Question for all protestants

[StraitGateSheep]

Hello Rinnie,

Having love for people, even for our enemy is good
and it is what Our LORD, Our Shepherd and Our Judge has taught us.
I had asked for that love and also for power to help,
for loving alone could negatively impact a person.
Jesus and the Apostles LOVED but they had power to do miracles, not to just internalize.

The good Israelite’s secret, like David,
was to have his God with him everywhere and always.

Regarding you quest for truth:
Verifiable TRUTH can be found by making a contact with Jesus who lives and works.
That is the Christian ‘secret’ that was being publicized by the Apostles.

Eph.4
[17] This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord,
that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk,
in the vanity of their mind,
[18] Having the understanding darkened,
being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them,
because of the blindness of their heart:
[19] Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness,
to work all uncleanness with greediness.
[20] But ye have not so learned Christ;
[21] If so be that ye have >> heard him <<
and have been >> taught by him <<
as the >>TRUTH << is in Jesus: (= in fellowship with Jesus)

Your solution is in one of the ONES below.

Eph.4
[1] I (Paul) therefore,
the prisoner of the LORD, >> (the incarnated God of Israel)
beseech you (converts)
that you walk worthy of the vocation >> (of faith, love and good deeds)
wherewith you are called, (by God)
[2] With all lowliness
and meekness, >> (submissiveness to the Doctrine from Christ and the Apostles)
with longsuffering,
forbearing one another, in love;
[3] Endeavoring to keep the unity of/ from the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is ONE body,
and ONE Spirit, (of God)
even as ye are called in ONE hope of your calling; (immortality/ everlasting Salvation)
[5] ONE >> (the Mighty God of Israel who was sent from heaven),
ONE faith, >> (in BOTH the Father and the Son)
ONE baptism, >> (according to God’s eternal Doctrine)
[6] ONE God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.

If the ‘strong hand of God’ is on us then we are not at peace and comfort
until we find him.

After we have inquired from others, we must bring the focus on our self,
accept our responsibility and in our determination SEEK and TRY…

Use the Wisdom that is described below.

Jas.3
[17] But the wisdom that is from above (God) is first:
pure,
then peaceful
gentle,
and easy to be entreated,
full of mercy and of good fruits,

without partiality,<<
and without hypocrisy.

I have been where you are and so are many others.
You cannot be sure until you make contact with your Shepherd.
We all appear to be at different levels of inquiry and of different degrees of determination.

If you need a more direct and personal answer then please email me.

With love for all, we never want to do ill to any man and we endeavor for the good of all.

 

[rinnie]

Hello Rinnie,

Having love for people, even for our enemy is good
and it is what Our LORD, Our Shepherd and Our Judge has taught us.
I had asked for that love and also for power to help,
for loving alone could negatively impact a person.
Jesus and the Apostles LOVED but they had power to do miracles, not to just internalize.

The good Israelite’s secret, like David,
was to have his God with him everywhere and always.

Regarding you quest for truth:
Verifiable TRUTH can be found by making a contact with Jesus who lives and works.
That is the Christian ‘secret’ that was being publicized by the Apostles.

Eph.4
[17] This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord,
that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk,
in the vanity of their mind,
[18] Having the understanding darkened,
being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them,
because of the blindness of their heart:
[19] Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness,
to work all uncleanness with greediness.
[20] But ye have not so learned Christ;
[21] If so be that ye have >> heard him <<
and have been >> taught by him <<
as the >>TRUTH << is in Jesus: (= in fellowship with Jesus)

Your solution is in one of the ONES below.

Eph.4
[1] I (Paul) therefore,
the prisoner of the LORD, >> (the incarnated God of Israel)
beseech you (converts)
that you walk worthy of the vocation >> (of faith, love and good deeds)
wherewith you are called, (by God)
[2] With all lowliness
and meekness, >> (submissiveness to the Doctrine from Christ and the Apostles)
with longsuffering,
forbearing one another, in love;
[3] Endeavoring to keep the unity of/ from the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is ONE body,
and ONE Spirit, (of God)
even as ye are called in ONE hope of your calling; (immortality/ everlasting Salvation)
[5] ONE >> (the Mighty God of Israel who was sent from heaven),
ONE faith, >> (in BOTH the Father and the Son)
ONE baptism, >> (according to God’s eternal Doctrine)
[6] ONE God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.

