Sola scriptura advocates...help...

[JohnnyReb]

People who hold to prima Scriptura don’t think you can get those primary beliefs without the help of Tradition. Namely, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and all those other Confessions and Catechisms. Not all protestant churches hold to * sola Scriptura*.

I believe the only things that SS advocates can claim to know with certainty are the fundamental beliefs, not the primary beliefs. All primary beliefs require Tradition. Therefore, only the Quakers, Anabaptists, and other really “liberal” protestants can claim certainty. And of course, that means that their beliefs are really basic stuff than every child can know. That is why you will hear them repeat Bible phrases that mention how “only the ones who have faith like a child will enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17).” Most of them don’t even mention Trinity or Incarnation. They believe that all you really need to be saved is to love Jesus Christ and believe that he died for your sins (like a child).

Hope that helps,

Francis

Hi Francis, you put this so much more eloquently than I ever have on these boards but I echo you sentiments, especially related to the bold text above. Kudos.

 

[Third_Day]

No. The decisions in Heaven bind the Church. It binds the entire Church Catholic. That we of the Church Militant are divided is the evidence of sin.

Jon

Jon as a Lutheran you are a member of THE Church only because of your baptism. . Jesus established THE Church he didn’t establish denominations like the Lutheran denomination.

In Matt 18 Jesus tells the apostles that if there is an offense and witnesses cannot come to a decision then they are to take it to the Church for a binding decision.
As a Lutheran you believe in infant baptism. Other Protestant brothers do not.
Let’s say that a Baptist friend told you that infant baptism was against the Word of God and you are therefore teaching heresy. According to scripture you are to take this to THE Church.
According to scripture both of you are bound to this decision and if the loser refuses to listen to this “Church’ he is to be excommunicated from THE Church.
To which” Church" will both of you go to settle the issue, the Church of Christ, the Methodist, the Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel the Lutheran ,the Baptist.etc.?

 

[wmscott]

The SS advocates do not think that the other five sacraments are not in the Bible. They just think that the Bible does not explicitly command them to accept those as sacraments. Baptism and the Eucharist are clearly commanded without any ambiguity whatsoever, but the other five are inferred. I doubt you will ever be able to prove the necessity of the five other sacraments to the level of satisfaction that SS advocates expect. But if you feel that God is calling you to take on this difficult task, you have my full support. Go exegete those passages!

Regards,

Francis

If this is the case, and by that rational with regards to SS, then the Trinity is only inferred and not specifically stated, and yet we believe in the Trinity do we not? The other five sacraments are actually more explicit than inferred are they not?

 

[JonNC]

Jon as a Lutheran you are a member of THE Church only because of your baptism. . Jesus established THE Church he didn’t establish denominations like the Lutheran denomination.

In Matt 18 Jesus tells the apostles that if there is an offense and witnesses cannot come to a decision then they are to take it to the Church for a binding decision.
As a Lutheran you believe in infant baptism. Other Protestant brothers do not.
Let’s say that a Baptist friend told you that infant baptism was against the Word of God and you are therefore teaching heresy. According to scripture you are to take this to THE Church.
According to scripture both of you are bound to this decision and if the loser refuses to listen to this “Church’ he is to be excommunicated from THE Church.
To which” Church" will both of you go to settle the issue, the Church of Christ, the Methodist, the Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel the Lutheran ,the Baptist.etc.?

Where do you think I’d take it? But I would also, in this instance, do as the Lutheran Church does: site the position of the historic Church Catholic, both east and west. And the historic Church Catholic comes down on the side of infant Baptism, for all the scriptural reasons you and I agree on.
But it is an interesting question, extending beyond Baptism, to first Holy Communion and Confirmation. If we disagree as to when Confirmation should take place, and we are to take it to The Church, where to we take it, when even the historic Church, east and west, are not one mind on the issue?

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greetings Brian, to answer your questions? I have applied the same critical examinations to all of my Catholic belief’s as I have all the others when searching for the Truth and the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter. I always began with each ones founder, the Catholic Church by my amazement and also by others such as “blessed (saint) Cardinal Newman’s” traced the Catholic Church all the way back to the apostles. No other Christian faith reaches that far, and are founded by men or women.

