The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[joe370]

Quote:
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.

1. 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.

Do you believe that the 4th century CC of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioh, Constantinople and Alexandria, is the continuation of the church established by Jesus, in the first century?

I reject every bit of that. Jesus never founded ANY denomination.

Again, I totally agree with you.

None became utterly apostate.

Wow, that’s a refreshing perspective…Not even the CC? I think I am catching on. Every church regardless of when it was established and who established it, teaches a degree of truth coupled with a few untruths, and no church has preserved all of the truths taught by Christ and passed on to His Apostles?

It’s just that no denomination is exempt from accountability:

Agreed!

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.

If the CC regarding Luther, claimed to be exempt from accountability, then why did the CC clean house? Martin Luther was right regarding the abuses of Pope Leo X, who campaigned to raise funds in the German states, to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica, by supporting use of indulgences however, the Catholic Church responded to these problems by a vigorous campaign of reform. The Council, by virtue of its actions, repudiated the pluralism of the secular renaissance which had previously plagued the Church.The organization of religious institutions were tightened, discipline was improved, and the parish was emphasized. The appointment of bishops for political reasons was no longer tolerated. In the past, the large landholdings forced many bishops to be absent bishops who at times were property managers trained in administration. Thus, the Council of Trent combated absenteeism, which was the practice of bishops living in Rome or on estates rather than in their dioceses. The Council of Trent also gave bishops greater power to supervise all aspects of religious life. Zealous prelates such as Milan’s Archbishop Carlo Borromeo (1538-1584), later canonized as a saint, set an example by visiting the remotest parishes and instilling high standards. At the parish level, the seminary-trained clergy who took over in most places during the course of the seventeenth century were overwhelmingly faithful to the Church’s rule of celibacy, and lived in line with the Church’s moral teachings and were focused on interior conversion to Christ, the deepening of prayer and commitment to God’s will and we have ML to think for that, in a way.

 

[joe370]

However, I am a bit confused about one thing. Reading the words of ML, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could ML have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture, as we shall see? He even rejected the book of revelations:

“to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character…Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books,
1987, p. 203.)

ML admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts AboutLuther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Now that is a bold authoritative declaration! Here he is reproached by his own words. For John, in Rev. 22: 18-19, declares anathema anyone who presumes to change even a single word of Scripture: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Luther, of course, didn’t add or take away mere words, but entire passages and books.

He also said:

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” ('The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)

“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)

“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)

“If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (‘Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)

I am not trying to pick on Martin Luther; I am just trying to show that ML, regarding bible as his sole authority/norm, didn’t always walk the talk. Luther even presumed to rank the gospels: “John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.” (‘Preface to Romans,’ ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.)

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.

I too disagree with restitutionalism. Overwhelmingly, correct about what? Are there any churches that you do not consider valid? I think both parties during the reformation, if one can really call it a reformation, could have handled things much better, but, as always hindsight is 20-20.

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).

Isn’t the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible a process of evaluating the correctness of positions (especially doctrines)? If Luther was opposed to self appointing self as the sole interpreter, then why did he self appoint himself as well as every other practising Christian, as the sole interpreter of sacred scripture?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hey AJ…you said:

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.

1. You indicated that Sola Scriptura is the teaching that self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. No. Every single part of that is incorrect. Sola Scriptura is the embrace (it’s praxis, it’s not a teaching at all) of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions.
2. You seem to have an “issue” with self appointing self as the sole, infallible/unaccountable interpreter. So did Luther! He rebukes it often! But read what you quoted, CCC 85. What does The Catholic Church in it’s Catechism designate as the sole authoritative interpreter? Then go to # 87. What does it itself claim for it itself?
3. I think that the task to interpreting Scripture has been given to the church - the church that is one, holy and catholic - the church that is the communion of saints. Yes, that includes you. It includes me. It includes Pope Benedict and it includes Jerry Kieschneck (president of my denomination). It includes St. Augustine in Martin Luther. God gave Scriptures (Ten Commandments - Revelation, oldest to newest) to His people. We are His people. Now, ANYONE can say, “But I alone designate one alone (myself exclusively) as the sole AUTHORITATIVE, INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE interpreter - so you (all) must accept “with docility” WHATEVER I say it says (whether such as any relevance to the words on the page, the inscripturated words, or not!” But such has zero relevance to such being the case or to such interpretation being correct (much less infallible). Luther rejected that - thus part of his “issue” with The Catholic Church. Mine, too.

The CC is cool with guys like you and me having private/individual interpretation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine.

