The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[Newbie2]

I understand your position and have yet to hear an answer that was satisfactory. Ultimately, the typical Lutheran answer (as per the Lutheran Confessions) - will always be: Lutherans view the Lutheran Confessions to be a standard by which all teaching and practice in their churches must be judged. This is because Lutherans have already become convinced that these Confessions are a correct exposition of the infallible Word of God, the ultimate authority and standard of Christian truth.

.

Luther becomes the standard for interpretation for Lutherans then? I’ve never heard that said, but that might seem to be the case?

Any thoughts on that, Jon?

 

[JonNC]

Luther becomes the standard for interpretation for Lutherans then? I’ve never heard that said, but that might seem to be the case?

Any thoughts on that, Jon?

No. Luther, the man, is not the standard. While scripture is the final norm, The Lutheran Confessions is the standard for Lutherans, in that it rightly reflects scripture. Remember that large portions of the Confession was not written by Luther himself. Obviously, Luther’s teachings hold great sway in many areas, but he was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us.

So, in way, Joe is correct. Lutherans are held to the Lutheran Confessions, because we believe that it rightly reflects scripture.

Originally posted by Joe370:
As far as the codification/canonization of the bible, I am told that the CC had nothing to do with that, with the exception of JonNC.

You give me more credit than I deserve. Luther himself praised the Catholic Church, saying all we know about the faith comes from the Catholic Church.

My comments are a recognition that while Luther did not act improperly regarding his view of canon, the fact remains that even he translated all 73 books common in a western Bible of his time. Luther did not remove books, neither did Trent add books.

My contention is that now, unlike the early Church, we have no truly ecumenical councils to determine these things, because the Church is divided, east and west, and within the west. And therefore, the Magisterium is no more authoritative or infallible than the Lutheran Confessions.
I hear Catholics say that Rome and Orthodoxy are pretty much the same, but I see no evidence of that. Just read some of the hostility here on CAF between the two groups. So I say, were Rome and Orthodoxy to reconcile and share the sacrament, regardless of the authority granted to the Bishop of Rome, I would see this as an undeniable sign of the movement of the Holy Spirit, and would see no cause to stay divided. Until then, the authority of either is no greater or provable than that of my LCMS.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Jon, if Josiah is right and each respective Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible, and all other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner, then isn’t it true that the PC, regardless of denomination, has zero authority to insist that the theory of once in grace, always in grace, rejected by the Lutheran confessions (and the CC) - but embraced by many many PC’s --IS WRONG?

 

[joe370]

Jon, do the following LC’s defer to the same Lutheran confessions?

The Evangelical Lutheran church, Missouri Synod and the American Lutheran church.

 

[Newbie2]

No. Luther, the man, is not the standard. While scripture is the final norm, The Lutheran Confessions is the standard for Lutherans, in that it rightly reflects scripture. Remember that large portions of the Confession was not written by Luther himself. Obviously, Luther’s teachings hold great sway in many areas, but he was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us.

So, in way, Joe is correct. Lutherans are held to the Lutheran Confessions, because we believe that it rightly reflects scripture.

Jon

I don’t want to get all circular , but that begs the question as to who wrote the Lutheran Confessions and where did they get that authority i.e. by what authority are/were they (the authors and the Confessions themselves) given that authority to construct and be the standard for Lutherans.

That’s where I lose understanding of the Lutheran understanding of authority. It would seem that such authority given to those writers would not be scriptural; if it is, then there would have to be an admission to the legitimacy of an extra-biblical authority in scripture, which seems contrary to Lutheran theology.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Now, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything. Especially if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err.

Agreed! All people are fallible (prone to err). and all people should be held accountable for their actions, and, I understand that anything or anyone can claim absolutely anything, but such doesn’t make it true - except to self if self excludes self from accountability for such, and that self alone cannot declare self alone to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, and self alone must never insist that all must accept whatever “with docility.” Only Jesus, speaking through the church He built!

Ah, a perfect circle.

Since you agree that ALL people are potentially fallible and that ALL people are accountable, read what your denomination insists in CCC # 87.

Pursuing unity in dogma with such is impossible.

Pursuing unity in the dogmas handed down to the Apostles by God, to be passed on through each generation, until the end of time, is NOT impossible.

