What are "The Essentials"?

[PRmerger]

I can see your analogy that’s there’s always just enough doubt to keep us from the truth - hopefully in God’s time, the east and west schism will be mended and in the process maybe us Lutherans would lose some of our excuses.

Well, you said it more eloquently than I did. And without my verbosity!

So, yeah, folks, what he ^ said.

It gives me joy that you think that there may be something holing me back from your truth. May God unite us in his time.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a hard one, because I really struggle with it: LC-MS teaching says that I can’t commune with heterodox churches - I disagree. In fact, I think God wants us to treat other Christians as fellows. But for the last year, I’ve behaved myself, much to my own astonishment.

I resist, and still resist, but I am trying to submit. I never talk about it though with other church members - and don’t really feel comfortable talking about it now and I don’t want to lead anybody astray against LC-MS teaching.

So you then are of the paradigm that the problem is with yourself, right? Not with the Lutheran Church’s teaching? You are of the belief that the Church of Christ (i.e. the Lutheran Church) has given the answer, and it is the correct answer, and you just need to “wrestle with the math” so that you can intellectually embrace the answer that comes from God: “we do not commune with heterodox churches.” Your communion has declared this and you believe she has the authority to discern these truths.

If this is your paradigm, then you do indeed submit to the authority of your church and your communion would thus be excluded from my grouping I limned here.

 

[Presbyterian20]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

The five Solas
Scripture alone
Faith alone
grace alone
Christ Alone
Glory to God alone

 

[Presbyterian20]

Trinity
Faith alone
Sola scriptura
Symbolic communion

But they don’t get it from reading the Bible, they get it from their church tradition.

Not all protestants believe in symbolic communion… Its good to know that Catholics make the same sweeping, and generally inaccurate claims that Protestants do about Catholics

 

[Presbyterian20]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

I think a lot of the protestant argument has to do, also, with what we would not believe in based on the Bible. For instance, Protestants believe there is no Biblical basis for prayers to Saints, Protestants believe the Bible forbids worshiping an image, so protestants believe images of Christ are dangerous. There are tons of them including concerns regarding works righteousness and Sacramental concerns. I am not claiming anything of my belief in this post, although it is probably clear, but I felt I should mention that scripture alone is as much about not taking that which is extra biblical as infallibly true.

 

[Sixpence]

So these are the “essentials” that you believe the Bible proclaims, Sixpence? That is, if someone does not believe these “essentials” he cannot be a Christian?

Not quite. First, I acknowledge that there are those who do not grant Scripture highest authority, and they can (and have) allowed something from a different source to supercede what is otherwise clearly stated in Scripture. Muslims and Mormons are the examples I’ve already given.

What I am saying is that anyone who practices Sola Scriptura, has a decent translation and a basic command of their own language, and perhaps most importantly Does Not Feign Ignorance…

Will conclude that the Bible plainly teaches a fair number of things, of which I have so far listed four, and moreover- this is important- the words found in the pages of their Bibles will surely lead them to conclude that these things are essential to the Christian faith.

Are there any others? What about the forgiveness of sins? Or that we must love one another?

Yeah, there’s others. But to be quite honest, I want to stick with the ones that you’ll find most difficult to feign ignorance toward.

Is there a conclusive list that you could proffer as an Evangelical, plus the Bible verses that back these up as “essentials”?

To my knowledge, a conclusive, exhaustive list has not been codified in the form of a creed or otherwise formally agreed upon by a governing body of Evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is universal agreement (not with Mormons and Muslims, of course, but with SS people) on certain teachings which are certainly expressed in Scripture As Essentials. As Essentials. And you would have to feign ignorance in order to avoid admitting that A) the Bible does indeed do this and B) this is universally recognized by SS people.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The five Solas
Scripture alone
Faith alone
grace alone
Christ Alone
Glory to God alone

Leave’s you ALONE with no-church.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;9477669]Oh! I didn’t know you were a cancer survivor, Jon! God’s blessings to you as you continue your journey of health!

