accepted back in the day, I will not accept it

And not accepted today, by the other sees. Well, I provided Nicea canon 6. Certainly Catholics will dispute the readings of it by Orthodoxy, and also the Lutheran Confessions.

But that is irrelevant. Simply by the fact that you accept (1), you must accept elements of (2) as well simply because they are teachings taught by Rome.

This I believe is a good argument against Orthodox as well.

You are assuming that primacy means supremacy. It doesn’t.

Jon

EDIT: I (finally) found this again on the USCCB website, regarding the issue of the Petrine function within the ministry of the whole Church.
nccbuscc.org/seia/differingattutidues.pdf