Sola Scriptura help please

[joe370]

Sola scriptura is the practice of holding teachings accountable to scripture

.

So scripture is the touchstone for evaluating teachings, but not via personal interpretation?

So, in a way, SS is the practice within the Lutheran Church that corresponds to Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Church.

I understand, but not all Lutheran churches, just the one that you belong to? Not all the traditions of the CC - right?

It is the practice that is used for hermeneutics.

So, SS (scripture alone) - is the practice that is used to interpret scripture? I’m sorry but I don’t understand that statement. Scripture alone is used to interpret scripture??? I had a long day so I am probably missing something.

And individual members and pastors have no role in it, at least where doctrine is concerned.

So, when can I personally interpret? In those things that the Lutheran Church do not consider articles of faith - doctrine. Example: amongst Lutherans you will find a broad range of beliefs regarding mariology, except for things defined in the confessions - virgin birth and Theotokos. etc. I personally hold to semper virgo, and genreally to other mariological beliefs. On the issue of perpetual virginity, my current pastor does not. We agree to disagree. That is personal interpretation, on a matter idiaphora.

As for pastors, Lutheran pastors are held to the confessions. If my pastor began to teach things in direct contradiction of the confessions - say, a symbolic view of the Holy Eucharist - and after respectfully confronting him about it, he refused to relent, I would take it to the synod, just as you would to your bishop. He has no more right to personally interpret doctrine than I do!

So, the confessions is sort of the rule book and if members do not abide by the rules, ultimately the synod (council) - of the Lutheran church resolves doctrinal differences? Jon, why should I trust the Lutheran confessions or the CCC (or the charter of any church for that matter) - if these 2 churches were not founded by Jesus circa AD 33, who promised to be with His one church forever…who promised to send the holy spirit to forever guide His one church into all truth?

Jon, what was your answer to my question:

To whom, should Christians, regardless of denomination, defer, for correct interpretations? it’s either the bible as the Christians sole authority or some outside authority - right?

 

[SpectatorX]

Thanks. The feelings are mutual, but don’t vanish into the shadows yet.

You got it.

Elaborate on how my response demonstrated an inability to yield the answer you seek.

I’ve been looking for the Protestant answer to Apostolic succession. That is, if not Apostolic succession and the continuity of Tradition, how do Protestants validate their beliefs? Why do they think their beliefs and praxis are what Jesus intended as opposed to Orthodox and/or Catholic belief and praxis? Unfortunately, the only answers I’ve been able to gather have been presuppositions of Sola Scriptura or transparently cherry-picked Church Father quotations excised from their context. I find the former dissatisfying because it begs the question “where was that doctrine for the first millennium and a half?” and the latter for obvious reasons. Anyway, I’ve never been offered a satisfying “big picture” explanation - something that convincingly downplays succession and Tradition in such a way that makes the alternative seem valid. Given history, why is the historical Church wrong?

Experience dictates that there are two sides to every story. I like to know where both stand when approaching any disagreement.

Which brings us to here. I was seeking an answer which doesn’t pertain to this thread in any way whatsoever, so when I saw what appeared to be an opening, I took it. Unfortunately, that opening didn’t actually exist. I thought I was exploiting a tangent, but I was actually creating one. Therefore, you didn’t fail to answer my question because of any inability on your part but due to my misinterpretation of the situation.

 

[look3467]

how do Protestants validate their beliefs?>>>SpectorX

The key issue between Jesus and the Law of Moses as given to the Jews as a burden… is Grace.

Grace is the pivot point in the history of the soul of mankind.

Jesus enlisted the help of 12 Apostles, the Sadducees, Pharisees, the Roman Empire to accomplish the specific mission He was sent for.

Apart from all the prophets proclaiming His coming, the final say so, was Jesus in all of the works of God.

Commencing with the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of mankind was lost.

God understood this to be part of His creative process, so by giving information of another tree, The Tree of life, specifically held for a later time in the span of human history; He gave notice.

Pivot point: The old = the law verses the new, Grace.

In order for God to save that which He Himself had created, He and He alone had the right to do so.

Enter: Jesus = Tree of life =a type of a second Adam =the Spirit of God in Him fully.
The second Eve = the birth of Jesus by a virgin = as is the Jewish nation = Gentile nation for Jesus was born of man = “son of man” title.

Having established the process outlined in the bible as a whole, now we can address the issue of the church.

