The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[joe370]

Hey AJ…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Well, sola scriptura via individual interpretation is the protestant mantra, as per ML.

IMHO, you are.

I am what?

Christians had no problem obeying the (Jesus’ established church) - apostles and their successors to the 3rd generation; why not now? Timothy and Titus preserved the teachings which they received from Paul and passed it on to their successors; was this process to end once the bible was codified in the 4th century?

What did Paul mean when he said: obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you?"

Did this only apply to the CC for the first 4 centuries?

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It has nothing to do with interpretation (although that gets involved in the arbitration using Sola Scriptura).

Let’s see… Sola scriptura is Latin for Bible alone. It is an affirmation that the only source of knowledge regarding divine revelation is the Bible, and there is no church authority established by Christ (that being the CC) - to correctly interpret it. Is that correct?

One expression of sola scriptura, for example, is found in the Westminster Confession cited below:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is ether expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them…”

Is the doctrine of the Eucharist or Baptism considered things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, and clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture?

If so, could you please answer the following question: What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist or baptism) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura? After all, our salvation is on the line.
Reply With Quote

Lutherans actually end to reject individual interpretation. The Catholic Church insists upon it, however (CCC # 85, 87, etc.).

So, if the CC is not to be entrusted with the living teaching office, exercised in the name of Jesus, then who? Certainly not the individual Lutheran for they “reject individual interpretation.”

The HUGE, constant focus on power, authority, lordship over overs is a central Catholic theme; it’s not outside of Catholicism. Lutherans approach all this with a strong embrace of humility, accountability and community. I embrace that the church has authority to arbitrate - but the church is not limited to me or to my denomination (or any other, including The Catholic Church). Authority is not as simply as self declaring self to be the sole Authority - infallible and unaccountable; right cuz one can’t be wrong (self). That might be convenient (as lone as all other accepts such with docility - CCC 87) but it actually as nothing to do with being authoritative or correct.

So, the CC is the big bad wolf? I don’t see it. That same big bad wolf is why you don’t embrace the following heresies, among others: Gnosticism, Quartodecimanism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Monophysitis and Pelagianism; Pelagius rejected original sin, and actually taught salvation by good works, (something many PC’s accuse the CC of teaching) - yet it was the CC that quashed that heretical teaching.

AJ, if a fledgling Christian is unsure about a specific doctrine, eg the Eucharist, who has the authority to teach him/her?

Which church has the authority to arbitrate?

If the church (which church) - is not limited to you or me or to your denomination (or any other, including The Catholic Church) - then where does that leave us?

I agree that authority is not as simply as self declaring self to be the sole Authority - infallible and unaccountable. Jesus said to just one church: *“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,and teaching them…” *

To which church in the world today, was Jesus referring?

Surely many PC’s receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them - right? When Jesus said the following to which church was He refering:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Quote:
Agreed, but for me, the key was to find that one church built circa AD 33, on the foundation of the Apostles, (regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) - to which Jesus said, I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever…

I believe that Jesus founded His church.

Agreed!

I actually think it came into existence at the Annunciation when Mary believed. And yes, it’s always (and ever will be) one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of believers.

Agreed.

I don’t think that Jesus founded The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in 33 AD. I think that C.F.W. Walther (and others) did in 1847. But all that is entirely moot to anything. Christians are not a specific denomination, I believe that Christians are people.

Do you agree that Jesus founded the CC circa 33 AD? If not then which church in the world today? Why is it moot? Christians are people, belonging to specific denominations. How can you deny this fact?

People with the gift of faith. People whom God has brought into His church via Baptism and His gift of faith.

Which church? For example, my dad belongs to an evangelical church; my niece belongs to the holy cross Lutheran church; my sister belongs to the apostle Brown ministries church; JonNC, here at CAF, belongs to a different Lutheran church; my bosses friend belongs to the EOC; my neighbour belongs to the reformed baptist church, and I belong to the CC.

It actually as nothing to do with what congregation in which they may or may not hold official membership or what denomination that congregation may be legally affiliated with.

So, if it has nothing to do “with what congregation in which they may or may not hold official membership,” then would I be welcomed by your church leadership, to bring my catholic beliefs into your church, and share them with your congregation?

In my congregation ARE Christians (and thus those are a small, tiny part of His church), of course.

If Jesus’ church is the one, holy and catholic church, comprised of the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of believers, then why call it “my congregation?” Call it: Jesus’ congregation or everyone’s congregation, regardless of denomination - right?

Quote:
Just because there hasn’t been an undivided church for 1000 years doesn’t mean that the church built by God doesn’t exist -right?
IMHO, the church has been united all along, and still is. When I say that the church is ONE - I literally mean that. I think we ARE one, by virtue of our ONE faith in Christ as our Savior.

Really? How so? So, Christianity is not horribly fractured? I wish I could believe that, and I pray that one day this becomes a realization. Do you believe that the Lutheran church and the CC have been one and united all along?

 

[joe370]

Institutionally, there has never been one congregation or one denomination. Institutionally, we’ve never been one. There was one denomination for The Roman Empire (but not beyond it!) for about 100 years, but that’s probably as close as we’ve ever come to one institution (at least for one country/nation).

When you say, Institutionally, are you referring to the CC? Prior to the protestant reformation there were only 2 churches: the EOC and CC.

Today, there are millions of congregations and thousands of denominations. And of course, much of the church isn’t (officially) a part of any congregation. And lots of congregations aren’t a part of any denomination. Theologically, we’ve also never been one.

How do you reconcile that with your preceding claim: “the church has been united all along, and still is. When I say that the church is ONE - I literally mean that?”

We see disunity in the Gospels, in Acts, in the Epistles - indeed, the Epistles were written in large part BECAUSE disunity existed. There’s probably no period in the history of Christianity when there was more diversity of theological thought than in those first 2 or 3 centuries after Christ. Even a lot of things nearly all take for granted (things proclaimed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds) were highly controversal and strongly debated in those early years. I think sometimes Catholics will take some comfort in the reality that The Catholic Church agrees with itself - so that there is no OFFICIAL dispute within itself, at least in formal, official matters.

