The Bible Is A Catholic Book

[Concord1968]

That's odd, because Martin Luther--and Lutherans--never took issue with prayers for the dead. But rather freely admit that prayers for the dead are the most ancient practice of the Church, and also biblical, for St. Paul prays for the departed Onesiphorous in 2 Timothy 1:18.

However, further, Lutherans regard the question of the Deuterocanonicals to be an open one. A matter left unresolved. That is, Luther's opinions over the Deuterocanonicals, and thus his exclusion of them from the Canon proper, is not the position of the Lutheran churches. We simply do not have a position. And the only real way the issue could be settled would be by a truly ecumenical council, and since we do not believe there has been an ecumenical council since the Second Council of Nicea which condemned the heresy of the Iconoclasts, the issue remains unresolved.

-CryptoLutheran

I think a good distinction to make is that Lutherans don't take issue with prayers FOR the dead, but rather they take issue with prayers TO the dead.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think a good distinction to make is that Lutherans don't take issue with prayers FOR the dead, but rather they take issue with prayers TO the dead.

Agreed. Our Confessions only take issue with the idea that we should or must make invocations of the saints for their prayers, since such a thing is never commanded (and thus cannot be mandated) and there is no assurance that they could hear such prayers, it cannot be regarded as an article of faith. But that the saints do, in fact, pray for us; and that we can pray for the dead are things our Confessions affirm. In fact, somewhat ironically here, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession explicitly references 2 Maccabees in regard to mention in Scripture of the prayers of the saints.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

That is not how I see it. For the first 1,000 years the Church held together under three principles like three legs in a stool - scripture, tradition, and the magistereum.

And in that period of time a lot of doctrinal problems were included in the church.

The Reformers immediately broke from those those methods of determining the truth - to one one, sola scriptura.

Just as Christ did with His example in Mark 7:6-13 that I had just given in my prior post.

That is begging the question. I do not believe that the Church contradicts scripture itself.

Neither did the protesting catholics of the reformation age until they did that actual comparison

Mark 7:6-13
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

A clear example condemning man-made-tradition - via the method of "Sola Scriptura" testing

In fact, I think that Protestants inherently contradict scripture itself. The Reformers preached sola scriptura but without one verse in the NT that teaches sola scriptura, not even the passage you cited in Mark 7.

In the Mark 7 example - Christ uses nothing but scripture to prove the point about flawed tradition.

 

[1213]

The Bible Is A Catholic Book

If that is really true, why Catholics don’t live by the book?

Bible and Catholic Church disagree in many points, for example:

1. Priests or those who lead the Church should be married, or at least not denied to marry because:

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife…
1 Tim. 3:2

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage…
1 Tim. 4:1-3

2. Priests are called fathers, all though:

…Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven….
Mat. 23:4-12

3. Catholics believe Jesus is God and they make images of Jesus, even though it is forbidden in the Bible.

"You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

 

[BobRyan]

True, it is God's Word. It originated by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

It that were true - then it is the ultimate ECF document!

IF that were true then the RCC would be outright "insisting" that we conform to scripture in all doctrine - not merely claiming to "tolerate it" (if that).

Most of the time in reality what we see is Catholic members coming up with new reasons for why we should not rely on their document, (the Bible), for doctrine. How odd if it is "their document" why don't they rather "insist" that we conform to it??

 

[packermann]

Oh really?
What do you call what your church went through from 1378 to 1417?
There were also competing popes as a result of the Council of Basel from 1439 to 1449.
And then there is that little issue of the Avignon Papacy.

None of them has turned out to be long lasting. Any "competing popes" only appeared that way to us but not to God. There can be only one pope at a time. The others are anti-popes. Even if we do not know who the real pope is, God does. The real pope is the one who is in the papacy first. Any other pope elected while there is an elected pope would be an antipope.

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Many during the Avignon papacy were corrupt. But so what? There were some who were inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit who were less than impeccable. David had sex with a married woman, Bathsheba, and then had her husband killed - not a saintly thing to do. And yet he wrote many of the Psalms. But at least he repented. King Solomon started out well, but at the end of his life he led Israel away from the true God toward the worship of idols. And yet he wrote Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiates. So a pope has no guarantee of becoming a saint. I have no doubt that some of them have gone to hell. My faith is in Jesus Christ, the ultimate head of the church. I trust in him, not in the pope. And although there have been few schisms throughout the centuries, it is nothing like the thousands of schisms in Protestantism.