Thank you. I don’t usually talk about it here, or in public in general.

So about the obedience you show to the Lutheran Church: (if I understand correctly–you personally believe in praying to the saints, but you do not because the LC has proclaimed that this is not part of God’s revealed truth, yes?)…

I personally believe the following:
-that praying to the saints has had a historic place in the pious practice of Christians for centuries, and therefore should not be condemned.
-that there is nothing in scripture to prohibit it, though it is true there is nothing in scripture that commands it, either.
-that there is evidence in scripture that the saints in Heaven have some knowledge of the events on Earth .
-that the saints in Heaven do pray for us on Earth
-that my personal experience leads me to believe that God hears ours prayers, and theirs on our behalf
So, what I believe is that there is no wrongdoing in prayers of invocation, that God hears their prayers on our behalf, and that invocation should be left up to the individual Christian to do or not, and that the practice ought not be Church-dividing.
I personally, am comfortable in my current prayer practice of asking God to hear their prayers.

You believe that God has established the Lutheran Church, and given her the authority to declare “Thus says the Lord!”
Yes?

I believe that scripture says, “Thus says the Lord!”, and there is nothing there that says this i the command, example and promise regarding invocation. If I desire to remain Lutheran, I am bound to confess Lutheran teaching on matters of faith.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you. I don’t usually talk about it here, or in public in general.

I personally believe the following:
-that praying to the saints has had a historic place in the pious practice of Christians for centuries, and therefore should not be condemned.
-that there is nothing in scripture to prohibit it, though it is true there is nothing in scripture that commands it, either.
-that there is evidence in scripture that the saints in Heaven have some knowledge of the events on Earth .
-that the saints in Heaven do pray for us on Earth
-that my personal experience leads me to believe that God hears ours prayers, and theirs on our behalf
So, what I believe is that there is no wrongdoing in prayers of invocation, that God hears their prayers on our behalf, and that invocation should be left up to the individual Christian to do or not, and that the practice ought not be Church-dividing.
I personally, am comfortable in my current prayer practice of asking God to hear their prayers.

I believe that scripture says, “Thus says the Lord!”, and there is nothing there that says this i the command, example and promise regarding invocation. If I desire to remain Lutheran, I am bound to confess Lutheran teaching on matters of faith.

Jon

I agree, this is a learning process which I believe some individuals connect with much faster than others. I think whats wrong is to discourage the practice in light of the evidence in 2000 years.

We must remain open to the very real possibility when so many have confirmed this truth.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, Edwin. We already talked about this 2 summers ago.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459791&page=54

I thought that was already resolved.

Why on earth would you think this? You guys wore me out and I finally remembered (as I occasionally do) that I had a life apart from the Internet, but I found your arguments threadbare now and still do. There was some misunderstanding, though, inasmuch as Josie L seemed to think I was claiming that Exsurge Domine was infallible, which of course I wasn’t. But the endless game of “only official teaching counts” is nothing but a dodge. The claim that ED was “practice” rather than “teaching” is absurd. The only solid argument made on your side in that discussion (made, I think, by you and borrowed from Akin) is that Leo might be simply condemning Luther’s blanket statement as to what the Holy Spirit willed. But even that is rather strained if you look at the historical context.

The problem with that other argument is that it turned on the technical meaning of “teaching.” That was because of how it started–I was responding to an overheated claim by Charlemagne II. But since then I have tried to avoid stating an argument in any form that would lead to that quagmire again.

Hence my focus on how people would have understood (and demonstrably did understand) the Church’s teaching. If you want to say “the Church wasn’t really teaching this,” then fine. But people in the early sixteenth century universally (as far as I can see) believed that the Church taught that heretics should be burned, and that it was at best questionably orthodox to deny this.

Hence, your claim about the perspicuity of Church teaching is patently false. People in the early sixteenth century had every reason to think that the Church taught that heretics should be burned. They turned out to be wrong. There is no guarantee that 21st-century “orthodox” Catholics may not turn out to be just as wrong on certain points.