It IS impossible to evaluate the claims/positions of ANY that exclude ONE (self) from accountability, self alone insisting that self alone is infallible, that all must accept whatever self alone says “with docility.” Friend, this is not an alternative approach to norming - it’s ONE exempting ONE from such: SELF. It’s an evasion, a diversion, a circumvention - for exclusively ONE, self. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being correct, it only has to do with evading the question for just one: self. “I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right - so just accept whatever with docility.” Friend, that has nothing to do with being right. It does terminate all discussions toward a unity of dogma.

Again, aside from all cults, there is only ONE denomination where self alone declares that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error (at least in certain areas and under certain conditions). Such a declaration of self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible/iunaccountable or incapable of error - it’s purely a circumvention of such, an evasion of the issue, a replacement of the issue of truth with the issue of self claiming power/lordship for self.

if there are no churches incapable of error regarding faith and morals, (always the possibility of error) - and self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible (incapable of error regarding the teachings of Jesus) - then attaining the truth regarding any one doctrine, remains elusive? If you disagree, then please tell me how one can know truth if no one and no church is incapable of error regarding faith and morals?

It remains accountable, for the reason you yourself gave: All people are accountable (that includes the Pope if you accept that he is a person, and it includes all the bishops if you accept that every single one of them is a human being).

We’re discussing striving for unity in dogma, and how to pursue that. Luther did not insist that there is ONE that is excluded from accountability and examination, ONE that is incapable of error and thus exempt from norming or need for substantiation, ONE that when that ONE speaks Jesus speaks. Thus, we CAN and DO accept that our teachings are accountable and we accept a rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE ourselves and would welcome an arbitration outside of ourselves. This is generally true - except for just one. The Catholic Church (the LDS was in the same boat until about a century ago). (As long as we aren’t discussing the cults, it’s always the case with them, they always exempt one - self - from accountability).

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing from the post above…

These official declarations, (in matters of faith and morals) - affirmed by the convention as a whole, speaking for the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, are never to be considered infallible, (without error).

The question was: When is a position OFFICIAL for a denomination? I responded that it varies from Lutheran denomination to Lutheran denomination, but generally, the denomination only speaks in convention. Rev. Dr. Jerry Kieschnick (President of my denomination) may say that dogs go to heaven, but that (at most) would be the view of Jerry Kieschnick and not an official position of the denomination UNLESS the denomination in convention adopted a resolution so stating, and it still may not in any sense be regarded as doctrine - much less dogma. Our official doctrine is contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, and not a letter or comma has been changed from that in over 400 years. Nothing added, charified, modified, changed or even translated. But the Synod in Convention has taken official stands on abortion, for example.

In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible?

AGAIN, anything or anyone (with sufficient ego)* can* claim absolutely anything whatsoever.

But there’s only ONE that makes the claim you speak of, and that’s The Catholic Church, but only, exclusively for one - itself. Thus, it leaves the entire issue of correctness aside and simply exempts itself, circumventing the entire issue and making it IMPOSSIBLE to pursue any movement toward unity in dogma.

All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner. Correct???

Just as you are doing in this thread, yes - Christians may take positions, have interpretations, etc. But as you firmly agreed: NONE of them is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability (and that would include all Catholic bishops including the one in Rome - if you agree they are all people). Friend, truth is not as simply as one alone declaring that one alone (self) is right because one alone so insists (self). Read anything about the cults? Read any of the writings of Brigham Young? Read the work by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie “On the Authority of The Church?” And friend, that in no way addresses the issue of that one IS correct; it is not an alternative (much less better) mode of norming, it is simply a circumvention of it, and evasion, a substitution of power and ego for accountability and humility, of self for community.

Friend, IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light and comes out into the light. The true teacher WELCOMES, INVITES accountability and examination - according to a norm/rule outside of himself and an arbitration that is not simply himself. He welcomes, invites and encourages it. The false teacher is the one who must hide in the dark, evade accountability, demand that he alone is right cuz he alone is correct, demand that all accept whatever one (self) says, “with docility.”

