S
spina1953
Guest
I realize that you were disputing the claim mentioned, and I had to agree with you because you were correct in your thinking.
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Far from limited, it was predicted to be a perpetual sacrifice.
Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
From All Sacrifices Will Cease but One
S
spina1953
Guest
You made some great points it made me start thinking along the lines you spoke of and will post something soon about the sacrifice .
S
spina1953
Guest
In the ancient world religious worship without sacrifice was inconceivable, and the most esteemed form of sacrifice was the roasting and eating of an animal. This was as true of the Jews as of the Greeks or the Romans. The Scriptures are filled with sacrificial language, and the book od Hebrews presents the death of Christ as a sacrifice. Christ entered once and for all into the Holy place, taking not the blood of goats and calves, but His own blood, so securing an eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:12). When Christ blessed the cup he spoke of the blood of the covenant (Mk.14:24) and Paul called the cup communion with the blood of Christ(1 Corinthians 10:16) implying sacrifice.
The term sacrifice comes from the Latin sacrificium to make something holy, that is to set it apart from common usage. and offer it to God like milk honey, meat, etc. The Christian sacrifice differed, however, from pagan sacrifices in one very significant way. it did not involve the actual killing of an animal. In the language of the ancient Christian liturgies, it was an unbloody sacrifice, meaning no blood was shed. But it was a sacrifice nonetheless, because it celebrated Christ's death. In which blood was shed. St. Ignatius wrote that "In the blessing of bread and wine the Church offered to God what it has first received, the Christ who had come into the world to offer His life for sin."
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think the argument that has merit is this: if one goes by the Bible alone, then one ought to have the Last Supper worship services on Thursdays only. For that is what the example given in the Bible depicts.
And one ought not worship on Sunday because there is no command in the Bible to worship on Sunday.
If one is a Bible Alone advocate.
S
solarguy17
Guest
Every mention of the “Eurcharist” being taken after Christ’s resurrection is on a first day of the week.
Thus Sola Scriptura would require to only partake on the first day.
Agree with the principal or not, that what would be needed.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Well, no, Solarguy17. I see you’re Church of Christ. The principle which the CofC uses, which you are calling “Sola Scriptura”, is not what Luther meant by the phrase. Though I’m not a Lutheran, I agree that Lutherans should get to define the term.
I’m an Evangelical, and the meaning of Sola Scriptura which I’m familiar with is along Lutheran lines. I’m wondering if the Restorationists churches like the CofC are unique in the formulation of their principle regarding the Bible, or which, if any, other churches practice it?
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
While I’m not a Bible Alone advocate in the Church of Christ way, I believe many Protestant churches do observe Maundy Thursday, which is meant to specifically commemorate the Last Supper, on a Thursday only.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
I sometimes think “Sola Scriptura” and “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” are tied for first place as confusing Latin slogans.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then you are being the magisterium to all of the rest of the SS world.
I don’t have a problem with that, of course. For I believe strongly in a magisterium to decide for others what is the correct way to read things.
What I do have a problem with is your rejecting magisterial authority over you, while invoking it on others.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So I am curious–does your pastor believe that we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper once a year, on Maundy Thursday only? Or every Thursday?While I’m not a Bible Alone advocate in the Church of Christ way, I believe many Protestant churches do observe Maundy Thursday, which is meant to specifically commemorate the Last Supper, on a Thursday only.
And how does he know?
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
PRmerger—I don’t see it as a matter of magisterial authority, but rather a deference to Lutherans about how Luther’s phrase is defined. As it is, the term has been co-opted and misunderstood by some–Catholic and Orthodox apologists and Protestants alike. Still, Lutheran have a useful meaning for the phrase.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Individuals become important when, as in the case of Luther, they develop radical doctrines to resolve their individual psychological issues. In order to understand the origins (and therefore the credibility of) Protestantism, there is no alternative but to delve into the various aspects of Luther as a person. Only by understanding Luther and all of his normally ignored motivations can an informed assessment of his dozens of radical doctrines take place. Since no Catholic, no Pope or even ALL Popes, took as much doctrinal responsibility upon their shoulders the way Luther did, there is no real reason to assess their characters, their theological capabilities, temperaments, etc, etc. Furthermore, Catholic doctrine does not rely on the ‘abilities’ or characters of it’s leaders in the way that Protestantism ‘needs’ Luther to be ‘competent’ and credible.
