Sola scriptura challenge

[Bengoshi]

Just found your post today. The Church only claims infallibility in binding the whole Church to a teaching in matters of faith and morals. You say the Church is not infallible and that they have “corrected their doctrine”. Please point out a specific dogma of the Church that was changed, when and by whom.

How about the teaching on infants who die before baptism–they go to limbo; and the one on cremation of the dead. It used to be absolutely prohibited but now it is allowed. I have even read about it in one of our newspapers a few years ago (I cannot substantiate this of course). One more is that now, the RCC doesn’t allow marriage ceremonies to take place outside of a “church” building, when just 3 years or more ago, it was allowed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bengoshi,

I can understand the difficulty you are having in this matter - so, let me see if I can help… The bottom line is the separation between dogma and a discipline. For example, an example of a dogma would be that after the words of consecration, what was once common bread and wine is now the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, hidden under the physical appearance of bread and wine. An example of a disciplilne would be not to eat or drink after midnight on the day you are going to recieve Holy Communion.

How about the teaching on infants who die before baptism–they go to limbo; and the one on cremation of the dead. It used to be absolutely prohibited but now it is allowed. I have even read about it in one of our newspapers a few years ago (I cannot substantiate this of course). One more is that now, the RCC doesn’t allow marriage ceremonies to take place outside of a “church” building, when just 3 years or more ago, it was allowed.

You are quite right - if the Catholic Church were to teach error in ANY AREA OF FAITH or MORALS then the claim that it is Christ’s Church protected by the Holy Spirit from error would be totally and permanental shattered. Recall Christ’s words to Peter in Matt 16 giving Him the Power of the Keys - the delegated Power of God to man to bind and lose. There is no power to teach error.

The examples you gave are disciplines need a response - so, here goes: on limbo, here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm, and on cremation: newadvent.org/cathen/04481c.htm. I am honestly not familiar with this item on marriage ceremonies - but, the conduct of any religious ceremony is a matter of discipline (how something will be done, which is effected by changing times and society) and not of dogma. Marriage is a Sacrament where the man and women have demonstrated that they are free to marry, have willingly given their free consent to marry and are asking the Catholic Church to witness their pledge of a life-long commitment to one another. That Christ gives a special grace to the couple who receive this sacrament worthily is a matter of dogma - now, where it takes place.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

Thanks… Now, let me address your comments.

Tom, you are always soooo helpful.

I think there is accuracy in your comments here. **Really, for the most part, I think we are on the same page. **

Well, I think some Orthodox might argue with your view. I might also add that I,**Probably so… . **
as a Lutheran, would consider myself much closer to Catholicism than Pentecostal.

as you may know, the term “Lutheran” has similar origins as “Roman Catholic”. It was a pejorative used by opponents of the Reformation. So, “Evangelical Catholic” or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession” are quite accurate descriptions. **I was not aware of this and certainly meant no offense. I had honesly never heard of either title prior to your post. I just associated “Augsburg” with Luther and moved from there (I can not associate any of the other ‘Reformers’ with that city. I ask because I often see the names like “St. Mar Lutheran Church” or “Trinity Lutheran Church”, etc. So, you are saying that “Lutheran” is not the proper title? **

Not true. Read from Martin Chemnitz: **I’d really appreciate a link or two… Who is Mr. Chemnitz? **

Were I to, for example, interpret the accounts of the Last Supper as meaning a symbolic presence, I would no longer be Lutheran. ** As you can tell … my knowledge of the Lutheran religion is equal to yours … … so, this section is a bit unclear to me. As I undestand your statement, if you can not interpret Scripture as you individually feel you are lead, then there must be a teaching authority in your church that provides the meaning of what the particular Scripture passage says. Is this a correct inference on my part? What makes this of interest would be, at least as I see it, there is an authority outside of Scripture that is interpreting Scripture. **

God bless

I hope I have been helpful, too.
Jon

 

[banjo]

Hi, Bengoshi,

I can understand the difficulty you are having in this matter - so, let me see if I can help… The bottom line is the separation between dogma and a discipline. For example, an example of a dogma would be that after the words of consecration, what was once common bread and wine is now the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, hidden under the physical appearance of bread and wine. An example of a disciplilne would be not to eat or drink after midnight on the day you are going to recieve Holy Communion.