Everyone is a fallible, nonauthoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, claims the RCC. But there is ONE and only one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself. And whatever it says it says is what it says - accept it with docility as Jesus Himself speaking.

**
Continues in the next post…
**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continued from the post above…**

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.

Jesus founded the CHRISTIAN church - the one, holy and catholic church that is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. WE are the church - always have been, still are, always will be. It has existed since Mary beleived at the Annunciation (if not Abraham believing the Promise).

PEOPLE may (or may not) physically come together in a given place and time. These, in theology, are called congregations: a gathering of believers (mixed with perhaps some unbelievers) in a given place and time. “The church at Ephesus.” “To the churches in Leodicea…” Christians often come together thusly (formally or informally/unofficially) generally for the purposes of mutual fellowship, edification, support, cooperation, accountability, etc. Now congregations may also so associate with other congregation into what in theology we call denominations. A denomination is a gathering or association of congregations that so do generally for the purposes of mutual edification, support, cooperation, accountability, etc. Now, Jerry Kieschnick is the President of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. By Christ Baptizing him and the Holy Spirit giving him faith, he is a member of the one, holy, catholic church (as are ALL believers - past, present and maybe future, including you and me). He is officially registered in a congregation in St. Louis, MO. The congregation is not a part of the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. Jerry and all the believers gathered in it ARE a part of that. The congregation is officially affiliated with The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. The LCMS is not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. But all the believers in the congregations that are officially affiliated with the LCMS are a part of such.

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?

No. See the thread, “Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible” in this forum. I have several posts in that thread rejecting what I see as an incredible (and really absurd) claim.

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?

No. I think a LOT of PEOPLE did. Some of them were Jews who lived CENTURIES before even The Catholic Church itself (without substantiation) claims it came into existence. I think SOME of those people were officially registered in congregations legally affiated with The Catholic Church, but some of them were Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (even after they were excommunicated in the 5th century). BTW, they often did this for up to 1,800 years before The Catholic Church did ANYTHING regarding the Bible at all. And yes, up to 3,200 years before the printing press.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Do you believe that the 4th century CC of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioh, Constantinople and Alexandria, is the continuation of the church established by Jesus, in the first century?

No.

I reject every bit of that. Jesus never founded ANY denomination.

Again, I totally agree with you.

Then The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus, and we are in agreement.

None became utterly apostate.

Wow, that’s a refreshing perspective…Not even the CC? I think I am catching on. Every church regardless of when it was established and who established it, teaches a degree of truth coupled with a few untruths, and no church has preserved all of the truths taught by Christ and passed on to His Apostles?

1. No, I don’t believe that The Catholic Church “became apostate.” I don’t think it ever was infallible/unaccountable and THEN at some point became so and become totally wrong on every point. I reject BOTH parts of that. This issue is between denominations that insist the Jesus founded a denomination - and thus such was infallible/unaccountable, especially “protected” from error (in some sense anyway). It’s primarily an issue between The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And while I disagree with The Catholic Church on a FEW things (the same it disagrees with me about - to the same degree), I don’t reject EVERYTHING it teaches!
2. My degree is in physics. Way back in my lower division work, I remember a prof saying that physics is amazingly simple, logical and uncontroversal - until you get to the edges, and then it all gets weird!" Anyway, if you look at 90-95% of Christians, it is STUNNING how much we agree. There is no religion - large or small, current or past - that has a broader, bigger corpus of agreement. But there are some issues we disagree on. For example, one denomination regards as DOGMA the Infalliblity of its own human leader (in certain situations), Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception of Mary - you know, the things we discuss in this forum, lol. The Catholic Church simply insists that it can’t be wrong: end of discussion. “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I insist that I’m right - accept whatever with docility!” (CCC 87, etc., etc.,) which makes conversations challenging, at best. Reform impossible (something Luther - a smart man - should have realized, a lesson he should not have needed to so painfully learn).
3. No one is exempt from accountability. The Bible is full of warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. I can’t find anything about The Catholic Church being exempt, infallible, unaccountable, exempt from evaluation and examination. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the people (it seems the lay people!) for regarding their teachers as accountabile, for THEY testing them and for finding them to be false. He praised them for that, without any mention of the local CATHOLIC CHURCH bishop or the INFALLIBLE pope in Rome. Nothing about “if these people are teaching in conformity with the official dogmas of The Catholic Church then accept whatever with docility.”

It’s just that no denomination is exempt from accountability:

Agreed!

Read CCC 85 with 87.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

.

