Sola scriptura advocates...help...

[Erich]

1. Thousands of Protestant churches do not each claim to be the Catholic or Universal Church. Most of their disagreements are over secondary doctrines, not Dogmas. They would all be in “Full Communion” with each other. There is only one Protestant Church in their eyes. The unifying themes of the “five solas” of the Reformation - (1) Scripture as only infallible authority, (2) faith as the only true means of salvation, (3) only through grace of God, (4) only in Christ alone, and (5) only for God’s glory keep them in “Full Communion.” Therefore, all the different denominations (which are in Full Communion) are similar to all the “thousands” of different orders in Roman Catholicism (OSB, SSF, OCSC, Cart., OSA, OFM, SJ, etc.). Protestant denominations are similar to the Roman Catholic religious orders.

I think that Disunity on Essentials paints a more accurate picture:

Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).

…

 

[JonNC]

I think that Disunity on Essentials paints a more accurate picture:

Catholic apologists commonly point out the extreme diversity in belief among Protestant denominations and theological schools of thought. Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).

…

Even sola scriptura and sola fide are not distinctly unifying. But the largest disunity on essemtials is mentioned in your passage above - the sacraments. For me, the most telling question regarding unity of essentials is Luther’s: “Ist ist ist”.

Jon

 

[XinMinny]

I hesitate to get into this discussion, because I feel in over my head just a bit.
So, before I try to explain where I come from as a near SS, I would like to express my concern. It seems to me that I have seen perhaps 10 threads started by Joe in the last 2 months, and each one is really about the same discussion, or it seems to me that way. So, a question for Joe:
Am I missing something? It seems to me that you really aren’t asking questions at all but rather expressing a deeply held belief that “Of course everyone should see that the only real Church has its seat in Rome.” In other words, I am sorry that I feel this way, but it seems you are setting out to prove you are already right, rather than having an open discussion. Please forgive me if I am wrong about that.
And, on the assumption that I am wrong: I would be inline myself with what was written earlier about the Scripture. I mean this:
I believe that all we need is explicit in the Scripture. Baptism is explicitly found in the practices of the NT letters. Communion is explicitly found there. Jesus as the focus of faith - in His attitude, reactions, actions He is held up as the Example. His blood is explicitly found there as being the one atoning factor. Of course, these being explicit, some behavior is explicit as well - love all, including the unbeliever. Respect others in every thing you do. These things are explicit, and all we need. Meditate on them, and you will find a greater need for help in your own heart than you ever did before, and that will keep happening as you meditate on them and on your own heart for all of you life.
As was explained, there are ideas which are implied in Scripture : Trinity, for some the other 5 Sacraments, doctrines about Mary. I am comfortable thinking about those things, wondering what the truth may be. But, I do not think it is possible for a person in good conscience to declare any of these a doctrine as I do not find them explicitly found in the Scripture. So, to answer what I believe is your question in the OP:
What is necessary for us is clear in the Scripture. There is no room for misunderstanding, unless a person wants to justify himself and isn’t considering in good conscience.
And, consider the rest all you want. Some might be good meditation, some might be helpful. It’s your mind, your heart. But, please don’t try to push me into believing the conclusions that come from reasoning that is not explicit.
And, you may find that I left Trinity in that category as well. I will explain why: the Scriptures are explicit that the Father is God, and that Jesus is God. The only verse I know about that suggests the Spirit in the same way is Acts 5, where Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit (in v 3), and lied to God (in v 4). That could mean that the HS is God, but it could also mean they lied to both (God and HS, whoever or however you would explain the HS in that case, which isn’t known for sure…).
So, that is where I am coming from. I hope it helps you to understand my position, and that may not be so different from others’ positions.

X in Minny

 

[joe370]

10 threads regarding SS? Not quite… I promise that I am not setting out to prove that I am right; I am all about open and amiable discussions. Due to the equivocal nature of the various responses regarding those SS threads, I have simply continued to approach the subject of sola scriptura from a few different angles, here at CAF, when asking SS advocates to help me better understand how the practice of sola scriptura works, universally speaking, and why they embrace the non-scriptural practice of Sola scriptura, again, to no avail. You are right though; I have taken this particular 16th century protestant tradition as far as it can possibly go in view of the fact that there simply is zero consensus as to how it works. I always end up being led down the proverbial SS rabbit hole. I really did try, fairly and unbiasedly, to grasp the principle of sola scriptura, and my only wish is that non-Catholics here at CAF would try to at least reciprocate.