Agreed! Jesus’ church remained one in spite of all the disunity and diversity of theological thought, thanks to the authority of the church and the collective effort of the church leadership, eg, the the first Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:4-21). Why didn’t Paul simply whip out the bible when dissension in Antioch reared its ugly head?

My denomination officially agrees with itself in all matters that it thinks it should be in agreement about, too.

Of course they do. What happens when one of the flock disagrees with one of the pastors, at your church; how do they settle the matter. Does your church leadership convoke, and then settle the matter (via council) - in the same way that Paul and Barnabas did when faced with the “great dissension” in Antioch? Do they do as Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15:4-21?

Self usually agrees with self. I’m not sure this is theological unity, however.

Agreed!

I’d LIKE us 2.2 billion Christians to be in greater agreement, but frankly, I"m not sure how that’s going to happen in Christiandom that has so embraced pride, institutionalism, etc.

When you say pride and institutionalism, to what church are you referring?

• Josiah (one who moved from Catholic to Lutheran, lol)…

Hey, you got to do what you got to do, to be close to God, and if that means leaving the church established “at the Annunciation when Mary believed,” so be it.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6053758]Hey Jon…
Agreed, regarding the 3 fold ministry. In the first and second centuries, the threefold order of Episcopate, Presbyterate, and Diaconate, were used interchangeably. And the bishop of Rome was not perceived to have universal jurisdiction - yet. After all, Christianity was illegal, and Christians were being persecuted from time to time, until the 4th century, and a sustained governing structure was, no doubt, an insurmountable task. That notwithstanding, Christianity, against all odds, was still flourishing and expanding everywhere, and the need for a hierarchical system became absolutely necessary, and we can see this inevitable evolution when we read the writings of the ECF’s.

With the exception of the “yet” I agree.

Jon, if the CC is the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, and the CC failed to properly exercise its charge to protect the deposit of faith, then logically speaking, the holy spirit failed, as well, to guide Jesus’ church into all truth - yes, no?

No! The Holy Spirit cannot fail. To state it your way denies human free will, which you and I both believe in. In addition, your statement makes Trent unnecessary.

I really do believe that Jesus did and can successfully sustain and guide His church and protect the deposit of faith, until His glorious return,in spite of all the apostate individuals, over the centuries, attempting to dismantle and destroy Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to which he is the head and savior. After all, the anti-Christ never ceases in his onslaught/plan to destroy Christ’s Body, to no avail of course.

I agree,I just am not convinced that that deposit of faith lies exclusively in Rome.

Should I believe that the great east-west schism, or the abuses, eventually compromised the deposit of faith? Gosh, I hope not! If so, where can I go to find the preserved/protected deposit of faith? Someone has to have authority, as per the holy bible; if not the CC then who?

I don’t either, but you summed up our wonderful discussion with your last question.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6053785]
Many Zwingi, Calvin, Knox advocates would say the same about you and me. I know ML never claimed any kind of authority, but he did, in a way, usurp authority by transfering said authority from the CC to the holy bible via individual interpretation, which is a violstion of sacred scripture.

They might, but I’m not moved by that in any way. I might also add that I think the connection of private intrpretation to the Lutheran reformers is overstated. As early as Chemnitz, we have warnings against it, even in obvious verses. The Augsburg Confession and Apology has numerous references to the ECF’s and councils

Regarding the indulgence abuses, simony, I totally agree with you. Certain men in the CC at this time were perverting the “house of the living God,” and I would have hated to be in their shoes when they finally met their maker. If this is reason enough to leave the CC, I can certainly provide many indiscretions/abuses wrought by ML and the rest of the reformers, but that’s not my thing. I am more of a uniter as opposed to a divider, like you; hate the sin not the sinner - right?

I think you and I are of somewhat like mind in this area. We must also remember, though, that this must have been a gut-wrenching experience for Luther, considering his early efforts to warn the pope regarding the abuses, thinking he was acting in the best interests of the Church and the pope. So, even if one thinks that Luther opened the door to his excommunication, it was the Church that provided the boot in the alb, and in part to protect its flow of money. Now all that said, Luther was a flawed human being, who made mistakes and wrote some regrettable things. But I am willing to say of both Luther and Leo that they loved the Lord and the Church. In addition, the uniter in both of us says that many of the ugly things that happened should not effect how we dialogue with each other today.

Agreed! Is this why apostolic succession is considered invalid in protestant circles? .

As you know, I won’t speak for others, but Augsburg and the Apology speak of the great importance and therir support of AS. And Lutherans today recognize the validity of Catholic clergy and your sacraments. That that recognition is not mutual is something our communions must work on.

Actually the CC underwent a major reformation, and in doing so, cleaned house, so to speak, and no doubt, we have ML’s persistent will to thank

To some degree, and there were others who stayed with the CC. It might also be of interest to point out the relatively recent persistence of will by popes in the Vatican II era to open the door of dialogue.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Quote:
Jon, if the CC is the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, and the CC failed to properly exercise its charge to protect the deposit of faith, then logically speaking, the holy spirit failed, as well, to guide Jesus’ church into all truth - yes, no?

No! The Holy Spirit cannot fail. To state it your way denies human free will, which you and I both believe in. In addition, your statement makes Trent unnecessary.

I don’t think it denies free will. Isn’t it possible for the holy spirit to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, in spite of free will? If Trent makes my statement unnecessary so do the ecumenical councils, but I don’t think you believe that, do you? Do you believe that the HS was the guiding force behind these church councils? These Humans comprising Jesus’ established church, via free will can fail, have failed, and will fail on occasion, but, when it comes to truth, surely the HS has not/cannot fail to guide these sinful, fallible men into all truth - Perhaps???