Brian Culliton;7503226]This is an outstanding observation. It’s very easy to critically examine what others believe, but very difficult to apply that same criticism to your own beliefs. Have you ever been critical of the traditions of your church;

I have no doubt that all of the Catholic doctrines are supported by scripture, sacred Tradition because both religious and secular authorities since the resurrection place the Popes, bishops and the Catholic church being persecuted for her belief’s and sacramental economy established by Jesus Christ himself. This is supported by both scripture and Traditions especially the Catholic liturgy that is handed down to us since the last supper and the resurrection of Jesus.

Documented history can attest to these facts both secular and religious records, which includes court proceedings, councils, eyewitness accounts from the Catholic saints and martyrs from anitquity speak volumes of both Catholic doctrine and Traditions. As “blessed Cardinal Newman” states, " to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant".

I would place the same challenge to you Brian, invesigate for yourself the Catholic history and the protestant history and see for yourself when and where your protestant founders began their own teachings outside of the Church Jesus established. Trust recorded history, protestantism does not got that far back to the apostles as does the Catholic Church both Eastern and Western rites.

What convinced me my faith was handed down from the apostles is because those Catholic saints who believed as I do today, went singing to their martyrdom for their Catholic faith without resistance but with joy. Jesus built His Catholic Church upon Peter the apostles, the prophets and the blood of Catholic Saints and Martyrs.

My hope is not to come across as passing judgement upon no one, What I hope to do here is to give reason for my hope and love of God and His Son Jesus in the Holy Spirit. You can challenge any of these Catholic belief’s and you will find her teachings taught and practiced both in scripture and recorded history from the second century onwards by saints and martyrs.

History records only one Christian Church in all the world for the first 1600 years after the resurrection. And that Church remains the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church today.

Peace be with you

if not how would you know if they really were handed down from the apostles? And if they weren’t handed down from the apostles, that would make them of “another gospel” would it not? And if you don’t know if they were handed down, wouldn’t it be better to withhold judgment concerning those doctrines rather than proclaim them as truths?

 

[Third_Day]

=JonNC;7506077]Where do you think I’d take it?

I would hope you would take it to the Church established by Christ, the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor ot Peter, Pope Benedict XVI

But I would also, in this instance, do as the Lutheran Church does: site the position of the historic Church Catholic, both east and west. And the historic Church Catholic comes down on the side of infant Baptism, for all the scriptural reasons you and I agree on.

But the Baptist that disagrees with you on infant baptism believes that he is in THE CHURCH. He would never abide by the decision of the “historic Church Catholic” as you put it. That would mean he is excommunicated from THE CHURCH but all he would have to do is go back to his Baptist “church” and they would welcome him…
Isn’t Jesus promising in Matt 18 that there would only be ONE Church not thousands claiming to be the Church? How can the Lutherans be part of the “historic Church Catholic” when there were no Lutherans until the 16th century?

But it is an interesting question, extending beyond Baptism, to first Holy Communion

OK, I believe in Transubstantiation and you do not.To what Church will we take it? The “historic Church Catholic” has always believed in Transubstantiation and not what Lutherans hold.
And remember this decision is to be bound in heaven and whoever does not abide by the decsion is excommunicated from THE Church. After you lost the ruling you could just return to the Lutherans and they would welcome you with open arms yet that is not what Christ said should happen.

and Confirmation If we disagree as to when Confirmation should take place, and we are to take it to The Church, where to we take it, when even the historic Church, east and west, are not one mind on the issue?

Where Peter is there is THE CHURCH.

 

[JonNC]

=Third Day;7506795]I would hope you would take it to the Church established by Christ, the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor ot Peter, Pope Benedict XVI

Certainly the goal should be unity, and that includes, perhaps in a paramount sense, with the Roman See.