You are quite right - if the Catholic Church were to teach error in ANY AREA OF FAITH or MORALS then the claim that it is Christ’s Church protected by the Holy Spirit from error would be totally and permanental shattered. Recall Christ’s words to Peter in Matt 16 giving Him the Power of the Keys - the delegated Power of God to man to bind and lose. There is no power to teach error.

The examples you gave are disciplines need a response - so, here goes: on limbo, here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm, and on cremation: newadvent.org/cathen/04481c.htm. I am honestly not familiar with this item on marriage ceremonies - but, the conduct of any religious ceremony is a matter of discipline (how something will be done, which is effected by changing times and society) and not of dogma. Marriage is a Sacrament where the man and women have demonstrated that they are free to marry, have willingly given their free consent to marry and are asking the Catholic Church to witness their pledge of a life-long commitment to one another. That Christ gives a special grace to the couple who receive this sacrament worthily is a matter of dogma - now, where it takes place.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

God bless

Tom,
Hope that helps clarify things for Bengoshi…
Thanks

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DeusVult09,

I want you to know that I lost the bet that I made with myself… I bet that just because I did not know the answer to this one - there would surely be a SS fan out there that could provide the necessary informaiton you asked for…

why is the concept of sola scriptura not found in the bible?

I guess we will both just have to wait until one of those SS fans rises to the occasion and resonds.

God bless

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

Just a small note on the origins of the term Roman Catholic. While it was initially used to describe the Church of Rome to distinguish it from reformation churches who wished to use the descriptive “catholic” to identify their churches, it is the “Roman” part that was new. The early Church called itself Catholic from the beginning. The earliest written reference is from St Ignatius in 104 AD.

Prior to the reformation, there wasn’t even a need to use the Catholic adjective. It was the Church, sicne, outside of the Orthodox, there was no other Christian church of note to be distinguished from.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Tom,

I was not aware of this and certainly meant no offense. I had honesly never heard of either title prior to your post. I just associated “Augsburg” with Luther and moved from there (I can not associate any of the other ‘Reformers’ with that city. I ask because I often see the names like “St. Mar Lutheran Church” or “Trinity Lutheran Church”, etc. So, you are saying that “Lutheran” is not the proper title?

No offense taken. Just like I see names like “St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church”. Yeah, Lutheran is proper now, and common, just like Roman Catholic is.

I’d really appreciate a link or two… Who is Mr. Chemnitz?

Often called the second Martin, he was extremely influential in the second generation of Lutheran theologians, following Luther and Melanchton, etc.
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/chemnitz.html

As you can tell … my knowledge of the Lutheran religion is equal to yours … … so, this section is a bit unclear to me. As I undestand your statement, if you can not interpret Scripture as you individually feel you are lead, then there must be a teaching authority in your church that provides the meaning of what the particular Scripture passage says. Is this a correct inference on my part? What makes this of interest would be, at least as I see it, there is an authority outside of Scripture that is interpreting Scripture.

The Lutheran Confessions, known as the Book of Concord, is the confessional statement for Lutheranism. www.bookofconcord.org
As a Lutheran, scripture is the final norm. Lutherans believe that, generally, the first six councils, the three creeds, and of course our confessions **rightly reflect the Gospel. **So, properly understood, Sola Scriptura was never intended to eliminate Tradition, or creeds or confessional writings, and we don’t. In fact, the confessions regularly reference the ECF’s. The very first section, before the Augsburg Confession, contains the 3 ecumenical confessions.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jon

Thank you for the link. I will be looking at it tomorrow morning.

OK, in keeping with Sola Scriptura there is a section of your post that I really do not understand…

The Lutheran Confessions, known as the Book of Concord, is the confessional statement for Lutheranism. www.bookofconcord.org
As a Lutheran, scripture is the final norm. Lutherans believe that, generally, the first six councils, the three creeds, and of course our confessions **rightly reflect the Gospel. **So, properly understood, Sola Scriptura was never intended to eliminate Tradition, or creeds or confessional writings, and we don’t. In fact, the confessions regularly reference the ECF’s. The very first section, before the Augsburg Confession, contains the 3 ecumenical confessions.
Jon

This may be a mechanical view of human nature … but, disagreements come up on a frequent basis - and among people who are usually on the same page! If everything was that clearly written and understood … there probably still have disagreements But, Scripture is famous for statements that knowledgeable people did not understand (Mark 2:25 When Christ challenged the Pharisees when He said, “Have you never read…”) and these poorly understood statements needed a definitive statement. Referring back to written text can be less then satisfying when it comes to achieving an answer. At least that is my opinion.

