P
PRmerger
Guest
Not that I am disputing this, but can you please tell me what verses in Scripture says that the Holy Spirit guides Christians?
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, I hope you will not take offense to this, but those “core values” you speak of are, frankly, kiddie theology.
These churches agree on everything my kids learned in Catholic school in 1st grade: God loves you. God made the world. Jesus is God’s son. Jesus died on the cross for you and me.
Once these denominations start discussing anything of any substance*, that’s where the chaos and confusion comes in.
Not to mention, any talk of “core values” is unbiblical. For the Bible never mentions what’s a “core” belief, and what’s a “secondary belief.”
*regarding substance: please note I am not making light of the sublime and profound truths that are expressed in my examples in red. They are deep theological truths and not meant to be dismissed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am deeply sorry to hear of this, batman.
But you are expressing an impoverished understanding of what a Catholic church tribunal does.
God does indeed forgive you if you divorce (and, of course, repent). But if you re-marry, you are committing adultery.
There is no doubt about Jesus’ words on this.
Much as I would like to edit Christ’s words, I cannot. The Church cannot.
I have conformed my views to Christ’s. Not created a christ who conforms to my own views.
B
batman1973
Guest
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. The Bible is explicit on what is and isn’t a “core value” if you don’t know, I highly reccomend reading the Bible. As for your list of so-called denominations, you realize that a denomination is something like Roman Catholic, Lutheran Church, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. You just rattled off names of churches as a whole, and I saw several baptist churches in your list.
Try this:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Taking out the cults like Mormonism, Swedenborgism, and the Non-trinitarian groups, I counted less than 30.
B
batman1973
Guest
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13 KJV)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13 DRA)
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13 RSVCE)
B
batman1973
Guest
First off, thank you.
Second, again, agree to disagree. Paul went into greater detail on marriage, and I believe that Paul was a true Apostle of Jesus Christ. We’ve had this discussion before on divorce and re-marriage, and I believe that we hit the same impasse. I’m not worried about committing adultery in a 3rd marriage, and who knows, maybe God can heal the second one. That’s not out of possibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You know, I’ve been on this forum for a long time, and have asked for this list of Scripture verses of essential beliefs of many, many Protestants, and no one has ever given me the same list.
Not to mention, what they give is a list of what they believe to be a core value, but what I want to see is** where the Bible tells us that something is an essential belief.**
For example, is belief that God created the world an essential belief?
Catholics would say yes.
But where does the Bible say this.
Now, you can most likely show me where the Bible says that God created the worl…
[SIGN1]but you’ll never be able to show me where this is an essential belief.[/SIGN1]
Is belief that Jesus sweat blood in Gethsemane an essential belief?
Now, you can most likely show me where the Bible says that Jesus did indeed sweat… blood…but you’ll never be able to show me where the Bible says if this is an essential belief.
That the Bible tells us what are essential beliefs would be a man-made tradition that you’ve been duped into believing, batman.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
**GENERAL WARNING
This is the absolute and final warning
Posters are to observe the rules of CAF on charity.
If you have not read them yet, they are located in my signature.
If you cannot follow them, then I suggest you avoid the thread.
Thank you.**
This is the absolute and final warning
Posters are to observe the rules of CAF on charity.
If you have not read them yet, they are located in my signature.
If you cannot follow them, then I suggest you avoid the thread.
Thank you.**
Not sure I understand this, Ben. In what way are you saying that the creeds and confessions have no place in a confessional Lutheran Church? Seemingly, the Reformers thought they had an important place, or we wouldn’t have them, but I’ll wait for your response.
Jon
C
CopticChristian
Guest
batman1973 said:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13 DRA)
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide "you into all the COLOR] for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13 RSVCE)
Batman,
Here is what we know. There is a Spirit of Truth. We all agree that God is one, we all agree that there is a mystery of the Trinity, we all agree that Jesus said He would send another paraclete…we all know that this was said well over 2000 years ago…
Here is the dilema…who is the “you”…when you find the “you” that was led into truth, knowing that truth cannot change, knowing that Our God is Holy leading us to be Holy as it concerns issues of Morality like Abortion, Homosexuality, and actions that are not truthful, when we find the “you” that has taught consistently and has consistency…
then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free…
J
JustaServant
Guest
Getting back to the OP.
What you are suggesting was done in my experience across the Tiber.
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”, but not in a sense that it rules out the authority of Tradition and the Church. No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the authority or rule of faith in isolation.
More importantly, there is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were, there wouldn’t be all the different denominations of Protestants around the world. Sola Scriptura falls apart everytime one opens the phone book and counts the number of churches in any given area.
For me, one of the shaky bricks in Scripture Alone came from a Baptist preacher years ago who told me of his troubles in a small town church:
This is a true story.
The church was divided.
One part of the church wanted things their way, the other side violently disagreed.