But the Baptist that disagrees with you on infant baptism believes that he is in THE CHURCH. He would never abide by the decision of the “historic Church Catholic” as you put it. That would mean he is excommunicated from THE CHURCH but all he would have to do is go back to his Baptist “church” and they would welcome him…

And that’s is what he will do. THey are wrong to deny infants the forgiveness of sins that comes with Baptism, but even as the Catholic Catechism says, the Holy Spirit works through his Baptist Church, and I pray for them as siblings in Christ.

Isn’t Jesus promising in Matt 18 that there would only be ONE Church not thousands claiming to be the Church?

I don’t think most Protestants claim to be THE CHURCH, at the exclusion of all others, but you are clearly right that Christ wants us all to be one.

How can the Lutherans be part of the “historic Church Catholic” when there were no Lutherans until the 16th century?

By virtue of our Baptism, primarily. We also see the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is at Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Canterbury, Wittenburg, etc.

OK, I believe in Transubstantiation and you do not.To what Church will we take it? The “historic Church Catholic” has always believed in Transubstantiation and not what Lutherans hold.

The entire Church Catholic has not always, and does not now express the truth of Christ true and substantial body and blood in the Eucharist as Transubstantiation. The doctrine expressed through history has been the real presence, on which we agree.

And remember this decision is to be bound in heaven and whoever does not abide by the decsion is excommunicated from THE Church. After you lost the ruling you could just return to the Lutherans and they would welcome you with open arms yet that is not what Christ said should happen.

You’re right, it is not what Christ wants for His Church. And it should be the work of every Christian to pray and work for unity.

Where Peter is there is THE CHURCH.

Where Christ is, there is The Church. Wasn’t Peter also in Antioch?

Jon

 

[LaymanX]

If this is the case, and by that rational with regards to SS, then the Trinity is only inferred and not specifically stated, and yet we believe in the Trinity do we not? The other five sacraments are actually more explicit than inferred are they not?

The five sacraments are not accepted by all of Christendom. Baptism and Eucharist have been accepted by all of Christendom. Many excellent theologians and biblical scholars of antiquity have been wrestling with this question. They have not come to any conclusive agreement on this matter based on just Scripture. Without the Doctors of the Church it is hard to prove the other five Sacraments. Perhaps, you are an adept biblical scholar/philologist who can prove that the five sacraments are explicitly taught in Scripture. If so, by all means publish your work and let the world know of your illustrious findings. I would like to see this work as well.

The word ‘Trinity’ is not explicitly used in Scripture, but there are explicit passages that say there is God the Father, there is the Word who is God, and there is the Spirit who is God. We also know from other passages that there can be only one God. Therefore, we put all these together and say that somehow God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are still one. The idea which the Trinity symbolizes is explicit (i.e., there can be only one God, there is God the Father, there is God the Son, and there is God the Spirit), but the conceptual framework of the Trinity is inferred from these basic premises. So I guess you can say that the Trinity is explicit taught in Scriptures.

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

But the Baptist that disagrees with you on infant baptism believes that he is in THE CHURCH. He would never abide by the decision of the “historic Church Catholic” as you put it. That would mean he is excommunicated from THE CHURCH but all he would have to do is go back to his Baptist “church” and they would welcome him…
Isn’t Jesus promising in Matt 18 that there would only be ONE Church not thousands claiming to be the Church? How can the Lutherans be part of the “historic Church Catholic” when there were no Lutherans until the 16th century?

It seems that you are saying the following:

1. Disagreements over the doctrine of Baptism would lead to two separate churches.
2. Excommunication results in separation from the true Church.
3. The thousands of different Protestant denominations each claim to be the true Church.
4. Lutherans believe that their Church fell from the sky during the 16th Century.

