Who's on First?

[PRmerger]

Try again. How did the Jews check to see if what was being verbally reported did not contradict OT teachings? By searching the scriptures. For example, if one studies Isaiah, Genesis, etc… we can see that the gospel teachings line up with the OT. Remember sola scriptura does not deny or discount tradition or oral teaching

For example, if someone was trying to say that the Messiah was not of the Davidic line the OT scriptures would correct them, and they would know that person was wrong.

Right. I don’t begrudge the Jews their methods for determining what was Scripture. But I wouldn’t use them as an example for how we Christians do/did. They were clearly wrong about a lot of things.

But you still haven’t answered the question: how would we know if Paul was preaching a different gospel? We can’t go by what’s in the NT, because, er, he is in the NT.

So what criteria do we use for discerning his compatibility with the gospel?

 

[inocente]

One anomaly that comes to mind between the Catholic vs Protestant situation comes
down to one question for me: Who Is In Control Here?

That would be God.

Then came Martin Luther (du–du–du–duuuh!), suddenly the correct Bible
came, people broke free from the donkey herd of bishops and Popes,
England’s Churches became subject at last to its King of England,
people sailed off to the New World, bunch of new more correct
Christianities sprouted up and came also the wacky cults*…***

In the Simpsons, the Reverend Lovejoy maintains that the one true religion is the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism.

This is confusing, how is that the Church which Christ
established and said that the Gates of Hell would not
prevail against it?

In my bible it’s “church”, not “Church”. So while Church is short for the Roman Catholic Church, church just means church.

It seems that as soon as Man tried to fix the Church, move away from the Church, found
Newer–er Churches, write bibles by himself, try to interpret Scripture by himself, without
that raggedy Old Church telling him how, things REALLY got freaky.

That’s God for you. I guess God’s plan is not our plan. But worry ye not, God looks after this stuff so we don’t have to.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually there was a New Testament. The letters of the New Testament were written and circulating from the early second century.

And the books of the NT were heavily quoted by the fathers from the early second century.

Did you know that the letters of Clement, which talk about a mythical creature called a phoenix, were in circulation and often considered part of the NT?

So it’s incorrect to say that there was a NT. There were books that were considered theopneustos.…but they were incorrectly identified as such.

We needed the Church, the Catholic Church, to tell us what was* theopneustos* truly.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JT,
Some thoughts if I might.

=Judas Thaddeus;11475126]

• One anomaly that comes to mind between the Catholic vs Protestant situation comes
  down to one question for me: Who Is In Control Here? According to Protestantism, as
  far as I am aware, the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, but curiously, the Protestant
  Movement didn’t start until the 15th Century, right?

#As soon as someone says “According to Protestantism” to begin their point, misunderstanding, misconception, and misapplication will inevitably follow.
#When you say “the Catholic Church is wrong”, I ask, wrong about what? It isn’t a matter of either right or wrong. I would be willing to estimate that on 85% to 90% of teachings, we are either in agreement or at least not opposed to each other. So, if I say, “the Catholic Church is wrong”, I am also saying most of my teaching is wrong.

• Now the Apostles all lived up until around the end of the 1st Century, Protestants are okay with the first few centuries after, then somehow the Protestant position is that the Church somehow went wrong. Again: The Protestant Movement started around 15th Century. So that would mean that for ten to fifteen thousand years, Christ’s Church was in some way lost to the Earth.

Some Protest communions aren’t ok with any of the councils. Some, like Lutherans are fine with most of them. For example, Lutherans have always opposed iconoclasm. If you look at the Reformed churches in Europe, however, you can see the difference.​

There has never been a “Protestant Movement”. They are Protestant movements.​

#The issues Lutherans have with the Catholic Church, by and large, are “developments” that occurred in the second millennium. The corruption and abuses Luther initially reacted to were 15th - 16th century problems.
#So, that means that gradually, over the course of a few hundred years, errors developed within the Church, errors significant enough that even the Eastern Orthodox rejected them.
But even at that, Lutherans have often sided with Rome in some developments, such as the Filioque.