If the ‘strong hand of God’ is on us then we are not at peace and comfort
until we find him.

After we have inquired from others, we must bring the focus on our self,
accept our responsibility and in our determination SEEK and TRY…

Use the Wisdom that is described below.

Jas.3
[17] But the wisdom that is from above (God) is first:
pure,
then peaceful
gentle,
and easy to be entreated,
full of mercy and of good fruits,

without partiality,<<
and without hypocrisy.

You are so Sweet. Although you words of scripture are true, and I do not deny them, scripture of truth does not always mean you have truth.

See you can read the bible all you want, but in order to have the fullness of the truth you have to have a human leader or teacher to reveal to you what the truth means.

My question is who do Protestants go to and what guarantee do they have that that person is correct.

See if you go to a Roman Cstholic Church here where I live, or in Rome. It don’t matter. You will find one truth.

Now my friend is Protestant. If her preacher says this, and then goes to another protestant church and the other says this, who hold the authority over the other.

See honey I am not asking what truth is or where to find it. I know that. What I am asking is where do Protestants find it. And how and why are they sure they have it.

 

[steido01]

Now my friend is Protestant. If her preacher says this, and then goes to another protestant church and the other says this, who hold the authority over the other.

Why do you place all protestants under the same umbrella? Whatever communion an individual happens to be a part of is likely from where they expect that teaching authority to be exercised.

What one communion teaches is, practically speaking, of little concern to another. Does Rome confer with Constantinople or Wittenberg or the Grand Ayatollah before declaring some dogma? No. So why would you expect a protestant group to confer with another or seek the authority of others?

 

[Reuben_J]

Either way the answer eventually ends up with, “Well, we have Scripture and we haven’t made an infallible proclamation so we can assume but can’t say for sure”

Boy, am I educated by this. As a kid I was used to being challenged by Protestant mates about my Catholic faith. When I could not explain to them with certainty they ridiculed me saying that I should be sure of my faith. They said they were sure of theirs.

BTW what kind of belief is that when you can only ‘assume’ on something very important that determines your life eternal? I am sorry for that remark but that (to assume and can’t say for sure) somehow do struck me as odd.

 

[ephesians2]

I agree. That (and a lack of time) is why I’m not contributing a response to the question.

I will!

And I’ll give an answer without reading anyone’s post mainly b/c of lack of time AND because I am most certain of what is going to come up…You know, the silly claim of 33,000 Protestant denominations or 33 billion or whatever ridiculous uneducated claim is floating around the internet.

(Why doesn’t anyone bother to address the supposed 781 EO denominations or the 242 Catholic denominations?)

It comes down to-

1. Is the church you are speaking of truly a Protestant denomination? In other words, can the denomination be traced back to the Reformers and the Reformation?
2. Do they hold to Sola Scriptura?
3. Is it a “salvation” issue? Such as how a person is saved… ( Although if the first two are a “yes” then I’m fairly certain this one would not be an issue.)

If the answers to these are “Yes” and the churches are disagreeing, I would answer with?

SIN and SINFUL man.

There is diversity and disagreements and scandal in every church INCLUDING the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, look at 1 Corinthians 3. It even happened in Paul’s day.

Maybe someone posted all this already, but due to lack of time I did not read all of them. These are just my thoughts.

 

[rinnie]

Why do you place all protestants under the same umbrella? Whatever communion an individual happens to be a part of is likely from where they expect that teaching authority to be exercised.

What one communion teaches is, practically speaking, of little concern to another. Does Rome confer with Constantinople or Wittenberg or the Grand Ayatollah before declaring some dogma? No. So why would you expect a protestant group to confer with another or seek the authority of others?