1. No one is exempt from accountability. The Bible is full of warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. I can’t find anything about The Catholic Church being exempt, infallible, unaccountable, exempt from evaluation and examination. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus PRAISES the people (it seems the lay people!) for regarding their teachers as accountabile, for THEY testing them and for finding them to be false. He praised them for that, without any mention of the local CATHOLIC CHURCH bishop or the INFALLIBLE pope in Rome. Nothing about “if these people are teaching in conformity with the official dogmas of The Catholic Church then accept whatever with docility.”

 

[joe370]

AJ, you said:

1. You indicated that Sola Scriptura is the teaching that self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture. No. Every single part of that is incorrect

I notice that you say quite often that I am wrong about this or I am wrong about that, which is cool, but what or who gives you the authority to do so? If “the bible alone interprets itself” and self may not designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture then surely you cannot designate yourself as an athoritative interpreter of scripture?

Sola Scriptura is the embrace (it’s praxis, it’s not a teaching at all) of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions.

SS, the bible alone is NOT a teaching? Sure it is. I’ve learned a lot from the bible.

1. You seem to have an “issue” with self appointing self as the sole, infallible/unaccountable interpreter. So did Luther! He rebukes it often!

If you read post 242 I think you will feel differently about Martin Luther.

Every time I give you a Protestant definition of sola scriptura, you tell me that I am wrong. By definition, according to you: Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. The bible is the ONE and only infallible, authoritative interpreter, and whatever it says, it says is what it says - accept it with docility as Jesus Himself speaking."

The problem with that is: many protestants disagree with other protestants about what the bible says, and that is a fact; I can give you many examples, if you like.

AJ, how does “the rule/canon/norma normans” (bible) - evaluate my position that the Eucharist is the true presence of Jesus’ flesh vs my sisters position, that the Eucharist is a mere symbol? Either I am right or she is right, and if you say that she is wrong, she will disagree with you, as will I, if you say that I am wrong. Prove that either she is right or I am right, using only the “the rule/canon/norma normans” - bible? In the end, all either of us has to say is: there is ONE and only one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself! And what the bible is saying to me is that I am right, and you need to accept what the the bible (as the Christians one and only authoritative interpreter) - is saying to me with docility, as if Jesus Himself were speaking.

But read what you quoted, CCC 85. What does The Catholic Church in it’s Catechism designate as the sole authoritative interpreter? Then go to # 87. What does it itself claim for it itself?

I have quoted the ccc here at this thread. I agree witht the CCC and always will. Jesus gave the world a teaching church…he gave authority to His church, as per the bible,

1. I think that the task to interpreting Scripture has been given to the church - the church that is one, holy and catholic - the church that is the communion of saints. Yes, that includes you. It includes me.

I thought the bible alone interprets itself since no self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

So, the task of interpreting the bible has been given to me and my sister, yet we both disagree on many things found in the bible?

It includes Pope Benedict and it includes Jerry Kieschneck (president of my denomination). It includes St. Augustine in Martin Luther. God gave Scriptures (Ten Commandments - Revelation, oldest to newest) to His people.

Yeah, but ML and Augustine had opposing beliefs, just as my sister and I do, regarding certain things; do we just ignore this fact?

We are His people. Now, ANYONE can say, "But I alone designate one alone (myself exclusively) as the sole AUTHORITATIVE, INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE interpreter - so you (all) must accept “with docility”

So, let me see if I can get my brain around this: "there is ONE and one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself? And whatever it says it says is what it says - and every Christian, regardless of church affiliation, should accept its authoritative interpretation/teachings, with docility as if Jesus Himself were speaking? And the church, regardless of affiliation, is not the ONE and only infallible, authoritative interpreter, and we are not to accept the interpretation of the CC, or any church for that matter, with docility, as if Jesus Himself were speaking through His church, which is very unbibilical?

If the bible is the Christians one and only authoritative interpreter, and Christians are not to accept the authoritative interpretation of any one church, then why the need for a bishop, priest, pastor or minister? Everyone should simply defer to their one and only authority/interpreter of the bible, which is the bible, according to your rationalization?

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus Christ wrote a book or commanded anyone else to write a Gospel. In fact the only place where it is recorded that He wrote anything at all, is in John 8:6-8. He wrote on the ground with His finger, and to this day, we do not even know what He wrote. However, He did found a Church. He made her His Bride, and He made her a teaching Church in His stead, and Christians can trust His established church, thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy Spirit. His teaching Church had been in existence for over a decade before the first book of the New Testament was even written. By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible was written circa 100 A.D., the Church was already on its fifth bishop of Rome. Paul tells us to defer to the authority of Jesus’ church; Jesus Christ did not command anyone to write a Gospel, but verses abound to go out and teach:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” Matt 28:19-20

