Why Be Protestant?

[rinnie]

Let me say because of that Promise from God is why I am Roman Catholic and will be until the day I Die.

Those simple words the Holy Spirit will lead the Church until the end of time. I believe the word of God. I accept these words.

God never said a Pope would lead the CC until the end of time. If he did the Pope would never die. The Pope is who God has chosen to Speak through and to lead his Church here on earth. God chooses many leaders they are all unique in their own way.

The Holy Spirit is the leader of our faith. Has been from the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Apostles the same today as the first day. We still have the leaders as we did in the beginning. We still have our leader and our Bishops. And will until Jesus comes to change it.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]So the RC Church has always held the beliefs, for example, that[/SIGN]:

Mary was sinless and conceived immaculately?
Mary is the “Queen of Heaven” and the “Mother of the Church?”
Purgatory exists?
Transubstantiation “happens?”

These are not “practices.” - What you do during Mass based on these (and other RC beliefes) is driven by your doctrinal beliefs.

Further, where did the changes in practice (or “discpline”) come from? They are driven by doctrinal belief changes. It is worth noting, as an aside, that being consistent is only a virtue when you’re right

How convenient. The RC Church is “infallible” only her leaders are “fallible”…puh-lease. Besides…the quote about the RC Church being corrupt was written by an RC author on the Coming Home Network…must have been Mrs. Robinson’s typical (former) protestant errors.

You are correct has always held the beliefs and always will. The Pope has the keys to the Kingdom and is told to guard the Church. And personally I think he is doing a pretty good job.

I have never seen any Pope ever not stick up for the word of God. If it is given to us from the Holy Spirit it is guarded until the end of age. That’s his job!!

 

[rinnie]

Does that include Protestants in “defective” churches?

Do you accept all of the Sacraments? Do you have all of the Sacraments in your church? If you do not WHY?

The Sacraments were instituted by Christ to give Grace.

 

[crazzeto]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

You are correct has always held the beliefs and always will. The Pope has the keys to the Kingdom and is told to guard the Church. And personally I think he is doing a pretty good job.

I have never seen any Pope ever not stick up for the word of God. If it is given to us from the Holy Spirit it is guarded until the end of age. That’s his job!!

There have been bad Popes to besure, but all of man kind and Holy Mother Church were protected by the promise of Christ via the Holy Spirit and these bad Popes were prevented from doing permenent and irrevicable damage by teaching error.

 

[Lovesa]

Hi!
Just throwing in a quick couple points from a Lutheran POV here.
First of all, while I do find a lot to admire about Catholicism, I also have a few qualms. These are:

1. the authority of the pope
I’ve read the passages that are supposed to support it, yes, and I’ve tried to accept the idea that a historical lineage is some kind of proof, but it doesn’t seem to mesh with the idea that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. It also seems to contradict scripture. For instance, somebody earlier mentioned the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. I’d like to humbly quote some of it below, and request a rebuttal of the points.

22] But they cite against us certain passages, namely, Matt. 16:18f : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; also: I will give unto thee the keys; also John 21:15: Feed My sheep, and some others. But since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated elsewhere in the books of our theologians, and everything cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we shall reply briefly concerning the interpretation [of the passages quoted].

23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

2. The idea that mortal sins not confessed in confession are unforgiven. I can accept confession as a sacrament, but its necessity for forgiveness doesn’t seem to follow in the commonly quoted scriptural passages.

**3. The Veneration of Mary makes me a little uncomfortable sometimes, too. ** I’m fine with praying to Mary; I’m OK with the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Coronation, etc. I can see the scriptural support for all of that. It’s just a few titles, and the extent of some of it. For example, the Mediatrix title, and the occasional use by some of the term “co-redemptrix”.

There are others that don’t immediately come to mind, but those are the major ones.

Also, I think part of the confusion betwen Catholics and Protestants on the issue of the pope and apostolic succession, at least between Lutherans of my variety (because Protestants are just too diverse to lump together), is the use of the word Church. When Lutherans (again, of my variety) read the bible, the word church isn’t read as meaning a literal, physical church, with literal, physical leaders. Occasionally, sure, it’s a physical church, but even then it seems to mean more “wherever two or three gather together in my name”. The invisible church is made up of all believers in Christ, which means that, while there may be a physical/organizational seperation, the seperation is not particularly important in regards to the invisible church, which is “One” in the sense that many Lutherans take Christ to mean when he refers to the church. So, though there are a lot of denominations, there is only one “church”–the people united in Christ, if not always in doctrine.

Also, to more directly address the title of the thread, we do have awesome music. My experience has also been, in recent years, that the Lutheran church I go to has more of a traditional liturgy than the Catholic one I visit on occasion. This strikes me as weird, but it’s quite true.

 

[guanophore]

Hi!

Welcome to CAF!