Quote:
I really do believe that Jesus did and can successfully sustain and guide His church and protect the deposit of faith, until His glorious return,in spite of all the apostate individuals, over the centuries, attempting to dismantle and destroy Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to which he is the head and savior. After all, the anti-Christ never ceases in his onslaught/plan to destroy Christ’s Body, to no avail of course.

I agree,I just am not convinced that that deposit of faith lies exclusively in Rome.

Jon, surely the deposit of faith lies exclusively in the church built by God, on Pentecost. All we have to do is find that church - right or wrong? Or, is it possible that the church built by Jesus, (comprised of sinful, fallible people) - could fail to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for a reformed church (also comprised of sinful, fallible people) - which, logically speaking, could also fail to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for another reformed church, guided by the same HS, into all truth?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hey AJ…

I am what?

You seemed to indicate that Luther was supportive of self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter. In fact, you called it is “montra.” Actually, you have this reversed. Read The Catholic Catechism # 85 (or starters). It is The Catholic Church that does what you rebuked; Luther never supported that rubric.

Christians had no problem obeying the (Jesus’ established church) - apostles and their successors to the 3rd generation; why not now? Timothy and Titus preserved the teachings which they received from Paul and passed it on to their successors; was this process to end once the bible was codified in the 4th century?

1. Questions are not substantiations, they are just questions.
2. Yes, we are told to respect those in authority (those = people, btw, not a specific denomination). But there’s a “flip side” to this position - a tension, if you will. Over and over and over, we have the stern, bold, divine warning to beware of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray. Many teachers were rebuked in the OT and NT. In Revelation 2:2 (just one example), Jesus PRAISES the Christians in Ephasis for regarding teachers as FALLIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE - as potentially wrong, for arbitrating that issue, and for finding them false. All this while supposedly the Pope was a few hundred miles to the west (but Jesus never mentions him or it), and supposedly a Catholic Bishop right in town (Jesus never mentions him - he COULD be one of the false teachers Jesus praised the people for so discovering!). What The Catholic Church alone for itself alone is requiring is docilic acceptance of whatever it officially says (CCC 87, etc.) - to be exempt from accountability, incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals anyway). THIS Scritpture never calls for and NEVER claims of The Catholic Church. There is a tension, a balance here that sadly, IMHO, The Catholic Church simply rejects.

Let’s see… Sola scriptura is Latin for Bible alone. It is an affirmation that the only source of knowledge regarding divine revelation is the Bible, and there is no church authority established by Christ (that being the CC) - to correctly interpret it. Is that correct?

No.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it is called in epistemology (“the norm that norms”). It has nothing to do with divine revelation or the authority of any one person or denomination, or with interpretation.

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is ether expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them…”

The Westminister Confession (which is not Lutheran - of course) is discussing a goodly number of things together with the praxis of Sola Scriptura. They are all probably related, but separate issues.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.
**

Continues in next post because of that annoying 6000 charactrer limit, lol…**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continues from the post above…**

What happens when 2 people (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist or baptism) - and come away with opposing beliefs, believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura? After all, our salvation is on the line

The case would need to be arbitrated. If the arbitration is according to the Rule of Scripture, then Scripture would be the canon. Just as if you get stopped for speeding and there is a dispute in that matter, it will go to court. That court will arbitrate it according to the Rule of Law.

All this, however, is moot in discussions with Catholics, because The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture (and any other rule). It rejects using Scripture as the canon in the evaluation NOT because it has a differnt doctrine of Scripture (it doesn’t) or because it has a better alternative to this canon: one MORE inerrant, MORE inspired, MORE historically embraced (to 1400 BC), MORE ecumenically embraced, MORE knowable to all and alternable by none. No. It rejects the Rule of Scripture AND ANY AND ALL OTHER RULES because it rejects accountability. How can one who is INCAPABLE of being wrong be accountable? It alone claims that it alone is INCAPABLE of error in official matters of faith and morals, it alone claims that it alone is “infallible” in such. Thus, accountablility and the whole issue of norming (of which Sola Scriptura is a part) is simply dismissed by self for self as moot. The Catholic Chruch is simply right, so everyone else is simply to accept whatever “with docility” (CCC 87, etc.). It rejects the norma normans in norming (ANY norma normans) becuase it rejects norming (well, for itself alone - it passionately argues that everything and everyone ELSE is accountable, and it has a norm for THEM: itself).

So, if the CC is not to be entrusted with the living teaching office, exercised in the name of Jesus, then who? Certainly not the individual Lutheran for they “reject individual interpretation.”

The great emphasis on power, lording it over others - it’s just not something you see a lot outside of Catholicism. Yes, Christians are to teach, it’s part of The Great Commission. And yes, I think there is a special office especially for that (that of pastor). But there is no “infallibility/unaccountability” that goes with that.

AJ, if a fledgling Christian is unsure about a specific doctrine, eg the Eucharist, who has the authority to teach him/her?

The church (ie Christians) under the Rule of Scripture. I realize, ANYONE or ANYTHING can simply designate self as The Exclusive All-Knowing, Infallible, Unaccountable POWERFUL ONE. Read about the cults? Read any of the writings of Brigham Young or the LDS Apostles and Prophets? It’s very easy to do. But it has nothing to do with having such, it only has to do with claiming such. Yes, if one just docilicly chooses to accept such - then for self such might be an article of faith. But again, I’d invite you to read about just about any cult you choose.

Which church has the authority to arbitrate?

… again, your interest seems to be in power, not in correctness. I think we are called to humility, community and accountability. We are called together. I don’t think it’s a matter of one claiming exclusively for one (self) that it has all this POWER, LORDING IT over all others: “I’m right cuz I’m right so when I say I’m right, ergo I’m right” just has no relevance whatsoever to his/her/it being right. It has a LOT to do with ego and power and evasion of accountability - but nothing to do with being right.