To the Jewish nation the synagogue was the place of worship of which was one place where all had to journey to worship, that is if they lived away from the temple.

That was a staple in the lives of the Jews.

From that we can see what the physical gathering place we can call church today, for Christians.

A building, a gathering place called Church of Jesus Christ, hence the Catholic Church.

But like both the synagogue and the Church, both are physical gathering places and both calling it the place of their true worship.

The piviot point is where all that has changed: Ref: oh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
“The hour cometh” is the hour of the day Jesus was crucified.

“neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem,” the word neither is key in Jesus’ pointing to the heart of mankind where God will find a dwelling place.

It is of the heart:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Obeyed from the “heart”:
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Where is the word?

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

So the question is now asked: What is then the church of Jesus Christ?

Is consisting of believers; those obeying from the heart the word of truth, that Jesus is the Son of the Living God.

God be Thanked, and worthy of all our praises, that He instituted an organization The catholic Church to bring about the book containing all that is needed for anyone to find the truth about who, what and where God can be found.

If you wanted a big picture, there it is.

Being under grace, then, there is no place special, no institution by which we can go to worship God, for we can worship Him anywhere, anytime, any day.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Nicea325]

You got it.

I’ve been looking for the Protestant answer to Apostolic succession. That is, if not Apostolic succession and the continuity of Tradition, how do Protestants validate their beliefs? Why do they think their beliefs and praxis are what Jesus intended as opposed to Orthodox and/or Catholic belief and praxis? Unfortunately, the only answers I’ve been able to gather have been presuppositions of Sola Scriptura or transparently cherry-picked Church Father quotations excised from their context. I find the former dissatisfying because it begs the question “where was that doctrine for the first millennium and a half?” and the latter for obvious reasons. Anyway, I’ve never been offered a satisfying “big picture” explanation - something that convincingly downplays succession and Tradition in such a way that makes the alternative seem valid. Given history, why is the historical Church wrong?

Experience dictates that there are two sides to every story. I like to know where both stand when approaching any disagreement.

Which brings us to here. I was seeking an answer which doesn’t pertain to this thread in any way whatsoever, so when I saw what appeared to be an opening, I took it. Unfortunately, that opening didn’t actually exist. I thought I was exploiting a tangent, but I was actually creating one. Therefore, you didn’t fail to answer my question because of any inability on your part but due to my misinterpretation of the situation.

I find the former dissatisfying because it begs the question “where was that doctrine for the first millennium and a half?” and the latter for obvious reasons.

That is what I have asked before? If Sola Scriptura is the ‘mother’ of all doctrines,why is that not one ecumenical council mentions is,including the Council at Jerusalem 49/50 A.D.? Why is that not one church father writes about it exhaustively or defending it?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6961915]Hey Jon…
Agreed. However, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus the Christ on Pentecost circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, (HS is ultimately responsible for preserving doctrinal truth in the church founded by Jesus) - then logically and practically speaking, the CC lacks the necessary credentials to be in charge of hermeneutics - right?

I don’t think it is a question of whether or not the CC lacks or doesn"t lack credentials, and I certainly don’t think the CC lacks the Holy Spirit. The results of the hermeneutics of our 2 communions, which share a 1500 year history, is remarkably similar. So, the issue is then what divides us, and how do we, guided by the Spirit, return to the unity Christ expects of the Church Militant.

That leaves us with only one other church - the EOC.I love that church too, and that church can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles as well, as you know, but Jesus built (is still building) - His church on Simon renamed Kepha and said that the gates of hell would never vanquish it. Jesus built His church on the rest of the apostles as well as per sacred scripture, but He said that even Satan and his minions, (let alone mere human sinners) - would never destroy His church (preservation of doctrinal truth cannot not be tampered with by Satan) - and this was said in relation to Simon renamed Kepha - only. There is a reason why Jesus renamed Simon Rock don’t you think?. Plenty of sinners can come and go, in Jesus’ established church but His established church circa AD 33, thanks to the HS, will forever defend and safeguard doctrinal truth from the most ardent sinner, until the end of time - right?