Just throwing in a quick couple points from a Lutheran POV here.
First of all, while I do find a lot to admire about Catholicism, I also have a few qualms. These are:

1. the authority of the pope
I’ve read the passages that are supposed to support it, yes, and I’ve tried to accept the idea that a historical lineage is some kind of proof, but it doesn’t seem to mesh with the idea that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. It also seems to contradict scripture. For instance, somebody earlier mentioned the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. I’d like to humbly quote some of it below, and request a rebuttal of the points.

I don’t think historical lineage proves anything about the authority of the successor of Peter. I suppose you could say that if valid authority exists, then who it belongs to can be discerned through the Apostolic Succession, But if the issue is authority itself, not so much. I mean, you can have an unlimited number of successors, without authority. Since all authority comes from God, then it has to be traced back to him. Then there is the issue of whether authority was actually passed to the successors. I have heard many say it died out with the Apostles.

23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

It is true that the successor of Peter always acts not for himself alone, but for all of the Apostolic college, and on behalf of the whole flock.

Yes, Jesus asked the question of all, but only one had the answer revealed to him by the Father.

The error in this section is with regard to the meaning of retain and remit. It does not have to do with preaching the gospel, but with hearing confessions.

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc.

The problem with this is that the Church is not a democracy. It is true that everyone can benefit from the power of the keys so long as they are in communion with those Christ appointed to govern. It is also true that the Keys are given on behalf of the whole Church. Jesus did not give Peter the keys for his own benefit.Keys represent authority, however, and authority is not automatically present just because several believers gather together.

Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church,

This seems a bit disingenuous, since clearly the Scriptures say that He grants the Keys principally and immediately to Peter. However, I do concede this is done on behalf of the whole Church.

just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church.

I think this misses the mark, though I do agree that keys do include the power to ordain ministers of the Church. But if all of us alike are the same why would they be needed?

It is incorrect that the Keys are “nothing else than the office…”. The keys are much more than this. I recognize, however, that the Reformers had to change the meaning of the Keys in order to justify departing from the authority appointed by Christ.

And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

I think it is important to note who he is addressing here, which is the Apostolic College. Yes, they represent the Church, but not everyone has the power to bind and loose on behalf of the Church. Yes, He does give final and supreme jurisdiction to the Church, in the persons of the Apostles that He ordained to shepherd the flock. Yes, disputes are to be resolved by the authority He appointed. The Church is visible, or the disputants could not find it.
[/quote]

 

[guanophore]

2. The idea that mortal sins not confessed in confession are unforgiven. I can accept confession as a sacrament, but its necessity for forgiveness doesn’t seem to follow in the commonly quoted scriptural passages.

Well, we read them differetly, don’t we?

There are others that don’t immediately come to mind, but those are the major ones.

Also, I think part of the confusion betwen Catholics and Protestants on the issue of the pope and apostolic succession, at least between Lutherans of my variety (because Protestants are just too diverse to lump together), is the use of the word Church.

I agree. Anyone using Sola Scriptura as a premise will suffer a deficient understanding of the Church.

When Lutherans (again, of my variety) read the bible, the word church isn’t read as meaning a literal, physical church, with literal, physical leaders. Occasionally, sure, it’s a physical church, but even then it seems to mean more “wherever two or three gather together in my name”. The invisible church is made up of all believers in Christ, which means that, while there may be a physical/organizational seperation, the seperation is not particularly important in regards to the invisible church, which is “One” in the sense that many Lutherans take Christ to mean when he refers to the church. So, though there are a lot of denominations, there is only one “church”–the people united in Christ, if not always in doctrine.

Yes, this is the Catholic position as well.

Also, to more directly address the title of the thread, we do have awesome music. My experience has also been, in recent years, that the Lutheran church I go to has more of a traditional liturgy than the Catholic one I visit on occasion. This strikes me as weird, but it’s quite true.

It is weird, quite true, and also tragic.

 

[Lovesa]

The error in this section is with regard to the meaning of retain and remit. It does not have to do with preaching the gospel, but with hearing confessions.

That makes sense; however, this seems to mean that I don’t know what retain and remit are. The ability to “bind and loose” and…the ability to appoint ministers etc.? That’s all anybody has the authority to do in the Lutheran church. When it comes to other important matters, a council is called of elected officials. (I don’t know if we’re supposed to use the word “elected”, but that’s how it’s always seemed to me.

The problem with this is that the Church is not a democracy. It is true that everyone can benefit from the power of the keys so long as they are in communion with those Christ appointed to govern. It is also true that the Keys are given on behalf of the whole Church. Jesus did not give Peter the keys for his own benefit.Keys represent authority, however, and authority is not automatically present just because several believers gather together.