“And GOD indeed has placed some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers…” 1Cor 12:28

“He who hears you, hears Me…” Luke 10:16

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1

“Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

“So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.” 2Thess 2:15

“And He said to them, “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature.””
Mark 16:15

“Take heed to thyself and to thy teaching, be earnest in them. For in doing so thou wilt save both thyself and those who hear thee.” 1Tim 4:16

“Let the presbyters who rule well be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and in teaching.” 1Tim 5:17

“And the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.” 2Tim 2:2

“But the servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, ready to teach, patient, gently admonishing those who resist, in case GOD should give them repentence to know the truth…” 2Tim 2:24-25

“For whereas by this time you ought to be masters, you need to be taught again the rudiments of the Word of GOD.” Heb 5:12

“And they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the Apostles and in the communion of the breaking of the bread and in the prayers.” Acts 2:42

“And they did not for a single day cease teaching and preaching in the temple and from house to house the good news of Jesus as the Christ.” Acts 5:42

“But Paul and Barnabas stayed on in Antioch, teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord, with many others.” Acts 15:35

“Let the Word of Christ dwell in you abundantly; in all wisdom teach and admonish one another…” Col 3:16

“Hold to the form of sound teaching which thou hast heard from me…” 2Tim 1:13

“A Bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher…” 1Tim 3:2

“Teach and exhort these things.” 1Tim 6:2

 

[joe370]

Continued…

WHATEVER I say it says (whether such as any relevance to the words on the page, the inscripturated words, or not!" But such has zero relevance to such being the case or to such interpretation being correct (much less infallible). Luther rejected that - thus part of his “issue” with The Catholic Church. Mine, too.

You then say: every Christian regardless of church affiliation, is entitled to interpret scripture as they see fit, even though you insist that the bible is the ONE and only infallible, authoritative interpreter of itself!

Everyone is a fallible, nonauthoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, claims the RCC.

Says you, not the CC, and then you contradict yourself by saying:

*“But there is ONE and only one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself. And whatever it says it says is what it says - accept it with docility as Jesus Himself speaking.” *

Yes, like I said, the CC is cool with with guys like you and me having private/individual interpretation, if it does not conflict with what the CC teaches, as is the case with every other church, and this is your major dispute. No church has the God given authority to teach as Christ did; the holy bible is the self-interpretive Word of God. I am merely quoting you.

You insist that no church (be it the church of Jerry Kieschneck or the CC or the EOC) - has the authority to interpret the bible, for it is the ONE and only infallible, authoritative interpreter, yet, at the same time you insist that the task of interpreting the bible has been given to all churches, regardless of affiliation (“church - the church that is one, holy and catholic - the church that is the communion of saints”) - which includes you and me, and then you switch gears again, and insist that only the bible can interpret itself. Man, this is starting to give me a headache. LOL…

But there is ONE and only one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself. And whatever it says it says is what it says - accept it with docility as Jesus Himself speaking.

If the bible is the only authoritative interpreter of the bible, then no one can interpret the bible? You seem to be vacillating quite a bit, and it’s making me quite dizzy. LOL…LOL…

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah
None became utterly apostate.

Wow, that’s a refreshing perspective…Not even the CC? I think I am catching on. Every church regardless of when it was established and who established it, teaches a degree of truth coupled with a few untruths, and no church has preserved all of the truths taught by Christ and passed on to His Apostles?

1. No, I don’t believe that The Catholic Church “became apostate.” I don’t think it ever was infallible/unaccountable and THEN at some point became so and become totally wrong on every point. I reject BOTH parts of that. This issue is between denominations that insist the Jesus founded a denomination - and thus such was infallible/unaccountable, especially “protected” from error (in some sense anyway). It’s primarily an issue between The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And while I disagree with The Catholic Church on a FEW things (the same it disagrees with me about - to the same degree), I don’t reject EVERYTHING it teaches!

Besides the CC’s claim of authority, as is the case with every PC, what are the things you do reject, if you don’t mind me asking?

Again, I agree that Jesus founded one church as opposed to a denomination. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Jesus would give the world the “infallible/inerrant word of God,” but fail to give the world an infallible interpreter, and without the holy spirit guiding Jesus’ established church, this would be the case, for the simple fact that all people are fallible. Could the holy spirit guide Jesus’ established church leadership into all truth if He wanted to?

AJ, how do you know that the bible is inerrant and infallible? Prove it.

If the church of Latter Day Saints was built by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, I would belong to that church, but it wasn’t; it was established by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. I can give you the name of every man that established each and every PC. Can you give me the name of the man that built the CC with Rome as her head quarters? Please don’t say Constantine.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Magisterium of the Church

 

[AmericanJosiah]

SS, the bible alone is NOT a teaching? Sure it is. I’ve learned a lot from the bible.