• It wasn’t in the Roman Catholic Church, it was not in any of the Orthodox Churches
  (Ethiopian, Coptic, Eastern, etc.), it wasn’t among any of the heretical sects, God’s
  Church seems to have disappeared from the Earth.
  
  Now we get to the 1500s (16th Century)…
  ​

​

If you can point out a time when word and sacrament were not available to Christians, in the east and in the west, then I would agree that the Church disappeared. If word and sacrament were there, then the Church was/is there.
​

• Then came Martin Luther (du–du–du–duuuh!), suddenly the correct Bible
  came, people broke free from the donkey herd of bishops and Popes,
  England’s Churches became subject at last to its King of England,
  people sailed off to the New World, bunch of new more correct
  Christianities sprouted up and came also the wacky cults**…**

Ignoring the condescending phrasing of this part, the history as you present is mere caricature.
.

• This is confusing, how is that the Church which Christ
  established and said that the Gates of Hell would not
  prevail against it?

Its still there, and the Holy Spirit continues to guide His Church, and the various communions that make up the sad division of His Church.
.

• The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be guiding Christ’s True Church and I’m sure many Protestants would say the same thing, but HOW is the
  Holy Spirit guiding? History shows the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church e―
  ven in hard and dark times, but things only seemed to get darker in Protestantism.

Even though there are things I disagree with regarding the Catholic Church, I, too, see the Holy Spirit guiding her. I also know the Spirit guides Lutherans, and many others. Pray that He guide us to unity.

It seems that as soon as Man tried to fix the Church, move away from the Church, found Newer–er Churches, write bibles by himself, try to interpret Scripture by himself, without that raggedy Old Church telling him how, things REALLY got freaky.

Which is the raggedy old Church? That wonderful Anglican hymn, The church’s One Foundation:
4. Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

1. Mid toil and tribulation
   And tumult of her war
   She waits the consummation
   Of peace forevermore,
   Til with the vision glorious
   Her longing eyes are blest
   And the great Church victorious
   Shall be the Church at rest.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sola Scriptura couldn’t have been around “since the beginning” as there was no New Testament for 400 years.

The Christians in the year, say 250, never consulted a Bible in order to discern doctrine. They consulted Tradition and the Church.

The idea that the writings that are what we now call scripture were not available and consulted doesn’t make sense.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The idea that the writings that are what we now call scripture were not available and consulted doesn’t make sense.

Jon

I’m not saying that they weren’t available, Jon. I am saying that the early Christians had no source for knowing that they were inspired–except through Tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[JonNC]

Did you know that the letters of Clement, which talk about a mythical creature called a phoenix, were in circulation and often considered part of the NT?

So it’s incorrect to say that there was a NT. There were books that were considered theopneustos.…but they were incorrectly identified as such.

We needed the Church, the Catholic Church, to tell us what was* theopneustos* truly.

I don’t think a Lutheran would deny that the undivided Church was instrumental in identifying what we now call scripture. That isn’t the point. You said that the Church never consulted the Bible for the first 400 years. If we’re looking at your comment semantically, ok, they didn’t have a bound book titled, “The Bible”. But they did have the writings, and surely they consulted them. And they also already had a notion of attested, disputed, rejected, regarding books, as Eusebius lived between 260 and 340 AD.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

I’m not saying that they weren’t available, Jon. I am saying that the early Christians had no source for knowing that they were inspired–except through Tradition and the Magisterium.

We don’t deny tradition as long as it does not conflict with scripture, and the magisterium followed criteria to determine what belonged in a formal cannon. It was, in the main, an organic process with many of the manuscripts already accepted by the churches. One can look into them just as the magisterium did.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not saying that they weren’t available, Jon. I am saying that the early Christians had no source for knowing that they were inspired–except through Tradition and the Magisterium.

I don’t think a Lutheran would deny the role of the early, undivided Church in these matters.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

We don’t deny tradition as long as it does not conflict with scripture,

But Kliska, Tradition came first. You can only know what Scripture is because it is that which conformed to the Sacred Tradition.