Here are my responses to each:

1. The doctrines that separate Protestants are usually secondary doctrines. They are not dogmas like the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection. When Protestant churches disagree on secondary doctrines, they still are in “Full Communion.” There is only one Protestant Church.
2. Excommunication in the Protestant church is an excommunication from the local church with lowercase ‘c’, not the Catholic or Universal Church with uppercase ‘C.’ Protestants believe that the True Catholic Church is an invisible, infallible church which is composed of all the “real” believers in the world. The local church is the visible, fallible church with a mix of fake Christians and true believers. Therefore, excommunication does not separate a local church from the Catholic Church, but merely the local church from another local church. Excommunication does not result in a new Church with capital ‘C,’ but perhaps a new local church with lowercase ‘c.’
3. 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.
4. Lutherans hold to apostolic succession, so there is no way that they believe their church started in the 16th century. Luther is seen merely as a reformer like St Benedict or St Francis. And we would never say St Benedict or St Francis started their own church. Your understanding of the Lutheran church is misinformed.

Hope this helps,

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

By virtue of our Baptism, primarily. We also see the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is at Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Canterbury, Wittenburg, etc.

Hmmm… Should I add Wittenburg when discussing apostolic Sees. Do Lutherans really see Wittbenburg in a similar way as the other apostolic churches (e.g., Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Canterbury, Moscow, etc.)? Do you guys have a primate/metropolitan/archbishop there? I thought they were more closer to the Methodists in that they are all over the place. I didn’t know you guys considered Wittenburg your spiritual “See.” Correct me if I’m wrong. I am not familiar with the Lutherans.

Regards,

Francis

 

[Third_Day]

=JonNC;7507586]Certainly the goal should be unity, and that includes, perhaps in a paramount sense, with the Roman See.

But unity could only come about if the Lutherans accept the full authority of the Pope. Could Lutherans ever accept that?

By virtue of our Baptism, primarily. We also see the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. So, the Church is at Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Canterbury, Wittenburg, etc.

But THE CHURCH at Rome is not the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, Canterbury, WIttenburg. Why do you believe that the Lutherans have valid sacraments, outside of baptism and marriage, when you do not have a valid priesthood?

The entire Church Catholic has not always, and does not now express the truth of Christ true and substantial body and blood in the Eucharist as Transubstantiation. The doctrine expressed through history has been the real presence, on which we agree.

Transubstantiation has always been believed by the Catholic Church. It was the “Church Catholic” as you put it that rejected that teaching.

You’re right, it is not what Christ wants for His Church. And it should be the work of every Christian to pray and work for unity.

I think as long as you hold to the belief that the Lutheran church is the same as the Catholic Church you will never come into the fullness of the truth. I’m reminded of the words of :Cyprian:
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it”.On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If **he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? **(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition: A.D. 251).

And the word of Augustine
Augustine:
In the Catholic Church…There are many other things that most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called “Catholic,” when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[CEM5]

I am told by sola scriptura advocates that ALL authorities outside the holy bible are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God alone, and that the holy bible is the Christians final authority, and that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for one’s salvation. From that I am assuming that ALL authorities outside the holy bible who are subordinate to, and are corrected by, the written word of God, which again is the SS advocates final authority, can rightfully form beliefs as they are moved by the Holy spirit.

With that said, specifically, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?

To whom did Jesus open the minds of to understand Scripture? To whom did Jesus explain all Scripture to, then give the command to “go forth and baptize all nations”?

Luke 24:

27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

45 Then He (Jesus) opened their (the Apostles’) minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” 50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.

Matthew 28
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw Him they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

See, Jesus did not promise to be with each and every person to the end of the age. This was given to His Apostles (the Bishops of the Church), and for THEM to make disciples of all nations and for THEM was given this authority from Christ to TEACH. And this is exactly what the Apostles did: they taught (proclaimed the Gospel, and taught its meanings: catechized). They ordained others to follow in their footsteps, and so on throughout the centuries in an unbroken line from Christ right to our present day Bishops. It is only a valid Bishop who can ordain a Priest. This is only found in the Church - not in ANY non-Catholic denomination.

Did Jesus command us to “obey the Bible” or did He command us to “obey our Bishops”?

Hebrews 13:17 RHE
***Obey your prelates ***(this word means “bishops”) and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

And we are to have the Church (not the Bible) as our final authority on matters of disputes.

