Sola scriptura is not true and is a fales teaching

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC
Lutherans do not have any activity like the Catholic Sacrament of Penance, where a person approaches the Priest, in the Person of Christ, and articulates his sins (enumerates them, if you will ) and then prays for God’s forgiveness. To my knowledge, Lutherans do not interact with their ministers in this manner.

Yet, Chris gives the Apostles the authority to forgive (or, not forgive) sin as recorded in John 20: 19-24.

So, as I see it: there is a clear scriptural basis for confessing one’s sins to another human being (a Catholic priest) yet this is not acknowledged - in fact another approach is given -in the AC (at least as I read it).

Please clarify…

God bless,

Yes, we do have private confession and Holy Absolution. I use it. And I am rather specific when I do go, though I am sure that I cannot articuilate all the ways I have offended God. Therefore, I trust in His mercy.
There is an order for private confession in every Lutheran Service Book I know of. Our pastor/confessor offers it as a matter of regularity. The order is usually based, in part, on Luther’s Small Catechism.
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Hope that helps.
Jon

 

[Justy90]

If SS is true as some say then WHY do we have more then ONE non-Cathloic Church,is it was true then we need ONE Church we have One Bible. Like we had for 1054 years. ONE Church ONE Bible One truth

But that oneness cannot be applied to Catholicsm either. Many Protestant churches claim to have one doctrine as does Catholicsm, but that doesn’t stop the dissent of the members, Protestant or Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Then I stand corrected! Thank you for telling me about this. I was under the impression that Lutherans only had the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.

Yes, we do have private confession and Holy Absolution. I use it. And I am rather specific when I do go, though I am sure that I cannot articuilate all the ways I have offended God. Therefore, I trust in His mercy.
There is an order for private confession in every Lutheran Service Book I know of. Our pastor/confessor offers it as a matter of regularity. The order is usually based, in part, on Luther’s Small Catechism.
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Hope that helps.
Jon

God bless

 

[Javl]

Once again - say-so’s. I’m supposed to take your word (or the word of the RCC) for it, which gives us a nice example of circular reasoning.

You have presented a lot of statements, a lot of opions (which is fair enough, as this is a debate), but nothing that gives any kind of credence to the claims you make.

This is not opinion, this is fact but you refuse to accept it. It is your opinion
that we are going around in circles and that the CCdoes not have authority. Facts are facts and they cannot be changed, but they can be denied, as you do. The CC is the only one authorized by Jesus Christ to interpret both scripture and tradition.

As ABp Fulton Sheen said: “The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

The Catholic Church says it’s the one true church and that any understanding of the Bible against their belief is wrong … I find that logic suspect.​

Jesus didn’t tell Peter to pass on his leadership.​

Jesus built His church on what Peter said not on Peter himself. Jesus in the foundation, the Solid Rock upon which He is building His church.​

If you look at Acts you’ll see Peter didn’t act as a pope. He wasn’t the overall leader of the church.​

Did you know Peter had a wife?​

Thank you for your opinion

Yes, Peter had a wife and he probably had children too, but this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

If Jesus built His Church on what Peter said, then why did Jesus change his name from Simon to Peter? He could have left his name alone. It wouldn’t have made any sense to
change it if Jesus didn’t use Peter as His base for the Church.

Also, if Peter was the leader and he didn’t pass on his leadership, again it wouldn’t have made any sense to give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, or give him authority to bind and loose, or to feed His lambs. All would have ended with the death of Peter. All the others would have gone every which way and there would have been one big mess even after all the Apostles died. No, my friend, there had to be succession

Your mis-interpretation is what happens when SS is used and every one claims to be guided by the Holy Spirt. I’m sure that He has not caused the confusion that SS has produced in over 30,000 different denominations and cults.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[LutheranDK]

This is not opinion, this is fact but you refuse to accept it. It is your opinion
that we are going around in circles and that the CCdoes not have authority. Facts are facts and they cannot be changed, but they can be denied, as you do. The CC is the only one authorized by Jesus Christ to interpret both scripture and tradition.