In a world void of all the ego, pride, power-focus, self-focus, institutionalism; in a Christiandom were humility, community and accountability is embraced - where we remember that Christ told us NOT to be like the gentiles, then the “answer” to your question would be more obvious. Some 1500 years of power grabs and struggles, of institutionalism and self-focus, it’s harder.

If the church (which church) - is not limited to you or me or to your denomination (or any other, including The Catholic Church) - then where does that leave us?

… right where Jesus did. With us. The church that is one, holy, catholic; the church that is the communion of saints; the church called to The Great Commission and Great Commandment. Humble, accountable. To God and to each other.

He did not leave us with a Lord, lording it over all with claims of self being infallible/unaccountable, a lord where we all just accept whatever with docility, an institution about power and self. To be blunt, He left us the church. Not a cult.

Now, let me add that I have a lot of respect for The Catholic Chruch. I regard it as a valid and good denomination. I think it has been blessed with much faith, patience, integrity. I hold it in some esteem. But I don’t think it is the Lord of the Church, and I don’t think it is the communion of saints, and I don’t accept: “I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - accept it with docility.” THAT is entirely unrelated to it being right: it is a diversion, a circumvention, a power-grab. Power has replaced truth (and maybe what He left us with - among them - The Great Commandment and the command to not lord it over others as the gentiles do).

Friend, life (and truth) is not as easy as self declaring self to be right cuz self so declares. That is about power, not truth.

**Continues in the next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from post above…

Jesus said to just one church: *“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,and teaching them…” *

To which church in the world today, was Jesus referring?

The one He said it to: Christians. And note, He didn’t say “and you shall be infallible/unaccountable - all powerful lords over all.” And He mentioned no denomination. Not The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, not The United Reformed Church of America, not The Catholic Church.

When Jesus said the following to which church was He refering:
“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

None. He said that to the 70. Not to The Catholic Church. Not to The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Not to Peter. Not to any Apostle (so, no Apostolic Succession can even be claimed). It was said to BELIEVERS, to PEOPLE. Which is what Protestants belive the church is - believing people.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6057888]I don’t think it denies free will. Isn’t it possible for the holy spirit to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, in spite of free will?

Of course it is. It is also possible for sinful human beings, even and especially regenerate ones, including bishops, to be mistaken, and even corrupt, and to make decisions not in keeping with the Holy Spirit.

If Trent makes my statement unnecessary so do the ecumenical councils, but I don’t think you believe that, do you?

No, Joe. Reread my post. I said your statement makes Trent unnecessary. By that I mean if the Magisterium is always and unfailingly properly guided by the Spirit, then Trent would have been irrelevent, as the Church would never make mistakes, allow abuses or corruption. And yes, you are correct; why have councils if the Bishop of Rome is always correct? BTW, I believe the truly ecumenical councils of the early Church are critical.

Do you believe that the HS was the guiding force behind these church councils? These Humans comprising Jesus’ established church, via free will can fail, have failed, and will fail on occasion, but, when it comes to truth, surely the HS has not/cannot fail to guide these sinful, fallible men into all truth - Perhaps???

Question: which group of Bishops from those councils? Which group from that singular Church, which divided in 1054? One group of the other MUST be wrong.

Jon, surely the deposit of faith lies exclusively in the church built by God, on Pentecost. All we have to do is find that church - right or wrong? Or, is it possible that the church built by Jesus, (comprised of sinful, fallible people) - could fail to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for a reformed church (also comprised of sinful, fallible people) - which, logically speaking, could also fail to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for another reformed church, guided by the same HS, into all truth?

I would contend that you and I are both from that Church Christ built at Pentecost, wounded by schism and division, but still prevailing. And the question isn’t really which one of us, but instead how to we come to unity as His one true Church again.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey AJ…you said:

You seemed to indicate that Luther was supportive of self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter. In fact, you called it is “montra.” Actually, you have this reversed. Read The Catholic Catechism # 85 (or starters). It is The Catholic Church that does what you rebuked; Luther never supported that rubric.

CCC

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

AJ, when you insist that the CC is supportive of self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter, are you refering to the teaching office of the CC? In other words, you believe that the CC is guilty of adhering to ML’s doctrine sola scriptura? If the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has not been entrusted to the living teaching office of the CC, then who has been entrusted with the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God? Please, don’t just say Christians, for that would include Christians belonging to the CC.

The CC is cool with guys like you and me having private/individual interpretation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine. Is your arbiter for resolving the conflicts of sound doctrine, found in the bible, the bible via your interpretation + the interpretation of your church teachers?

AJ, perhaps if you answered a few questions I could get a better understanding of your perspective:

If the CC was not the church built by God, on Pentecost, then which church in the world today, was built by Jesus? Please don’t say Christian, for that encompasses all denominations.

Would you agree that, in order for the doctrine of sola criptura to work properly, the bible must be accessible to each and every Christian, regardless of the time period?

Do you believe that, without the CC, you and I would not have a Bible, just a bunch of books, which include both the canonical and un-canonical books?

Do you believe that the CC safeguarded the Bible (eg, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) - over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the reign and eventual fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides, long before the printing press was invented or any other denomination existed?

Do you believe that century after century, monks in monasteries faithfully copied sacred scripture, and that it would take each monk years to copy one Bible and that thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work, and that the CC protected the Bible from heretical movements?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

The following is a definitive affirmation of ML: no believing Christian can be forced to recognise any authority beyond the sacred Scripture, which is exclusively invested with Divine right. Over against the reputed claims of the papacy. Luther set the Word of God as its own interpreter, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of Church and councils, of fathers and tradition, opening up a novel chapter in the history of hermeneutics. Everything was to be subjected to the test/rule of Holy Scripture. He also said: “I believe neither in the Pope nor Councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves.” Protestantism is riddled with contradictions and errors, so, should we NOT believe in protestantism? He then contradicted himself by saying: “If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith.”