If Scripture IS the final norm, as opposed to a recognized human authority structure (established by God [Matt 16]) and the ECF and Creeds are used as an authority of earlier vintage then Confessional Writings then how do these four items that I picked at random:

1.) Apostolic Succession
2.) The Sacrament of The Eucharist
3.) The Sacrament of Confession, and
4.) The Primacy of Peter

and, just to give you a head’s up … here are some references

1.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
2.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
3.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
4.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

By the way, this is am impressive link - here is the link to their home page: scripturecatholic.com/index.html

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon

If Scripture IS the final norm, as opposed to a recognized human authority structure (established by God [Matt 16]) and the ECF and Creeds are used as an authority of earlier vintage then Confessional Writings then how do these four items that I picked at random:

1.) Apostolic Succession
2.) The Sacrament of The Eucharist
3.) The Sacrament of Confession, and
4.) The Primacy of Peter

and, just to give you a head’s up … here are some references
1.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
2.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
3.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
4.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

By the way, this is am impressive link - here is the link to their home page: scripturecatholic.com/index.html

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom,
I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand your question here. Could you please restate?
Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

Sure…

Tom,
I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand your question here. Could you please restate?
Jon

My understanding is that Lutherans do not believe in the following items as Catholics do:

**1.) Apostolic Succession
2.) The Sacrament of The Eucharist
3.) The Sacrament of Confession, and
4.) The Primacy of Peter

To view the Catholic position I have provided a reference with each corresponding position by number

1.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/apo…uccession.html
2.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
3.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
4.) Reference: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html**

Now, I did go to the reference you gave me on the Eucharist from the “Second Martin”. While there is belief about common bread and wine being changed into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ (which honestly did surprise me… ) but the issue seems to be that this change (transubtantiation) takes place when the believer receives the Eucharist as opposed to the Catholic position of when the Words of Consecration are said. I don’t want to steal your thunder on this point … just to let you know I am working my way through this material you gave me…

So, please respond on how you view SS as addressing these four items.

Thanks

Tom

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;5706062]

My understanding is that Lutherans do not believe in the following items as Catholics do:

1.) Apostolic Succession
2.) The Sacrament of The Eucharist
3.) The Sacrament of Confession, and
4.) The Primacy of Peter
The Lutheran Confessions speak to these issues, and I’ll give some references that might explain better than I can.

1. Apostolic Succession: In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it says;

Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

It then goes on to explain why this order has not continued. Point: Lutherans maintain that AS is important and desirable. Some Lutherans have mantained it, and some have made efforts to reclaim it through “dutch touch” lines of the Anglicans. Other Lutherans, honestly, are satisfied with the form of presbyter ordination currently practiced, and formerly done so at times in history by the Catholic Church.

1. Sacrament of the Eucharist: From Luther’s Small Catechism

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

Confession/Holy Absolution
While there are opinions within Lutheranism whether or not it is a sacrament (it lacks a physical element, other than pastor/confessor), it is always listed with Baptism and the Eucharist in the Confessions. It is supported in the Augsburg Confession, and its practice in the Lutheran Church is usually based on Luther’s description in the Small Catechism.

The Primacy of Peter: I have yet to read you link on this, so I will reply later.

Now, I did go to the reference you gave me on the Eucharist from the “Second Martin”. While there is belief about common bread and wine being changed into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ (which honestly did surprise me… ) but the issue seems to be that this change (transubtantiation) takes place when the believer receives the Eucharist as opposed to the Catholic position of when the Words of Consecration are said. I don’t want to steal your thunder on this point … just to let you know I am working my way through this material you gave me…

The Confessions, like scripture itself, is clear. Christ says, “This is my body”. And the Augsburg Confession says: *1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, **and are distributed ***2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. “Are distributed”, and “is”, pretty clearly indicate that Christ’s body and blood are present at the consecration, not the reception.
Personally, I’m more comfortable with the Orthodox term *metabole * than Transubstantiation, though to me it too seems a reasonable explanation. The Lutheran Sacramental Union is reasonable, too. But in the end, I like what John of Damascus said,

“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

In terms of SS, one can support the Eucharist, and Confession with scripture, and the teachings of the early Church clearly are scriptural. Apostolic Succession less so, and has a clear element of Human Tradition in it. But I don’t use the term Human Tradition as a pejorative, and I don’t think Confessional Lutherans generally do.

More later,
Jon

bookofconcord.org/