You are comparing the best of Protestantism with the worst of Catholicism. But if you compare the worst of Protestantism to the worst of Catholicism, the worst of Protestantism is far worse. Liberalism originated more prevalent in Protestantism than in Catholicism. More than half of all Protestants deviate from the tradition doctrine of Christianity, with Protestant scholars questioning whether Christ is God, Christ rose from the dead, and whether even God exists. Rudolf Bultmann was Lutheran scholar who questioned whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. Lutheran theologian Albert Schweitzer denied the divinity of Christ. There were Protestant scholars who said in the 60's and 70's that God was dead. These theologians remained in good standing in their Protestant denominations. But a theologian cannot remain a Catholic theologian if he denies Christ's resurrection, Christ's divinity, or that God is alive.

Don't misunderstand me. Liberalism is starting to seep into the Catholic Church, but it not as bad as in Protestantism. Many Protestants do not see it because they isolate themselves from Protestants who think differently than they do.

 

[packermann]

That's odd, because Martin Luther--and Lutherans--never took issue with prayers for the dead. But rather freely admit that prayers for the dead are the most ancient practice of the Church, and also biblical, for St. Paul prays for the departed Onesiphorous in 2 Timothy 1:18.

However, further, Lutherans regard the question of the Deuterocanonicals to be an open one. A matter left unresolved. That is, Luther's opinions over the Deuterocanonicals, and thus his exclusion of them from the Canon proper, is not the position of the Lutheran churches. We simply do not have a position. And the only real way the issue could be settled would be by a truly ecumenical council, and since we do not believe there has been an ecumenical council since the Second Council of Nicea which condemned the heresy of the Iconoclasts, the issue remains unresolved.

-CryptoLutheran

It is interesting what you write. But with all due respect, my brother in Christ, do you read what you just wrote? You admit, from the Lutheran perspective, that the canon of Scripture is still unresolved. So then how can Lutherans hold to sola scriptura if they cannot be sure what is contained in Scripture?

 

[packermann]

I do honor the Blessed Virgin mother of God.

And, no, she isn't an authority over me.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you honor God?

 

[packermann]

And in that period of time a lot of doctrinal problems were included in the church.

Could you give specific examples?

In the Mark 7 example - Christ uses nothing but scripture to prove the point about flawed tradition.

Do you believe all tradition is flawed?

 

[Not David]

None of them has turned out to be long lasting. Any "competing popes" only appeared that way to us but not to God. There can be only one pope at a time. The others are anti-popes. Even if we do not know who the real pope is, God does. The real pope is the one who is in the papacy first. Any other pope elected while there is an elected pope would be an antipope.

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Many during the Avignon papacy were corrupt. But so what? There were some who were inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit who were less than impeccable. David had sex with a married woman, Bathsheba, and then had her husband killed - not a saintly thing to do. And yet he wrote many of the Psalms. But at least he repented. King Solomon started out well, but at the end of his life he led Israel away from the true God toward the worship of idols. And yet he wrote Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiates. So a pope has no guarantee of becoming a saint. I have no doubt that some of them have gone to hell. My faith is in Jesus Christ, the ultimate head of the church. I trust in him, not in the pope. And although there have been few schisms throughout the centuries, it is nothing like the thousands of schisms in Protestantism.

You are comparing the best of Protestantism with the worst of Catholicism. But if you compare the worst of Protestantism to the worst of Catholicism, the worst of Protestantism is far worse. Liberalism originated more prevalent in Protestantism than in Catholicism. More than half of all Protestants deviate from the tradition doctrine of Christianity, with Protestant scholars questioning whether Christ is God, Christ rose from the dead, and whether even God exists. Rudolf Bultmann was Lutheran scholar who questioned whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. Lutheran theologian Albert Schweitzer denied the divinity of Christ. There were Protestant scholars who said in the 60's and 70's that God was dead. These theologians remained in good standing in their Protestant denominations. But a theologian cannot remain a Catholic theologian if he denies Christ's resurrection, Christ's divinity, or that God is alive.

Don't misunderstand me. Liberalism is starting to seep into the Catholic Church, but it not as bad as in Protestantism. Many Protestants do not see it because they isolate themselves from Protestants who think differently than they do.

You are the one claiming not having a Pope causes chaos. And it is ironic how the Pope believes to be above an Ecumenical Council yet one of those ratified the Pope.

 

[packermann]

If that is really true, why Catholics don’t live by the book?

Some do do, but I must agree that most don't. The same can be said of Protestants. Some do but most don't.

1. Priests or those who lead the Church should be married, or at least not denied to marry because:

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife…
1 Tim. 3:2

Most Protestant Bible scholars would say that this means that the pastor must not be married to more than one wife. If it meant that a pastor must have a wife, then Paul would have been disqualified, since he did not have a wife.

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage…
1 Tim. 4:1-3

Any man has a right to marry. But no man has a right to be a priest. The priesthood is a call, a privilege. So a married man cannot claim a right to be a priest. In the same way, a woman can not say it is her right to be a priest.

Although the Bible does not forbid marriage, the Bible does see celibacy as a higher calling.