At any rate, that is my last SS thread…

I

I hesitate to get into this discussion, because I feel in over my head just a bit.
So, before I try to explain where I come from as a near SS, I would like to express my concern. It seems to me that I have seen perhaps 10 threads started by Joe in the last 2 months, and each one is really about the same discussion, or it seems to me that way. So, a question for Joe:
Am I missing something? It seems to me that you really aren’t asking questions at all but rather expressing a deeply held belief that “Of course everyone should see that the only real Church has its seat in Rome.” In other words, I am sorry that I feel this way, but it seems you are setting out to prove you are already right, rather than having an open discussion. Please forgive me if I am wrong about that.
And, on the assumption that I am wrong: I would be inline myself with what was written earlier about the Scripture. I mean this:
I believe that all we need is explicit in the Scripture. Baptism is explicitly found in the practices of the NT letters. Communion is explicitly found there. Jesus as the focus of faith - in His attitude, reactions, actions He is held up as the Example. His blood is explicitly found there as being the one atoning factor. Of course, these being explicit, some behavior is explicit as well - love all, including the unbeliever. Respect others in every thing you do. These things are explicit, and all we need. Meditate on them, and you will find a greater need for help in your own heart than you ever did before, and that will keep happening as you meditate on them and on your own heart for all of you life.
As was explained, there are ideas which are implied in Scripture : Trinity, for some the other 5 Sacraments, doctrines about Mary. I am comfortable thinking about those things, wondering what the truth may be. But, I do not think it is possible for a person in good conscience to declare any of these a doctrine as I do not find them explicitly found in the Scripture. So, to answer what I believe is your question in the OP:
What is necessary for us is clear in the Scripture. There is no room for misunderstanding, unless a person wants to justify himself and isn’t considering in good conscience.
And, consider the rest all you want. Some might be good meditation, some might be helpful. It’s your mind, your heart. But, please don’t try to push me into believing the conclusions that come from reasoning that is not explicit.
And, you may find that I left Trinity in that category as well. I will explain why: the Scriptures are explicit that the Father is God, and that Jesus is God. The only verse I know about that suggests the Spirit in the same way is Acts 5, where Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit (in v 3), and lied to God (in v 4). That could mean that the HS is God, but it could also mean they lied to both (God and HS, whoever or however you would explain the HS in that case, which isn’t known for sure…).
So, that is where I am coming from. I hope it helps you to understand my position, and that may not be so different from others’ positions.

X in Minny

 

[LaymanX]

I am not sure I really understand your tone and I am rather surprised at what seems to be such a condescending one and I do take offense and exception to it.

My apologies. 'Tis was a joke. Perhaps a smiley face would have conveyed the proper meaning. Mea culpa. I will try to refrain from sarcasms, since it seems to evoke negative emotional response. Or, I shall add a smiley face.

REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised.

Quoting the Gospel of John is not constructive. This is a theological treatise, and the line between theological metaphors and literal interpretations are blurry. I would have to be a seasoned theologian to cipher this text in order to distinguish between metaphorical and literal. I take this verse the same way you do, but this is based on authority, not through my own biblical studies. Nevertheless, I affirmed Christ’s institution of Eucharist and Baptism. By ‘institution,’ I mean explicitly commanded, not implied from descriptive examples. Let’s see if the rest of your verses are in the sense of having explicitly instituted or implicitly assumed based on descriptive examples.

CONFIRMATION
Acts 19:5-6 - Paul imposed hands on baptized, received Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-17 - laid hands upon them, they received Holy Spirit. 2Cor 1:21-22 - put seal on us and given Holy Spirit in our hearts
Eph 1:13 - you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. Heb 6:2 - instruction about baptism & laying on of hands

All descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive (except for Heb. 6:2). As for Heb 6:2, “Laying of hands” could be for ordination and commissioning, not necessarily in the sense of confirmation. I take it to be confirmation, but it is not conclusive (as far as I know).

CONFESSION
Mt 9:2-8 Son of Man has authority to forgive sins. Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained. Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, “receive Holy Spirit” [recall Gn 2:7]
2Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation. Jam 5:13-15 - confess your sins to one another
Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven. 1Jn 5:6 - there is sin that is not deadly

All descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive. Mt 18:18 is irrelevant. It is about resolving disputes when one confronts another brother for sinning. This is not confession in the traditional sense. This is exhortation and discipline.

ANOINTING THE SICK
Mk 6:12-13 - anointed with oil many sick, cured them. Jam 5:14-15 - presbyters pray over sick, anoint, sins forgiven

Mk 6:12-13 is descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive. As for Jam 5:14-15, are you saying praying and singing should be sacraments too? They are included with anointing the sick.

Peace and grace,

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Yes, you are correct for the most part. This has been generally the case in pre-internet age. These days, there is a general consensus on what should be considered a legitimate dispute, and what doctrines are ambiguous. But this still doesn’t refute your criticism.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

Once again, this has generally been the case in the past. There are not that many groups of Protestant churches today. The Methodists have the World Methodist Council, the Reformed have the World Communion of Reformed Churches, and Lutherans have formed the World Lutheran Federation. That’s really all there is these days. The rest are just random individualistic groups which none of the four mentioned above would even consider theologically legit. And amongst these four groups (if you include the Anglican Communion as Protestant), there is a general understanding that the Nicene Creed is absolutely necessary, plus they respectively have the Articles of Religion & Book of Discipline, the Reformed Confessions and the Book of Common Prayer, the Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord, the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.

This have been generally the case in the past, but the four groups I mentioned above have been working towards full communion. All hold to some form of Real Presence now. All respect infant baptism. I didn’t include Baptist because they are individualistic congregationalists who have no justification for their Nicene Faith, except for Reformed Baptists (but they are a minority right now). Baptismal regeneration is held between Anglicans and Lutherans, etc. etc. Anyways, what I was trying to get at, is that these four are working towards full communion just like the Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem for users of the “unity in essentials” argument is the fact that they disagree on the meaning of the distinctively Protestant essentials on which they claim to be united: the slogans “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” (sola fide and sola scriptura).

This has been the case in the past. All the four I mentioned above do not hold to strict (sola fide and sola scriptura). They embrace communal faith, and the interpretive tradition. Most of the extreme individualistic forms of Protestantism are dying away. So perhaps in the near future we will see greater unity in all the world communions.

Regards,

Francis

 

[Erich]

[T]here are ideas which are implied in Scripture : Trinity, for some the other 5 Sacraments, doctrines about Mary. I am comfortable thinking about those things, wondering what the truth may be. But, I do not think it is possible for a person in good conscience to declare any of these a doctrine as I do not find them explicitly found in the Scripture.

The other 5 Sacraments are explicitly found in Scripture.

From Confirmation:The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings, which is to be expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the Christian life.

We read: “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1–2).

Notice how in this passage we are walked through the successive stages of the Christian journey—repentance, faith, baptism, confirmation, resurrection, and judgment. This passage encapsulates the Christian’s journey toward heaven and gives what theologians call the order of salvation or the ordo salutis. It well qualifies as “the elementary teachings” of the Christian faith.

The laying on of hands mentioned in the passage must be confirmation: The other kinds of the imposition of hands (for ordination and for healing) are not done to each and every Christian and scarcely qualify as part of the order of salvation.

From The Forgiveness of Sins:Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).

Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:19–20).
…
Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to “retain” sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be “retained.”

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” which he explained is required because “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:12–15).

If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.

 

[Erich]

From Anointing of the Sick:Like all the sacraments, holy anointing was instituted by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. The *Catechism *explains, “This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord” (CCC 1511; Mark 6:13; Jas. 5:14-15).

The anointing of the sick conveys several graces and imparts gifts of strengthening in the Holy Spirit against anxiety, discouragement, and temptation, and conveys peace and fortitude (CCC 1520). These graces flow from the atoning death of Jesus Christ, for “this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’” (Matt. 8:17).

Mark refers to the sacrament when he recounts how Jesus sent out the twelve disciples to preach, and “they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:13). In his epistle, James says, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (Jas. 5:14–15).

Of course, the laying on of hands for ordination is also explicitly found in Scripture: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14) When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel.
Finally, from The Permanence of Matrimony:
When Jesus came, he elevated matrimony to the same status it had originally possessed between Adam and Eve—the status of a sacrament. Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved. Jesus, therefore, taught that if anyone so married divorces and remarries, that person is living in perpetual adultery, a state of mortal sin.

He said, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring, “Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive” (Rom. 7:2–3).

This applied, of course, only to sacramental marriages—those between baptized people. For marriages involving an unbaptized party, a different rule applied (1 Cor. 7:12–15).

In the midst of the Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—just as the Catholic Church does today in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1614–1615). Other denominations have modified their teachings to accommodate the pro-divorce ethos that dominates modern culture, but the Catholic Church preserves the teaching of Jesus and the early Christians.

While their ex-spouses are alive, the only time that a baptized couple can remarry after divorce is when a valid sacramental marriage never existed in the first place. For example, for a marriage to be contracted, the two parties must exchange valid matrimonial consent. If they do not, the marriage is null. If the competent authority (a diocesan marriage tribunal) establishes this fact, a decree of nullity (commonly called an annulment) can be granted, and the parties are free to remarry (CCC 1629). In this case there is no divorce followed by remarriage in God’s eyes because there was no marriage before God in the first place, merely a marriage in the eyes of men.

If, however, the parties are genuinely and sacramentally married, then, while in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).

This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, “To the married I give charge,* not I but the Lord*, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

Fortunately, God will ensure that the sacramentally married have the grace necessary to live out their marriage vows and either stay married or live continently. The sacrament of matrimony itself gives this grace. Whenever we face a trial, God ensures that we will have the grace we need. As Paul elsewhere says, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

 

[Third_Day]

=JonNC;7509387]I think Lutherans could accept the authority of the Pope, in the same way the early Church did.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Well, first, I do believe we have a valid priesthood, as presbyter ordination has a history of practice even by the Catholic Church.

Going by Scripture alone it seems to me that the only valid presbyters were the ones ordained by the layng on of hands by a Bishop.

So, yes, I believe our sacraments, including the Eucharist and Confession/ Holy Absolution are valid.

Only if you can prove you have a valid priesthood without a valid bishop. What is the name of a bishop that left the Catholic Church and went with Luther?

Lutherans believe apostolic succession is important, and desirable, but not necessary for a valid priesthood.

If apostolic succession is not necessary for a valid priesthood then couldn’t anyone start their own church and claim to have a valid priesthood? Where in scripture alone do you find anyone claiming to be a valid priest without apostolic ordination? Where in the writings of the early Church do you find a valid priesthood outside the Catholic Church?

Source, please, where the ECF’s, or an early council, uses the expression, or describes the Eucharist in that way. That said, for me personally, and for a number of Lutheran and Catholic theologians, our different expressions of His real presence ought not be Church dividing.

Ignatius in 107 and Justin Martyr around 150 both call the Mass a sacrifice something that Luther rejected. Justin Martyr says that after the liturgy the Eucharist was taken to those who were unable to be at the liturgy. Seems to me that this indicates that the Church believed that the Eucharist IS the Flesh of Christ and remains so after the Liturgy something that Luther rejected. From what I have found Luther did not believe that the Eucharist could be taken to the sick and it appears that is still the Lutheran practice. This article seems to confirm that:
In Lutheranism the traditional practice is to consecrate the elements in the presence of the communing person, be it home, hospital, or nursing home. Lately, however, this practice seems to be changing.
ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/zieglershouldluthreserveconsecratedelementssick.pdf

Cyril of Jerusalem around 350 seems to be the first to write about transubstantiation even though he didn’t use that term:
“Having learned these things, you have complete certitude that the visible bread is **not bread **even if such to the taste **but the body of Christ **and the visible wine **is not wine **even if taste thinks it such but the Blood of Christ.” Catechetical Lecture 22

I can’t find any writings accusing Cyril of being a heretic.This appears to have been the belief of the Fathers that was handed down

Ambrose wrote in 390 “For my flesh truly is food and my Blood truly is drink…for as often as we receive the Sacrament which through the Mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into Flesh and Blood we announce the death of the Lord. On Christian Faith Book IV 125

 

[LaymanX]

Well Jon, you are the only SS advocate willing to respond specifically to my original post. Thanks again for that, and again, I agree with your response.

Lol. Seriously. What’s up with all this Sacraments debate? I think my last quote suffices to answer your OP. When you say SS advocate, it basically refers to strict SS advocates that presuppose “autonomy of reason.” This excludes all the confessional strands of Protestantism (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican). You are now left with Quakers, Anabaptists, Brethrens, Extremely “liberal” Protestants, and Uber-Fundamentalists. And they basically all rely on themselves for certainty. They all have their own churches with a membership of 1 (which technically can’t be a church), and they all believe (intentionally or not) that mythical story about how the bible just dropped from mid-air yesterday and landed on their laps. How convenient!