The Bible teaches in a sense, but Sola Scriptura does not. Sola Scriptura is a practice. it doens’t “teach” anymore than drving on the right hand side of the road in the USA (a practice) “teaches.” Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

By definition, according to you: Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions. The bible is the ONE and only infallible, authoritative interpreter, and whatever it says, it says is what it says - accept it with docility as Jesus Himself speaking."

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics (interpretation). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines.

The problem with that is: many protestants disagree with other protestants about what the bible says, and that is a fact; I can give you many examples, if you like.

No. It’s only The Catholic Church that disagrees about what it says, and this is because the Scripture it acknowledges is not written down, it is not found on any page or in any book, it’s found invisibly on the heart of itself (CCC 113). The rest of all all pretty much agree on what it says (varient readings aside). The words of Romans 3:23 are the words of Romans 3:23 - we all tend to agree on them. I can quote them for you in the Greek if you like. The liberal Methodist, the conservative Lutheran, the traditional Anglican - they’d all agree - yup, those words are what it says. Knowable by all. Alterable by none. It’s only The Catholic Church that can insist, “it doesn’t say that” because only it knows what is invisibly written in the heart of itself exclusively.

What Christians MAY disagree with is what it means, the proper interpretation or application of the words. That’s a matter of hermeneutics, which, obviously, is a different issue than Sola Scriptura.

AJ, how does “the rule/canon/norma normans” (bible) - evaluate my position that the Eucharist is the true presence of Jesus’ flesh vs my sisters position, that the Eucharist is a mere symbol?

It doesn’t. Anymore than a big square white sign with big, bold black letters and numerals proclaiming: “MAX SPEED LIMIT: 35 MPH” evaluates if you were speeding or not. But under the Rule of Law, it is the canon/norma normans for that.

Either I am right or she is right, and if you say that she is wrong, she will disagree with you, as will I, if you say that I am wrong.

How much WORSE it is if I say I’m right because I’m right so egro I’m right. And she says she’s right because sh’es right so ergo she’s right. Your subsitution of resorting to claims of self for self, of exchanging a pursuit of truth for shouts of power accomplishes nothing but a lot of shouting, boasting, and lording it over each other. Arbitration requires the opposite. It requires humility, accountability, community - and yes, a common rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, ABOVE all parties. Friend, nothing (theology is no exception) is as simple as looking in the mirror and proclaiming, “I just gotta be right cuz I just gotta be.” That has NOTHING to do with being right, it’s a circumvention of the entire question and process, it’s the substitution of ego and self for humility, accountability and community.

there is ONE and only one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself! And what the bible is saying to me is that I am right, and you need to accept what the the bible (as the Christians one and only authoritative interpreter) - is saying to me with docility, as if Jesus Himself were speaking.

Well, The Catholic Church (as well as all cults) just claim that self alone is that singular, infallible, unaccountable interpreter. Of course, such has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether such IS correct, it’s just the exemption of self exclusively from the question. Don’t evaluate, accept “with docility.” Read any cult leader? Read Brigham Young? Read “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie?

Jesus gave the world a teaching church…he gave authority to His church, as per the bible,

I agree. But He never said anything about The Catholic Church. He never promised it anything. He never authorized it to do anything. He never mentioned anything about it concerning anything; He never mentioned it AT ALL. He never pointed to it as a rule/canon. He never pointed to it as an interpreter. He never pointed to it as an arbiter. Much less the EXCLUSIVE, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE one. It’s the claim of self alone for self alone; and it has nothing to do with being correct, it’s simply the exemption of one (self ) of one (self).

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing post above…

I thought the bible alone interprets itself since no self may designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions (especially doctrines). It is a practice within norming. It is not a hermeneutical principle or practice.

Scripture cannot interpret itself, only people can. What this often used expression means IN HERMENEUTICS is that Scripture - viewed together - often brings clarity. This is a principle in hermeneutics found in secular literature, too. If you want to understand what Mark Twain means by an expression on a page in one of his books, it’s helpful to look for that same thought in that book and perhaps in all the books of Mark Twain. In doing so, you’ll find the whole witness on that - and a fuller understanding of the point may develop. But we are off topic, this has to do with hermeneutics.

So, the task of interpreting the bible has been given to me and my sister, yet we both disagree on many things found in the bible?

I don’t agree with The Catholic Church that one may designate self as the one authoritative, infallible, unquestionable interepreter. The task of interpreting has been given to the church, not to me and my sister. And NONE of us are infallible, unaccountable. Certainly not me!