Friend, truth in any and all disciplines (not just theology) is just never as simple as “I’m right so I’m right therefore I’m right - just accept it with docility cuz I’m right.” Indeed, that rubric has NOTHING to do with right at all. It circumvents, evades, hides from the issue.

Lutheran churches do not have the ego or desire to evade accountability to want to do that, and that, aside from all cults, there is only ONE that sense the need to evade accountability.

Okay…

However, you didn’t answer the questions!!! What is your answer to the following 2 question:

In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole arbiter/interpreter/authority of the infallible bible?

AGAIN, anything or anyone can claim anything whatsoever. And given sufficient ego or felt need - they might. It just is entirely unrelated to whether the claim is true.

All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner?

Well, computers and denominations CANNOT do any of the above, only PEOPLE can. And yes - they are permitted to voice thier views. But we don’t accept that one can/should declare that there is ONE (self exclusively) who is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole interpreter, the sole authority, the sole arbiter - exempt form norming or substantiation cuz one (self) so declares for one (self).

And AGAIN, I reject the extreme, radical individualism and institutionalism of The Catholic Church and it’s intense focus on power, authority, lordship (“lording it over others as the gentiles do” - Jesus). And I reject your constant attempts to impute that to Protestantism.

It is the position you are defending that makes the unity Jesus prayed for IMPOSSIBLE.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

No. Luther, the man, is not the standard. While scripture is the final norm, The Lutheran Confessions is the standard for Lutherans, in that it rightly reflects scripture. Remember that large portions of the Confession was not written by Luther himself. Obviously, Luther’s teachings hold great sway in many areas, but he was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us.

Lutherans are held to the Lutheran Confessions, because we believe that it rightly reflects scripture.

Sadly, I think that the chair of Peter will always be a sticking point. So, if the EOC recognized the validity of the C Eucharistic Sacrament (CC already recognizes the validity of the EO Eucharistic sacrament) - regardless of the authority granted to the Bishop of Rome, and you would see no cause to stay divided. Is that correct?

[/QUOTE]

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah

Now, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything. Especially if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err.
Agreed! All people are fallible (prone to err)… Only Jesus, speaking through the church He built!

Ah, a perfect circle.

Since you agree that ALL people are potentially fallible and that ALL people are accountable, read what your denomination insists in CCC # 87.

Not circular at all; I said: Only Jesus, speaking through the church He built! The apostles were fallible, yet they taught infallibly, and they passed on to the next generation of fallible leaders this infallible teaching who also taught infallibly. No circular reasoning…The fallible leaders of the church built by Jesus and guided by the HS, on the foundation of the apostles, are exempt in my opinion, through no power of their own. I never said the CC built by Jesus and guided by the holy spirit, on the foundation of the apostle, so don’t freak out LOL…

if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err, then self is wrong.

Self alone CAN err! The church built by God comes together as a council to make authoritative decisions that are free from error, just as they did at the early councils. The HS did not leave the church built by Jesus, and will never leave her as an orphan.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah
Pursuing unity in dogma with such is impossible.

Pursuing unity in the dogmas handed down to the Apostles by God, to be passed on through each generation, until the end of time, is NOT impossible.

It IS impossible to evaluate the claims/positions of ANY that exclude ONE (self) from accountability, self alone insisting that self alone is infallible, that all must accept whatever self alone says “with docility.”

Where have I heard that before? LOL…The church built by Jesus, in Jerusalem, and sent out to the ends of the earth, is exempt, whichever church that may be.

Friend, this is not an alternative approach to norming - it’s ONE exempting ONE from such: SELF… Friend, that has nothing to do with being right. It does terminate all discussions toward a unity of dogma.

The fact that all churches, in your opinion, cannot be 100% certain that their proposed teachings are error free, regarding the teachings of Jesus, is what terminates all discussions toward a unity of dogma.

Josiah, norming doesn’t work; if it did you would have answered my question regarding who is right and who is wrong vis-a-vis the 2 interpretations of the Eucharist, given by 2 people defering to your norm!!! Perhaps you will give me the answer now??? So, when you say: I reject that or this, which you have, are you not saying, "I’m right so when I say I’m right ergo I must be right?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah

Again, aside from all cults,

You have no authority to judge/categorize any man-made church as a cult - right?