This does also make sense. However, Lutherans hardly believe that authority is present just because several believers gather together; that’s one point that’s changed since the treatise was written. It’s usually decided by the synod, which is, while officially not of higher authority than the rest, representative of the rest, so that one body is still deciding matters.

So, yeah, I guess to Lutherans the church is basically a democracy. I don’t recall that being condemned in the Bible.

This seems a bit disingenuous, since clearly the Scriptures say that He grants the Keys principally and immediately to Peter. However, I do concede this is done on behalf of the whole Church.

I think this misses the mark, though I do agree that keys do include the power to ordain ministers of the Church. But if all of us alike are the same why would they be needed?

We’re hardly all alike, I don’t think. If that were the case, three people in a room with a Bible could appoint a minister–just like that. The idea, in the modern interpretation I most often see, is that the congregation, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, appoints church officials. These officials then act on their behalf. There are exceptions, of course–For instance, during the settling of America if a group of people were all alone in an area, there was no local synod to contact. Therefore, they might select a pastor from their own, train him, and welcome him back later.

It is incorrect that the Keys are “nothing else than the office…”. The keys are much more than this. I recognize, however, that the Reformers had to change the meaning of the Keys in order to justify departing from the authority appointed by Christ.

So what are the keys? The passage doesn’t specify, from what I see, and other authorities don’t come to mind.

I think it is important to note who he is addressing here, which is the Apostolic College. Yes, they represent the Church, but not everyone has the power to bind and loose on behalf of the Church. Yes, He does give final and supreme jurisdiction to the Church, in the persons of the Apostles that He ordained to shepherd the flock. Yes, disputes are to be resolved by the authority He appointed. The Church is visible, or the disputants could not find it.

Certainly, the church is visible. That is the Lutheran stance as well. However, a group of believers with an elected council or a leader of some kind (the argument will follow that these people are led to the church by the Holy Spirit) is enough to constitute “the church” in this view. This leads to the issue of “which visible church”? which can only lead to an honest answer when one says “Not really sure? The one I’m in, I think. This one seems to follow scripture most closely, so I’m saying this one. I could be totally wrong, but if I am, Jesus will forgive me 'cause I still believe, right?”

Frustrating, I know, but that’s really the only guideline.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So what are the keys? The passage doesn’t specify, from what I see, and other authorities don’t come to mind.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Certainly, the church is visible. That is the Lutheran stance as well. However, a group of believers with an elected council or a leader of some kind (the argument will follow that these people are led to the church by the Holy Spirit) is enough to constitute “the church” in this view. This leads to the issue of “which visible church”? which can only lead to an honest answer when one says “Not really sure? The one I’m in, I think. This one seems to follow scripture most closely, so I’m saying this one. I could be totally wrong, but if I am, Jesus will forgive me 'cause I still believe, right?”

Frustrating, I know, but that’s really the only guideline.

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

When Lutherans (again, of my variety) read the bible, the word church isn’t read as meaning a literal, physical church, with literal, physical leaders. Occasionally, sure, it’s a physical church, but even then it seems to mean more “wherever two or three gather together in my name”. The invisible church is made up of all believers in Christ, which means that, while there may be a physical/organizational seperation, the seperation is not particularly important in regards to the invisible church, which is “One” in the sense that many Lutherans take Christ to mean when he refers to the church. So, though there are a lot of denominations, there is only one “church”–the people united in Christ, if not always in doctrine.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

God Bless, Gary

 

[guanophore]

That makes sense; however, this seems to mean that I don’t know what retain and remit are. The ability to “bind and loose” and…the ability to appoint ministers etc.?

The retaining and remitting have to do with forgiving post baptismal sins. Jesus gave the Apostles the criteria and the authority to know if a person’s heart was right with God, and to declare to them that their sins are forgive. In the same way, those who have not properly repented of their sins cannot have them forgiven. Jesus reinforced the authority He gave to the Apostles in the incident with Ananias and Sapphira. He revealed to Peter that they had lied to the Holy Spirit, and that their sins were not forgiven. If sins are not remitted, then the penalty for sin (death) occurs.

Binding and loosing is a reference to legislative authority. Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to make rules and decisions for the flock. A good example of this is found in the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostolic college wrote expectations to the Gentiles about how to conduct themselves in mixed Christian communities with Jews (not eating meat sacrificed to idols or blood).

That’s all anybody has the authority to do in the Lutheran church. When it comes to other important matters, a council is called of elected officials. (I don’t know if we’re supposed to use the word “elected”, but that’s how it’s always seemed to me.

This follows the pattern of the NT, as we can see in the first chapter of Acts that the community set forth those who met the criteria, then the Apostles prayed and asked God who was chosen. The community “elects” or perhaps nominates would be a better modern term, then those appointed by Christ pray and discern, then ordain the chosen one.

We see this pattern also with Paul and Silas:

Acts 15:22-23

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,

Nomination, choice, then commissioning (being sent out with authority)

It's usually decided by the synod, which is, while officially not of higher authority than the rest, representative of the rest, so that one body is still deciding matters.

For Catholics it is called the Magesterium, or the teaching authority appointed by Christ. It consists of the bishops, successors of the Apostles in communion with the successor of Peter, the visible sign of unity for the flock.

So, yeah, I guess to Lutherans the church is basically a democracy. I don't recall that being condemned in the Bible.

As far as I know, there is no form of secular governance that is condemned in the Bible. However, Jesus’ Church is a theocracy, with Jesus as the Head, and it functions like a theocracy. He appointed authority, and He has chosen to work through the authority he appointed.

At the time of the Reformation, persons in positions of authority were grossly corrupt, acting for their own desires of greed and power. Many in the flock wanted a pure religion that was not corrupted by such sinful men. In order to achieve this, they changed the doctrines to work around the authority structure put in place by Christ.

We’re hardly all alike, I don’t think. If that were the case, three people in a room with a Bible could appoint a minister–just like that. The idea, in the modern interpretation I most often see, is that the congregation, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, appoints church officials.

This is compatible with the NT model, except that authority in the NT is passed from the Apostles through those authorized by them (the bishops). From the earliest times, we see that all authority resides with the bishop, and those acting outside of him are considered invalid or schismatic (heretics or apostates in the worst cases),

So what are the keys? The passage doesn’t specify, from what I see, and other authorities don’t come to mind.

I saw some other posts that addressed the nature and meaning of the Keys very well, so I will defer to them.

Certainly, the church is visible. That is the Lutheran stance as well. However, a group of believers with an elected council or a leader of some kind (the argument will follow that these people are led to the church by the Holy Spirit) is enough to constitute "the church" in this view. This leads to the issue of "which visible church"? which can only lead to an honest answer when one says "Not really sure? The one I'm in, I think. This one seems to follow scripture most closely, so I'm saying this one. I could be totally wrong, but if I am, Jesus will forgive me 'cause I still believe, right?"

Frustrating, I know, but that’s really the only guideline.

Yes, you are right, of course. And we also need be mindful that the canon of scripture was not closed until 382 AD. So what did Christians do before that time to know what was the true Church? They followed the Sacred Tradition that was passed down to them through their Apostles.

 

[Lovesa]

Yes, you are right, of course. And we also need be mindful that the canon of scripture was not closed until 382 AD. So what did Christians do before that time to know what was the true Church? They followed the Sacred Tradition that was passed down to them through their Apostles.

Certainly. The thing that I think is odd about Lutheran churches is, that in their pursuit of sola scriptura, they forget the debt that said scripture owes to tradition, as well as to that time before 382 AD.

Generally, the argument comes across is that eye-witnesses to Jesus and/or his apostles were alive practically till the Bible was compiled and canonized, so that it doesn’t invalidate the idea of sola scriptura. However, from what I’ve seen, even Luther himself didn’t take sola scriptura as far as many of his so-called followers do today.

Where, for instance, did Lutheran churches get their liturgy? We owe a great deal to Catholics for creating such a beautiful liturgy, which Luther kept almost as was, with the addition of a lot more singing and the exclusion of a couple things he disagreed with.

Where did Lutherans get the Bible? Councils, tradition–No argument here either. The fuss comes around when tradition seems to eclipse scripture. The fact that people are told to watch out for false prophets seems to indicate there may also be genuine prophets. How to know what the truth is? Compare it with the bible. The deal with Lutherans and tradition is, I frequently see, not a total abandonment of tradition as perhaps inspired, but entirely an argument with the complete difficulty of deciding which traditions are correct and which are false. The Lutherans I’ve talked to simply throw up their hands on this issue and say, “Neh. We don’t need it anyway, so just forget about it. Scripture’s enough as it is.”

It seems lazy, but if God doesn’t stop error, it also seems like the safest bet. :heaven:

(Quick note: I may not be the best Lutheran on this issue. I’ve had many an argument with my pastor, high school religion teachers, etc. on this issue. I just found their arguments weak, so this is my own.)

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, you are right, of course. And we also need be mindful that the canon of scripture was not closed until 382 AD. So what did Christians do before that time to know what was the true Church? They followed the Sacred Tradition that was passed down to them through their Apostles.

The canon of scripture wasn’t “closed” until Trent, and even then the canon was published as a listing of books which, at minimun, must be included in any published work claiming to be a “bible”. Therefore, for instance, the expaned “canon” used by our Eastern Catholic (and E. Orthodox) brothers is in now way “wrong”, and these bibles comply with the minimum set of books set forth by the eccumenical council at Trent, and contain no condemed books.

 

[agent_grey]

Because you love your own opinions and especialy love to accuse.