Matthew 18:17 NRSA
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the Church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Jesus also assured us that, “Whoever listens to you (the Church via the Apostles) listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

Did Jesus command us to “read the Bible” to spread the Good News, or did He command His Apostles/disciples to “proclaim to Good News” – proclaim means to speak aloud!! So, did Jesus hand out Bibles? Did the Apostles???

Mark 3:14 NRSA
And He appointed twelve, whom He also named apostles, to be with Him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message,

Mark 16:15 NRSA
And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.

Luke 4:18 NRSA
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,

No where in the Bible does it ever support “Bible alone” (Sola Scriptura). If so, prove it with the Bible only!!

 

[Third_Day]

=LaymanX;7507788]It seems that you are saying the following:

1. Disagreements over the doctrine of Baptism would lead to two separate churches.

Not sure what you mean. There is only one Church. Denominations are not the Church. The members are part of the Catholic Church by means of their baptism but the denomination itself is not. If a Protestant disagrees with his pastor over baptism then he would just go and start his own denomination, his own religious community, but he could never start his own Church. That was only done once.

1. Excommunication results in separation from the true Church.

In my example of Matt 18 Jesus said if anyone refuses to listen to the Church they are to be treated as a pagan, an outsider. My point is that according to Jesus there is only one Church. Protestant Denominations have no way to obey what Christ commanded in Matt 18.

1. The thousands of different Protestant denominations each claim to be the true Church.

Yes. They all claim to be the Church established by Christ. Some individuals claim that the Church is within them and they don’t need an established denomination.

1. Lutherans believe that their Church fell from the sky during the 16th Century

.
Of course not. They believe they are part of the “Church Catholic” as Jon likes to say.

Here are my responses to each:

1. The doctrines that separate Protestants are usually secondary doctrines. They are not dogmas like the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection. When Protestant churches disagree on secondary doctrines, they still are in “Full Communion.” There is only one Protestant Church.

Who determines what is a primary doctrine and a secondary doctrine? I disagree that they believe there is only one “Protestant” Church. They believe they are THE Church established by Christ.

1. Excommunication in the Protestant church is an excommunication from the local church with lowercase ‘c’, not the Catholic or Universal Church with uppercase ‘C.’

But is that the same kind of excommunication that Jesus is speaking about in Matt 18?

Protestants believe that the True Catholic Church is an invisible, infallible church which is composed of all the “real” believers in the world.

I agree that is what they believe but of course that is neither Biblical or in Sacred Tradition

The local church is the visible, fallible church with a mix of fake Christians and true believers. Therefore, excommunication does not separate a local church from the Catholic Church, but merely the local church from another local church. Excommunication does not result in a new Church with capital ‘C,’ but perhaps a new local church with lowercase ‘c.’

I can agree with that but is that what Jesus had in mind in Matt 18?

1. Thousands of Protestant churches do not each claim to be the Catholic or Universal Church

.
THey all claim to be part of the Catholic or Universal Church and NOT just because of their baptism

Most of their disagreements are over secondary doctrines, not Dogmas

.
WHo decides what is a primary Dogma and a secondary doctrine? If Baptism is necessary for salvation isn’t that a primary Dogma yet they can’t even agree on that.

They would all be in “Full Communion” with each other There is only one Protestant Church in their eyes.

I have never talked to a Protestant that would say that. They would say they are all the Church. They wouldn’t put “Protestant” in front of Church.

1. Lutherans hold to apostolic succession, so there is no way that they believe their church started in the 16th century.

They must hold to that but of course they have no apostolic succession

Luther is seen merely as a reformer like St Benedict or St Francis. And we would never say St Benedict or St Francis started their own church. Your understanding of the Lutheran church is misinformed.

Of course they believe that but to be deep in history is to cease to be Lutheran.

 

[joe370]

I agree. This question is for sola scriptura advocates. Thanks for the feedback…

To whom did Jesus open the minds of to understand Scripture? To whom did Jesus explain all Scripture to, then give the command to “go forth and baptize all nations”?

Luke 24:

27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He (Jesus) interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

45 Then He (Jesus) opened their (the Apostles’) minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” 50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.