.

…there is only ONE denomination where self alone declares that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error.

I did not ask you anything about the one denomination claiming that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error, so you don’t have to bring it up again. Let’s assume that the CC doesn’t exist and work from there.

if there are no churches incapable of error regarding faith and morals, (always the possibility of error) - and self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible (incapable of error regarding the teachings of Jesus) - then attaining the truth regarding any one doctrine, remains elusive? If you disagree, then please tell me how one can know truth if no one and no church is incapable of error regarding faith and morals?

It remains accountable, for the reason you yourself gave: All people are accountable (that includes the Pope if you accept that he is a person, and it includes all the bishops if you accept that every single one of them is a human being).

You did not answer the question. Friend, please answer the question!

…ONE that is incapable of error and thus exempt from norming or need for substantiation, ONE that when that ONE speaks Jesus speaks.

I assure you that the bible tells us that Jesus left us with a teaching church and He gave His church the HS to protect the deposit of faith from within and without. He didn’t suffer on the cross just to see His teachings scattered to the wind.

Thus, we CAN and DO accept that our teachings are accountable and we accept a rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE ourselves and would welcome an arbitration outside of ourselves.

But, can I know, without doubt that these teachings are free of error? If you accept a rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE yourselves and would welcome an arbitration outside of yourselves, then here’s one: many churches believe in once saved always saved; would you welcome an arbitration from said churches? And if they told you that you were diluting the truth of sacred scripture, (and I can cite many churches that do) - what authority do you possess to denounce their teaching, or vice versa?

This is generally true - except for just one. The Catholic Church (the LDS was in the same boat until about a century ago). (As long as we aren’t discussing the cults, it’s always the case with them, they always exempt one - self - from accountability).

No need to bring them up any more. Let’s assume that they are wrong and therefore unnecessary.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

The question was: When is a position OFFICIAL for a denomination? I responded that it varies from Lutheran denomination to Lutheran denomination, but generally, the denomination only…

But my questions are:

These official declarations, (in matters of faith and morals) - affirmed by the convention as a whole, speaking for the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, are never to be considered infallible, (without error). Is this correct? The official doctrine contained in the Book of Concord, is never to be considered infallible, (without error). Correct???

Quote:
In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible?

AGAIN, anything or anyone (with sufficient ego) can claim absolutely anything whatsoever.

Including Martin Luther and the men (never to impugn their work of course) - who followed in his footsteps who wrote the Lutheran confessions- correct? There is nothing infallible about this catechism, just as their is nothing infallible about the CCC. I could do the same thing and it too would not be infallible. Jesus never sent the HS to him or me, on Pentecost.

Quote:
All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner. Correct???
Just as you are doing in this thread, yes - Christians may take positions, have interpretations, etc. But as you firmly agreed: NONE of them is infallible, incapable of error, exempt from accountability (and that would include all Catholic bishops including the one in Rome - if you agree they are all people).

Some of them are aliens from the planet Neptune. LOL…Again, no humans are infallible; I thought we covered this ground already?

No churches, including the one established in the 1st century, the 11th century and the 16th, 17th,…21st century, can teach infallibly (without error)? Now we are getting somewhere.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Friend, IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light and comes out into the light. The true teacher WELCOMES, INVITES accountability and examination - according to a norm/rule outside of himself and an arbitration that is not simply himself. He welcomes, invites and encourages it.

The true teacher (in accord with your take on things) - in the protestant world, knows that truth can never be found, if said teachers can’t know with certainty that their teachings are without error. I’d be curious to know what JonNC thinks about this???

The false teacher is the one who must hide in the dark, evade accountability, demand that he alone is right cuz he alone is correct, demand that all accept whatever one (self) says, “with docility.”

Are you just copying and pasting…? LOL…If zero teachers are incapable of teaching (free of error, regarding faith and morals only) - then they potentially are all false teachers or true teachers. They could be right; they could be wrong; no way to know for sure, if error did or did not slither in.

Friend, truth in any and all disciplines (not just theology) is just never as simple as “I’m right so I’m right therefore I’m right - just accept it with docility cuz I’m right.” Indeed, that rubric has NOTHING to do with right at all. It circumvents, evades, hides from the issue.

