Apology

[Riff]

.

 

[seajoy]

All's forgiven - but please, focus on what Christ has done for us - that is what is important.

 

[DaRev]

May the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father +, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always. Amen.

 

[Riff]

.

 

[filosofer]

Thank you for being so forgiving

Because the focus is on Christ, forgiveness is our “business.” You are forgiven.

And welcome “again.” Feel free to ask more questions, too.

 

[Studeclunker]

Forgiveness granted! Though, I'm not entirely sure why you need it from us. Opinion is a wavering thing. It often changes when light is shining on the truth. Thus, one has every right to change their opinion on anything. One can hope though that one doesn't make rash decisions based on a poorly based opinion instead of well grounded facts. Thus, I am glad to hear you haven't returned to the bondage of the Romans.

Thank you for the thought provoking posts though. I was never offended, just concerned about someone making a poor decision for their future.

 

[Luther073082]

You are forgiven. . . I think dermining which church is the correct one can be a difficult process sometimes. The good news is that I have it narrowed down to Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Lutheran because of their understanding of the scriptures. **I don't know enough about Oriental Orthodox to endorse or rule them out.**

Like I said in another thread, in reading some of the writings of the early church fathers in recent times it has made me question if Eastern Orthodoxy would be correct or the most correct. . .

But eventually I come back to the problem of they like the Roman Catholics have major theological principles which are supported almost entirely by "sacred tradition" and not anything solid from scripture.

And I just can't belive that a major theological principal such as theosis would be completly abscent from the scriptures. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that God and the apostles would have this major theological principal that they want us to understand, but the apostles would never directly mention it in their letters and that God who inspired the whole thing would neglect to have it mentioned.

 

[Tangible]

Here's a pretty good discussion of EO vs Lutheranism: Table Scraps: Lutheran Comparison: Eastern Orthodoxy | Table Talk Radio

 

[seajoy]

The good news is that I have it narrowed down to Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Lutheran because of their understanding of the scriptures.

Two of these are works oriented. You really believe that is part of salvation?

 

[Luther073082]

Two of these are works oriented. You really believe that is part of salvation?

I probably should reword what I said, I mean that I have narrowed it down to those three based on their understanding of the sacraments.

Anyways I'm not questioning my faith in the Lutheran confessions on the whole. I was mearly relating that the understanding of the sacraments alone narrows it down greatly for me.

Beyond that the question more or less down to the use of tradition in forming doctrine and if that tradition truely comes from the apostles and from God.

The works vs. sola fide part is only a small part of the larger question as to how God intended the church to use tradition and which of those traditions is correct or the most correct.

My ultimate point was that I can't buy that there would be major theological concepts that God would want us to understand and have very little to nothing from scripture from which to draw them on. So in a sense I reject their traditions because my conclusion is that God would not leave something huge out of scripture or leave a single solitary phrase that one has to try and draw way too much out of.

The Roman Catholics do this with the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Even if we where to assume that Jesus was talking about Peter (as opposed to referring to his confession of faith.) when he said "upon this rock I build my church" you are still drawing a heck of a lot out of that one sentence to somehow defend *scripturally speaking* the powers and authority the bishop of Rome has over their church.

So the over-use of tradition is the reason I reject both Roman Catholism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Lutheranism IMO uses tradition the most correctly, as a way in which we can better understand the scriptures.

Using tradition to formulate doctrine I think is wrong because I just can't buy that God would leave big stuff like that out of the written scriptures.

But ignoring tradition like many protestants do is also wrong because it forgets that the church is 2000 years old. It pretends that we just suddenly received this bible and we're formulting things based off of that. -- Not to mention that all of these churchs never take Jesus at his word when he speaks about the Eucharist being his body and blood and baptism as both being a means of grace.

 

[filosofer]

That is why as Lutherans “sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) does not mean “nuda Scripture” (naked Scripture). We understand it in the context of history; there is no leap from the first century to the 21st century, avoiding all the in-between stuff. Thus, the Book of Concord is filled with quotes from the church fathers, stating “this is what the church has always believed.”

 

[Luther073082]

That is why as Lutherans “sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) does not mean “nuda Scripture” (naked Scripture). We understand it in the context of history; there is no leap from the first century to the 21st century, avoiding all the in-between stuff. Thus, the Book of Concord is filled with quotes from the church fathers, stating “this is what the church has always believed.”

nuda scriptura. . . thats a term I havn't heard before but it accuratly describes many protestant's group's approach to scripture.

Besides the whole sacraments thing. For the life of me. . . and I've tried to debate them on this and I still don't get it. Why they don't take Christ at his word when he said this is my body and this is my blood. . . . I don't get it.

Most of what I hear is arguments from earthly logic as though God is somehow ruled by earthly logic in the first place.

 

[DaRev]

But ignoring tradition like many protestants do is also wrong because it forgets that the church is 2000 years old. It pretends that we just suddenly received this bible and we're formulting things based off of that. -- Not to mention that all of these churchs never take Jesus at his word when he speaks about the Eucharist being his body and blood and baptism as both being a means of grace.

Boy! You sound like a Lutheran!

 

[Tangible]

nuda scriptura. . . thats a term I havn't heard before but it accuratly describes many protestant's group's approach to scripture.

Besides the whole sacraments thing. For the life of me. . . and I've tried to debate them on this and I still don't get it. Why they don't take Christ at his word when he said this is my body and this is my blood. . . . I don't get it.

Most of what I hear is arguments from earthly logic as though God is somehow ruled by earthly logic in the first place.

I've heard that position referred to (in GT) as solo scriptura.