Matthew 28
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw Him they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

See, Jesus did not promise to be with each and every person to the end of the age. This was given to His Apostles (the Bishops of the Church), and for THEM to make disciples of all nations and for THEM was given this authority from Christ to TEACH. And this is exactly what the Apostles did: they taught (proclaimed the Gospel, and taught its meanings: catechized). They ordained others to follow in their footsteps, and so on throughout the centuries in an unbroken line from Christ right to our present day Bishops. It is only a valid Bishop who can ordain a Priest. This is only found in the Church - not in ANY non-Catholic denomination.

Did Jesus command us to “obey the Bible” or did He command us to “obey our Bishops”?

Hebrews 13:17 RHE
***Obey your prelates ***(this word means “bishops”) and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

And we are to have the Church (not the Bible) as our final authority on matters of disputes.

Matthew 18:17 NRSA
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the Church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Jesus also assured us that, “Whoever listens to you (the Church via the Apostles) listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

Did Jesus command us to “read the Bible” to spread the Good News, or did He command His Apostles/disciples to “proclaim to Good News” – proclaim means to speak aloud!! So, did Jesus hand out Bibles? Did the Apostles???

Mark 3:14 NRSA
And He appointed twelve, whom He also named apostles, to be with Him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message,

Mark 16:15 NRSA
And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.

Luke 4:18 NRSA
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,

No where in the Bible does it ever support “Bible alone” (Sola Scriptura). If so, prove it with the Bible only!!

 

[JonNC]

Hmmm… Should I add Wittenburg when discussing apostolic Sees. Do Lutherans really see Wittbenburg in a similar way as the other apostolic churches (e.g., Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Canterbury, Moscow, etc.)? Do you guys have a primate/metropolitan/archbishop there? I thought they were more closer to the Methodists in that they are all over the place. I didn’t know you guys considered Wittenburg your spiritual “See.” Correct me if I’m wrong. I am not familiar with the Lutherans.

Regards,

Francis

No Francis. I was speaking to the fact that the Church is in Lutheranism, and was using Wittenburg as representative of that fact.

Jon

 

[joe370]

No Francis. I was speaking to the fact that the Church is in Lutheranism, and was using Wittenburg as representative of that fact.

Jon

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.

 

[JonNC]

=Third Day;7509145]But unity could only come about if the Lutherans accept the full authority of the Pope. Could Lutherans ever accept that?

I think Lutherans could accept the authority of the Pope, in the same way the early Church did. Get the Orthodox to accept Rome’s current view of the Pope’s authority - infallible when speaking ex cathedra, universal jurisdiction, etc - then I, personally would accept it, too.

But THE CHURCH at Rome is not the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, Canterbury, WIttenburg. Why do you believe that the Lutherans have valid sacraments, outside of baptism and marriage, when you do not have a valid priesthood?

Well, first, I do believe we have a valid priesthood, as presbyter ordination has a history of practice even by the Catholic Church. So, yes, I believe our sacraments, including the Eucharist and Confession/ Holy Absolution are valid. Lutherans believe apostolic succession is important, and desirable, but not necessary for a valid priesthood.

Transubstantiation has always been believed by the Catholic Church. It was the “Church Catholic” as you put it that rejected that teaching.

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.

I think as long as you hold to the belief that the Lutheran church is the same as the Catholic Church you will never come into the fullness of the truth. I’m reminded of the words of :Cyprian:
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it”.On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If **he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? **(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition: A.D. 251).

And the word of Augustine
Augustine:
In the Catholic Church…There are many other things that most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called “Catholic,” when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

I appreciate your opinion on the matter.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

Well, Joe, you know that I always try to state what I believe is true and proper use of sola scriptura, and to do so in a charitable fashion. I always enjoy our encounters.

Jon

 

[LaymanX]

Who determines what is a primary doctrine and a secondary doctrine? I disagree that they believe there is only one “Protestant” Church. They believe they are THE Church established by Christ.