I am not saying they have authority over one another. Thats pretty much what I am trying to seek here.

Who claims it.

Rather you want to accept it or reject it our Pope claimed it! You can say you don’t agree and of course you would.

But you can’t deny he claimed it. And the scripture is on his side,
We can debate this forever. But not the point.

Now if I were to become a Catholic and choose where I was to go, I would either accept the truth given to me by the RCC or reject it. You can’t have anyone take away your free will.

My point is you and I could go on for ever debating why I believe he has it and you don’t believe it has it.

But the point is I believe he has it, and he claimed it. And the bible can show alot to defend my point of view.

Its there its evidence rather you accept it or not.

So right back at you does the Pope make the claim in the CC. Yes he does.

Why am I so wrong to ask who claims it in the Protestant faith.

 

[benjohnson]

See if you go to a Roman Cstholic Church here where I live, or in Rome. It don’t matter. You will find one truth.

Confessional Lutheran have this too - one confessional Lutheran church proclaims the Gospel as well as another, and they’re all across the world.

BUT it doesn’t mean we get to rest easy, for though we hear the Law and Gospel, we tend to rebel (in sin) against it.

I’m afraid that Catholics and Lutherans here in Washington State have the same problem - the inability to hear and respond to the clear instructions of the church.

 

[ephesians2]

1. My question is who do Protestants go to and what guarantee do they have that that person is correct.
2. See if you go to a Roman Cstholic Church here where I live, or in Rome. It don’t matter. You will find one truth.

1. “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” Romans 8:14-16

It is the peace that passeth all understanding.

1. No you don’t. Find one truth, that is. Sorry, rinnie, I disagree. I’ve been there. One will say “this” and you go to a different diocese and one will say something different. It depends on the priest. “Rome” is not everywhere.

 

[ephesians2]

Now my friend is Protestant. If her preacher says this, and then goes to another protestant church and the other says this, who hold the authority over the other.
See honey I am not asking what truth is or where to find it. I know that. What I am asking is where do Protestants find it. And how and why are they sure they have it.

Hi rinnie- I’m back. Maybe this will answer your question or possibly get you on track in order to find your answer?

It comes down to-

1. Is the church you are speaking of truly a Protestant denomination? In other words, can the denomination be traced back to the Reformers and the Reformation?
2. Do they hold to Sola Scriptura?
3. Is it a “salvation” issue? Such as how a person is saved… ( Although if the first two are a “yes” then I’m fairly certain this one would not be an issue.)

If the answers to these are “Yes” and the churches are disagreeing, I would answer with?

SIN and SINFUL man.

There is diversity and disagreements and scandal in every church INCLUDING the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, look at 1 Corinthians 3. It even happened in Paul’s day.

Maybe someone posted all this already, but due to lack of time I did not read all of them. These are just my thoughts.

 

[rinnie]

I will!

And I’ll give an answer without reading anyone’s post mainly b/c of lack of time AND because I am most certain of what is going to come up…You know, the silly claim of 33,000 Protestant denominations or 33 billion or whatever ridiculous uneducated claim is floating around the internet.

(Why doesn’t anyone bother to address the supposed 781 EO denominations or the 242 Catholic denominations?)

It comes down to-

1. Is the church you are speaking of truly a Protestant denomination? In other words, can the denomination be traced back to the Reformers and the Reformation?
2. Do they hold to Sola Scriptura?
3. Is it a “salvation” issue? Such as how a person is saved… ( Although if the first two are a “yes” then I’m fairly certain this one would not be an issue.)

If the answers to these are “Yes” and the churches are disagreeing, I would answer with?

SIN and SINFUL man.

There is diversity and disagreements and scandal in every church INCLUDING the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, look at 1 Corinthians 3. It even happened in Paul’s day.

Maybe someone posted all this already, but due to lack of time I did not read all of them. These are just my thoughts.