Protestantism, and more specifically Lutheranism may take offense at the posting of negative opinions about the developer of their core doctrines. Yet these same people seem to be surprised when Catholics are offended by comments about the pope (either the person or the office) being the anti-Christ. Those comments are directed at the whole Roman Catholic Church, and if anything are MUCH more offensive than criticism of the man Martin Luther. When it is stated, that the pope is the anti-Christ, which is the official teaching of Lutheranism, or that it is ‘only’ the Office of the papacy which is the anti-Christ - either way - that statement portrays the 1,100,000,000 member RCC as being led by the anti-Christ. People who see this as being inoffensive probably need to take some intensive sensitivity training.
Futhermore, I will tell you that I am a couple of dozen times more charitable towards Luther than he was towards his opponents, including his Catholic opponents. That being said - it kind of ‘is what it is’.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
I would suggest that the issue of papal infallibility is of supreme importance. To go for 50 years without addressing it formally is absolutely ridiculous. I fault both groups equally. There can be no real union of our two communions without resolving this issue. What in the world could they possibly be waiting for? Possibly the next generation of negotiators? This is not exactly ‘brave’ on their part. What will be the right period of time to remain separated? 550 years? 600 years? 1000 years. Seriously, they ought to dial it up a tad.
Individuals become important when, as in the case of Luther, they develop radical doctrines to resolve their individual psychological issues. In order to understand the origins (and therefore the credibility of) Protestantism, there is no alternative but to delve into the various aspects of Luther as a person. Only by understanding Luther and all of his normally ignored motivations can an informed assessment of his dozens of radical doctrines take place. Since no Catholic, no Pope or even ALL Popes, took as much doctrinal responsibility upon their shoulders the way Luther did, there is no real reason to assess their characters, their theological capabilities, temperaments, etc, etc. Furthermore, Catholic doctrine does not rely on the ‘abilities’ or characters of it’s leaders in the way that Protestantism ‘needs’ Luther to be ‘competent’ and credible.
Protestantism, and more specifically Lutheranism may take offense at the posting of negative opinions about the developer of their core doctrines. Yet these same people seem to be surprised when Catholics are offended by comments about the pope (either the person or the office) being the anti-Christ. Those comments are directed at the whole Roman Catholic Church, and if anything are MUCH more offensive than criticism of the man Martin Luther. When it is stated, that the pope is the anti-Christ, which is the official teaching of Lutheranism, or that it is ‘only’ the Office of the papacy which is the anti-Christ - either way - that statement portrays the 1,100,000,000 member RCC as being led by the anti-Christ. People who see this as being inoffensive probably need to take some intensive sensitivity training.
Futhermore, I will tell you that I am a couple of dozen times more charitable towards Luther than he was towards his opponents, including his Catholic opponents. That being said - it kind of ‘is what it is’.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
At the Leipzig Debate of 1519, two years before he was excommunicated, Luther contended that (per Marius) “The real monarchy in the church lay not with the Bishop of Rome or with any other bishop; it lay with the consensus of all the church of the faithful. True doctrine was what the masses of Christians believed to be true doctrine.” Marius, pg. 173
Of course, upon ‘mature reflection’, meaning a few years later, Luther defined ‘True Doctrine’ as being what HE thought, which was not at all what the masses believed. Here at Leipzig is where Luther really began to believe Sola Scriptura and deny the authority and infallibility of both Pope and Council. Of course, if a Council is truly authoritative, then the authority cannot be Sola.
When Trent was eminent, Luther was not interested in attending. He believed that the Pope was an atheist (and also the anti-Christ). In fact, he believed negotiations with Catholics to be bargaining with the Devil. Of course, by this time, Luther had written extensively and crudely about his warped beliefs regarding the Church. The titles of these tracts in and of themselves are extremely offensive and are enough to at least partially assess his understanding of Christian charity.
Are we supposed to believe that this man should have been invited to Trent, especially after he had demonstrated an amazing capacity for intolerance for the beliefs of others? If so, then I would suggest some additional ‘education’ about Luther’s pre-Trent actions and writings.