This got to a point where the different factions would sit themselves on opposite sides of the church trading irritated glances and whispers among themselves. The pastor was in the middle, any sermon he preached would be seen as favoring one side over the other.
So he came upon a wonderful idea:
Just read the Scriptures without comment and let God sort it out.
He chose, for better or worse the Book of Psalms.
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful” generated shocked looks that told this poor preacher that it was not being taken as David perhaps wrote it.
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”
At this point there was murmuring in the pews.
“Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! many are they that rise up against me.”
The congregation, on both sides, were in a rage. One lady walked out.
“O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity…?” Two more walked out and the head deacon interupted. The service was stopped and the preacher was forced to resign on the spot.
It wasn’t the Scriptures, it was the WAY he read them. He OBVIOUSLY meant it for thier little group.
In one brief, unshining moment, that preacher learned something about “Scripture alone”.
It doesn’t exist.
No person has any guarantee of discerning those proper teachings in scripture, when read outside of the light of the Church. Every Protestant knows other “bible-believers” get the wrong teachings out of scripture, sometimes to the point of not even being considered Christians.
They just seem to have a hard time taking the next step, which is to acknowledge that they themselves may also get the wrong teachings out of scripture.
Reposted from a four year old post with charity as per our mod’s request.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Ack! I really messed up!!!
Creeds and Confessions are the glue that holds a confessional Lutheran Church together. The closer we adhere to them the better.
Not a problem. My understanding has always been that the (Lutheran) Church uses sola scriptura as the final norm to hold accountable teachers, doctrines, etc. We, the laity, however, always should view scripture through the lens of the confessions.
Jon
R
rfournier103
Guest
I need to follow this thread… You may go back to what you were doing. That is all. 
B
benjohnson
Guest
Thanks! I do tend to make a mess…
I think Catholics would do very well to study the Lutheran Sola Scriptura - not the simplistic version that others use.
If they accepted it, it would allow them to be even more comfortable with the idea of Papal Infallibility, in that if a wayward Pope declared something infallibly that clearly isn’t correct, they could point to the Bible and say “you’re not speaking infallibly, even if you insist, because what you are saying goes against Scripture.”
In my opinion, If they used Sola Scriptura like we did, it could bolster their claim of Papal Infallibly, not weaken it. It would also remove one more barrier between them and us.
Which lighthouse, PR? Yours, or Mickey’s?So get off the Lutheran boat and come to the Lighthouse already!
Jon
R
rfournier103
Guest
**
I am personally convinced that Catholicism justifies what is in the Bible, (not vice-versa) and I freely admit that when I learn about something new (who can know EVERYTHING in a 2,000 year old religion?), I go looking for it in the Bible so I may understand it better.
What baffles me is that those who fanatically cling to the absolute litteral definition of Sola Scriptura have no craving for more than what’s just in the Bible. Can ANY man’s devotion to the All Powerful Master of Time and Space that created him from nothing truly contain his homage to such a short BOOK???
I look at the writings of the Early Fathers the way a lawyer may look at a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court Justice (PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT CAREFULLY):
A dissenting opinion is NOT binding law. Just as the Early Fathers’ writings are NOT Canon, they may be cited to help make an argument that rests on ‘good law’ (the Bible), but can not be cited as law in and of itself. Just as a Supreme Court Justice in the minority may not be on the side of the majority of a binding decision, the dissenting opinions are still published because many valid points are still made, and the court as a whole are nine of the best legal minds our nation has to offer. Even the losing side can make very compelling arguments. They just weren’t in the majority.
99.99% of the time the Early Fathers support Scriptural evidence for the biggest issues that divide Christianity. Some of them were even disciples of the Apostles themselves. To me, that certainly makes them worth at least looking at.
Sorry for the rant, and my attempted comparison.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Scripture has indeed made me more comfortable with many parts of my faith. I just with there was MORE of it, and often have to go looking for more to satisfy my thirst for knowledge; while ALWAYS remembering that anything that contradicts the Bible is “bad law”, “not binding”, and “just plain wrong”. Does that make sense to anyone?
PS: I am not familiar with the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, so this likely isn’t directed at you. If any offense is taken by anyone, it is out of ignorance, not malice. I am only interested in understanding. Thank you, brothers.
There’s a series of books I LOVE called “The Biblical Basis for __________” by John Salza. His works include books on “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”, “the Eucharist”, “Purgatory”, “Sacred Tradition”, and the “Catholic Faith” as a whole. All of his books cite evidence exclusively from the Bible (using the Douay Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate except where noted) and only using extra-Biblical citations in the very last chapter (the The Early Fathers). One may also check out his cite: www.scripturecatholic.com. It has helped me more than a little bit.
I am personally convinced that Catholicism justifies what is in the Bible, (not vice-versa) and I freely admit that when I learn about something new (who can know EVERYTHING in a 2,000 year old religion?), I go looking for it in the Bible so I may understand it better.