Fair enough. Yes the RCC had its disgraces. Lord knows we did. Always had and unfortunately as long as humans are on this earth good men will fall to sin. Rather Priests or not.

See God never said a Priest would not turn on him and being a Priest never gave you a guarantee from Satan.

But please show me where ONE Catholic teaching in the RCC is different from another RCC. Because you made a dangerous statememt there. You must show me proof.

Because the RCC does indeed claim also the Power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture. And if you can show the battle we are in trouble.

The Pope is our leader.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. No you don’t. Find one truth, that is. Sorry, rinnie, I disagree. I’ve been there. One will say “this” and you go to a different diocese and one will say something different. It depends on the priest. “Rome” is not everywhere.

But this is an important distinction: if the Bishop of the diocese determines that one of the priests under his authority is teaching something in error, the Bishop has the authority to take corrective action. This may even include referring the matter to Rome if necessary. As a matter of fact, Pope Francis excommunicated a priest in Australia very recently.

So, while it may be comforting in some small way to tell yourself that the Catholic Church is not unified in terms of its doctrine, this is not really true.

 

[JRKH]

Why do you place all protestants under the same umbrella? Whatever communion an individual happens to be a part of is likely from where they expect that teaching authority to be exercised.

Yes - this is very much the protestant view.

What one communion teaches is, practically speaking, of little concern to another.

Is this biblical? Should Antioch have had “little concern” about what was being taught in Jerusalem and visa-versa?

Does Rome confer with Constantinople or Wittenberg or the Grand Ayatollah before declaring some dogma? No.

Good point. There has been in the past a deplorable breakdown in communication. Something that Rome has been seeking to remedy.

So why would you expect a protestant group to confer with another or seek the authority of others?

Let’s reverse the question - why should we NOT expect a protestant group to confer with another or seek the authority of others?
After all, Scripture contains repeated calls to unity - not an ethereal or invisible unity, but a deep, profound and very visible and authoritative unity.
So - that is why I / we would expect one protestant group to confer with another to seek commonality - to seek unity. Because the bible tells them too.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11313759]Yes - this is very much the protestant view.
Is this biblical? Should Antioch have had “little concern” about what was being taught in Jerusalem and visa-versa?

Little concern when it comes to what Antioch teaches. Of course Lutherans are concerned that we see Christian communions that have heterodox teachings. We are concerned for them, but we do not consider what they teach when concerning doctrine.

Good point. There has been in the past a deplorable breakdown in communication. Something that Rome has been seeking to remedy.

Lutherans, too.

Let’s reverse the question - why should we NOT expect a protestant group to confer with another or seek the authority of others?
After all, Scripture contains repeated calls to unity - not an ethereal or invisible unity, but a deep, profound and very visible and authoritative unity.
So - that is why I / we would expect one protestant group to confer with another to seek commonality - to seek unity. Because the bible tells them too.

Confer in what way? Should we consider the American evangelical symbolic view of the Eucharist as something we should confer on? Or the Baptist view of Baptism? I see no reason not to confer (dialogue) when there appears to be a desire to dialogue, but as Catholics here often report, doctrine cannot change. Same for us.

Peace also with you, James.

Jon

 

[Heart_Foam]

What makes one Protestant preacher’s version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant preacher’s version.

Rinnie, Paul says in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (And by the way, Paul was writing to the church in Galatia to correct to the errors Peter was teaching. Note that he was not amused. Galatians is a fascinating book.)

So lets not focus on who is teaching. If an angel from heaven came and preached, you should test what it says against Scripture. The early church was not preserved from error, nor is the church now. Your question is only interesting to someone who presupposes a church-centered authority. It presupposes a situation in which one doesn’t test what the minister says. But we do. Our measure, our rule, our canon - which means ‘measuring rod’ - is the Bible. Every church I’ve ever been to has Bibles in the pews and we are encouraged by the minister to check what he is saying. “Pick which Protestant minister you choose to believe”?! That doesn’t fit with what we believe at all. I don’t locate truth in the minister: it is in the Word of God. I have to face judgement day by myself. So I prefer to own my faith and trust God directly, rather than have proxy faith in what Rome says about God. The profession of faith on becoming Catholic is: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” In short: “I believe whatever Rome says”. Yet Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “test everything, hold on to the good”, or from the Douay-Rheims which you may be more familiar with, “but prove all things…”. Even what the pope says. He’s no angel. And even if he was, still, test everything. If Catholics did that, it would immediately undermine Catholicism.