And here is the issue for me, in 2 parts:

1. if one dissolves the issue down to which of the two Churches is indeed the one Church “protected by the Holy Spirit”, and the credentials are in both, and yet they disagree, regardless of how much and in what doctrines, how is one to know which is the real McCoy?
2. the issue framed as it is here has the impact of speaking of the “Church” as only regarding the Church Militant, and ignoring in a way the Church Triumphant. I will use your line, that being the Church Jesus built (and is still building). Thats, to me implies that even though the Church Militant is divided, it is a temprary division, which even today the Spirit is visibly working to heal, and I must say that in many ways the CC has been the catylist.

Jon, I have to believe that this mission of the holy spirit is not beyond His capability/power. I recall asking you some questions about Matthew 16 but you didn’t respond. I believe you said something about Jesus’ church being built on the confession (I could be wrong though; if I am I apologize) - and that makes no sense to me; it never did as a former Lutheran.

That is the Lutheran position. Personally, I find it untenable to hold that position stridently.
If even the EOC acknowledges the special role Peter played, I cannot deny it, though I’m not convinced it translates into the primacy Rome now ascribes to the Bishop of Rome.

I understand and that makes sense to me. But, for me the Lutheran church simply did not meet the necessary criteria. I wanted to belong to the church founded by Jesus and no one else, but that’s just me. I love all Lutheran churches, (all churches regardless of denomination) - however, these churches were not founded by Jesus in the first century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and this was a problem for me as a former Lutheran for the simple fact that the Holy spirit was sent to only ONE church, and as I always say, never to impugn the wonderful works of these churches (all churches) - and I really mean it. I truly believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, and will continue to do so until the end of time, and I don’t…can’t believe that the sin of mankind could, in any way, interrupt, jeopardize or prevent the holy Spirit from safeguarding Jesus’ doctrinal truths through every century, even in the face of apostasy and schism, such as the one that occurred in the CC in the 11th century. I have to believe that things such as heresy, apostasy and schisms are not obstacles to God. I have to believe that nothing is impossible for God. I don’t think that I could be a Christian if I thought that God had limitations, and God does if He can’t preserve doctrinal truth in the church founded by His Son Jesus the Christ. This is not important to most non-Catholics but it was crucial to my conversion to the CC.

And I well understand and respect your position. To be sure, regardless of the divisions of man, Christ’s Church will prevail, and God is not limited by our sin.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6961964].
So scripture is the touchstone for evaluating teachings, but not via personal interpretation?

That’s my position.

I understand, but not all Lutheran churches, just the one that you belong to? Not all the traditions of the CC - right?

Well, I quoted Chemnitz, who was instrumental in writing the Formula of Concord. Unless there is a Lutheran out there who will dispute him, I’d say it is the Lutheran position.

So, SS (scripture alone) - is the practice that is used to interpret scripture? I’m sorry but I don’t understand that statement. Scripture alone is used to interpret scripture??? I had a long day so I am probably missing something.

No, SS is the practice of holding Teachings accountable to scripture. The practice of interpreting scripture is hermeneutics.

So, the confessions is sort of the rule book and if members do not abide by the rules, ultimately the synod (council) - of the Lutheran church resolves doctrinal differences? Jon, why should I trust the Lutheran confessions or the CCC (or the charter of any church for that matter) - if these 2 churches were not founded by Jesus circa AD 33, who promised to be with His one church forever…who promised to send the holy spirit to forever guide His one church into all truth?

I would contend that the Holy SPirit is with both of us. Our division is our doing, not His.

To whom, should Christians, regardless of denomination, defer, for correct interpretations? it’s either the bible as the Christians sole authority or some outside authority - right?

Scripture is the final norm. One of the authorities that you and I agree on is the first 7 ecumenical councils. They are a good starting point to resolving our differences.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That is what I have asked before? If Sola Scriptura is the ‘mother’ of all doctrines,why is that not one ecumenical council mentions is,including the Council at Jerusalem 49/50 A.D.? Why is that not one church father writes about it exhaustively or defending it?

Nicea,
Why would people in 49/50 AD need to refer to writings when the writers were among them? What did the early councils use to determine their decisions, decisions that you and I agree on?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,
Why would people in 49/50 AD need to refer to writings when the writers were among them? What did the early councils use to determine their decisions, decisions that you and I agree on?

Jon

So SS excludes the OT? None of its writers were alive. Precisely my point, SS is bogus because the NT was not complete as you stated its writers were still alive;hence how is SS even plausible? Does SS exclude the OT or does include the OT & NT?