The CC, in essence, said to Luther and his new doctrine: Do you know what will happen if you put the holy Bible in the hands of every man/woman? They will interpret it themselves and come up with all kinds of crazy ideas and heresies, which has happened and clearly has led to false teachers, to which you believe are the teachers of the CC. ML understood the risk of putting the bible in the hands of every person. He understood the danger, but he believed it was worth the risk, believing that the commoner of his day could interpret the Bible better than the teaching office of the CC. Thus began the Reformation, and the time when people took the Scriptures and interpreted them for themselves…the time when men and women, clergy and layperson, learned and unlearned, all had common access to the Word of God, which gave way to many Protestants creating their own catechisms, creeds, and confessions and expecting their flock to agree with the details contained therein, and, if there is nothing wrong with having these teaching offices as a means to communicate dogma, with characteristics not unlike that of the CC, why all the hoopla about CC authority?

Many Protestants/evangelical church leaders will, for example, insist that the definition of Chalcedon (451) is true in its representation of the dual natures of Christ, but they don’t believe it was an infallible decision, inspired by the action of the holy spirit; they simply believe it accurately represents the infallible Word of God given to them by fallible men; what’s wrong with this picture? If the CC, via the guidance of the HS cannot teach infallibly regarding faith and morals, then how in the world did we end up with the infallible Word of God, written by the fallible Apostles and Mark and Luke, and safeguarded, codified and canonized by the fallible CC in the 4th century? After all the Bible didn’t just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with a KJ sticker on it.

Clearly ML replaced the authority of the church with the bible as the Christians one and only norm, rule, and authority, regarding faith or morals. If I am wrong please provide me with documentation regarding sola scriptura, that says otherwise. Jesus established an authoritative church; please help me find this church; we know it has to still be here because Jesus said that He would be with his church forever, and that it would never fail, regardless of the failures within His church, and again, let’s assumethat this church is not the CC! BTW, I called it a “mantra” for the simple fact that every Protestant tells me that the bible is suppose to be my one and only authority, over and over and over, as opposed to the CC.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Quote:
Christians had no problem obeying the (Jesus’ established church) - apostles and their successors to the 3rd generation; why not now? Timothy and Titus preserved the teachings which they received from Paul and passed it on to their successors; was this process to end once the bible was codified in the 4th century?

1. Questions are not substantiations, they are just questions.

1. Yes, we are told to respect those in authority (those = people, btw, not a specific denomination).

Regarding questions, agreed. Which people??? If not a specific denomination then who? Just Christians in general? Do you think that God would prefer one organization to have the gift of discernment via the holy spirit, or many organizations with opposing gifts of discernment, via the HS? The CC believes that Jesus established just one organization; He promised it to the world, and He delivered. Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13 Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having hundreds of variations of Christianity, based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. If this happened, (and it has) - it would not be consistent with Jesus’ wish for Unity. Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5

…But there’s a “flip side” to this position - a tension, if you will. Over and over and over, we have the stern, bold, divine warning to beware of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, and those that lead many astray. Many teachers were rebuked in the OT and NT. In Revelation 2:2 (just one example), Jesus PRAISES the Christians in Ephasis for regarding teachers as FALLIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE - as potentially wrong, for arbitrating that issue, and for finding them false. All this while supposedly the Pope was a few hundred miles to the west (but Jesus never mentions him or it),

Jesus never mentioned Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, etc. etc. or any 16th century pastor/minister teaching from their pulpits either. What’s your point?

.

…and supposedly a Catholic Bishop right in town (Jesus never mentions him - he COULD be one of the false teachers Jesus praised the people for so discovering!).

Any Protestant pastor/minister also COULD be one of the false teachers…How can one know who is a false teacher and who is not? Is it by defering to the bible (the norm) - for a solution?

What The Catholic Church alone for itself alone is requiring is docilic acceptance of whatever it officially says (CCC 87, etc.) - to be exempt from accountability, incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals anyway).

That’s because the bishops of Rome are infallible; just kidding…LOL…It’s pretty simple for me. If the Infallible holy spirit is guiding the fallible, sinful members of Jesus’ established church, (just as He was guiding the sinful, fallible Apostles, Paul, Mark, Luke and their successors, who spearheaded Jesus’ one church) - and protecting the deposit of faith, until the end of time, then that is the church to which I want to belong. Let’s assume you are right about the CC; help me find the fallible church guided by the infallible holy spirit, in perpetuity, and I am being serious; no sarcasm intended - never!

Where does the CCC say that the CC leaders are to be exempt from accountability? It’s not that the CC leaders are incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals); far from it; it’s the fact that the infallible holy spirit, guiding Jesus’ church and protecting the deposit of faith, prevents and protects Jesus’ established church from teaching erroneously, regarding only the things taught by Jesus, or is the holy spirit incapable of this task?

THIS Scritpture never calls for and NEVER claims of The Catholic Church. There is a tension, a balance here that sadly, IMHO, The Catholic Church simply rejects.

THIS Scritpture never calls for and NEVER claims of one of the myriad PC’s either.

Rejects what?

Continued…

 

[joe370]

AJ, are you saying that the deposit of faith does not lie exclusively in any one church, regardless of denomination, and that the one church built by God, on Pentecost, no longer exists, other than in a fragmented state?

Are you saying that the church built by Jesus on Pentecost, (comprised of sinful, fallible people) - failed to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for a reformed church (also comprised of sinful, fallible people) - which, logically speaking, also failed to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for another reformed church, (on and on and on) - guided by the same HS that was suppose to be guiding the church built by God, into all truth, in the first place? Surely if this is the case, then how can we ever really know where to find the fullness of truth regarding the deposit of faith, in tact? Please help me out here brother? I am really trying to understand your position!

Quote:
Let’s see… Sola scriptura is Latin for Bible alone. It is an affirmation that the only source of knowledge regarding divine revelation is the Bible, and there is no church authority established by Christ (that being the CC) - to correctly interpret it. Is that correct?

No.