We are His people. Now, ANYONE can say, "But I alone designate one alone (myself exclusively) as the sole AUTHORITATIVE, INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE interpreter - so you (all) must accept “with docility”

Yes, anyone can claim anything. IMHO, it doesn’t make it so. Yet this is exactly what The Catholic Church does and it demands that you accepted as so “with docility.”

"there is ONE and one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself?

That’s what The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults) says. And yes, it’s true because that’s what it says, and it is the one infallible authoritative interpreter so obviously, it’s right about that. No rule/canon/norma normans needed since the whole process of evaluating/norming is moot in the case of just one: self, since self declares self CANNOT be wrong, so thus since self says self CANNOT be wrong, self is correct about that.

And whatever it says it says is what it says - and every Christian, regardless of church ffiliation, should accept its authoritative interpretation/teachings, with docility as if Jesus Himself were speaking?

… that’s essentially the insistence of The Catholic Church (actually, it’s not too concern with the apostate outside of the church, they are wrong if they disagree with one: The Catholic Church, end of discusion).

why the need for a bishop, priest, pastor or minister? Everyone should simply defer to their one and only authority/interpreter of the bible, which is the bible, according to your rationalization?

1. I don’t accept your assumption that there is ONE, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE authority, teacher, interpreter and arbiter (and it just so happens to be ME).
2. Clergy are teachers, guides, leaders. And they help hold us accountable. But they are not God. They are not infallible, unaccountable. Note all the stern, divine, bold warnings about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Note how Jesus praises the Ephesians (laity, it seems) that regard their teachers as potentially wrong, hold them accountable, arbitrate the issue, and find them false (Rev. 2:2). He didn’t rebuke them, “How dare you question the Authority of those in communion with the Infallible Pope! The Catholic Church is to be accepted with docility in WHATEVER it officially says!” Yes, we are to respect authority. But a policeman is not infallible/unaccountable, he is not to lord it over like the gentiles do. IMHO, a sound teacher (and that goes for The Catholic Church or The Seventh Day Adventist Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or me or you or Joel Osteen, or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict) should welcome the light, encourage investigation - for truth welcomes that. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, behind walls of self claims for self alone, who must exchange the issue of truth for claims of power.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

AJ, where in the bible does it say: “Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines?”

 

[joe370]

AJ, you don’t seem to be answering my questions, but that’s cool. You said:

But He never said anything about The Catholic Church. He never promised it anything. He never authorized it to do anything. He never mentioned anything about it concerning anything; He never mentioned it AT ALL. He never pointed to it as a rule/canon. He never pointed to it as an interpreter. He never pointed to it as an arbiter. Much less the EXCLUSIVE, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE one. It’s the claim of self alone for self alone; and it has nothing to do with being correct, it’s simply the exemption of one (self ) of one (self).

He never said anything about any of the PC’s either. He never promised them anything. He never authorized these 16th century PC’s to do anything. He never mentioned anything about these PC’s concerning anything; He never mentioned them AT ALL. He never pointed to these PC’s as a rule/canon. He never pointed to these man-made churches as interpreters. He never pointed to these PC’s as arbiters.

Much less the EXCLUSIVE, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE one. It’s the claim of self alone for self alone; and it has nothing to do with being correct, it’s simply the exemption of one (self ) of one (self).

AJ, if all churches are self appointed, including the EOC and the CC then please help me locate the exclusive church built by God, circa AD 33, as opposed to the preceding man-made churches? Perhaps that should be our starting point.

 

[joe370]

"there is ONE and one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself?

That’s what The Catholic Church (as well as all the cults) says. And yes, it’s true because that’s what it says, and it is the one infallible authoritative interpreter so obviously, it’s right about that.

Where in the bible does it say the following, about the bible: "there is ONE and one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself?

No rule/canon/norma normans needed since the whole process of evaluating/norming is moot in the case of just one: self, since self declares self CANNOT be wrong, so thus since self says self CANNOT be wrong, self is correct about that.

Okeydoke…If I want to know the truth regarding the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist, and my sister wants to know the truth regarding the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist and we have both defered to the “rule/canon/norma normans” and still can’t agree, and yes the correct interpretation of this teaching absolutely matters, what’s the next step? I want to believe what the Apostles believed, regarding this doctrine, but they are no longer here, so, perhaps one of the many churches out there in the world has the correct answer?

Quote:
why the need for a bishop, priest, pastor or minister? Everyone should simply defer to their one and only authority/interpreter of the bible, which is the bible, according to your rationalization?