As ABp Fulton Sheen said: “The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Can you give me something other than your say-so?
Until now, all that has been posted is: “Because the RCC says so!”, and considering that the nature of the RCC is what’s debated here, its say-so isn’t all that credible.
THAT’s what’s a fact, and not an opinion…

 

[Javl]

Can you give me something other than your say-so?
Until now, all that has been posted is: “Because the RCC says so!”, and considering that the nature of the RCC is what’s debated here, its say-so isn’t all that credible.
THAT’s what’s a fact, and not an opinion…

I don’t know if you understand my posts, but I repeat; you refuse to accept the facts presented to you and claim they are personal opinion. I don’t know what you are looking for.

Your mis-interpretation is what happens when SS is used and every one claims to be guided by the Holy Spirt. I’m sure that He has not caused the confusion that SS has produced in over 30,000 different denominations and cults.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Dokimas]

Given your stated position, and that you claim a generic “Christian” identification …-

-I need to correct your assumption here: I don’t claim a “generic ‘Christian’ identification”, I claim the only identification that God accepts is with the God/Man Who lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death, was raised from the dead as He said He would and assended into Heaven from which He will one day return for all those who have allowed Him to adopted them into His family (no matter what earthly group they say they are a part of).

… let me see if I understand you correctly: From all eternity, God’s Divine Will was to come to earth, spend 30 years in relative obscurity, have a three-year public ministry where He selects Apostles. Specifically tells Peter to strengthen his brothers after he recovers from denying Christ - (Luke 21: 31-34) - and then specifically tells Peter to feed his lambs - (John 21:15) -and when Peter dies - that is the end of the organization?

-God’s devine will only came to earth after it was created. He did live 30 yrs of relative obscurit with a 3 year public ministry. He did choose disciples. And yes Jesus did tell Peter to strengthen his brothers in Luke 22 (not Luke 21) but we all are told to carry each others burdens and lift up the each other. The context is interesting: Jesus noted Satan wanted to sift Peter, Peter thought he’d be able to go wherever Jesus was to go. Jesus told him he’d deny Him instead of being a faithful follower. You’ve used this Scripture quite liberally.​

Jesus does tell Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. This is after Jesus tells him to mind his own business not John’s business. Jesus chanllenges him by asking him if he loves Jesus. He does so 3 times. Here again, we are all told to feed each other. Some in the Body of Christ are more gifted and have more ‘food’ to feed fellow lambs with.​

Here’s the interesting part: you’ve taken what I’ve said and come to a false conclusion. It’s the responsibility of the Holy Spirit to establish the Church and sustain it. He is capable to sustain it; Peter was not.

When Christ told the Apostles to “Do this in memory of me” - (Luke 22:19) - when St. John died in about 100AD - then no one else could do the “this” in that sentence because Christ did not specifically say, “You and your successors are to do this in memory of me.”

-You do like to go wild with your projection of what you think I’ve said.

I think the bottom line is that at the Last Supper, Christ knew that in less then 24 hours He would be dead. He was not the the Founder of a Law Firm and here were the Twelve Partners eating a meal with Him and He just presented a contract to them for review and signature. Don’t forget, Christ had already given Peter a blank check when He told Peter, “WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven…” - (Matt 16: 19) Peter had the authority and this has been passed down all the way to Benedict XVI

-This is why you don’t like SS: you can not find in the Bible where Peter was to pass down any authority to a group of people that turned into the ROMAN Catholic Church. BTW, one of those twelve ‘partners’ was disqualified.

As I see it, your real argument is with God the Father - Christ asks the Apostles who do men say that I am - and these guys start stumbling all over the wrong answers. God the Father inspires Peter - and surely this must be considered a significant event to happen - and then for Christ to clearly identify to all what has happened. Now, building on the words of Peter sounds a bit tricky - this is the same Peter that Christ did not pass on His leadership to - and you want Christ’s Church build only on the words of Peter.