ML disagrees with you; he believed that the only source of knowledge regarding divine revelation is to be found in the Bible. Again, If I am wrong please provide proof.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans as it is called in epistemology (“the norm that norms”). It has nothing to do with divine revelation or the authority of any one person or denomination, or with interpretation.

So, if 2 Christians have a doctrinal difference of opinion, they are to defer to sacred scripture, as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans, as opposed to the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans of any one person or denomination (church)? If so then, again, why did Martin Luther, when he saw the dangers of sola scriptura as numerous sects began growing and multiplying, say:

*“If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith.” *

Again, I respectfully ask:

What happens when 2 Christians (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a doctrinal dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist or baptism) - and come away with opposing beliefs regarding those doctrines, both believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

Your first answer did not answer my question. You said:

The case would need to be arbitrated.

Agreed!

You then said:

If the arbitration is according to the Rule of Scripture, then Scripture would be the canon. Just as if you get stopped for speeding and there is a dispute in that matter, it will go to court. That court will arbitrate it according to the Rule of Law.

In both cases each Christian claims to be right and that their interpretation is, without a doubt, in accordance with the Rule of Scripture? What’s the next step in making a determination?

If the arbitration is according to the Rule of Scripture, then why the need for a court to arbitrate in accordance with the rule of law? Isn’t this nothing more than deference to the decrees of council? Is it the court of law or the bible, that is the final arbiter, the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AJ, are you saying that the deposit of faith does not lie exclusively in any one church, regardless of denomination, and that the one church built by God, on Pentecost, no longer exists, other than in a fragmented state?

No.

1. My degree is in physics and math. In physics, we have a proverb: “You don’t know what you don’t know.” It’s undeniably true, of course. Keeps 'ya humble. Well, we all agree that Jesus said those things that appear in convenient red print in my new study Bible. He MAY have said that He will found His church among the Native Americans upon His visit to such, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but we don’t know that (in spite of the claims of millions that He did). Follow me?
2. IF (big, big word there!) Jesus taught DOGMAS that God choose to not include in His Scriptures to the church, maybe He had a reason? In any case, where is the indication that such will be revealed to one particular, singular, institutional denomination - perhaps centuries later (whether such be RCC or LDS or any other)?
3. Protestants tend to have a different theology of the church. We tend to believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, and thus the gathering/assembly of people is people. Now, the word in used in a secondary sense also in Scripture, to speak of a specific tiny group of such in a given place and time (what in theology we call a “congregation”), but the church (proper) is the communion of saints, and it is one, it is holy and it is catholic. It’s just not a denomination (be that The Catholic Church or The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod or The United Methodist Church in the USA or any other). I believe that all the promise God made were to PEOPLE (usually believing people), not to any specific, singular, particular, institutional denomination. We believe that it is Baptism (and the faith therein granted) that makes us believers and ergo members of the church (one, holy, and catholic) - members of the Body of Christ, “connected” to all other believers - past and present (maybe even future?).
4. I see ZERO evidence that Jesus founded a denomination, ANY denomination. In fact, I find none that suggests that any existed - at least in any complete sense - until the 4th century (and that largely by the leading of Rome). I have NOTHING against denominations (I’m actually a big supporter of community and accountability and cooperation - and thus of congregations and the denominations they form) but Jesus never founded any denomination. Good or bad. Accountable or unaccountable.

Are you saying that the church built by Jesus on Pentecost, (comprised of sinful, fallible people) - failed to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for a reformed church (also comprised of sinful, fallible people) - which, logically speaking, also failed to protect the deposit of faith, due to human free will, necessitating the need for another reformed church, (on and on and on)

1. See above.
2. I think you have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. It’s Restitutionalism (best seen in the LDS) that believes that Jesus founded a denomination, which eventually became apostate to the extent that God essentially started over. I reject every bit of that. Jesus never founded ANY denomination. None became utterly apostate. It’s just that no denomination is exempt from accountability: that was the RCC’s “problem” with Luther. Luther was calling his denomination to dialogue, examination, accountability. He was - at MOST - a reformer. Of course, once excommunicated, Pope Leo created a division, a split, which was his way of “dealing” with any calls to accountability and examination. I totally disagree with restitutionalism. BTW, I also feel that The Catholic Church is - overwhelmingly - correct. I hold it in very high esteem and regard it as fully valid. Too bad it handled Luther the way it did - but such was highly predictable. Oh, and I think Luther handled all that badly, too. But we’re way off topic.

So, if 2 Christians have a doctrinal difference of opinion, they are to defer to sacred scripture, as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans, as opposed to the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans of any one person or denomination (church)? If so then, again, why did Martin Luther, when he saw the dangers of sola scriptura as numerous sects began growing and multiplying, say:

“If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith.”

Sola Scriptura isn’t about hermeneutics. It’s about norming - the process of evaluating the correctness of positions (especially doctrines). This quote is about hermeneutics. Luther was opposed to self appointing self as the sole interpreter (see the Catholic Catechism # 85 where The Catholic Church does just that). The quote also reveals Luther’s discomfort with self appointing self as the sole arbiter - as The Catholic Church also does. But Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with either issue - hermeneutics or the arbitive process. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. Luther never rejected that, he embraced that. It’s The Catholic Church that rejects the Rule of Scripture (and any and all others, since it rejects accountability).

**
Continued in the next post because of that annoying 6000 character limit here, lol…**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continued from the post above…

What happens when 2 Christians (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a doctrinal dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist or baptism) - and come away with opposing beliefs regarding those doctrines, both believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

They go to arbitration. I WISH it was as easy as The Catholic Church demands: Self appoints self as the sole arbiter, predeclaring that self CANNOT be wrong (in official matters of faith and morals): Self looks in the mirror at self to see if self agrees with self, declaring that self does before self even looks at self. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so thus I’m right, accept it with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.). But friend, this is not an alternative to Sola Scriptura. It’s not an alternative approach to norming. It’s simply the exemption of self alone of self alone: one exempts one form the entire question: self. It has NOTHING to do with self being correct, it’s just a circumvention of the entire issue.