Would you mind defining petitio principii for me?

“Begging the question.” Assuming the principle you are supposedly proving.
I tend to use the Latin because unfortunately the English phrase has come to be used synonymously with “raising the question.”

Certainly there are those who are still maintaining that the Church did not speak authoritatively when she defined the inability to ordain women. But there were those in Jesus’ time as well who did not think he spoke authoritatively on .

And the point of that is? You are assuming that you know the hearts of people who support women’s ordination. That’s presumptuous and insulting.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

I agree, this is a learning process which I believe some individuals connect with much faster than others.** I think whats wrong is to discourage the practice in light of the evidence in 2000 years.

We must remain open to the very real possibility when so many have confirmed this truth**.

In large part, Gary, I agree. I see no need, scripturally or otherwise, to discourage the practice, so long as it doesn’t take away from the sole mediatorship of Christ.
OTOH, I do agree with the Lutheran confessions that to require it, to bind the conscience of the believer to it, without a clear command, example, or promise, should not be the case.
ISTM the practice should be one of personal piety.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;9477746]
Similarly, the schism between East and West appears to be the non-Catholic’s “ace in the hole”.

No honest Catholic can state that non-Catholics do not have a valid reason for rejecting Catholicism, based on this great divide that exists between these two Churches.

Or, to put it without the double negatives: the great schism appears to be a valid reason for people to reject Catholicism. It is a stumbling block to almost all thinking non-Catholics.

So you are right, ben. I really have no answer for you on this.

However, while I am not a conspiracy theorist, and do not see the devil lurking in every corner, this thought has occurred to me: if I were going to do everything I could to prevent the wavering atheist*–one who is possibly considering swimming into the River of Deism–what I would whisper is this: * but how could there be a God when there is .
*
That would be enough, don’t you think, to stop the wavering atheist right in his tracks?

*And what would be more of a loss for the devil than to have an atheist swim into the River?

Similarly, if I were the devil and were going to do everything I could to prevent the wavering Lutheran*–one who is possibly considering swimming the Tiber River–what I would whisper is this: but how could the Catholic Church be the One True Church when there is a sharp divide between the East and the West?

*And what would be more of a loss for the devil than to have a Lutheran swim the Tiber?

The problem with the analogy is that the Devil does not have the Lutheran, whether or not he swims the Tiber or the Bosphorus. Our Baptism in the Elbe, so to speak, is equally taunting to the Devil.

What is delightful to the Devil is the general division between us, not that of individual Christians, because it weakens the whole ministry of His Church Militant.

then perhaps you can see how the problem of the schism–while indeed a problem–ought not prevent a non-Catholic from being a Catholic.

True, though it may be a problem, and for an individual Lutheran, not something easily dismissed.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Why on earth would you think this?

Because you said this: (as the thread is closed I cannot quote it, but see your post #667)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6884172#post6884172

Essentially, just like atheists use the hard sayings of the OT to excuse themselves from converting to Christianity (or, more correctly, monotheism), you may use the hard sayings of Ex Surge to excuse yourself from converting to Catholicism.

It’s a hard saying, but one I cannot dismiss simply because I don’t like it. That would be creating a god in my own image, rather than conforming myself to God’s image.

I hope that you, too, Edwin, have not dismissed some hard saying of God because it doesn’t fit with your own concepts.

“Hath God really said…” is the sibilant whisper of the serpent.

If you don’t have any of those difficulties with your church in which you say, “I don’t like it that God has said, , but He said it, so I believe it”, then you have, I respectfully say, created a religion in your own image.

 

[PRmerger]

Will conclude that the Bible plainly teaches a fair number of things, of which I have so far listed four, and moreover- this is important- the words found in the pages of their Bibles will surely lead them to conclude that these things are essential to the Christian faith.

Then if you could proffer the verse in Scripture (that is, what words found therein proclaim) that say that belief in the virgin birth is an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.

And the verse in Scripture (that is, what words found therein proclaim) that says that belief in the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine to the Christian faith.