Perhaps the CC Ecumenical councils that you embrace as error free, (e.g.the Trinity, theolokos and the 2 divinities of Jesus) - were wrong…were in fact fallible decisions. Is that a possibility, under your platform that no one can teach infallibly (without erring)? Like you said: none of them were infallible, incapable of error, so, logically, they could have erred! Yes?

It seem that we are in agreement that each one of these respective Lutheran churches, (all churches for that matter, regardless of denomination, including both the CC and the EOC) - cannot insist that their church alone is the sole arbiter/interpreter/authority of the infallible bible? All churches, regardless of denomination, share in that arbitration, interpretation and authority of the infallible bible? Just want to verify before I move on.

AGAIN, anything or anyone can claim anything whatsoever. And given sufficient ego or felt need - they might. It just is entirely unrelated to whether the claim is true.

Understood! There is no way for any one church leadership to know truth, if none of them are incapable of error. There is always the chance that they erred!

All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner?

Well, computers and denominations CANNOT do any of the above, only PEOPLE can.

You knew what I meant…

And yes - they are permitted to voice their views. But we don’t accept that one can/should declare that there is ONE (self exclusively) who is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, the sole interpreter, the sole authority, the sole arbiter - exempt form norming or substantiation cuz one (self) so declares for one (self).

To recap: no one church, regardless of denomination, can/should declare that their church is incapable of error or that their church leadership is the sole authority, the sole arbiter? I think we are getting somewhere!!!

And AGAIN, I reject…

There you go again with the whole rejecting thing…Under your platform, you do not possess the authority to reject anything, just as the CC does not have the authority to reject… correct???

…the extreme, radical individualism and institutionalism of The Catholic Church and it’s intense focus on power, authority, lordship (“lording it over others as the gentiles do” - Jesus). And I reject your constant attempts to impute that to Protestantism.

I know the oppression is just killing me. LOL…LOL…We have already covered individual interpretation thing, so we are good…

It is the position you are defending that makes the unity Jesus prayed for IMPOSSIBLE.

I am gonna defer to the authority of JonNC to arbitrate on the matter. LOL…All kidding aside, let’s see what he has to say regarding your position, which is: that Jesus never intended for any church to teach (without error) - all that He taught (regarding faith or morals), and whether or not this position you are defending can or cannot make the unity Jesus prayed for IMPOSSIBLE? He is more inclined to agree with you anyway! I am just trying to be logical as opposed to partisan.

 

[joe370]

The true teacher (in accord with your take on things) - in the protestant world, knows that truth can never be found, if said teachers can’t know with certainty that their teachings are without error. I’d be curious to know what JonNC thinks about this???

Are you just copying and pasting…? LOL…If zero teachers are incapable of teaching (free of error, regarding faith and morals only) - then they potentially are all false teachers or true teachers. They could be right; they could be wrong; no way to know for sure, if error did or did not slither in.

Perhaps the CC Ecumenical councils that you embrace as error free, (e.g.the Trinity, theolokos and the 2 divinities of Jesus) - were wrong…were in fact fallible decisions. Is that a possibility, under your platform that no one can teach infallibly (without erring)? Like you said: none of them were infallible, incapable of error, so, logically, they could have erred! Yes?

It seem that we are in agreement that (under your platform) - each one of these respective Lutheran churches, (all churches for that matter, regardless of denomination, including both the CC and the EOC) - cannot insist that their church alone is the sole arbiter/interpreter/authority of the infallible bible? All churches, regardless of denomination, share in that arbitration, interpretation and authority of the infallible bible? Just want to verify before I move on.

Understood! There is no way for any one church leadership to know truth, if none of them are incapable of error. There is always the chance that they erred!

You knew what I meant…

To recap: no one church, regardless of denomination, can/should declare that their church is incapable of error or that their church leadership is the sole authority, the sole arbiter? I think we are getting somewhere!!!

There you go again with the whole rejecting thing…Under your platform, you do not possess the authority to reject anything, just as the CC does not have the authority to reject… correct???