If I submit a paper to a respected scientific journal, I would be laughed out of town if I argued that Josiah is right cuz Josiah is right thus Josiah is right - or if I simply appointed me as the arbiter for whether I’m right. I am required to substantiate my work via the embraced norma normans of physics (math and/or repeatable, observable evidence) that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE me, knowable to all and alterable by none. There is a rule OUTSIDE me. And the arbitration happens beyond me (in fact, I’m excused from it as the presenter of the view).

If the arbitration is according to the Rule of Scripture, then Scripture would be the canon. Just as if you get stopped for speeding and there is a dispute in that matter, it will go to court. That court will arbitrate it according to the Rule of Law.

In both cases each Christian claims to be right and that their interpretation is, without a doubt, in accordance with the Rule of Scripture? What’s the next step in making a determination?

It would be arbitrated. Of course,. that’s beyond the scope of Sola Scriptura. If the policeman said the sign says 35 and you say it was 53, some arbitration will be needed as to which (if either) of you is correct. But the sign would be the canon. THIS is where The Catholic Church disagrees: it rejects the canon of Scirpture in this (indeed, it rejects any canon in this because it rejects the whole idea of accountability for one: self). Our concepts of arbitration are similar (actually, Protestants tend to be closer to The Orthodox on this) but I gotta admit, there are more than one idea of arbitration among Protestants (just as the Catholic and the Orthodox churches don’t agree on this). We are a LOT closer on the arbitration issue than we are on the rule/canon issue. But again, we can’t discuss HOW we will arbitrate according to a rule if we don’t agree on what what rule is. First things first.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

AJ, I said:

What happens when 2 Christians (as opposed to any one church leader, such as a bishop, pastor or minister, regardless of church denomination) - go to the scriptures to resolve a doctrinal dispute, (e.g. the true presence in the Eucharist or baptism) - and come away with opposing beliefs regarding those doctrines, both believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right? Where do they go to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura?

To which you answered:

They go to arbitration.

Which is??? If we are in agreement that the CC and the PC’s cannot self appoint and pre-declare that they CANNOT be wrong (in official matters of faith and morals), then where can this arbitration be found to definitively resolve these diametrical differences, after they have exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter via sola scriptura? It’s a simple question, perhaps deserving a simple answer.

I WISH it was as easy as The Catholic Church demands: Self appoints self as the sole arbiter, predeclaring that self CANNOT be wrong (in official matters of faith and morals):

Remember, I said, let’s assume the church built by Christ is not the CC. Let’s assume that the CC is a man-made church and is a self appointed arbiter pre-declaring that they CANNOT be wrong (in official matters of faith and morals). Where can I find the church (leadership) - built by God, charged with the mission to teach…to arbitrate, and to settle the matter regarding doctrinal differences, just as Jesus’ church leaders did at the first council of Jerusalem, when Paul and the elders defered to the church leadership (Peter, James and the elders) - in Jerusalem?

Self looks in the mirror at self to see if self agrees with self, declaring that self does before self even looks at self. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so thus I’m right, accept it with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.).

Which of course no PC leadership is guilty of doing - right or wrong? Does your logic apply to the church built by Jesus on Pentecost, and again, assuming that that church is not the CC?

But friend, this is not an alternative to Sola Scriptura. It’s not an alternative approach to norming. It’s simply the exemption of self alone of self alone: one exempts one form the entire question: self. It has NOTHING to do with self being correct, it’s just a circumvention of the entire issue.

OK, I get it, no self appointed churches pre-declaring that they CANNOT be wrong (in official matters of faith and morals), including every PC as well -correct? That just leaves us with the infallible word of God as our one and only norm - right? Jesus built a church and His church has traversed every century since Pentecost, and can be found in the world today, just as His church could be found in the 1st century. Please give me the name of this church? Remember, Jesus said that He would be with His church forever…

 

[elts1956]

Nah, I wouldn’t defect from my church body. I love the LCMS. I have known ordained clergy who left the LCMS for other church bodies, especially Eastern Orthodoxy. It seems to be quite popular on campus lately. There are a few who join the Catholic priesthood, but I think there is a stigma against married priests within Catholic parishes, at least from what I’ve heard.

Perhaps stigma is a bit strong, but I agree, it would be very strange for our priest/s to be married. In fact, quite a shock.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;6060552]Of course it is. It is also possible for sinful human beings, even and especially regenerate ones, including bishops, to be mistaken, and even corrupt, and to make decisions not in keeping with the Holy Spirit.

Agreed, just as Marcion, Nestorian and many others were mistaken and even corrupt, making decisions not in keeping with the Holy Spirit. How do we know that the men who assembled and eventually defined the Trinity as a doctrine, didn’t make a mistake?

Joe Reread my post. I said your statement makes Trent unnecessary. By that I mean if the Magisterium is always and unfailingly properly guided by the Spirit, then Trent would have been irrelevent, as the Church would never make mistakes, allow abuses or corruption. And yes, you are correct; why have councils if the Bishop of Rome is always correct? BTW, I believe the truly ecumenical councils of the early Church are critical.

If Trent makes my statement unnecessary so do the ecumenical councils, but I don’t think you believe that, do you?
No, Joe. Reread my post. I said your statement makes Trent unnecessary.

Oop’s… I re-read it. So what you are saying is: if Trent was necessary then the holy spirit wasn’t doing his job, so to speak, or, simply wasn’t always there, guiding her into all truth? Jesus said to his established church:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me.”

“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.”

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.”