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it
Matt 19:12

Jesus commends those who remain celibate for the kingdom of God, but only those who can accept celibacy should.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
1 Cor 7: 8, 9

Paul only allows marriage if they cannot control themselves. Otherwise, it is better to remain celibate.

The Bible makes it clear that celibacy is better than marriage as long as the person can control his passions.

In light of these other verses that extol the virtues of celibacy, I think 1 Tim 4 is not about forbidding marriage and sex but only forbidding marriage. People can still have sex but just are forbidding to marry. So they are forced to to something that is an abomination to God - having sex outside of marriage. Other verses in the Bible say that sexual immorality will run rampant at the end times. So I do not think that non-Christians will be celibate. The will just no longer marry. This is starting to happen now. Only half of the population are getting married.

2. Priests are called fathers, all though:

…Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven….
Mat. 23:4-12

"...for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel"
1 Cor 4:15
If Jesus meant that literally then Paul while inspired by the Holy Spirit to write part of the Bible went against the teachings of Jesus. He called himself their father through the gospel.

Also, what do you call the man who impregnated your mother that eventually brought you into the world? Is he not your father?

3. Catholics believe Jesus is God and they make images of Jesus, even though it is forbidden in the Bible.

"You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

[/quote]

But if you look at this in its context, you will see that this cannot be an absolute command with no exceptions. A few chapters later, the Lord says the following about building the ark of the covenant (what is used to store the Ten Commandments):

Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.
Exodus 25:17, 18

Cherubim are angels. So God commanded that to be two angels, HAMMER OUT OF GOLD! To me, this sure sounds like graven images. So how can God command them to do the very thing He forbade them to do in Exodus 20?

These two passages can be reconciled if we look at the historical context. The pagan at that time made statues that did not just represent God or gods (as they saw them), these statues were to them became the gods themselves. So Exodus 20 is a commandment to forbid making statues in order to serve them. But in Exodus 25 he is not commanding them to make graven images to serve them.

If Exodus 20 is a command against any graven images, even if we are not treating them as gods, then we are all in trouble. In Germany, there are at least seven statues of Martin Luther scattered throughout the country. Are those not graven images? And if you ever go the Washington, D.C., you can see the busts of all our Presidents. Are they not graven images? I remember a Protestant friend of mine having a statuette of Cubs player Sammy Sosa. Is that not a graven image?

 

[prodromos]

None of them has turned out to be long lasting. Any "competing popes" only appeared that way to us but not to God. There can be only one pope at a time. The others are anti-popes. Even if we do not know who the real pope is, God does. The real pope is the one who is in the papacy first. Any other pope elected while there is an elected pope would be an antipope.

You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Many during the Avignon papacy were corrupt. But so what? There were some who were inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit who were less than impeccable. David had sex with a married woman, Bathsheba, and then had her husband killed - not a saintly thing to do. And yet he wrote many of the Psalms. But at least he repented. King Solomon started out well, but at the end of his life he led Israel away from the true God toward the worship of idols. And yet he wrote Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiates. So a pope has no guarantee of becoming a saint. I have no doubt that some of them have gone to hell. My faith is in Jesus Christ, the ultimate head of the church. I trust in him, not in the pope. And although there have been few schisms throughout the centuries, it is nothing like the thousands of schisms in Protestantism.

You are comparing the best of Protestantism with the worst of Catholicism. But if you compare the worst of Protestantism to the worst of Catholicism, the worst of Protestantism is far worse. Liberalism originated more prevalent in Protestantism than in Catholicism. More than half of all Protestants deviate from the tradition doctrine of Christianity, with Protestant scholars questioning whether Christ is God, Christ rose from the dead, and whether even God exists. Rudolf Bultmann was Lutheran scholar who questioned whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. Lutheran theologian Albert Schweitzer denied the divinity of Christ. There were Protestant scholars who said in the 60's and 70's that God was dead. These theologians remained in good standing in their Protestant denominations. But a theologian cannot remain a Catholic theologian if he denies Christ's resurrection, Christ's divinity, or that God is alive.

Don't misunderstand me. Liberalism is starting to seep into the Catholic Church, but it not as bad as in Protestantism. Many Protestants do not see it because they isolate themselves from Protestants who think differently than they do.

This is all beside the point. You claimed that the Catholic Church was unified for the period between the Great Schism and the Reformation. I just demonstrated that it was not. Your claim was false.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not how I see it. For the first 1,000 years the Church held together under three principles like three legs in a stool - scripture, tradition, and the magistereum.

And in that period of time a lot of doctrinal problems were included in the church.

The Reformers immediately broke from those those methods of determining the truth - to one one, sola scriptura.

Just as Christ did with His example in Mark 7:6-13 that I had just given in my prior post.