So you ask, then why have a preacher at all? What’s the point? To quote John Chrysostom:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain (πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα[PG 62:485]). But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them. (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III, Comments on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.)

Notice that Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we *Sola Scriptura *Christians take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.

 

[JRKH]

Little concern when it comes to what Antioch teaches.

Not sure what you mean her Jon…
In my post I was of course referring the confrontation in the beginning of Acts 15.

Of course Lutherans are concerned that we see Christian communions that have heterodox teachings. We are concerned for them, but we do not consider what they teach when concerning doctrine.

Yet - do these communions with differences seek the biblical path to their solution?

Confer in what way? Should we consider the American evangelical symbolic view of the Eucharist as something we should confer on? Or the Baptist view of Baptism? I see no reason not to confer (dialogue) when there appears to be a desire to dialogue, but as Catholics here often report, doctrine cannot change. Same for us.

I would not presume to suggest just what the various protestant communions should confer on or how except to say that, if they wish to be true followers of Christ and to hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura - then they SHOULD confer on matters where conflict exists with an eye to resolving the matter(s), This is what Christ has said - and which the Holy Spirit caused to be included in Holy Scripture which is the cornerstone of the protestant view.

Jon -
Please know that I recognize the deep difficulties associated with this idea. I’ve seen this same issue within the Catholic Church as well as between the Catholic and the Orthodox. Yet these things really do need to be thought about and discussed. My nudges are but a small way of trying to help Christ’s Church to be more unified.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Rinnie, Paul says in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (And by the way, Paul was writing to the church in Galatia to correct to the errors Peter was teaching. Note that he was not amused. Galatians is a fascinating book.)

So lets not focus on who is teaching. If an angel from heaven came and preached, you should test what it says against Scripture. The early church was not preserved from error, nor is the church now. Your question is only interesting to someone who presupposes a church-centered authority. It presupposes a situation in which one doesn’t test what the minister says. But we do. Our measure, our rule, our canon - which means ‘measuring rod’ - is the Bible. Every church I’ve ever been to has Bibles in the pews and we are encouraged by the minister to check what he is saying. “Pick which Protestant minister you choose to believe”?! That doesn’t fit with what we believe at all. I don’t locate truth in the minister: it is in the Word of God. I have to face judgement day by myself. So I prefer to own my faith and trust God directly, rather than have proxy faith in what Rome says about God. The profession of faith on becoming Catholic is: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” In short: “I believe whatever Rome says”. Yet Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “test everything, hold on to the good”, or from the Douay-Rheims which you may be more familiar with, “but prove all things…”. Even what the pope says. He’s no angel. And even if he was, still, test everything. If Catholics did that, it would immediately undermine Catholicism.

So you ask, then why have a preacher at all? What’s the point? To quote John Chrysostom:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain (πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα[PG 62:485]). But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them. (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III, Comments on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.)

Notice that Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we *Sola Scriptura *Christians take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.

Very interesting post…
This line caught my eye…
Your question is only interesting to someone who presupposes a church-centered authority.
Take a look at this passage from Mt 18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
So - Where is Jesus placing the “authority” here.
Likewise - look at Acts 15 and see where the “authority” was being practiced. Locally or collectively and universally.

It’s right there in Scripture…Church centered authority…and from Christ’s own lips no less.

This is not to say that we should not question the minister. Indeed we should…But Rinnie’s question goes to the fact that one can go to different protestant denominations and hear different and even conflicting teachings and they ALL will encourage the congregation to check Scripture to “check what they are saying”.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11314370]
Yet - do these communions with differences seek the biblical path to their solution?

