If you do some research into the early church, after the apostles, you will find all Catholicism. No Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, etc....Great way to find out about the real Old Time Religion...

Oh you wanted to be silly with your argument.

Because there's an "unspoken" third option which you seemingly don't want to offer, we are supposed to accept it as valid.

Sure I can accept that in the most abstract way, there's never truly two options for anything in life. It's a silly argument, but not one I'm particularly concerned with. It's not productive to the conversation, but sure.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If you do some research into the early church, after the apostles, you will find all Catholicism. No Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, etc....Great way to find out about the real Old Time Religion...

---

It's by doing research into the early church that I know this is patently false.

No. The church did not shift. Good works have never been what gets us into Heaven. This was clarification on an issue we've been wrongly accused of for decades.

Here's another article. A Lutheran thinks the Lutherans conceded too much. A catholic says we moved closer towards Lutherans. But the Crux of the issue is that a confusion has been cleared up: it has always been God's Grace alone that gets us there.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/faith-and-works-catholics-and-lutherans-find-agreement/

The Catholic Church itself believes that it got away from the doctrine of justification by faith and credits Luther for bringing it back to truth.

Quote:

---

. . . it certainly would have surprised Luther to hear that his name would be mentioned with approval at St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican on Good Friday in 2016. On this day, sacred to all Christians, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household, gave the Good Friday sermon to an audience that included the pope, cardinals, bishops, and thousands of the Catholic faithful. He said,

Quote:

---

There is a danger that people can hear about the righteousness of God but not understand its meaning, so instead of being encouraged, they are frightened. Saint Augustine had already clearly explained its meaning centuries ago: "The 'righteousness of God' is that by which we are made righteous, just as 'the salvation of God' [see Ps 3:8] means the salvation by which he saves us."… Luther deserves the credit for bringing this truth back when its meaning had been lost over the centuries, at least in Christian preaching, and it is this above all for which Christianity is indebted to the Reformation, whose fifth centenary occurs next year. [Emphasis mine] The reformer later wrote that when he discovered this, "I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates."

---

---

A Roman Catholic Appreciation of Justification by... | Christianity Today

i wasn't being silly. i already told you what a third option was - at a minimum, you have to consider what the RCC actually teaches.

some things in life really are dichotomies. not all dichotomies are false. this particular one is. both options presented are flawed.

The Banned said:

---

No. The church did not shift. Good works have never been what gets us into Heaven. This was clarification on an issue we've been wrongly accused of for decades.

Here's another article. A Lutheran thinks the Lutherans conceded too much. A catholic says we moved closer towards Lutherans. But the Crux of the issue is that a confusion has been cleared up: it has always been God's Grace alone that gets us there.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/faith-and-works-catholics-and-lutherans-find-agreement/

---

Again, you're asking me to defend/agree with/etc an agreement between two parties that are irrelevant to me.

The ELCA is Lutheran "in name only" at best and so what they agree to is of little relevance to me. It wouldn't be much different than if you had an agreement with the mormons and said that was proof of anything.

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Oh you wanted to be silly with your argument.

Because there's an "unspoken" third option which you seemingly don't want to offer, we are supposed to accept it as valid.

Sure I can accept that in the most abstract way, there's never truly two options for anything in life. It's a silly argument, but not one I'm particularly concerned with. It's not productive to the conversation, but sure.

---

He spelled it out pretty clearly how one can have tradition without devaluing scripture and scripture without devaluing tradition. You seem to be ignoring that

---

And you and Zobel both miss the argument.

Anybody can fully appreciate the claim of "Scripture + Tradition" or "Scripture + Magisterium"

The argument is that while someone can claim they are equally balanced or whatever the claim is, in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority.

That's the second premise that was presented.

Quote:

---

everyone has an interpretive lens

---

Perhaps, but not everyone examines Scripture through the additional cloudy filter of church dogma and teachings. Some individuals try, with varying degrees of success, to discern solely from the words of Scripture what God is telling mankind. It's best to try to remove as many filters and lenses as possible.

Are we ignoring the part where he stays Augustine had outlined this centuries prior? He is crediting Luther with reemphasizing it. Nowhere in there does it state teachings were changed.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

No. The church did not shift. Good works have never been what gets us into Heaven. This was clarification on an issue we've been wrongly accused of for decades.

Here's another article. A Lutheran thinks the Lutherans conceded too much. A catholic says we moved closer towards Lutherans. But the Crux of the issue is that a confusion has been cleared up: it has always been God's Grace alone that gets us there.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/faith-and-works-catholics-and-lutherans-find-agreement/

---

Again, you're asking me to defend/agree with/etc an agreement between two parties that are irrelevant to me.

The ELCA is Lutheran "in name only" at best and so what they agree to is of little relevance to me. It wouldn't be much different than if you had an agreement with the mormons and said that was proof of anything.