That is begging the question. I do not believe that the Church contradicts scripture itself.

Neither did the protesting catholics of the reformation age until they did that actual comparison

Mark 7:6-13
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

A clear example condemning man-made-tradition - via the method of "Sola Scriptura" testing

In fact, I think that Protestants inherently contradict scripture itself. The Reformers preached sola scriptura but without one verse in the NT that teaches sola scriptura, not even the passage you cited in Mark 7.

In the Mark 7 example - Christ uses nothing but scripture to prove the point about flawed tradition.

Do you believe all tradition is flawed?

No I think all tradition is to be tested sola scriptura to see if it contradicts the teaching of scripture. Notice how Christ does it in Mark 7.

 

[packermann]

You are the one claiming not having a Pope causes chaos.

I never wrote that. Having a Pope causes much less chaos, but because of original sin it will never be impeccable.

And it is ironic how the Pope believes to be above an Ecumenical Council yet one of those ratified the Pope.

Not ironic at all. We believe that Jesus gave Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom. Whatever the successor of Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. A pope set up the cardinals-elects-the-pope system it is his right to do so, since whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. It is an excellent system. Suppose there was no cardinals-elects-the-pope system. That means that the pope would have to select his successor. That is fine if he is able to select his successor. But what if dies suddenly, without having a chance for appointing a successor? YIKES! That would completely terminate the succession of the next pope!


Also, the cardinals are appointed by the previous popes, so indirectly the previous popes have a voice on who should be the next pope. And let’s not forget – the cardinals can select the next pope but they cannot depose a siting pope.

 

[packermann]

This is all beside the point. You claimed that the Catholic Church was unified for the period between the Great Schism and the Reformation. I just demonstrated that it was not. Your claim was false.

I never claimed that the Church was impeccable. It had some corruptions and divisions. Man is fallen. That will always happen. But not at all as much as Protestantism. You named one schism in the Catholic Church, the Great Schism. But Protestantism has had over 25,000 schisms. That is a big difference.

 

[Not David]

I never wrote that. Having a Pope causes much less chaos, but because of original sin it will never be impeccable.





Not ironic at all. We believe that Jesus gave Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom. Whatever the successor of Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. A pope set up the cardinals-elects-the-pope system it is his right to do so, since whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. It is an excellent system. Suppose there was no cardinals-elects-the-pope system. That means that the pope would have to select his successor. That is fine if he is able to select his successor. But what if dies suddenly, without having a chance for appointing a successor? YIKES! That would completely terminate the succession of the next pope!


Also, the cardinals are appointed by the previous popes, so indirectly the previous popes have a voice on who should be the next pope. And let’s not forget – the cardinals can select the next pope but they cannot depose a siting pope.

There was not a cardinal system during the first century and a lot of martyr popes, according to your hypothesis there wouldn't be a pope since the very beginning.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I never claimed that the Church was impeccable. It had some corruptions and divisions. Man is fallen. That will always happen. But not at all as much as Protestantism. You named one schism in the Catholic Church, the Great Schism. But Protestantism has had over 25,000 schisms. That is a big difference.

Yahuweh has chosen for Himself some people out from every nation, for His Own Testimony. It (probably) doesn't matter what religion they were born in , raised in , or learned later in life.
All that matters is that they are called and chosen by Yahuweh for Himself, for His Own Testimony, and they are set apart by Yahuweh Himself for Himself, in Christ Jesus the Lord and Savior.
All the other stories, groups, plans, politics, games, and ethnicities won't keep someone from being His, nor make someone His.

 

[prodromos]

I never claimed that the Church was impeccable.

No, you didn't, but I never claimed you did, so your present line of argument is rather pointless.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is interesting what you write. But with all due respect, my brother in Christ, do you read what you just wrote? You admit, from the Lutheran perspective, that the canon of Scripture is still unresolved. So then how can Lutherans hold to sola scriptura if they cannot be sure what is contained in Scripture?

The Lutheran teaching that the Holy Scriptures are the norma normans of Christian faith and practice--i.e. that the Scriptures are the Un-normed norm, or the chief principle--is in no way bothered by the lack of certainty over the status of the Deuterocanonical books. In part because Lutherans aren't "Bible onlyists", but also it simply has to do with the fact that what we have written which is from Christ and His Apostles remain the firm standard, with or without the Deuterocanonical books. The infallibility of Scripture, in communicating the pure Word of God--Jesus Christ and His Gospel--does not depend on there being an infallible Canon of Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you honor God?

Yes. And God is the authority of us all.

As you can see there are different kinds of honor, and honor itself does not indicate authority.

Let me ask, do you honor the poor, the weak, the hungry, the widow, and the orphan?

As it is written,

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." - Romans 12:9-18

And elsewhere the Apostle has written,

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." - Philippians 2:3

-CryptoLutheran