1. I don’t accept your assumption that there is ONE, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE authority, teacher, interpreter and arbiter (and it just so happens to be ME).

I didn’t say that; I said: why the need for a bishop, priest, pastor or minister? Everyone should simply defer to their one and only authority/interpreter of the bible, which is the bible, which you did say! Now you are telling me that the clergy, who are teachers, guides and leaders, can be trusted when it comes to the truth regarding biblical interpretation. Perhaps one of these clergymen can resolve this matter of the Eucharist and it’s correct interpretation?

1. Clergy are teachers, guides, leaders. And they help hold us accountable. But they are not God.

So, if I want the truth regarding the Eucharist, I should ask the Clergy, who are teachers, guides, leaders?

Yes, we are to respect authority. But a policeman is not infallible/unaccountable, he is not to lord it over like the gentiles do. IMHO, a sound teacher (and that goes for The Catholic Church or The Seventh Day Adventist Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or me or you or Joel Osteen, or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict) should welcome the light, encourage investigation - for truth welcomes that. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, behind walls of self claims for self alone, who must exchange the issue of truth for claims of power

.

Do you believe that the CC is comprised of false teachers hiding in the dark, behind walls of self claims for self alone, who must exchange the issue of truth for claims of power?

Do you believe that the holy spirit is guiding the CC and the many PC’s?

 

[joe370]

Do you believe that the 4th century CC of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioh, Constantinople and Alexandria, is the continuation of the church established by Jesus, in the first century?
No.

Well, if you don’t believe this, then I can certainly understand your position. I’d be curious if JonNC agrees with you?

Then The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus, and we are in agreement.

I guess we are not in agreement. If the CC was not founded by Jesus, then none of the PC’s were either - right? As I have mentioned a few times: help me find the true church built by Jesus?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I guess we are not in agreement. If the CC was not founded by Jesus, then none of the PC’s were either - right? As I have mentioned a few times: help me find the true church built by Jesus?

1. I don’t know who founded personal computers, lol…
2. No, Jesus did not found ANY denomination (the claims of The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and all the cults not withstanding). Jesus founded the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. It’s not a geopolitical, legal/economic institution - it is the community of faith. Where is it? Where faith is, where believers are. Indeed, it embraces all the centuries and all the continents.
3. Luther wrote, “Just as Christ is without sin, invisible and spiritul, so the church is without sin, invisible and spiritual and is seen by faith.” (WA 710). It’s not as simply as googling it, lol. The church is not such so one can say “there it is” or “here it is”. It is in the midst of you. The Lutheran church father Melanchthon wrote in the Lutheran Confessions, “This one, holy, catholic church actually exists and is made up of all true believers scattered throughout the world.” (Apology). Now, Luther and the Lutheran fathers spoke of “marks” or outward signs of the church; they point esepcially (but not exclusively) to “the pure teaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments”: (Apology 7 and 8) since thus never returns void so where such is, such is faith and thus His one, holy and catholic church.

Christianity is not an institutional denomination. It is faith in hearts - revealed in love. Christians are people - not geopolitical/legal institutional entities or entity. What to find the church? Look for faith - and faith revealed in love. Dr. Samuel Samuel Nafzger, Director of Church Relations for The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod also adds this to what I just said, “We Lutherans look for Baptism, for we believe that Baptism is what makes one the church, a member of the Body of Christ” (CTCR document, “Church Fellowship” 2000). But again, such is simply because Lutherans understand that Baptism is typically what brings such faith into hearts, and such faith reveals itself in love.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Where in the bible does it say the following, about the bible: "there is ONE and one infallible, authoritative interpreter: itself?

It doesn’t. And no Lutheran (known to me) suggests that it is.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”) or canon (“measuring stick”) or norma normans (“the norm that norms” as it is called in epistemology). It has to do with NORMING. Once again, it is not a practice or principle or proceedure in hermeneutics.

Okeydoke…If I want to know the truth regarding the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist, and my sister wants to know the truth regarding the correct doctrinal teaching of the Eucharist and we have both defered to the “rule/canon/norma normans” and still can’t agree, and yes the correct interpretation of this teaching absolutely matters, what’s the next step? I want to believe what the Apostles believed, regarding this doctrine, but they are no longer here, so, perhaps one of the many churches out there in the world has the correct answer?

