Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anglicans hold what they call apocrypha in high regards and read it in liturgy. The 39 Articles of Religion name them, a few not even being in the canon of the Catholic Church.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
I talked with my parents’ ELCA church members. They all said the Eucharist is symbolic.
Click to expand...
Then they aren’t Lutheran. Full stop.

The Lutheran Confessions are without equivocation on the issue.
Augsburg Confession
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.
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.
Click to expand...
From the Apology
Article X: Of the Holy Supper.
[54]](http://bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#para54) The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament .
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, you’re right. But, it doesn’t detract from the falsity of Protestant positions in other areas of theology.
 
Touché I accept that. But, since your clergy aren’t validly ordained; the point is moot. Your “ Eucharist “ is just bread and wine without Christ in it.
 
adf417 said:
40.png
Michael16:
Your “ hero “ declares a LOT of things in contradiction to God’s Word, like the Lord’s Supper. “ Eat My Flesh, drink My Blood “ a pretty direct and straightforward statement on the part of Our Lord, yet Luther says he means it symbolically? Hahahahaha
Click to expand...
Do you have a source on this? Ive always been with the understanding Luther was one that was not in the symbolic camp.

Peace!!!
Click to expand...
He can’t have a source for it because he is factually wrong. Luther’s own words;
Who , but the devil , has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body ? or, that is is the same as it signifies ? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil , that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine ; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present .
Surely, it is not credible , nor possible , since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only ; or the body of Christ is not there , especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them , had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present : but they are all of them unanimous.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
Yeah, you’re right. But, it doesn’t detract from the falsity of Protestant positions in other areas of theology.
Click to expand...
This may be but using red herring fallacies to prove your point is not becoming of a Christian.

Peace!!!
 
Michael16 said:
Touché I accept that. But, since your clergy aren’t validly ordained; the point is moot. Your “ Eucharist “ is just bread and wine without Christ in it.
Click to expand...
A completely different issue. What Rome thinks of Lutheran clergy is irrelevant.
Lutherans know their clergy to be valid, along with their Sacrament.
 
Wait a minute! What IS Luther’s position exactly? The bread SIGNIFIES? Which is it? The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity or just SIGNS of Christ’s Presence?
 
Hahahaha False!! The only reason my Lutheran Baptism was accepted as valid by the Church when I was in RCIA was because Lutherans baptize with the Trinitarian Formula. Otherwise; my point stands. Your founders broke away from the Apostles’ successors in the True Church and thus HAVE NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND THUS NO VALID SACRAMENTS OR HOLY ORDERS
 
The problem is: Signifies, meaning signs; are not the same as Real Presence. Which is it?
 
Michael16 said:
Hahahaha False!! The only reason my Lutheran Baptism was accepted as valid by the Church when I was in RCIA was because Lutherans baptize with the Trinitarian Formula. Otherwise; my point stands. Your founders broke away from the Apostles’ successors in the True Church and thus HAVE NO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND THUS NO VALID SACRAMENTS OR HOLY ORDERS
Click to expand...
Again, Lutherans don’t rely on Catholic opinion of their orders, anymore than Rome cares about the Lutheran view of Catholic orders (even though Lutherans recognize Catholic orders as valid).
So you can capitalize are “yell” all you want.
 
Luther and the reformers after him are very clear in what they teach.
 
I wasn’t yelling. Yelling is using exclamation points. And you dodged the question: What did Luther teach? Real Presence or some complicated, trying have it both ways; signifies?

And: I’ve noticed that no one here is debating me on other points I raised.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
The problem is: Signifies, meaning signs; are not the same as Real Presence. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Okay. Step by step.
Who , but the devil , has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body ? or, that is is the same as it signifies ? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil , that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.
Click to expand...
Here he places at the feet of the devil the teaching that the Eucharist is symbolic. He says he that “signifies” doesn’t mean “is”.
JonNC said:
Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine ; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present .
Click to expand...
Here he references the ECFs ( Early Church Fathers), stating that they never spoke of the Eucharist the same way the “sacramentarians” (Calvinists) do.
Then he affirms the ECF testimony of the real presence.
Surely, it is not credible , nor possible , since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only ; or the body of Christ is not there , especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them , had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present : but they are all of them unanimous.”
Click to expand...
I hope that helps.
 
Michael16 said:
I wasn’t yelling. Yelling is using exclamation points. And you dodged the question: What did Luther teach? Real Presence or some complicated, trying have it both ways; signifies?

And: I’ve noticed that no one here is debating me on other points I raised.
Click to expand...
Using all caps is yelling. Luther’s teaching is clear.
 
Okay, I realize I’ve gotten rather heated and I apologize. Not becoming of a Christian.

Here’s the thing: Reading Luther’s passage is confusing and complicated. He’s appearing to say it’s both is and is not at the same time.

So: Which is it? Actual or not actual? He can’t have it both ways you see.

My understanding, upon reflection; is that his concept of the bread and wine was a complicated Yes and No simultaneously. More complicated than the Catholic position.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
Okay, I realize I’ve gotten rather heated and I apologize. Not becoming of a Christian.

Here’s the thing: Reading Luther’s passage is confusing and complicated. He’s appearing to say it’s both is and is not at the same time.

So: Which is it? Actual or not actual? He can’t have it both ways you see.

My understanding, upon reflection; is that his concept of the bread and wine was a complicated Yes and No simultaneously. More complicated than the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
Actually his passage is clear. He sides completely with the ECFs unanimous position that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior.
I was raised believing this without question. What we see as bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the forgiveness of sins.
This is most certainly true.
 
Okay. That’s what you teach. At least we are in agreement. Are you LCMS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top