I know the oppression is just killing me. LOL…LOL…We have already covered individual interpretation thing, so we are good…

I am gonna defer to the authority of JonNC to arbitrate on the matter. LOL…All kidding aside, let’s see what he has to say regarding your position, which is: that Jesus never intended for any church to teach (without error) - all that He taught (regarding faith or morals), and whether or not this position you are defending can or cannot make the unity Jesus prayed for IMPOSSIBLE? He is more inclined to agree with you anyway! I am just trying to be logical as opposed to partisan.

 

[JonNC]

I am gonna defer to the authority of JonNC to arbitrate on the matter. LOL…

When JonNC speaks, the matter is closed.
Must run some Christmas eve errands. Will be back later.

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

This is getting interesting…

Anyone care to comment on where the Lutheran Synods, Synod leaders/officials and the official domatic documents (Concord, etc.) derive their authority?

In Catholic theology, it’s pretty clear that we believe that authority derives through the succession of the Apostles to the bishops and the Magesterial hierarchy.

Lutheran theological belief is that authority resides in Scripture, at least as I was taught. So from where does the authority of the Synods and documents originate?

Again, “by inspiration or by authority of the HS” is inadequate, IMHO. As Lutheran Theology rejects succession of the apostles and the Primacy of Peter (which is accepted explicitly and/or implicitly as Scriptural by Roman Catholics ), and accepts Scripture as sole authority, then Scripture would have to “authorize” the authority of such Synods and Synod leaders/officials to make any statements, judgments or affirmations (including the acceptance of doctrinal/dogmatic documents such as Concord), would it not?

I guess my difficulty is understanding how, on one hand any extra-biblical authority (e.g. as is the Roman Catholic Church) can be rejected while at the same time authority of doctrinal/dogmatic writings and the Synods/officials who approved them as the “norm” are accepted.

Might I add that I do respect Lutherans’ adherance to some manner of doctrinal authority, even though it disagrees with Catholic theology) over some of the more fundamentalist ecumenical bodies that are pretty much “authority-less” outside of the pages of Scripture.

 

[Newbie2]

When JonNC speaks, the matter is closed.
Must run some Christmas eve errands. Will be back later.

Jon

The “gospel” according to Jon?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Now, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything. Especially if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err.

Agreed! All people are fallible (prone to err)… Only Jesus, speaking through the church He built!

As you said, PEOPLE are fallible and accountable, even those officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church - include all the bishops (and the one in Rome).

ANYTHING can alone claims for self alone that it was founded by Jesus - and make a very predictable chain of accountability-evading claims based on that. It doesn’t make it true, in fact, it has NOTHING to do with truth. It only has to do with the circumvention of the question, the evasion of accountablity for one exclusively - self. Self alone declares that self alone is speaking for Jesus and thus self alone is authoritative and infallible/unaccountable: a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Read the works of Brigham Young? Read LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie’s work, “On the Authority of The Church?” Friend, this doesn’t substantiate that self is correct, it’s not an alternative (much less better) mode of norming. It’s the rejection of accountability by self alone for self alone. It’s the replacement of humility, accountability and community with ego, shouts of infallibility and emphasis on self. And it eliminates any possibility for unity.

You agree that ALL people are potentially fallible and that ALL people are accountable, read what your denomination insists in CCC # 87.

The HS did not leave the church built by Jesus, and will never leave her as an orphan.

I agree, but of course, He never founded ANY denomination (including The Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the claims of each for each notwithstanding). Jesus NEVER promised He’d be “with” The Catholic Church. He never promised it anything, about anything. He never authorized it for anything about anything. Jesus never stated that ANY denomination was/would be infallible/unaccountable, incaptable of error, the sole authority, sole interpreter, the sole arbiter. All this emphasis on self alone, on individual institutional denominations, all this evasion of accountability is wholly, entirely absent from Jesus or Scripture.

And anyone who has read Scripture knows that while God infallibly leads, people do not infallibly follow - individually or collectively, as denominational entities or otherwise. Thus, all the divine, bold warnings from God: beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that lead many astray. And notice: God NEVER exempted The Catholic Church from this, only ONE so exempts The Catholic Church. Wanna guess what that is?