I’m sure they do.

I would not presume to suggest just what the various protestant communions should confer on or how except to say that, if they wish to be true followers of Christ and to hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura - then they SHOULD confer on matters where conflict exists with an eye to resolving the matter(s), This is what Christ has said - and which the Holy Spirit caused to be included in Holy Scripture which is the cornerstone of the protestant view.

Sure, with the understanding that, as confessional Lutherans, the doctrines we have, based on the final norm of scripture, and rightly proclaimed in the Book of Concord, as just that: doctrine.

Jon -
Please know that I recognize the deep difficulties associated with this idea. I’ve seen this same issue within the Catholic Church as well as between the Catholic and the Orthodox. Yet these things really do need to be thought about and discussed. My nudges are but a small way of trying to help Christ’s Church to be more unified.

I agree. This is one of the more problematic parts of Christian life for someone like myself who seeks unity. If the post-Vatican II era has shown anything, it is that talking with Christian love and charity improves our relationships with each other.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

I’m sure they do.

This is good then…and such effort needs to continue until all have achieved unity - and by that I do not mean a unity based on “agreeing to disagree”.

Sure, with the understanding that, as confessional Lutherans, the doctrines we have, based on the final norm of scripture, and rightly proclaimed in the Book of Concord, as just that: doctrine.

Here we begin to get into infallibility do we not? Does the Lutheran Church claim that it’s Book of Concord is inerrant? I’ve never heard that they do.

I agree. This is one of the more problematic parts of Christian life for someone like myself who seeks unity. If the post-Vatican II era has shown anything, it is that talking with Christian love and charity improves our relationships with each other.

Amen my friend.

Peace
James

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11314533]This is good then…and such effort needs to continue until all have achieved unity - and by that I do not mean a unity based on “agreeing to disagree”.

ISTM that when we feel we can’t take the other’s hand, we should each take the Spirit’s hand, praying for His guidance.

Here we begin to get into infallibility do we not? Does the Lutheran Church claim that it’s Book of Concord is inerrant? I’ve never heard that they do.

No, we don’t. Effectively, scripture is inerrant, and therefore must be right. The confessions are not inerrant, and though could be wrong, they are not wrong.
Something does not have to be infallible to be right.

Jon

 

[batman1973]

Rinnie, Paul says in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (And by the way, Paul was writing to the church in Galatia to correct to the errors Peter was teaching. Note that he was not amused. Galatians is a fascinating book.)

So lets not focus on who is teaching. If an angel from heaven came and preached, you should test what it says against Scripture. The early church was not preserved from error, nor is the church now. Your question is only interesting to someone who presupposes a church-centered authority. It presupposes a situation in which one doesn’t test what the minister says. But we do. Our measure, our rule, our canon - which means ‘measuring rod’ - is the Bible. Every church I’ve ever been to has Bibles in the pews and we are encouraged by the minister to check what he is saying. “Pick which Protestant minister you choose to believe”?! That doesn’t fit with what we believe at all. I don’t locate truth in the minister: it is in the Word of God. I have to face judgement day by myself. So I prefer to own my faith and trust God directly, rather than have proxy faith in what Rome says about God. The profession of faith on becoming Catholic is: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” In short: “I believe whatever Rome says”. Yet Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “test everything, hold on to the good”, or from the Douay-Rheims which you may be more familiar with, “but prove all things…”. Even what the pope says. He’s no angel. And even if he was, still, test everything. If Catholics did that, it would immediately undermine Catholicism.

So you ask, then why have a preacher at all? What’s the point? To quote John Chrysostom:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain (πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα[PG 62:485]). But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them. (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III, Comments on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.)

Notice that Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we *Sola Scriptura *Christians take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.

First off I want to say that I agree with your statement 100%, But I really, really want to steal PRMerger’s thunder,

“With or without faith, you cannot know what books belong in the Bible, unless you give your submission to the CC.”