---

I don't know what branch of Lutheran you are nor do I know all the ins and outs of each one. The fact that there are multiple branches is proof positive that there must be multiple authorities determining what doctrine is and many/all are going to use the Bible to back up their teachings. If it's so easy and common sensical for us to read the book and get it right, why are there so many disagreements?

Zobel said:

---

there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.

---

There is a significant difference between

1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology

2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Oh you wanted to be silly with your argument.

Because there's an "unspoken" third option which you seemingly don't want to offer, we are supposed to accept it as valid.

Sure I can accept that in the most abstract way, there's never truly two options for anything in life. It's a silly argument, but not one I'm particularly concerned with. It's not productive to the conversation, but sure.

---

He spelled it out pretty clearly how one can have tradition without devaluing scripture and scripture without devaluing tradition. You seem to be ignoring that

---

And you and Zobel both miss the argument.

Anybody can fully appreciate the claim of "Scripture + Tradition" or "Scripture + Magisterium"

The argument is that while someone can claim they are equally balanced or whatever the claim is, in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority.

That's the second premise that was presented.

---

I would posit you and Jabin both miss the point. Go look at just the handful of biblical references I made. If you can genuinely believe that you read the Bible with no extra-biblical help/teaching/etc and arrived at the conclusions you have, good for you. But to say y'all are viewing it without any interpretive lens while listening to sermons, doing research into other theologians or even looking into church history just shows you have a blind spot. You an unaware of your lens, apparently.

Why do missions? Why just just give people in faraway countries a Bible, tell them to read it and see how it goes? Or do you think they'd need help interpreting a passage or two?

ok, we agree? you have to have something, you can't just have scripture.

you said "in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority."


in your own words, then, "tradition, reason, experience" is your actual authority.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

everyone has an interpretive lens

---

Perhaps, but not everyone examines Scripture through the additional cloudy filter of church dogma and teachings. Some individuals try, with varying degrees of success, to discern solely from the words of Scripture what God is telling mankind. It's best to try to remove as many filters and lenses as possible.

---

Then we should rely on the perspicuity of scripture the result of which is countless doctrinal disputes, which scripture gives no method for resolving?

Quote:

---

Nowhere in there does it state teachings were changed.

---

Formally, perhaps not. But he recognizes that far too often Scripture, Augustine, and perhaps even formal RCC doctrine had been ignored by the priests in what they were actually teaching the people.

That same problem exists today. There seems to be often a wide gap between official RCC doctrine and what many priests actually teach.

Yep, having church councils to resolve disputes doesn't seem to work either, at least in a practical way. And who is to say that your method results in a correct resolution of those disputes?

And why is having doctrine "resolved" so important to y'all? From the outside, it seems a bit hypocritical to be proud of one's correct doctrine when the top leadership is corrupt to its core and that corruption permeates much of the church. What value does correct doctrine have?

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

No. The church did not shift. Good works have never been what gets us into Heaven. This was clarification on an issue we've been wrongly accused of for decades.

Here's another article. A Lutheran thinks the Lutherans conceded too much. A catholic says we moved closer towards Lutherans. But the Crux of the issue is that a confusion has been cleared up: it has always been God's Grace alone that gets us there.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/faith-and-works-catholics-and-lutherans-find-agreement/

---

Again, you're asking me to defend/agree with/etc an agreement between two parties that are irrelevant to me.

The ELCA is Lutheran "in name only" at best and so what they agree to is of little relevance to me. It wouldn't be much different than if you had an agreement with the mormons and said that was proof of anything.

---

I don't know what branch of Lutheran you are nor do I know all the ins and outs of each one. The fact that there are multiple branches is proof positive that there must be multiple authorities determining what doctrine is and many/all are going to use the Bible to back up their teachings. If it's so easy and common sensical for us to read the book and get it right, why are there so many disagreements?

---

So it's my/Lutherans fault that you made a claim you didn't understand?

But it's also not proof of anything you claim and that's part of the problem.

The ELCA does not hold the Scriptures to be inerrant nor do a "quia" or "because" subscription to the Book of Concord, but a "quatenas" or "in so far as" subscription. This means that they hold to the Book of Concord "in so far as it" agrees with their view of Scripture. The common example is that they can also hold a similar to view with the Quran "in so far as it agrees" with Scripture. It allows them to pick and choose anything they want.


Otherwise, they are your standard woke liberal failing group (I really struggle to call them a Church). Ordain women pastors, trans pastors, abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

So again, if you want to align with them, go for it, but they may even make Fr. Martin blush.

Quote:

---

What value does correct doctrine have?

---

what an amazing question.

this is basically the same as asking what value does doctrine have at all.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

What value does correct doctrine have?

---

what an amazing question.

---

Don't be that guy. Read it in context.

Zobel said:

---

ok, we agree? you have to have something, you can't just have scripture.

you said "in reality in a "Scripture + XYZ" model, the XYZ is the actual authority."


in your own words, then, "tradition, reason, experience" is your actual authority.