The early councils used Scripture and Tradition,not scripture only. A point used against Arians who merely tried using scripture trying to prove Jesus was not God.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, you said;

I don’t think it is a question of whether or not the CC lacks or doesn"t lack credentials, and I certainly don’t think the CC lacks the Holy Spirit.

Jon, don’t get me wrong; I too believe that the HS is present in all churches, guiding each individual on their unique spiritual journey, for all Christians are endowed with the holy spirit, once baptized. However, don’t you believe that the HS resides in the one church founded by Jesus in Jerusalem on pentecost, in a unique and singular way, guiding her, as per sacred scripture, into the all truth until the end of time? I am not suggesting that this fact is a detraction from the awesome works of churches founded by men other than Jesus. I’m just trying to be factual and biblical! After all Jesus said to just one fledgling church: *“you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” *Jon, if I start a church tomorrow and amass a massive gathering over the course of say, 10 years, will the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, guide my established church into all truth just as the HS, the spirit of truth is doing with Jesus’ church?

The results of the hermeneutics of our 2 communions, which share a 1500 year history, is remarkably similar. So, the issue is then what divides us, and how do we, guided by the Spirit, return to the unity Christ expects of the Church Militant.

You are so right Jon, but, in order for the wounds of division to heal, someone must compromise! The question is: which church is the church founded by God forever guided by the spirit of truth into all truth? Certainly that church should not compromise; if that church did, then the HS would also be expected to compromise truth - right?

…but His established church circa AD 33, thanks to the HS, will forever defend and safeguard doctrinal truth from the most ardent sinner, until the end of time - right?
And here is the issue for me, in 2 parts:

1. if one dissolves the issue down to which of the two Churches is indeed the one Church “protected by the Holy Spirit”, and the credentials are in both, and yet they disagree, regardless of how much and in what doctrines, how is one to know which is the real McCoy?

I think that is a journey only you can take. It seems that you have narrowed it down to 2 churches though, if in fact you have dissolved the issue down to 2 churches; have you?

…the issue framed as it is here has the impact of speaking of the “Church” as only regarding the Church Militant, and ignoring in a way the Church Triumphant.

The church triumphant is the glorious church residing with Jesus in heaven and I am certain that that church is comprised of Christians from all of the divided churches comprising the fractured Mystical Body of Christ, the church militant, however, there are still many doctrinal differences subsisting within these divided autonomous churches and you and I know that Jesus founded only one church and empowered His one church with the HS to safeguard all truth, not just partial truth, regarding all that He taught. The question is: where do we go to find Jesus’ established church, which is subsumed in the general church militant, here on earth, where the fullness of truth can be found?

continued…

 

[joe370]

I will use your line, that being the Church Jesus built (and is still building). Thats, to me implies that even though the Church Militant is divided, it is a temprary division, which even today the Spirit is visibly working to heal, and I must say that in many ways the CC has been the catylist.

That makes good sense, but, it also implies that God could not prevent Satan from dividing Jesus’ established church, doctrinally speaking. Man is responsible for the rift but the one church established by God is certainly in tact, doctrinally speaking, otherwise it must be assimed that God could not prevent the gates of hell from prevailing. For example: most protestants believe that the CC teaches heretically, regarding the Eucharist, and this is just one of many; if they are right then the gates of hell have prevailed against Jesus’ creation, doctrinally speaking. I think that we both agree that the devil can wreak division when it comes to people, giving way to many divided communities but what he cannot do is alter doctrinal truth, even in the face of one of the most pronounced schisms in Christianity. I do agree that the spirit of truth is visibly working to heal the doctrinal rift in Jesus’ militant Mystical Body the church, but the HS does not need to fix what can’t be broken (if God is in fact the architect of His church, doctrinally speaking) - regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, wouldn’t you agree?

That is the Lutheran position. Personally, I find it untenable to hold that position stridently. If even the EOC acknowledges the special role Peter played, I cannot deny it, though I’m not convinced it translates into the primacy Rome now ascribes to the Bishop of Rome.

I don’t believe that the EOC believes that Jesus built His church on Kepha. They don’t subscribe to this notion for the simple fact that the current bishop of Rome in a long line of successors, is the successor of Peter. Of course I understand why protestants reject this bit of theology. I guess the important question remains: where in the world today is the one church founded by Jesus that cannot be altered, doctrinally speaking? That is the church to which I want to belong. Jon, when it comes to Jesus the Christ’s ability to preserve truth in His established church and the anti-Christ’s ability to alter said truth, I got to go with Jesus on this one, all the way. Surely you must agree?