Friend, this is not an alternative approach to norming - it’s ONE exempting ONE from such: SELF… Friend, that has nothing to do with being right. It does terminate all discussions toward a unity of dogma…

…there is only ONE denomination where self alone declares that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error…

…if there are no churches incapable of error regarding faith and morals, (always the possibility of error) - and self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible (incapable of error regarding the teachings of Jesus) - then attaining the truth regarding any one doctrine, remains elusive?

No. It becomes something we can pursue. As long as the issue is EVADED, CIRCUMVENTED - it CANNOT be addressed at all. There is only one choice: accept WHATEVER the one who alone says it alone is correct say “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc., etc.) All the cults are founded on this, built on this.

You have simply substituted the claims of self alone for self alone with any concern for truth, correctness. One says, “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right - there’s no need to examine if I’m right cuz I’m right, just accept it with docility and put your hand down.” Friend, that has NOTHING to do with being correct. It has NOTHING to do with norming. It is the circumvention, the evasion of the whole issue. It is simply the imposition of self, the replacement of norming with shouts of power for self.

IMHO, the true teacher WELCOMES the light, invites accountability, encourages examination - by a rule other than self, by an arbitration other than by self. It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, who must evade and circumvent accountability, who must change the subject from truth to power, who must insist on ONE being infallible/unaccountable - self exclusively. Studied the cults?

This circumvention of norming for self alone, this exemption of self alone from examination and substantiation, makes the unity Jesus prayed for impossible.

Continued in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continued from the post above…

I assure you that the bible tells us that Jesus left us with a teaching church

Yes, but He never said or did ANYTHING about The Catholic Church. And a teacher is not infallible/unaccountable. If The Catholic Church exclusively is exempt from accountability or error, where did Jesus say that? Ah, it’s just the claim of one alone for self alone, declared true because self alone declares that self alone cannot err - ERGO it’s true. A perfect circle, a complete circumvention of accountability for one - self. Friend, this has NOTHING to do with that one being correct, it is solely, only an EVASION of the whole issue.

Then how can I know, without doubt that these teachings are free of error? If you accept a rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE yourselves and would welcome an arbitration outside of yourselves, then here’s one: many churches believe in once saved always saved; would you welcome an arbitration from said churches? And if they told you that you were diluting the truth of sacred scripture, (and I can cite many churches that do) - what authority do you possess to denounce their teaching, or vice versa?

No one said it’s easy! It’s just that ONE (The Catholic Church) evades the whole issue - insisting that there’s ONE (itself alone) that CANNOT err and thus there’s ONE alone that is correct - thus it is. Others are wrong if they disagree with self alone. Friend, that’s entirely MOOT to whether that one is correct: it just means it won’t permit examination, it doesn’t allow it to be accountable, the issue of truth becomes circumvented - the imposition of power and the requirement of docilic acceptance is substituted.

Yes, Lutherans would look to the church for arbitration. SADLY, any formal approach to that was destroyed some 1500 years ago or so, largely by the war of the Bishop of Rome for power, lordship, authority - creating a milaeu of power, individualism, institutionalism and the evasion of accountability. True ecumenical councils are simply impossible in the wake of what The Catholic Church has done; the last was some 1200 years ago. We have a lot of work to do to bring some sense of humility, accountability and community. It may well be hopeless in the case of The Catholic Church.

This is generally true - except for just one. The Catholic Church (the LDS was in the same boat until about a century ago). (As long as we aren’t discussing the cults, it’s always the case with them, they always exempt one - self - from accountability).

Let’s assume that they are wrong and therefore unnecessary.

Wait a minute! Each one of them is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error - because each is a denomination founded by Jesus and promised to be protected from error: all must accept whatever it alone says with docility! They each reject accountability for ONE (just one - wanna guess which one?) so you cannot examine them, you must accept that it and it alone is correct and accept whatever it says “with docility.” Do you reject this rubric? Do you reject that self designates self alone as infallible/unaccountable, that self designates self as incaptable of error and thus exempt from accountability, that self designates self as the sole authority, sole interpreter and sole arbiter? If you reject this rubric as simply circular, self-authenticating, and an evasion of truth rather than a substantiation of such - then we’re in agreement, and we need to look at The Catholic Church in view of CCC 85, 87, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Newbie2]

.

As you said, PEOPLE are fallible and accountable, even those officially registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church - include all the bishops (and the one in Rome).