1. Once again, I reject your insistence on self being the sole arbiter.
2. Yes, I think the canon for the arbitration should be Scripture.
3. Again, we don’t know what we don’t know. The ONLY things we know about what the Apostles believed is found in 27 books. It’s called The New Testament. More importantly, it is what GOD believed since GOD is the author there (good since we know the Apostles could be and often were wrong).
4. Whether various teachers are infallibly correct (including The Catholic Church) is an issue Protestants don’t ASSUME to be the case. It is The Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (as well as all the cults) that insist that there is ONE who is such (it’s always itself) but all exempt one (self) from accountablity - all insist that self (exclusively) is correct because self (exclusively) so insists that self (exclusively) is. Protestants tend to reject this rubric as being circular and actually moot to the issue of correctness.

why the need for a bishop, priest, pastor or minister?

Because it’s good to have a sound, informed teacher. It’s good to have a sound shepherd. It’s good to embrace accountability. But we don’t accept that such makes such infallible/unaccountable. Over and over, God gives to all of us stern, bold, divine warnings about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Jesus praised the Ephesians (laity, it seems!) for regarding their teachers as potentially fallible and thus accountable, for testing and arbitrating them, and for finding them to be false. There is nothing in Scripture that states that there is ONE that is exempt form accountability, and that ONE is specific, particular, individual, institutional denominational entity: The Catholic Church or any aspect thereof (note Catholic Catechism # 87 for example; also “On the Authoriy of The Church” by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie)

Do you believe that the CC is comprised of false teachers hiding in the dark, behind walls of self claims for self alone, who must exchange the issue of truth for claims of power?

What I said is what I tend to embrace: True teachers WELCOME the light. They invite and encourage examination and accountability. False teachers MUST hide in the dark, they must resist accountability and examination, they must insist that self (alone) is INCAPABLE of error and are infallible (and thus unaccountable) so as to evade the accountability they demand of all others. My study of Mormonism and the cults clearly taught this to me.

Do you believe that the holy spirit is guiding the CC and the many PC’s?

No, I don’t. I don’t believe it likely that the Holy Spirit guides geopolitical/legal institutional entities, I think the Holy Spirit leads PEOPLE. Especially Christian people. And (to anticipate your next question, lol) yes, He leads them perfectly (for God can do no other). The question is: do we always infallibly follow? Read the Old Testament? Remember those hundreds and hundreds of Sunday School lessons? One of the entirely UNAVOIDABLE lessons you learned in all that is that if there’s one predictable thing you can count on it’s that Gods’ people will NOT infallibly follow (as least not for long, lol). God will need to rebuke and re-direct them. Over and over. God will need to rise up a reformer to call back His people. God is infallible. People are not.

AND, here’s one of the basic areas where I depart from The Catholic Church. I just don’t embrace the foundational, strong, bold insistence of The Catholic Church on individualism: “God leads just ONE - and it’s me, myself and I - exclusively!” (This, too, is found in the cults as well as in The Catholic Church). BTW, I have the same discomfort when some “Protestant” insist, “The Holy Spirit leads ME - and only, exclusively, solely ME - and I infallibly follow!” It’s just that’s very rare in Protestantism, it’s absolutely foundational in The Catholic Church). God leads US. As Lutherans are fond of saying, “It’s not Jesus and ME, it’s Jesus and WE” (forgive the grammar, lol). God leads US - not just me, myself and I. And yes, while God is infallible, we aren’t. Self claims of self for self exclusively not withstanding.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

What the heck; I’ll give it one more shot. Are you saying that every church (including the church founded by my sister’s Pastor in 1987) - regardless of who founded it and when, are ALL the one true church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa AD 33? It’s a simple question requiring a simple answer?

The answer to the following question is important and there is a correct answer, for Jesus said our eternal life depends on it. You said: it’s good to have a sound, informed teacher. It’s good to have a sound shepherd. Based on you as the sound shepherd or your Pastor as the sound shepherd, or whoever, what is the correct answer to the following question? Every church leader has an answer to this question, as does the church to which you belong, so why not help me find truth regarding this very important doctrine? Jesus said:

*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” *(John 6:53-55)

AJ, are these words of Jesus, from John 6:53, to be taken literally or figuratively? In other words, am I right or is my sister right?

AJ, Is the Holy Spirit leading some PEOPLE to believe the literal interpretation and some PEOPLE to believe the figurative interpretation? Like you said: He leads them perfectly (for God can do no other).

You then said: The question is: do we always infallibly follow? How can fallible people follow infallibly, and, who is not infallibly following Christ when it comes to the Eucharistic doctrine?

Will you please identify the church, in the word today, that existed in AD 250? Hopefully you won’t say: “the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.”

a) I would most definitely agree with you…

and

b) clearly none of the PC’s existed at this particular juncture.

And finally: which church in the world today, would you recommend to an on the fence Christian, in search of truth, in its fullest sense?