(Of course, as a Catholic I believe these are, indeed, essentials, but that is from an extra-biblical source: the Church.)

If you are a SS advocate, then you’ll have to provide verses which declare those doctrines to be essential, Sixpence.

 

[PRmerger]

To my knowledge, a conclusive, exhaustive list has not been codified in the form of a creed or otherwise formally agreed upon by a governing body of Evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is universal agreement (not with Mormons and Muslims, of course, but with SS people) on certain teachings which are certainly expressed in Scripture As Essentials. As Essentials. And you would have to feign ignorance in order to avoid admitting that A) the Bible does indeed do this and B) this is universally recognized by SS people.

Ok. Then could you please list these essentials that you have “universal agreement” upon upon by Evangelicals. Not just the 4–for you have acknowledged that there are more. And the Bible verses that support your claim that they are Essentials.

 

[PRmerger]

Leave’s you ALONE with no-church.

'zactly.

And no reason to send anyone to seminary, either. If all one needs is his bible, then why the need for seminary? Or bible studies?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. I don’t usually talk about it here, or in public in general.

I believe that scripture says, “Thus says the Lord!”, and there is nothing there that says this i the command, example and promise regarding invocation. If I desire to remain Lutheran, I am bound to confess Lutheran teaching on matters of faith.

Jon

So then if you are proclaiming that you believe in the authority of your communion, and that you have a disagreement with your communion in this particular area, you have the paradigm that the problem is with yourself, and your theological understanding of the communion of saints, and not with the Lutheran teaching–is that a fair assessment?

 

[PRmerger]

“Begging the question.” Assuming the principle you are supposedly proving.
I tend to use the Latin because unfortunately the English phrase has come to be used synonymously with “raising the question.”

Yes, I always notice when people erroneously use the philosophical term “begging the question” to mean “raising the question.”

And the point of that is? You are assuming that you know the hearts of people who support women’s ordination. That’s presumptuous and insulting.

Edwin

Oh, Edwin. [sigh!]

You’re always finding something presumptuous and insulting on these threads .uch:

 

[PRmerger]

Hence, your claim about the perspicuity of Church teaching is patently false. People in the early sixteenth century had every reason to think that the Church taught that heretics should be burned. They turned out to be wrong. There is no guarantee that 21st-century “orthodox” Catholics may not turn out to be just as wrong on certain points.

I don’t think you have made your point, Edwin, that Catholic teaching is not perspicuous. While it’s true that a 16th century Catholic may have believed that the Church taught that heretics ought to be burned, if they followed what the hierarchy taught, they wouldn’t have gone wrong.

And while it’s doubtful that any 16th century Catholic even heard of Ex Surge, let alone read it, he would have heard the teaching–the perspicuous teaching of the Church–from the pulpits, and it would have been proclaimed in a way that couldn’t have been misinterpreted.

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t think you have made your point, Edwin, that Catholic teaching is not perspicuous. While it’s true that a 16th century Catholic may have believed that the Church taught that heretics ought to be burned, if they followed what the hierarchy taught, they wouldn’t have gone wrong.

And while it’s doubtful that any 16th century Catholic even heard of Ex Surge, let alone read it, he would have heard the teaching–the perspicuous teaching of the Church–from the pulpits, and it would have been proclaimed in a way that couldn’t have been misinterpreted.

Of all the Encyclicals, Exsurge Domine is the hardest for the church to reduce away in order to maintain Papal Infallibility - the document itself describes how authoritative it is in addition to how comprehensive and deliberative it’s creation was. That the document was created so recently doesn’t even afford us the ability to say that ‘times were different back then.’

For me, it’s while John Paul II and Benedict XVI weigh heavily in favor for the evidence of Papal Infallibility, Exsurge Domine tips the scales and brings the whole apparatus to the floor.

Personally, I wish the document didn’t exist - it marked the end of undivided Catholicism in the west, and for us non-Catholics is casts significant doubt on if there even could be something as a perfect church.