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the teachings that are infallible are…well, infallible. Not all Church teachings are considered infallible.

Just wanted to interject that.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This is getting interesting…

Anyone care to comment on where the Lutheran Synods, Synod leaders/officials and the official domatic documents (Concord, etc.) derive their authority?

You should be aware that Protestants and The Catholic Church are simply not on the same page here. We all know that The Catholic Church is focused on one issue: power, authority, lording it over others. This just isn’t the primary issue for Protestants. And there is an extreme focus in Catholicism on individualism/institutionalism/denomination (The Catholic Church) that again isn’t our milaeu.

Protestants are apt to accept that the “authority” to teach is given to all Christians at The Great Commission (and many other Scriptures - going back to The Ten Commandments around 1400 BC when all were to “TEACH” them them to their children. But the command to teach is not the declaration that ONE is infallible/unaccountable. Indeed, although all are commanded to teach, there is also the frequent, bold, DIVINE warning about FALSE teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that lead many astray (note that NO person, institution, denomination is exempted from this - including The Catholic Church) - so the authorization to teach does not indicate that one may exempt one (self) from accountability or that one may insist that one (self) is incapable of error. This is where The Catholic Church switches the issue: form truth to power, from community to self, from humility to ego.

In Catholic theology, it’s pretty clear that we believe that authority derives through the succession of the Apostles to the bishops and the Magesterial hierarchy.

I agree, although two points should be remembered:

1. You FIRST need to document EXACTLY what “authority” those 13 or 14 mem had that was UNIQUE to them - something The Catholic Church never does, it just CLAIMS such - without any substantiation. Then you need to document that all of these things are “transfered” to their successors in all perpetuity. Again, The Catholic Church CLAIMS such, but without any substantiation. And finally, it then has made a requirement for itself - that it document every single ordination, from the 13 or 14 Apostles to every single Catholic Bishop today - from contemporary records of these ordinations. This it does not do for one very simple reason - no such records exist. There are no records from the first 300 years of Christianity of ordinations of bishops (much less of all clergy), they don’t exist! Thus, all the “lists” generated today are retroactively created, from centuries later, and have no historical basis at all. There IS no substanatiation for this chain of ordinations (at least before the 4th century - often well after that). It has made an insistence, basing this lordship on something it itself CANNOT provide.
2. Here’s what convinced ME that this whole arguement is entirely moot. The REALITY is this: virtually every ordained clergyperson also has this SAME “chain of ordinations” going back to the fourth century, also ordained by the ordined. The “succession” thing is JUST AS HISTORICAL for Anglican or Lutheran clergy - and for most Protestants. So, IF that was the defining issue - The Catholic Church would accept the unaccountable authority, power, lordship of those JUST AS VALID as itself. How does it get around this? Becuase only those IN ITSELF have this “authority” and “power/lordship” and infalliblity/unaccountablity. It has NOTHING to do with Apostolic Succession (or it would accept all others with the identical historic succession), it has EVERYTHING to do with one proclaiming one (self exclusively) to be infallible and thus unaccountable. It’s just a shallow ploy to TRY to “justify” why self is unaccountable but all others ARE accountable, why self has all this power but others are to be humble and are void of authority. But on examination, it immediately falls apart.

Lutheran theological belief is that authority resides in Scripture, at least as I was taught. So from where does the authority of the Synods and documents originate?

Scripture. Which is why regard them as norma normata, not norma normans. While some Lutherans accept them BECAUSE they are normed by Scripture, and others IN SO FAR as they are normed, they are still authoritative only because they are Scriptural. Not simply because self has appointed self as exempt from the entire issue of truth or correctness.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, if Josiah is right and each respective Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible, and all other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner, then isn’t it true that the PC, regardless of denomination, has zero authority to insist that the theory of once in grace, always in grace, rejected by the Lutheran confessions (and the CC) - but embraced by many many PC’s --IS WRONG?

They can insist all they want. The conclusion I have been edging toward for a while now is that, as a result of schism, no Church body has infallible authority to arbitrate. Just as you accept the authority of the Magisterium, I accept the Lutheran Confessions and the arbitration of the LCMS.

Jon