I believe Jesus. Jon, you don’t believe that the teaching office of the CC is always and unfailingly guided by the Holy Spirit, even though the holy spirit (the spirit of truth) - was promised to be with Jesus’ church forever? Was the CC guided by the holy spirit when she collected, selected, compiled and finally codified the canon, in the 4th century? By your logic, if the dissenting apostate members of Jesus’ established church, through the centuries, never made/make mistakes, then why the need for the council of Jerusalem, in the book of Acts, which addressed the tension between maintaining Jewish practices in the early Christian community with Gentile converts, or the truly ecumenical councils of the early Church, to which you embrace, that had to correct and clarify many things such as the Trinity, (Arianism heresy) -Theotokos (Nestorian heresy ) - and Jesus’ 2 natures (Monophysitism)? Perhaps the council of Trent governed, corrected and clarified through the power of the holy spirit, just as the earlier councils did? Jon, are you under the impression that the bishop of Rome acts independently of the ecumenical councils?

Question: which group of Bishops from those councils? Which group from that singular Church, which divided in 1054? One group of the other MUST be wrong.

Well, the first 7 are accepted by the catholic bishops and the eastern orthodox bishops, and some protestant church leaders. The remaining 14 are only accepted by the CC. If not for the inner strife in the CC in the east, in the 9th century, between men like Patriarch Photios, Bardas and his nephew the emperor Michael (Byzantine Emperor from 842 to 867) - and the Patriarch Ignatios, Basil (Byzantine emperor of Armenian origin from 867 to 886) which led to the eventual involvement of Pope Nicholas I and Pope John VIII in the west, no doubt these 2 churches quite possibly could have have remained one and united. It appears that the great schism, initially, was the result of nepotism, when Bardas and his nephew the emperor Michael (Byzantine Emperor from 842 to 867) - overthrew the regency on March 15, 856. In 858 Bardas found himself opposed by the existing Patriarch Ignatios who refused to admit Bardas into Hagia Sophia (which was a former Orthodox patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, and now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey) - since it was believed that Bardas was having an affair with his widowed daughter-in-law. In response, Bardas and Michael deposed Ignatios on the charge of treason, thus leaving the patriarchal throne empty, and the throne was soon conferred to Photios, who was Bardas’s relative. The deposition of Ignatios and the sudden promotion of Photios caused scandal and ecclesiastical division on an ecumenical scale as the bishop of Rome and the rest of the western bishops took up the cause of Ignatios. The deposition of Ignatios, without a formal ecclesiastical trial meant that the election of Photios was un-canonical, and eventually Pope Nicholas I, as senior patriarch, sought to involve himself in determining the legitimacy of the succession, which was to be the beginning of the end of the east-west collaboration.

I would contend that you and I are both from that Church Christ built at Pentecost, wounded by schism and division, but still prevailing.

Perhaps it really doesn’t matter which church we belong to in the grand scheme of things, since they are all from that church Christ built at Pentecost? As I said before, if I start a church tomorrow, would you consider it to be from that church built on Pentecost? Any suggestions on how to get the myriad PC’s to agree vis-a-vis doctrines found in the bible, or are the fundamentals such as the Trinity, and the teachings of the Nicene Creed, all that is really necessary?

 

[joe370]

AJ, are you saying that the deposit of faith does not lie exclusively in any one church, regardless of denomination, and that the one church built by God, on Pentecost, no longer exists, other than in a fragmented state?
No.

1. My degree is in physics and math. In physics, we have a proverb: “You don’t know what you don’t know.” It’s undeniably true, of course. Keeps 'ya humble. Well, we all agree that Jesus said those things that appear in convenient red print in my new study Bible. He MAY have said that He will found His church among the Native Americans upon His visit to such, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but we don’t know that (in spite of the claims of millions that He did). Follow me?

But your “norm” (the bible) - denies that assertion, as does history.

1. IF (big, big word there!) Jesus taught DOGMAS that God choose to not include in His Scriptures to the church, maybe He had a reason? In any case, where is the indication that such will be revealed to one particular, singular, institutional denomination - perhaps centuries later (whether such be RCC or LDS or any other)?

Jesus said: I will build my church, not churches, and we know when this happened, and it wasn’t centuries after Pentecost. Like I said: let’s assume that the RCC is a man-made church and the true church that was/is a continuation of the church established by Jesus, on pentecost, traversed the first 4 centuries, at which point the man-made CC came onto the scene, and Jesus’ true church continued to traverse the centuries alongside the 4th century man-made CC of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople, until the 16th century protestant reformation, which of course gave way to many more man-made churches through the centuries. Where is this true church, built by Jesus circa AD 33, that traversed 20 centuries alongside the CC, the EOC and all of the PC’s?

1. Protestants tend to have a different theology of the church. We tend to believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, and thus the gathering/assembly of people is people.

As does the CC believe.

Now, the word in used in a secondary sense also in Scripture, to speak of a specific tiny group of such in a given place and time (what in theology we call a “congregation”), but the church (proper) is the communion of saints, and it is one, it is holy and it is catholic.

Fair enough.

It’s just not a denomination (be that The Catholic Church or The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod or The United Methodist Church in the USA or any other). I believe that all the promise God made were to PEOPLE (usually believing people), not to any specific, singular, particular, institutional denomination.

So, Jesus promised to some people that His flesh is true food and to other people that His flesh was only a symbol of food? I can give you the name of 50 churches that don’t believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. The fact remains that there are many churches comprised of people, who are not united, doctrinally speaking - right? Does this even matter?

We believe that it is Baptism (and the faith therein granted) that makes us believers and ergo members of the church (one, holy, and catholic) - members of the Body of Christ, “connected” to all other believers - past and present (maybe even future?).

I can give you the name of many churches that insist that baptism is unbiblical and unnecessary. The church to which my sister belongs for starters.

1. I see ZERO evidence that Jesus founded a denomination, ANY denomination.

I totally agree. Jesus founded one church.

In fact, I find none that suggests that any existed - at least in any complete sense - until the 4th century (and that largely by the leading of Rome).

Could you please give me the name of these 4th century denominations?

I have NOTHING against denominations (I’m actually a big supporter of community and accountability and cooperation - and thus of congregations and the denominations they form) but Jesus never founded any denomination. Good or bad. Accountable or unaccountable.

Again, I agree brother.