In spite of all of the accusations (and worse) back and forth, Protestants were actually invited to Trent. Of course, Luther advised them not to attend. The Church was very focused on achieving a lasting reunion and so the Protestants were assured safe conduct. As in many other things, Luther’s influence was felt, and few Protestants traveled to Trent. On the other hand, the Protestants would have been a minority at Trent and so they could not be expected to obligate themselves to following the decisions that were to be made. Those few who did attend, at least those in 1562, long after Luther was dead, made ridiculous demands upon the Council. They wanted decisions made previous to their arrival voided, and amazingly, in a supreme effort to achieve a religious peace, they were.
Protestants cannot claim that they would follow Trent if it could be considered an Ecumenical Council. Protestants were invited to Trent and only a very few attended. So – if Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, it is on the heads of the Protestant leaders and especially on the head of Luther who recommended that the Protestants not attend. In other words, you can’t have it ‘both ways’.
Furthermore, Protestants cannot claim that Trent could not have been an Ecumenical Council because ‘the EO didn’t attend’. This kind of ‘logic’ would require that the Arians (who are still around) would need to be represented at a Council in order for it to be ‘Ecumenical’. If Lutherans believe in the ‘authority’ of the first 7 Councils, that would include Councils which did not include the Arians, and as such, according to this paradigm, were not ‘Ecumenical’. In addition, the “EO wasn’t there” is all too convenient an excuse, and all too obvious as part of the unstated justification for not following any of the councils from the third 500 years of Christendom. The EO ‘excuse’ does NOT justify Protestantism’s almost unanimous refusal to attend Trent.
The fact is that the Church bent over backwards in placating both Luther specifically and Protestantism in general, all in an effort to avoid the Protestant schism. When it became exceedingly clear (in 1521) that Luther was not willing to be corrected or to listen to reason (‘the Devils whore’), he was excommunicated. By the end of Trent, it was clear that there could be no reunification with the Protestants. Unfortunately, long before the end of Trent, the blood had begun to flow. Over the next several generations the death toll reached 10’s of millions. The saddest thing is that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone is now only one of a number of competing Protestant versions of Salvation, which means that even within Protestantism, it is viewed by many as being false. Unfortunately the vast majority of those people in the 16th and 17th century died for something that they didn’t understand or possibly would not support if they did.
Again, thanks for your answer about the apportionment of the delegates at the hypothetical Council. In my next post here on this thread we can begin to explore how that Council might work in the real world.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
I very much appreciate your answer, especially given the fact that you obviously recognized that there is no answer from a Protestant perspective which does not prove a point against your position. Anyway, thanks.
At the Leipzig Debate of 1519, two years before he was excommunicated, Luther contended that (per Marius) “The real monarchy in the church lay not with the Bishop of Rome or with any other bishop; it lay with the consensus of all the church of the faithful. True doctrine was what the masses of Christians believed to be true doctrine.” Marius, pg. 173
Of course, upon ‘mature reflection’, meaning a few years later, Luther defined ‘True Doctrine’ as being what HE thought, which was not at all what the masses believed. Here at Leipzig is where Luther really began to believe Sola Scriptura and deny the authority and infallibility of both Pope and Council. Of course, if a Council is truly authoritative, then the authority cannot be Sola.
When Trent was eminent, Luther was not interested in attending. He believed that the Pope was an atheist (and also the anti-Christ). In fact, he believed negotiations with Catholics to be bargaining with the Devil. Of course, by this time, Luther had written extensively and crudely about his warped beliefs regarding the Church. The titles of these tracts in and of themselves are extremely offensive and are enough to at least partially assess his understanding of Christian charity.
Are we supposed to believe that this man should have been invited to Trent, especially after he had demonstrated an amazing capacity for intolerance for the beliefs of others? If so, then I would suggest some additional ‘education’ about Luther’s pre-Trent actions and writings.