 

[joe370]

Continued…

So scripture is the touchstone for evaluating teachings, but not via personal interpretation?
That’s my position.

For the church militant in general, via personal interpretation, scripture is not the touchstone for evaluating teachings? OK…then who or what is the touchstone for evaluating teachings, outside of personal interpretation, for the divided church militant in general?

So, SS (scripture alone) - is the practice that is used to interpret scripture? I’m sorry but I don’t understand that statement. Scripture alone is used to interpret scripture??? I had a long day so I am probably missing something.
**No, SS is the practice of holding Teachings accountable to scripture. The practice of interpreting scripture is hermeneutics.
**

I am trying to understand…SS (scripture alone) - is the practice of holding teachings of the myriad churches in the world today, accountable to scripture? How does this practice work without the necessity to interpret sacred scripture (hermeneutics)? You seem to be saying that scripture alone is the benchmark for interpreting scripture? Sounds very circular. Didn’t Jesus empower His church, (starting on pentecost) - with the spirit of truth, to teach… to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth until the end of time or did He give us SS as the practice of holding teachings accountable to scripture? Where in the bible does the bible mention anything about sola scriptura (scripture alone) - being the practice of holding teachings accountable to scripture? Surely it must be in there if SS is to be trusted/viable!

Quote:
So, the confessions is sort of the rule book and if members do not abide by the rules, ultimately the synod (council) - of the Lutheran church resolves doctrinal differences? Jon, why should I trust the Lutheran confessions or the CCC (or the charter of any church for that matter) - if these 2 churches were not founded by Jesus circa AD 33, who promised to be with His one church forever…who promised to send the holy spirit to forever guide His one church into all truth?
I would contend that the Holy SPirit is with both of us. Our division is our doing, not His.

Confused…You said:

To be sure, regardless of the divisions of man, Christ’s Church will prevail, and God is not limited by our sin. I think that you are referring to the church militant (regardless of denomination) - and I agree, but, if God is not limited by man’s sin then His one church established almost 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, regardless of the division caused by sinful man to the church militant, is still one and intact, doctrinally speaking - right? The question is: where is that one church in the world today, forever guided by the spirit of truth?

Quote:
To whom, should Christians, regardless of denomination, defer, for correct interpretations? it’s either the bible as the Christians sole authority or some outside authority - right?
Scripture is the final norm. One of the authorities that you and I agree on is the first 7 ecumenical councils. They are a good starting point to resolving our differences.

I agree, regarding the 7 ecumenical councils, but, where in the bible does the bible say: Scripture is the final norm? If SS is to be believed as the norm then it must be mentioned in the bible - right???

Peace brother…

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;6965592]So SS excludes the OT? None of its writers were alive. Precisely my point, SS is bogus because the NT was not complete as you stated its writers were still alive;hence how is SS even plausible? Does SS exclude the OT or does include the OT & NT?

Of course SS doesn’t exclude the OT. You misunderstand my point, and perhaps that is my fault for not stating it well. My point was that SS, as a practice is post apostolic. But as regards the NT, it was my point the fact that the writers, or their students, were alive in that time frame.

The early councils used Scripture and Tradition,not scripture only. A point used against Arians who merely tried using scripture trying to prove Jesus was not God.

What Tradition did they use?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6969230]Hey Jon, you said;

Jon, don’t get me wrong; I too believe that the HS is present in all churches, guiding each individual on their unique spiritual journey, for all Christians are endowed with the holy spirit, once baptized.

that’s good, Joe, because some say the Holy Spirit only resides in one Church.

However, don’t you believe that the HS resides in the one church founded by Jesus in Jerusalem on pentecost, in a unique and singular way, guiding her, as per sacred scripture, into the all truth until the end of time? I am not suggesting that this fact is a detraction from the awesome works of churches founded by men other than Jesus. I’m just trying to be factual and biblical! After all Jesus said to just one fledgling church: *“you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” *

Which Church is that, Joe? ( I’m continuing from the notion that Christ established on institutional, organizational Church, which I’m not convinced of .) And how do I know?
There are more than one patriarchate, that traces its roots to Pentecost.

Jon, if I start a church tomorrow and amass a massive gathering over the course of say, 10 years, will the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, guide my established church into all truth just as the HS, the spirit of truth is doing with Jesus’ church?