-What separates Christianity from all other ‘religions’? The fact that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God and the Only Messiah (Christ). That fact is what the church is built upon, not upon Peter. Peter’s shoulders aren’t strong enough; the Shoulders of the Lord Jesus Christ are firm, solid and able to care His church (made up of all those who have come to God by way of Him).

-BTW, when I said Peter wasn’t told to pass on his leadership, I was referring to the idea of being a pope.

-Do you find it strange that Peter, as a follower of Jesus who didn’t have a place to lay His head, is quite different than most (if not all) the other popes – the other popes have lived in the midst of wealth.

Bottom line here is also straight forward: Christ is God and Christ set up the organizational structure of the Church He founded on the man, Peter. …was going to represent Christ on earth - and Peter’s Successor was going to do the same thing - … QUOTE]

-There’s a difference between what Jesus said and what you seem to be saying: He said He was “the Way, the Truth, the Life” and you say the Roman Catholic Church is (at least is part) with its popes.
tqualey;5655309:

But do not stop there - take a look at Peter’s role: in determining that Judas’ position should be replaced and in determing how the person replacing Judas would be selected - (Acts 1:15-26) - at the First Council of Jerusalem - (Acts 15) - Peter - and NOT James answers the question on circumcision - and, notice, Peter does not refer to scripture. The Holy Spirit guided the group to look to Peter for the answer and that same Holy Spirit provided the answer. Notice, after Peter resolved the matter, no one got up and said, “That’s not right - put it to a vote!” Amazing how the Holy Spirit worked in the hearts of the believers.

-Do we have any indication that the way Peter and the others chose a successor for Judas was correct? One could make a good case that Saul of Tarsus was God’s choice. The evidence is quite overwelming, IMO.

-The Scripture Peter does not refer to was not written yet, so it makes sense that Peter did not quote from the doctrines of the New Testament.

-Seems you took Peter’s role in Acts 15 a bit out of context. Read further (verses 13 and following). James got up, not for a vote but, as it appears, the leader of the Jerusalem church. God’s truth is not up for vote - so what’s your point?

-Act 21:18 James is mentioned specifically and the other elders are not. In Galatians 1:19 Paul said he went to see James and specifically said he did not go to see any other apostles. Paul, in Galatians 2:9 said there seemed to be three pillars of the church (in Jerusalem at least) - James (mentioned first), Cephas (meaning ‘stone’ which was another name for Peter) and John. If I’m not mistaken, order of mention is important.

-It is amazing how the Holy Spirit works in all those who will humble themselves.

 

[Javl]

Dokimas:
Here’s the interesting part: you’ve taken what I’ve said and come to a false conclusion. It’s the responsibility of the Holy Spirit to establish the Church and sustain it. He is capable to sustain it; Peter was not.

Quote:

This is why you don’t like SS: you can not find in the Bible where Peter was to pass down any authority to a group of people that turned into the ROMAN Catholic Church. BTW, one of those twelve ‘partners’ was disqualified.

You’ve made the mistake here. Jesus established the Church and sustains it: “Lo, I am with you always”. The Holy Spirit guides it and Peter and his succesors, under the authority of Jesus ( The Keys of the Kingdom, and binding and loosing) take care of the Church. This authority DID NOT end with the death of Peter and the Apostles, for if it did, then why did Jesus establish a Church and say that He would be with it always? It
would make no sense if He meant it to end then.

Whether or not Peter was Pope means nothing. The title “Pope” is an Americanized
version of the Italian “Papa”, which means father. The Pope, then, is a father to the
family ( members ) of the Church, much like the father in any family. As for the “Roman Catholic Church”, the name “Roman” is used only because all activity of the Church is based in the Vatican which in turn is based in Rome.