Francis

 

[Third_Day]

=XinMinny;7513797]I believe that all we need is explicit in the Scripture. Baptism is explicitly found in the practices of the NT letters.

But is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation found explicitly in scripture? If it was then no one would believe baptism is merely a symbolic ordinance.

Communion is explicitly found there

.
But is Christ truly present in the bread and wine or just symbolically.
This is the problem with scripture alone, it is insufficient because it doesn’t interpret itself. If you are interpreting a passage it doesn’t say to you “Stop! That is not what it means!”
That’s why Christ established ONE Church that is to correctly interpret scripture through apostolic tradition.

 

[XinMinny]

Erich,
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Like I wrote, I really hesitate to get into this because the matter reveals in all of us how strong our emotional connection is to what we believe.
Of course I understand the verses you quoted. However, I think they point out exactly what I was trying to express.
For example, in the matter of baptism, we read about the believers being baptized (and the Scripture uses the word baptize) in Acts 16, Acts 19, Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 10, Colossians 2, and so forth. Baptism is therefore described “explicitly.”
Communion is described in Acts 20:7 (the expression “to break bread”), and in 1 Corinthians 11.

Now, the other 5,
Confession: James mentions confessing you faults to one another. This is not a ceremony, it is the reality of discussion. He doesn’t say “go to confession…” 1 John 1 also talks about confessing our sins, but again, it is not in the explicit context of “go to confession.” The text does not make it clear that he is talking about a ceremony or a prescribed event. So, to me, although confession is mentioned, the idea of ‘sacramental’ confession it not ‘explicit.’ It may be implicit, and we can talk about that, but it is not ‘explicit.’

Confirmation: Sure, there are lots of verses about laying on of hands. None say, “and so and so confirmed his faith in this way.” Each reads in context as an affirmation of brotherhood. But there is nothing explicit in the words that says, “and this was a prescribed ceremony that resulted in the grace of God coming on the individual in a great way…” That is, there was more and more grace given, but it was not described as “and they went through the process of confirmation.” And, it may implied that that is what happened, and a person could talk about that, but it is not explicitly described that way.

Matrimony: Jesus was at a wedding. He talked about marriage and what it could be for people. He is not recorded as saying “Since I was here, this wedding has conferred a special anointing to this couple.” We don’t read of the apostles officiating at any wedding. Again, the matter is not ‘explicit.’ It may be implicit, but it is not ‘explicit.’

Orders: Jesus chose 12. Later, Paul wanted Timothy to go with him. Paul writes about his being an apostle ‘by the will of God.’ Obviously, these men’s lives were changed. We don’t read of any place where the Scripture ‘explicitly’ states, “and so Titus’ heart and soul was altered by this action in a way that could never be negated.” So, while God choosing His ministry is explicit, the idea of that being a sacrament is not ‘explicit.’ Maybe ‘implicit.’

Anointing of the Sick: There were miracles of healing. Some were raised from the dead. And, James wrote about anointing the sick. But, there is not a place where it says, “And in every place this is done, and God grants a special grace to the individual by the accomplishing of this ceremony.”

This is what I mean. Please, again, I am not trying to convince anyone here that the 7 Sacraments as Catholics practice them are wrong. I am simply trying to explain how the concept of Sola Scriptura functions in this case.

Thank you for your time.

X in Minny

 

[XinMinny]

But is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation found explicitly in scripture? If it was then no one would believe baptism is merely a symbolic ordinance.
.
But is Christ truly present in the bread and wine or just symbolically.
This is the problem with scripture alone, it is insufficient because it doesn’t interpret itself. If you are interpreting a passage it doesn’t say to you “Stop! That is not what it means!”
That’s why Christ established ONE Church that is to correctly interpret scripture through apostolic tradition.

Third Day,
Thank you for the response. Again, I say I am trying to explain how the idea works in practice. I am not arguing a point. I am not trying to convince anyone.