The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed. Your next response would be who wrote those? The answer will be obviously one of three. Those in communion with the bishop of the See of Rome (if holding to primacy of Rome), those in communion with all the primates/metropolitans of that time (if holding to primus inter pares), and those in communion with the leaders of the local synods (if holding to pure egalitarian form of government). First one is Roman Catholicism, second one is Orthodox/Anglican, and third are the Reformed/Lutheran. Only churches who reject high view of Tradition are congregationalists. I think the congregationlist’s perspective on the autonomy of Reason and radical sola Scriptura are misguided although perhaps necessary at that time when authority was abused.

The real issue is over the declarations of the 2nd Ecumenical Councils and what the canon law says regarding church hierarchy. This usually leads to the metaphysical foundations of the hierarchy itself (which is based on the Doctrine of the Trinity) and all that controversy over the filioque clause. I only see two apostolic churches, the ones who hold to primacy of Rome or the ones that hold to primus inter pares. The Reformed/Lutheran view of episcopacy is very hard to reconcile with the statements in the canon law.

But is that the same kind of excommunication that Jesus is speaking about in Matt 18?

No it is not. I think the apostolic view of excommunication is more accurate. The separation of invisible church and visible church is problematic from the outset, and does injustice to the reality of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truths.

WHo decides what is a primary Dogma and a secondary doctrine? If Baptism is necessary for salvation isn’t that a primary Dogma yet they can’t even agree on that.

See above. Congregationlism is the weakest in this respect. Synodal view is reasonable, but lacks proper respect for the Ecumenical Councils.

I have never talked to a Protestant that would say that. They would say they are all the Church. They wouldn’t put “Protestant” in front of Church.

There are usually one of three terms used to describe the Church. “Reformation” or “Evangelical” Church (which emphasizes the 5 solas) and presupposes the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed, and “Reformed” Church, which includes the other two and also the Reformed/Lutheran Confessions of Faith (e.g., Augsburg, Three Forms of Unity, Westminster Confession, etc.). These are broad Communions that would see themselves as the Church. The 3rd largest Christian Communion in the world is the World Communion of Reformed Church formed recently, from a merger of some older Reformed Communions. They have already eclipsed the Anglican Communion and perhaps the Orthodox in the not so distant future because they are multi-cultural (i.e., non-European leadership). If the Orthodox Church and the Pope are continually dominated by Western and Eastern Europeans, I doubt they will experience much growth in the future. People can see through institutional racism (i.e., the Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans).

Hope this helps,

Francis

 

[wmscott]

The five sacraments are not accepted by all of Christendom. Baptism and Eucharist have been accepted by all of Christendom. Many excellent theologians and biblical scholars of antiquity have been wrestling with this question. They have not come to any conclusive agreement on this matter based on just Scripture. Without the Doctors of the Church it is hard to prove the other five Sacraments. Perhaps, you are an adept biblical scholar/philologist who can prove that the five sacraments are explicitly taught in Scripture. If so, by all means publish your work and let the world know of your illustrious findings. I would like to see this work as well.

The word ‘Trinity’ is not explicitly used in Scripture, but there are explicit passages that say there is God the Father, there is the Word who is God, and there is the Spirit who is God. We also know from other passages that there can be only one God. Therefore, we put all these together and say that somehow God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are still one. The idea which the Trinity symbolizes is explicit (i.e., there can be only one God, there is God the Father, there is God the Son, and there is God the Spirit), but the conceptual framework of the Trinity is inferred from these basic premises. So I guess you can say that the Trinity is explicit taught in Scriptures.

Francis

No, you are right, I am not an adept biblical scholar/philologist nor have I published any works nor have any illustrious findings that may satisfy you or the world. However, I am sure that an individual of such extraordinary intellect as yourself already has the answers and anything I could offer you would only serve to insult your sense of being.

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.

So for those who are just observing, I can only offer the below scriptural references. They do not take into account the many excellent theologians and biblical scholars of antiquity or the Doctors of the Church. For that I apologize and do not intend to insult anyone’s intellect for omitting them, as has already been pointed out I know nothing nor have any illustrious findings to share.

REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised. Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood. 1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood. Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten. Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed. Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food. 1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 - to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault

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

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

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