Christ said that where two or more are gathered in my name… The Spirit would be with you. That’s not to say that your new “ecclesial community” would be getting everything right.

You are so right Jon, but, in order for the wounds of division to heal, someone must compromise! **The question is: which church is the church founded by God forever guided by the spirit of truth into all truth? **Certainly that church should not compromise; if that church did, then the HS would also be expected to compromise truth - right?

Compromise in what way? And regarding what? I’m not willing to compromise on the rel presence, or the incarnation, or the virgin birth. I ask that question (bolded) above.

Joe, do you believe that either Lutherans or Catholics compromised in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (there are some on each side that say their own side did ? Is it a compromise when Benedict XVI implies that Rome cannot expect more from Orthodoxy in terms of polity than what had existed prior to the schism?

The JDDJ, as far as it goes, is an excellent example of the Holy Spirit guiding Christians together. That’s not compromise! You know me by now, I would not ask Rome to compromise. Ecumenism, or unity, based on compromise of doctrine is doomed to fail.

But I’ll cite an example: prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Is this a statement of compromise, or a convergence of understanding that our human words each side uses in this regard separate us more than the doctrine we obviously share?

continued

 

[JonNC]

I think that is a journey only you can take. It seems that you have narrowed it down to 2 churches though, if in fact you have dissolved the issue down to 2 churches; have you?

I think what I am saying is if, in fact, there is one institution/organization, then it is not clear which it is. But were Rome and Orthodoxy become one again, it would be sign for me from the Holy Spirit.

The church triumphant is the glorious church residing with Jesus in heaven and I am certain that that church is comprised of Christians from all of the divided churches comprising the fractured Mystical Body of Christ, the church militant, however, there are still many doctrinal differences subsisting within these divided autonomous churches and you and I know that Jesus founded only one church and empowered His one church with the HS to safeguard all truth, not just partial truth, regarding all that He taught. The question is: where do we go to find Jesus’ established church, which is subsumed in the general church militant, here on earth, where the fullness of truth can be found?

Good question.

=joe370;6969289]That makes good sense, but, it also implies that God could not prevent Satan from dividing Jesus’ established church, doctrinally speaking. Man is responsible for the rift but the one church established by God is certainly in tact, doctrinally speaking, otherwise it must be assimed that God could not prevent the gates of hell from prevailing.

This, to me, is temporal and finite thinking, and contradicts what you said earlier about the Spirit still working. For the gates of Hell to prevail, then the universal Church is prevailed upon, which neither of us believe.

For example: most protestants believe that the CC teaches heretically, regarding the Eucharist, and this is just one of many; if they are right then the gates of hell have prevailed against Jesus’ creation, doctrinally speaking.

No, I just think sinful humans disagree. Again, to say that Hell prevailed implies that the true doctrine is disregarded in Heaven.

I think that we both agree that the devil can wreak division when it comes to people, giving way to many divided communities but what he cannot do is alter doctrinal truth, even in the face of one of the most pronounced schisms in Christianity. I do agree that the spirit of truth is visibly working to heal the doctrinal rift in Jesus’ militant Mystical Body the church, but the HS does not need to fix what can’t be broken (if God is in fact the architect of His church, doctrinally speaking) - regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, wouldn’t you agree?

Yes, I do agree, when we are talking about the communion of saints.

I don’t believe that the EOC believes that Jesus built His church on Kepha. They don’t subscribe to this notion for the simple fact that the current bishop of Rome in a long line of successors, is the successor of Peter.

Maybe an Orthodox Christian will respond, but I believe they would simply say that the primacy that Rome claims is not the primacy of the early Church.

Of course I understand why protestants reject this bit of theology. I guess the important question remains: where in the world today is the one church founded by Jesus that cannot be altered, doctrinally speaking? That is the church to which I want to belong. Jon, when it comes to Jesus the Christ’s ability to preserve truth in His established church and the anti-Christ’s ability to alter said truth, I got to go with Jesus on this one, all the way. Surely you must agree?

Me, too. And I am confident that, for now, I am part of that one true Church, divided though it may be here on Earth.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6969366]Continued…
For the church militant in general, via personal interpretation, scripture is not the touchstone for evaluating teachings? OK…then who or what is the touchstone for evaluating teachings, outside of personal interpretation, for the divided church militant in general?