And, without using any one topic, I will try to explain how I feel one must at some point be satisfied with “We don’t know the answer to that question.” It doesn’t matter how many times you say “What does that mean?” and then the Church gives you an answer. There is always one more level to which you can take your question. (As a parallel, someone here has in their sig this expression "Protons have mass?? I didn’t know they were Catholic. I will talk about protons for awhile now. The study of elementary particles has always gone like this: What makes up atoms? A little more research. Then, “Oh, the answer is protons, neutrons, electrons.” Well, what makes up them? More research. Then, “Oh, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Electrons? We don’t know yet.” And so on. There is always another question.) Now, back to SS. At some point, all the questions, and idea of the Church giving the answer, comes down to the same thing. We don’t know the answer. The Sola Scriptura advocate simply says that the place to draw the line is where we have no more explicit evidence in the Scripture. The Church-man draws the line at the last pronouncement out of Rome that he feels was given by the Holy Spirit. And that is the difference.

And, again, I am sorry. My part in this discussion has become more than I wanted it to be. I am simply trying to explain how the SS person reasons his way across his belief system.

Thank you

 

[joe370]

Lol. Seriously. What’s up with all this Sacraments debate? I think my last quote suffices to answer your OP. When you say SS advocate, it basically refers to strict SS advocates that presuppose “autonomy of reason.” This excludes all the confessional strands of Protestantism (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican). You are now left with Quakers, Anabaptists, Brethrens, Extremely “liberal” Protestants, and Uber-Fundamentalists. And they basically all rely on themselves for certainty. They all have their own churches with a membership of 1 (which technically can’t be a church), and they all believe (intentionally or not) that mythical story about how the bible just dropped from mid-air yesterday and landed on their laps. How convenient!

Francis

Hey Francis, I don’t think I mentioned sacraments? I guess I was hanging on to the hopes that, in spite of the fact that there is no universal consensus among sola scriptura advocates, regarding the practice of sola scriptura, I could still acquire a better understanding of the practice of Sola scriptura. But I think I have finally exhausted my journey to the truth, regarding the practice of sola scriptura. I have at least grasped the differences…

 

[XinMinny]

Lol. Seriously. What’s up with all this Sacraments debate? I think my last quote suffices to answer your OP. When you say SS advocate, it basically refers to strict SS advocates that presuppose “autonomy of reason.” This excludes all the confessional strands of Protestantism (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican). You are now left with Quakers, Anabaptists, Brethrens, Extremely “liberal” Protestants, and Uber-Fundamentalists. And they basically all rely on themselves for certainty. They all have their own churches with a membership of 1 (which technically can’t be a church), and they all believe (intentionally or not) that mythical story about how the bible just dropped from mid-air yesterday and landed on their laps. How convenient!

Francis

Francis,
About the Sacraments debate. I believe it is my fault, and I am sorry. I was using them as an example of SS thought, and somehow they have been taken up individually for debate. I didn’t intend that.

And, thanks for your earlier work about the levels of doctrine. I don’t use strict terms, as one might in a theology course, to describe the levels, but the idea that you were laying out fits my thought as well.

X in MInny

 

[wmscott]

My apologies. 'Tis was a joke. Perhaps a smiley face would have conveyed the proper meaning. Mea culpa. I will try to refrain from sarcasms, since it seems to evoke negative emotional response. Or, I shall add a smiley face.

**My apologies for taking you out of context, all is good. Thanks **

For the below, I guess these scriptural references are clear enough for me then; I just see them as proof enough and also rely on the teachings of the Catholic Church. But that’s just me.

Quoting the Gospel of John is not constructive. This is a theological treatise, and the line between theological metaphors and literal interpretations are blurry. I would have to be a seasoned theologian to cipher this text in order to distinguish between metaphorical and literal. I take this verse the same way you do, but this is based on authority, not through my own biblical studies. Nevertheless, I affirmed Christ’s institution of Eucharist and Baptism. By ‘institution,’ I mean explicitly commanded, not implied from descriptive examples. Let’s see if the rest of your verses are in the sense of having explicitly instituted or implicitly assumed based on descriptive examples.

All descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive (except for Heb. 6:2). As for Heb 6:2, “Laying of hands” could be for ordination and commissioning, not necessarily in the sense of confirmation. I take it to be confirmation, but it is not conclusive (as far as I know).

All descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive. Mt 18:18 is irrelevant. It is about resolving disputes when one confronts another brother for sinning. This is not confession in the traditional sense. This is exhortation and discipline.

Mk 6:12-13 is descriptive, not explicitly prescriptive. As for Jam 5:14-15, are you saying praying and singing should be sacraments too? They are included with anointing the sick.