 

[JonNC]

In my bible it’s “church”, not “Church”. So while Church is short for the Roman Catholic Church, church just means church.

No. Church means the congregation of saints (believers) where the word is preached and the sacraments are administered. While the Catholic church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome is part of Christ’s Church, the title Church does not apply only to them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But Kliska, Tradition came first. You can only know what Scripture is because it is that which conformed to the Sacred Tradition.

The Tradition of the early, undivided Church.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think a Lutheran would deny the role of the early, undivided Church in these matters.

Jon

That’s what makes you NOT Sola Scriptura advocates, despite your protestations to the contrary.

You defer to the Church, not to Scripture, as it applies to this matter.

 

[Kliska]

That’s what makes you NOT Sola Scriptura advocates, despite your protestations to the contrary.

You defer to the Church, not to Scripture, as it applies to this matter.

No, but it is an honest mistake that I believe Jon and I have tried to correct elsewhere, and that mistake is on what sola scriptura actually means.

 

[PRmerger]

The Tradition of the early, undivided Church.

Jon

Egg-zactly. So not through an appeal to the authority of Scripture, but an appeal to the authority of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

That’s what makes you NOT Sola Scriptura advocates, despite your protestations to the contrary.

You defer to the Church, not to Scripture, as it applies to this matter.

Actually, we’re some of the very few true sola scripturists, recognizing the teaching role of the Church, as provided for in scripture.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No, but it is an honest mistake that I believe Jon and I have tried to correct elsewhere, and that mistake is on what sola scriptura actually means.

Well, that’s a problem in the Protestant world, isn’t it? You have denied the authority of anyone/anything save for the Bible, so you cannot have anyone speak for what “SS actually means”.

All we have is your opinions about what “SS actually means”.

I could quote you a multitude of other posters here who are SS advocates who subscribe to a very different definition of SS.

And there is no one in your world to say, “We define SS to mean this [A]” and all must submit to this definition.

Such is the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. :sad_yes:

 

[Kliska]

Well, that’s a problem in the Protestant world, isn’t it? You have denied the authority of anyone/anything save for the Bible, so you cannot have anyone speak for what “SS actually means”.

All we have is your opinions about what “SS actually means”.

I could quote you a multitude of other posters here who are SS advocates who subscribe to a very different definition of SS.

And there is no one in your world to say, “We define SS to mean this [A]” and all must submit to this definition.

Such is the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. :sad_yes:

It’s so odd to me that everything seems to be blamed on the protestant reformation, when in reality there is disagreement in the midst of the church going back to the beginning. There’s disagreement over tradition, over definitions, etc… In logic, one of the very first steps is to define terms according to each person having a discussion. You would think that, from your perspective, that all protestants deny absolute truth in postmodern terms.

It seems there is no way to clarify without being attacked for something that I don’t hold to. I hold to sola scriptura, but not as defined by you. That’s important if this is really a discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s so odd to me that everything seems to be blamed on the protestant reformation, when in reality there is disagreement in the midst of the church going back to the beginning.

But the difference is, Kliska, that once the Church spoke, defined and declared, we understood that to mean: it has been decided and we have the assurance that what has been decided is without error.

In the Protestant world, when there is disagreement, one simply finds another church, or, worse, starts his own church. And when someone does this, he ought to be congratulated, if one is being consistent with the “I don’t need any authority save for the Bible” paradigm, for he has done exactly what the advocates advocate: read the Bible and decide what it means without any infallible interpreter to tell you what it means.

 

[JonNC]

Well, that’s a problem in the Protestant world, isn’t it? You have denied the authority of anyone/anything save for the Bible, so you cannot have anyone speak for what “SS actually means”.

All we have is your opinions about what “SS actually means”.

I could quote you a multitude of other posters here who are SS advocates who subscribe to a very different definition of SS.

And there is no one in your world to say, “We define SS to mean this [A]” and all must submit to this definition.

Such is the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. :sad_yes:

Speaking for me, it isn’t my opinion what SS means that matters. Our confessional documents provide a rather clear understanding of the practice:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon