And now for the "why don't"s...

[Truelight UK]

Originally posted by Mrs C:
Why don't Sola Scriptura claiming Protestants abandon all of their borrowed Catholic Traditions - like the Creeds and the order of Worship (liturgy) in some of the more conservative Protestant sects?

Perhaps because they believe them to be Scriptural?!? They certainly date way back to the days of the undivided Church - the basics of the Apostles' Creed and eucharistic liturgies being traceable to the very earliest ecclesiastical documents of the late 1st and early 2nd Century, and directly reflecting N.T. teaching and practice.

Can you show me from scripture that the Church of the first Apostles did not follow some 'order of worship'? I could quote you passages which strongly suggest they did - in keeping with the practice of their Jewish roots.

Anthony

 

[Truelight UK]

Originally posted by KeeperOfMyHome:
I do not consider the Baptist church as part of the Protestant movement

As a non-protestant 'continuing' church, would Baptists then subscribe to the protestant (Lutheran) principles of 'sola fide, sola scritura', even tho' these are the pronouncements of those 'tainted with Catholic corruptions'?

Anthony

 

[Truelight UK]

I've got one for you:

Why don't 'sola scritura' protestants believe in some form of salvation by works for those who have not heard the gospel (see, for example, Romans 2:6,7)?

Anthony

 

[Chemnitz]

Because we didn't stop reading at Romans 2:6-7, and went on to read Romans 2:12-13,which says even the Gentiles lived by the law but did not know the law, and verses such as Romans 4:13 which tell us it is not by works of the law but by Faith.

 

[rsr]

1. While some Baptists do not consider themselves Protestants, I think the majority view is that they arose from the English Separatist movement.

2. Some Baptists are creedal; others are not. I don't think many would take issue with the early creeds.

3. There are liturgical Baptist churches, though they seem to be the exception.

4. Most Baptists would accept 'Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura.' Those who are Calvinist would be especially likely to do so.

[ March 06, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[HankD]

RE: 1 Corinthians 15:29.

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished...

with these preliminary verses in mind...

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for (in the name of)the dead Christ, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for (in the name of) the dead Christ?

Ive put in the italics and parentheses to give what I believe the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is.

I dont think it is refering to proxy baptism but is simply asking the question : Why are they (Christians) raised up out of the water in their baptism if Christ was not raised from the dead and is in fact still dead?

HankD

[ March 06, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Anthony,

Eve ...the mother of humanity; maybe.

Actually, I was thinking of the parallel between Christ as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve w/ the protoevangelion of Gn 3:15 fulfilled ultimately in Mary, who had enmity with Satan. Mary, by her "fiat", loosened the knot Eve tied.

The Ark of the Covenant - mundane, physical 'God-bearer'; yup.

Did you read the parallels I gave between 2 Sam 6 and Luke 2 (The Visitation)? Also, check out Rev 11:19-12:17. 11:19 describing the ark of the [new] covenant who is the woman with 12 stars (12:1), who gives birth to a child (dragon=herod), etc.

Bathsheba? Mother of the son of David who inherited his throne, I suppose (tho' certainly no virtuous virgin!).

The "Gebirah" was the Queen mother of the OT Davidic Kingdom. She was the lady counselor of Wisdom - beginning w/ Bathsheba who was both Queen of the Kingdom and the mother of the Son of David, whom presented the petitions of the servants of the kingdom to the King.

Could one maybe include Ruth as well?

I haven't thought about that one.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Mrs C]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
Mrs C, you make an accusation and then do nothing to back it up. Maybe before you should find out what the teachings are before you jump on them. The Lutheran Church teaches the Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athenasian) are scripturally correct explainations. Liturgy is an effective means for conducting orderly worship and an effective teaching tool.

Godmetal -

I spent 30+ years in the Lutheran denomination. I know well what they teach.

I stand by my assertion; however, that if they are truly Sola Scriptura that they would not need the Creeds (written by men and not inculded in the Bible - even in the 7 books that Luther deemed unworthy of inclusion) nor would they have a structured liturgy as it is nowhere specified in the Bible that there is a structure to worship or what it should be.

Carole

 

[tulpje]

Godmetal: I am sending you a message, so check your box. Okay? Thanks.

To God the glory!

tulpje
(little tulip)

 

[Sir Ed]

Carole, just because you spend 30 years somewhere doesn't mean you know the first thing about what they teach (as evidenced by your initial post on this thread).

 

[Chemnitz]

Carole, I am not far behind you at 26 yrs. I am sadden to see that after 30 yrs you couldn't figure out what the Lutheran church teaches.

Liturgia=to perform religious rites (Lk 1:23) guess what Liturgy is in the Bible, guess I am one up on you. As to the exact form for liturgy the Bible is mute, but as long as the liturgy does not proclaim anything that goes against Scripture then it is Scripturally correct and good for the edification of the Church.

As to the Creeds and why we keep them. We kept them because we believed they correctly stated the essential Biblical truths, we do not hold them in as high esteem as Scripture.

 

[DojoGrant]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
Carole, I am not far behind you at 26 yrs. I am sadden to see that after 30 yrs you couldn't figure out what the Lutheran church teaches.

Liturgia=to perform religious rites (Lk 1:23) guess what Liturgy is in the Bible, guess I am one up on you. As to the exact form for liturgy the Bible is mute, but as long as the liturgy does not proclaim anything that goes against Scripture then it is Scripturally correct and good for the edification of the Church.

As to the Creeds and why we keep them. We kept them because we believed they correctly stated the essential Biblical truths, we do not hold them in as high esteem as Scripture.

Actually, the creeds, which are part of the Lutheran Confessions, are inseperable from Scripture. In fact, on the LCMS website, it states:

"Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that 'All doctrines should confrom to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.'"

Therfore, Lutherans are not Solo Scriptura; it says right there that genuine Lutherans must wholly accept the Lutheran Confessions as true and condemn all opposing doctrine. Furthermore, considering that Luther taught against the Catholic Church in that Scripture is to be interpreted by the individual, requiring full acceptance of the Lutheran Confessions, an extra-biblical collection of beliefs, is against Solo Scriptura. Yes, they "agree" with Scriptures, but what Catholic will say that the Catholic beliefs go against Scripture? Even more, Baptists believe that they are the ones in line with Scripture. Thus, anyone who has doctrine has extra-Biblical teachings, because if the Bible was clear as day, we'd not have denominations; we'd all be under one roof.

 

[Chemnitz]

They are seperable from Scripture because if it can be proven that a confession/creed is Scripturally wrong then the confession/creed can/should/will be changed. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole basis for the formation of creeds/confessions. We can claim Sola Scriptura because the articles of faith that we agree to are drawn only from Scripture not from tradition.

And just where did you dig up that quote? I am quite familiar with the website and don't recall seeing that statement.

 

[Truelight UK]

Apparently Baptists don't believe those who never heard the Gospel will be saved by their works..

Originally posted by Godmetal:
Because we didn't stop reading at Romans 2:6-7, and went on to read Romans 2:12-13,which says even the Gentiles lived by the law but did not know the law, and verses such as Romans 4:13 which tell us it is not by works of the law but by Faith.

But surely doing what the law says, whether in obedience to what you have read and been taught, or in response to an inbuilt sense of what is right, is still a 'work'? It certainly isn't a simple confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord! And it is clearly stated that it is not those who hear the law, but those who do what it requires who will be saved (Rom 2:13). Likewise, on the Day of Judgement, it is not those who call Jesus 'Lord' who enter the kingdom, but those who do what the Father requires (Matt 7:21), and not those who 'worship' the Jesus they 'see', through their religious belief, but who serve the Jesus they neither recognise nor consciously detect in their fellow men whom He declares righteous and welcomes into His Kingdom (Matt 25:31ff). 'Faith' without accompanying works is dead, barren and fruitless - it is when faith is translated into action that it is actually proven effective; not belief alone but obedience. Which is straying from the immediate point... So, returning to Romans, it is the heartfelt pursuit of what is good and right etc. which leads to eternal life - not an explicit acceptance of Christ as 'personal Lord and Saviour'.

My point is, basically, where in the Bible do fundementalist preachers get the idea that, on the day of judgement, the question everyone will be asked is "What did you do with Jesus?" Or that anyone who has not 'accepted Christ as their own personal saviour' will automatically be doomed to eternal hellfire? Doesn't the Bible rather teach that, while those who have placed their (active) faith in Christ and his sacrifice will be spared the necessity of Judgement, those who have had no such opportunity will be judged according to what how they have behaved in reponse to what revelation they have received - some of them being rewarded with eternal life, others being consigned to eternal death? That is, the verdict has yet to be decided, and not all who stand trial will be condemned to death!

How do you read the Scriptures?

Anthony

 

[DojoGrant]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
They are seperable from Scripture because if it can be proven that a confession/creed is Scripturally wrong then the confession/creed can/should/will be changed. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole basis for the formation of creeds/confessions. We can claim Sola Scriptura because the articles of faith that we agree to are drawn only from Scripture not from tradition.

And just where did you dig up that quote? I am quite familiar with the website and don't recall seeing that statement.

I take it from your hasty reply that you think I made it up. Go under "Beliefs and Practices," scroll near the bottom, and look under "Being a Lutheran." It's on the second page of the PDF file.

 

[DojoGrant]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
They are seperable from Scripture because if it can be proven that a confession/creed is Scripturally wrong then the confession/creed can/should/will be changed. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole basis for the formation of creeds/confessions. We can claim Sola Scriptura because the articles of faith that we agree to are drawn only from Scripture not from tradition.

And just where did you dig up that quote? I am quite familiar with the website and don't recall seeing that statement.

Accept Lutherans except "consubstantiation," which is not mentioned in the Bible, and which nearly all other Protestants reject as unBiblical. Therefore, like Catholics, Lutherans are drawing things into their belief that are not EXPLICITLY in Scripture. Just as it doesn't say we should Baptize infants EXPLICITLY. Lutherans do this because "the Church has always done this." That's Tradition.

 

[Chemnitz]

I agree faith without works is dead, but those works are not what is going to get me into heaven. My faith in Christ and his sacrifice on my behalf is what is going to make me righteous before God. Works only make us righteous before man not God.

 

[Truelight UK]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
My faith in Christ and his sacrifice on my behalf is what is going to make me righteous before God.

Agreed - but only in so far as that 'faith' is evidenced in corresponding actions!
Abraham, the 'Father of Faith', was reckoned as righteous when he stepped out and did something as an expression of his faith - not just when he said in his heart 'I believe that', but when he started to act like he did (James 2:21)! However, it was not his effort at working hard to be good which justified him, but his trust in God (Romans 4:2). But he only truly began to trust God when he did something which demonstrated it! Thus all the heroes of faith in Hebrew 11 are commended for what they did, which actively expressed their belief in God's promises and power. Contrary to Luther's addition to Romans 3:28, it is not by faith alone that we are justified, but by faith and actions working together - our faith being 'made complete' by what we do; for "a person is justified by what he does, not by faith alone" (Jas 2:22,24). Of course, this is not talking of 'earning merit' through legalistic observance of the Law, but about a 'slavery to righteousness' coming from obedience to the One in whom we believe and trust for our salvation. Putting it in Jesus' words, it is by our fruit (or lack of it) that we are recognised as righteous or otherwise. But we can take no direct credit for that fruit, which is produced by God's Spirit working through us as we surrender to Him. We recognise that we can do nothing to earn God's favour, but do not therefore give up and do nothing because we beleive He'll forgive us anyway. Rather, because we believe He not only forgives us, but frees us from the controlling power of our sinful nature, we step out and do what He asks, in 'faith' that He will supply the strength and ability to obey His own commands.

All of which is getting off my original point, which is not about the salvation of believers in Christ, but about the eternal destiny of those who do not know Him in this life. Are they condemned already, because they never accepted a Saviour of whom they have never heard? Or do they stand a chance of eternal life on the basis of their behaviour in response to what little they do know of God and His standards?

Anthony

PS From what I've just written, there is a clear "Why don't..." question being begged! "Why don't sola scriptura Christians accept that "By works a man is justified and not by faith alone"?" Or, putting it another way, "Why don't they believe the scriptural words of James above those added to scripture by Luther?"??

 

[Truelight UK]

Lutherans except "consubstantiation," which is not mentioned in the Bible

So the Bible doesn't state that Jesus said "This is my body... this is my blood"???

What we have here is a conflict of interpretation: the words are there, but whether we choose to take them as literal or figurative is a matter of tradition!

And, historically, the Lutheran interpretation seems closer to that of the earliest and most generally accepted extra-Biblical tradition. To whom then do we give most credence, "most (20th century) protestants", or "most 1st century Christians"? Over the centuries, the weight of numbers probably favours some form of more literal, sacramental interpretation. But then, are 'the majority' always right???

Anyway, there's alread a thread or two on this one, so I won't repeat myself here by going into more detail.

Anthony

[ March 07, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Truelight UK ]

 

[Mrs C]

Originally posted by Godmetal:
Carole, I am not far behind you at 26 yrs. I am sadden to see that after 30 yrs you couldn't figure out what the Lutheran church teaches.

Liturgia=to perform religious rites (Lk 1:23) guess what Liturgy is in the Bible, guess I am one up on you. As to the exact form for liturgy the Bible is mute, but as long as the liturgy does not proclaim anything that goes against Scripture then it is Scripturally correct and good for the edification of the Church.

As to the Creeds and why we keep them. We kept them because we believed they correctly stated the essential Biblical truths, we do not hold them in as high esteem as Scripture.

Godmetal -

We are unlikely to come to a concensus of opinion on this.

However, it is my firmly held belief that Lutherans are not truly Sola Scriptura. They place far too much imporance on extra-Biblical texts and on the same traditions that they slam the Catholic Church for.

I spent my entire life in the LCMS - with the exception of 2 years in the ELCA. I have spent the past 3 years studying, in a compare and contrast manner, the teachings of the Lutheran denomination and the Catholic Church.

I find that Lutherans are hypocritical in their claims of Sola Scriptura - while all the while holding up Martin Luther's writings in the same way that Catholics refer to the writings of the early Church fathers.

The difference? That Lutherans dismiss Catholics and their practices, inspite of their own similar actions.

The Creeds are indeed concise compilations of the teachings found in the Bible.

My question is this - Is Scripture is all that is needed, and you hold only to Scripture, why use the Creeds? Can't you get the same informtaion just by reading the Bible? Why bother to make Confirmands read the Catechism? Why rely on the Smalcald Articles? Or any of the information contained in The Book of Concord? Are not all of these extra-Biblical?

Why rely on extra-Biblical sources? In some cases Catholic extra-Biblical sources?

Why is the Liturgy of such great import to Lutherans - since no specified liturgical formula exists in Scripture? Yes, we are told in scripture to gather together. No instructions as to the exact order of worship exists. Does not a reliance on a formula so reminiscent of the Catholic Rite that Luther left behind not a reliance on a tradition of man?

Carole