Part of the sin of division is the division of authority in that regard. For me, for now, it is the Lutheran Confessions.

I am trying to understand…SS (scripture alone) - is the practice of holding teachings of the myriad churches in the world today, accountable to scripture? How does this practice work without the necessity to interpret sacred scripture (hermeneutics)? You seem to be saying that scripture alone is the benchmark for interpreting scripture? Sounds very circular.

No more so than Scripture and Tradition. The confessions include the hermeneutics of the Lutheran Church.

Didn’t Jesus empower His church, (starting on pentecost) - with the spirit of truth, to teach… to be His witnesses to the ends of the earth until the end of time or did He give us SS as the practice of holding teachings accountable to scripture? Where in the bible does the bible mention anything about sola scriptura (scripture alone) - being the practice of holding teachings accountable to scripture? Surely it must be in there if SS is to be trusted/viable!

What portion of Catholic doctrine is not in scripture, or more to the point, contradicts scripture? Catholics here say none of it contradicts scripture. In a way, they are confirming doctrine with scripture.
What outside of scripture do we have that leads us secure that the doctrines we have are of Christ, the Gospel?

James Kiefer in his article here, makes an interesting statement:
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

To be sure, regardless of the divisions of man, Christ’s Church will prevail, and God is not limited by our sin. I think that you are referring to the church militant (regardless of denomination) - and I agree, but, if God is not limited by man’s sin then His one church established almost 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem, regardless of the division caused by sinful man to the church militant, is still one and intact, doctrinally speaking - right? The question is: where is that one church in the world today, forever guided by the spirit of truth?

A good question.

I agree, regarding the 7 ecumenical councils, but, where in the bible does the bible say: Scripture is the final norm? If SS is to be believed as the norm then it must be mentioned in the bible - right???

See Kiefer above. I do not mean this to sound flippant, you know I am not that way. Where in the scripture that even Peter was infallible, ex cathedra?

Peace brother…

Good to have you back, my friend.
His Peace also with you,
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

See Kiefer above. I do not mean this to sound flippant, you know I am not that way. Where in the scripture that even Peter was infallible, ex cathedra?

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;6969818]Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

As someone who is, admittedly, willing to consider, and is grateful for the ecumenism that has come out of Vatican II, this statement would have more weight for me, had Vatican II been a truly ecumenical council.

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Why is it then, that the other patriarchs do not recognize it. If I am not mistaken, they consider it an innovation. How has that understanding developed over time?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
=Nicea325;6969818]Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

As someone who is, admittedly, willing to consider, and is grateful for the ecumenism that has come out of Vatican II, this statement would have more weight for me, had Vatican II been a truly ecumenical council.

Greetings brother in Christ… Care to elaborate on your position? I hope you are aware that the RCC invited many different Christian faiths and if correct other major religions.

Quote:
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Why is it then, that the other patriarchs do not recognize it. If I am not mistaken, they consider it an innovation. How has that understanding developed over time?

It is not an innovation,but a mere biased belief and denial of historical facts by its opponents.Well with my dialogue with Orthodoxs,many hold to a belief the pope is only an equal with no primacy at all.However,early church history does actually display quite the opposite in many occasions. I have posted numerous cases where Eastern bishops took matters to the Roman bishop. The rebuttal by many Orthodox is the fact many bishops did the same among themselves.True.But,when matters could not be resolved in-house, it was taken to Rome to be the final arbiter. If Rome had no primacy at all,then why do many of the writings say otherwise?

Well Jon the understanding developed over time just like many of our core doctrines:Trinity,Incarnation,etc,etc. We have 2,000 years behind us to back us up on the those doctrines.During and prior to those declared doctrines,Christians did not have such clear and cut understanding as we do;hence does make any of the above doctrines an innovation. As I have said before, Jesus promised to guide the church with the truth,not give it instantly. We are mere creatures and we have to be taught step by step next to God.

Feel free to express your position.

God Bless.