What baffles me is that those who fanatically cling to the absolute litteral definition of Sola Scriptura have no craving for more than what’s just in the Bible. Can ANY man’s devotion to the All Powerful Master of Time and Space that created him from nothing truly contain his homage to such a short BOOK???
I look at the writings of the Early Fathers the way a lawyer may look at a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court Justice (PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT CAREFULLY):
A dissenting opinion is NOT binding law. Just as the Early Fathers’ writings are NOT Canon, they may be cited to help make an argument that rests on ‘good law’ (the Bible), but can not be cited as law in and of itself. Just as a Supreme Court Justice in the minority may not be on the side of the majority of a binding decision, the dissenting opinions are still published because many valid points are still made, and the court as a whole are nine of the best legal minds our nation has to offer. Even the losing side can make very compelling arguments. They just weren’t in the majority.
99.99% of the time the Early Fathers support Scriptural evidence for the biggest issues that divide Christianity. Some of them were even disciples of the Apostles themselves. To me, that certainly makes them worth at least looking at.
Sorry for the rant, and my attempted comparison.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Scripture has indeed made me more comfortable with many parts of my faith. I just with there was MORE of it, and often have to go looking for more to satisfy my thirst for knowledge; while ALWAYS remembering that anything that contradicts the Bible is “bad law”, “not binding”, and “just plain wrong”. Does that make sense to anyone?
PS: I am not familiar with the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, so this likely isn’t directed at you. If any offense is taken by anyone, it is out of ignorance, not malice. I am only interested in understanding. Thank you, brothers.
Offense? Why?**
There’s a series of books I LOVE called “The Biblical Basis for __________” by John Salza. His works include books on “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”, “the Eucharist”, “Purgatory”, “Sacred Tradition”, and the “Catholic Faith” as a whole. All of his books cite evidence exclusively from the Bible (using the Douay Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate except where noted) and only using extra-Biblical citations in the very last chapter (the The Early Fathers). One may also check out his cite: www.scripturecatholic.com. It has helped me more than a little bit.
I am personally convinced that Catholicism justifies what is in the Bible, (not vice-versa) and I freely admit that when I learn about something new (who can know EVERYTHING in a 2,000 year old religion?), I go looking for it in the Bible so I may understand it better.
What baffles me is that those who fanatically cling to the absolute litteral definition of Sola Scriptura have no craving for more than what’s just in the Bible. Can ANY man’s devotion to the All Powerful Master of Time and Space that created him from nothing truly contain his homage to such a short BOOK???
I look at the writings of the Early Fathers the way a lawyer may look at a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court Justice (PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT CAREFULLY):
A dissenting opinion is NOT binding law. Just as the Early Fathers’ writings are NOT Canon, they may be cited to help make an argument that rests on ‘good law’ (the Bible), but can not be cited as law in and of itself. Just as a Supreme Court Justice in the minority may not be on the side of the majority of a binding decision, the dissenting opinions are still published because many valid points are still made, and the court as a whole are nine of the best legal minds our nation has to offer. Even the losing side can make very compelling arguments. They just weren’t in the majority.
99.99% of the time the Early Fathers support Scriptural evidence for the biggest issues that divide Christianity. Some of them were even disciples of the Apostles themselves. To me, that certainly makes them worth at least looking at.
Sorry for the rant, and my attempted comparison.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Scripture has indeed made me more comfortable with many parts of my faith. I just with there was MORE of it, and often have to go looking for more to satisfy my thirst for knowledge; while ALWAYS remembering that anything that contradicts the Bible is “bad law”, “not binding”, and “just plain wrong”. Does that make sense to anyone?
PS: I am not familiar with the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, so this likely isn’t directed at you. If any offense is taken by anyone, it is out of ignorance, not malice. I am only interested in understanding. Thank you, brothers.
I thought your post was a well thought-out one.
Jon
S
SteveVH
Guest
Jon, with all due respect, when the Lutheran Church uses sola scriptura as the final norm, does not the inspired word of God also need an interpreter (hopefully an infallible one at that)? It certainly cannot interpret itself. In the Lutheran Church who is the final arbiter of truth?
This is something that has always struck me as odd; that scripture is used to test those who interpret scripture, as if the interpretation of the one questioning the other is, without a doubt, the correct interpretation. In the end, is it not one interpretation against another, rather than one interpretation against scripture? Does this not show the absolute necessity of an infallible interpreter of inerrant scripture? And does it not show the absolute necessity of Sacred Tradition as the measuring stick since it was Sacred Tradition that was used in determining the canon? The writings could not contradict what the Church had always believed, rather than the other way around. That the Bible came from the Church and not the Church from the Bible has become a cliche, but this truth is very important. If the Church from which the Bible was born is not an authentic interpreter of its contents then who can make such a claim in its place?
Thanks and God bless.
Steve
- Status