In spite of all of the accusations (and worse) back and forth, Protestants were actually invited to Trent. Of course, Luther advised them not to attend. The Church was very focused on achieving a lasting reunion and so the Protestants were assured safe conduct. As in many other things, Luther’s influence was felt, and few Protestants traveled to Trent. On the other hand, the Protestants would have been a minority at Trent and so they could not be expected to obligate themselves to following the decisions that were to be made. Those few who did attend, at least those in 1562, long after Luther was dead, made ridiculous demands upon the Council. They wanted decisions made previous to their arrival voided, and amazingly, in a supreme effort to achieve a religious peace, they were.
Protestants cannot claim that they would follow Trent if it could be considered an Ecumenical Council. Protestants were invited to Trent and only a very few attended. So – if Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, it is on the heads of the Protestant leaders and especially on the head of Luther who recommended that the Protestants not attend. In other words, you can’t have it ‘both ways’.
Furthermore, Protestants cannot claim that Trent could not have been an Ecumenical Council because ‘the EO didn’t attend’. This kind of ‘logic’ would require that the Arians (who are still around) would need to be represented at a Council in order for it to be ‘Ecumenical’. If Lutherans believe in the ‘authority’ of the first 7 Councils, that would include Councils which did not include the Arians, and as such, according to this paradigm, were not ‘Ecumenical’. In addition, the “EO wasn’t there” is all too convenient an excuse, and all too obvious as part of the unstated justification for not following any of the councils from the third 500 years of Christendom. The EO ‘excuse’ does NOT justify Protestantism’s almost unanimous refusal to attend Trent.
The fact is that the Church bent over backwards in placating both Luther specifically and Protestantism in general, all in an effort to avoid the Protestant schism. When it became exceedingly clear (in 1521) that Luther was not willing to be corrected or to listen to reason (‘the Devils whore’), he was excommunicated. By the end of Trent, it was clear that there could be no reunification with the Protestants. Unfortunately, long before the end of Trent, the blood had begun to flow. Over the next several generations the death toll reached 10’s of millions. The saddest thing is that Luther’s Salvation by Faith Alone is now only one of a number of competing Protestant versions of Salvation, which means that even within Protestantism, it is viewed by many as being false. Unfortunately the vast majority of those people in the 16th and 17th century died for something that they didn’t understand or possibly would not support if they did.
Again, thanks for your answer about the apportionment of the delegates at the hypothetical Council. In my next post here on this thread we can begin to explore how that Council might work in the real world.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
You asked specifically about the Last Supper—we commemorate that in a special way on Maundy Thursday, right before Easter. (I was trying to be funny, sort of.
In my church the “Last Supper Worship service”, as you phrased it, can be observed with foot washing, it’s on Maundy Thursday, and it’s not quite like a regular observance of Holy Communion/the Lord’s Supper, which can be on other days, as per the Bible and the tradition of the Church.)
P
PRmerger
Guest
So do you believe that Lutheran theologians get to tell all the rest of Christendom what to believe re: SS?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have no doubt that it is “useful” to Lutherans.
My objection is when they tell others how to understand SS.
In doing this they are doing the very thing that they object to with Catholicisim.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, so you, too are not a Bible Alone advocate but defer to the authority of Sacred Tradition.You asked specifically about the Last Supper—we commemorate that in a special way on Maundy Thursday, right before Easter. (I was trying to be funny, sort of.
Here are a few of my responses in this regard:
And one from Don (steido)
While we are strident in our position on the definition and practice of sola scriptura, no where have we claimed “magisterial authority”, or ministerial authority, or any other kind of authority over any other communion. We love them, believe they are Christian, but if their practice of sola scriptura significantly varies, we believe them to be wrong.
Jon
When did Lutheran theologians do this? And even if they did, why would they expect anyone to listen?
The issue often brought up is that there are varying definitions and understandings of sola scriptura. The Lutheran position is that our confessions offer the definition of the practice. It is the definition that we use. We believe that to significant alter the practice constitutes a different practice, and not sola scriptura. Sometimes the variant practice is referred to as solo scriptura.
Lutherans here cannot and should not pretend to speak for other communions and what they believe or practice, nor should we be required to do so or be held accountable for their practices.
The sad fact in Christendom today is that there are various communions and communities. They are separate by token of the fact that they have differing beliefs, and sometimes differing practices. This sad fact is not exclusive to communions that practice sola scriptura, but also includes communions that do not, including Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Jon
- Status