 

[joe370]

Jon, here is where I get confused regarding SS; please help: in one corner we have a an Evangelical church that defers to the bible for doctrinal clarification, and comes away from the bible (final authority) - believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding John 6. In the other corner we have the Lutheran church that also defers to the bible for doctrinal clarification, and they too come away from the same bible (final authority) - believing the exact opposite. i understand that you personally defer to the Lutheran confessions and I defer to the teaching authority of the CC, but the Lutheran church and the CC are just 2 of many many churches in the world today. Didn’t Jesus provide the world with a means for resolving doctrinal differences when they arise? There can be only 2 options:

1. The church founded by Jesus in the first century…

or

1. His word codified by the same church…

We know it’s not His word for I have just proven that His word is interpreted differently depending on which church one belongs and both claim that their interpretation is infallible (error free) and that the other is not. Therefore the bible resolves nothing for this very important doctrine. We must step outside of sacred scripture to resolve this matter.

Humans are the reason why these doctrinal disputes exist, but you and I both agree that Jesus (in spite of human error) - left the world with the means to know truth…to know whether or not He was speaking in metaphor or literally, so what is that means if not the church founded by Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33 forever guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth? According to the bible all truth can still be found today, so, where do we go to find all truth? All 16th century churches founded by men as opposed to God are far too removed from the apostles to be reliably trusted regarding all truth and I mean that in a practical sense. Forget about the Lutheran confessions or the CCC; let’s just focus on how the world can still know the truth regarding the Eucharist in spite of all the division we see in Christianity. We know it’s not the bible so what’s next. There must be a solution to this problem otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed by inculcating heretical doctrine regarding eternal life:

*Unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you.

whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. *

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6970976]Jon, here is where I get confused regarding SS; please help: in one corner we have a an Evangelical church that defers to the bible for doctrinal clarification, and comes away from the bible (final authority) - believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding John 6. In the other corner we have the Lutheran church that also defers to the bible for doctrinal clarification, and they too come away from the same bible (final authority) - believing the exact opposite. i understand that you personally defer to the Lutheran confessions and I defer to the teaching authority of the CC, but the Lutheran church and the CC are just 2 of many many churches in the world today. Didn’t Jesus provide the world with a means for resolving doctrinal differences when they arise? There can be only 2 options:

1. The church founded by Jesus in the first century…

or

1. His word codified by the same church…

We know it’s not His word for I have just proven that His word is interpreted differently depending on which church one belongs and both claim that their interpretation is infallible (error free) and that the other is not. Therefore the bible resolves nothing for this very important doctrine. We must step outside of sacred scripture to resolve this matter.

Humans are the reason why these doctrinal disputes exist, but you and I both agree that Jesus (in spite of human error) - left the world with the means to know truth…to know whether or not He was speaking in metaphor or literally, so what is that means if not the church founded by Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33 forever guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth? According to the bible all truth can still be found today, so, where do we go to find all truth? All 16th century churches founded by men as opposed to God are far too removed from the apostles to be reliably trusted regarding all truth and I mean that in a practical sense. Forget about the Lutheran confessions or the CCC; let’s just focus on how the world can still know the truth regarding the Eucharist in spite of all the division we see in Christianity. We know it’s not the bible so what’s next.
*Unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you.

whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. *

On the issue of the Eucharist, the confessions deferred to three things to support the truth of the real presence: 1) the scriptures, 2) the historic consensus of the Church on Earth both east and west. 3) The testimony of the ECF’s.
How could a Church that subscribes to the practice of sola scriptura defer to the historic Church and the ECF’s? Because all that they said, the entire historic testimony through history rightly reflects scripture. “This is my body.” “This is my blood.”

The words of the Lord Himself, the words of Paul that you quote above, and even John 6 in a predictive sense, point to the real presence. How others chose to follow Zwingli is perplexing, it was to Luther and the reformers as well.

There must be a solution to this problem otherwise the gates of hell have prevailed by inculcating heretical doctrine regarding eternal life:

Again, the fact that humans on earth come to wrong conclusions in no way determines the victory of Christ’s Church, unless you are saying that the debate regarding His presence in the Eucharist rages on in the Church Triumphant. The scripture tells us there will be false teachers. No where does it say that this means the gates of Hell will prevail.

But even on the Eucharist, there is not concensus between Rome and Orthodoxy regarding the post-schism development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. From what I can gather, the metaphysics of Transub. are no more appealing to them than to Lutherans (though at least for me, it is far far more appealing than a symbolic presence).
So, the issue of division is not simply a result of sola scriptura, regardless of the argument of degrees of division. I suspect that to Christ, the 1,000 year schism is no more pleasing than the so-called 30,000 denoninations. And neither schism nor division nor false teachings of men in anyway lead to the Gates of Hell prevailing.

Jon