Peace and grace,

Francis

 

[JonNC]

=Third Day;7515134]Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Reading the early councils gives one the standard set. Nicea, canon 6 - “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine 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.”
As I’ve said before, if Orthodoxy were to accept the idea of universal jurisdiction and infallibility (ex cathedra), I would, too.

Going by Scripture alone it seems to me that the only valid presbyters were the ones ordained by the layng on of hands by a Bishop.

Then the Catholic Church has had some invalid priests as well, as for example, Cistercian abbots, in the 15th century, were permitted to practice ordination, though they were only priests.

Only if you can prove you have a valid priesthood without a valid bishop. What is the name of a bishop that left the Catholic Church and went with Luther?

That is the Catholic position, to be sure. However, there were Bishops in Sweden who did follow the Lutherans.

If apostolic succession is not necessary for a valid priesthood then couldn’t anyone start their own church and claim to have a valid priesthood? Where in scripture alone do you find anyone claiming to be a valid priest without apostolic ordination? Where in the writings of the early Church do you find a valid priesthood outside the Catholic Church?

I’m not aware of any verse in the Bible that requires the laying on of hands of a bishop. Is AS desirable? Yes. Is it necessary under divine law? No.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Ignatius in 107 and Justin Martyr around 150 both call the Mass a sacrifice something that Luther rejected. Justin Martyr says that after the liturgy the Eucharist was taken to those who were unable to be at the liturgy. Seems to me that this indicates that the Church believed that the Eucharist IS the Flesh of Christ and remains so after the Liturgy something that Luther rejected. From what I have found Luther did not believe that the Eucharist could be taken to the sick and it appears that is still the Lutheran practice. This article seems to confirm that:
In Lutheranism the traditional practice is to consecrate the elements in the presence of the communing person, be it home, hospital, or nursing home. Lately, however, this practice seems to be changing.
ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/zieglershouldluthreserveconsecratedelementssick.pdf

My experience is that the consecrated body and blood can, and are taken to the sick. In fact, it was brought to me once, not because of illness, but because of employment away from a Lutheran Church.
As for what the Eucharist is, Christ said the bread IS His body, the wine Is His blood, and this is clearly what the Lutheran Church teaches. But again, I am not aware of the early Church teaching Transubstantiation. If it did, it would not be an issue for the Orthodox.
Does that mean I oppose the expression? Certainly not. I believe it is a reasonable human expression of what is ultimately a mystery.

Cyril of Jerusalem around 350 seems to be the first to write about transubstantiation even though he didn’t use that term:
“Having learned these things, you have complete certitude that the visible bread is **not bread **even if such to the taste **but the body of Christ **and the visible wine **is not wine **even if taste thinks it such but the Blood of Christ.” Catechetical Lecture 22

I agree with what Cyril says. I don’t think a confessional Lutheran would.

I can’t find any writings accusing Cyril of being a heretic.This appears to have been the belief of the Fathers that was handed down

Of course not.

Ambrose wrote in 390 “For my flesh truly is food and my Blood truly is drink…for as often as we receive the Sacrament which through the Mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into Flesh and Blood we announce the death of the Lord. On Christian Faith Book IV 125

And Melanchthon States in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[Third_Day]

=XinMinny;7515229]Third Day,
Now, back to SS. At some point, all the questions, and idea of the Church giving the answer, comes down to the same thing. We don’t know the answer

.
The answer is found in tradition.

The Sola Scriptura advocate simply says that the place to draw the line is where we have no more explicit evidence in the Scripture.

There is no explicit evidence in scripture of the Trinity. There is no explicit evidence in scripture that James, Hebrews, Acts, Revelation and other books are inspired. There is no explicit evidence who the authors are. SS fails.

The Church-man draws the line at the last pronouncement out of Rome that he feels was given by the Holy Spirit. And that is the difference

.
The difference is that Catholics understand that scripture alone is insufficient. Christ would not have left us without an infallible interpreter.

 

[jblake]

agent_grey;:

If sola scriptura is correct what books are to be considered “the word of God”. Oddly enough scripture is silent on this issue.

How silent Scripture is on the issue depends on:

• Which book or books one initially accepts as canonical;
• How thoroughly one reads those books;

Depending upon your starting point, you can determine between ten and fifty books that are to be treated as Canonical. Not all of these books would be treated as canonical by Catholic Christianity, but would be treated thus by Oriental Christianity.

jonathon