---

That's not what I said...

i'm not sure what you mean. if we have teaching, i would hope that we have correct teaching. St Paul seemed pretty insistent that certain things be taught, and wrong teaching be rejected.

if there are things to be taught that have value, they need to be taught correctly. the value in doctrine is in holding with any kind of consistent teaching.

shrug. it is literally what you said.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

No. The church did not shift. Good works have never been what gets us into Heaven. This was clarification on an issue we've been wrongly accused of for decades.

Here's another article. A Lutheran thinks the Lutherans conceded too much. A catholic says we moved closer towards Lutherans. But the Crux of the issue is that a confusion has been cleared up: it has always been God's Grace alone that gets us there.

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/st-anthony-messenger/faith-and-works-catholics-and-lutherans-find-agreement/

---

Again, you're asking me to defend/agree with/etc an agreement between two parties that are irrelevant to me.

The ELCA is Lutheran "in name only" at best and so what they agree to is of little relevance to me. It wouldn't be much different than if you had an agreement with the mormons and said that was proof of anything.

---

I don't know what branch of Lutheran you are nor do I know all the ins and outs of each one. The fact that there are multiple branches is proof positive that there must be multiple authorities determining what doctrine is and many/all are going to use the Bible to back up their teachings. If it's so easy and common sensical for us to read the book and get it right, why are there so many disagreements?

---

So it's my/Lutherans fault that you made a claim you didn't understand?

But it's also not proof of anything you claim and that's part of the problem.

The ELCA does not hold the Scriptures to be inerrant nor do a "quia" or "because" subscription to the Book of Concord, but a "quatenas" or "in so far as" subscription. This means that they hold to the Book of Concord "in so far as it" agrees with their view of Scripture. The common example is that they can also hold a similar to view with the Quran "in so far as it agrees" with Scripture. It allows them to pick and choose anything they want.


Otherwise, they are your standard woke liberal failing group (I really struggle to call them a Church). Ordain women pastors, trans pastors, abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

So again, if you want to align with them, go for it, but they may even make Fr. Martin blush.

---

I'm not trying to make you'd defend anyone or blaming you. Don't go that route as it doesn't help anyone. It's said multiple Lutheran sects agreed. Maybe they're all super liberal. Idk. You've honed in one.

I'll try to say this as bluntly as I can: the Bible does not say only the Bible counts. So who or what do you appeal to in order to show the ELCA (or the average baptist, Anglican, Bible church goer, etc) that they're wrong v

Why would God have bothered to reveal Himself to us unless He wants us to correctly understand His revelation?

Zobel said:

---

i'm not sure what you mean. if we have teaching, i would hope that we have correct teaching. St Paul seemed pretty insistent that certain things be taught, and wrong teaching be rejected.

if there are things to be taught that have value, they need to be taught correctly. the value in doctrine is in holding with any kind of consistent teaching.

---

Doctrine is important, but a church claiming to emphasize it and being the sole source of correct interpretation of it when that church is also almost completely corrupt seems to mock its importance. It makes the church out to be Pharisaical hypocrites.

Further, perhaps God intended for ambiguity to exist in his Word and in the interpretation of doctrine. After all, don't you folks like to claim and talk about all of the "mysteries".

this is a kind of tails i win heads you lose proposition. we agree that it is important, and i suppose that it needs to be taught correctly to have any value at all.

but then you want suggest a church should not, in fact, claim that they're doing it right? i don't know of any church that doesn't claim to have correct doctrine.

i dont think the last thing is relevant, unless you want to start carving away what is and isn't important. again, heads i win tails you lose - i say, this matters we need to teach it right, you can say no it doesn't it's ok to have ambiguity. or, you get to say this matters and you're wrong.

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i'm not sure what you mean. if we have teaching, i would hope that we have correct teaching. St Paul seemed pretty insistent that certain things be taught, and wrong teaching be rejected.

if there are things to be taught that have value, they need to be taught correctly. the value in doctrine is in holding with any kind of consistent teaching.

---

Doctrine is important, but a church claiming to emphasize it and being the sole source of correct interpretation of it when that church is also almost completely corrupt seems to mock its importance. It makes the church out to be Pharisaical hypocrites.

Further, perhaps God intended for ambiguity to exist in his Word and in the interpretation of doctrine. After all, don't you folks like to claim and talk about all of the "mysteries".

---

What's the big deal about getting whether or not Jesus is really God right?

You're backpedaling here. You say what does it matter when some/many of the church leaders are corrupt? One could toss all of Christianity out the window because of the line of reasoning. In fact, many atheists do

Bob Lee said:

---

Why would God have bothered to reveal Himself to us unless He wants us to correctly understand His revelation?

---

Where did I say that God didn't want us to understand his revelation? I don't believe that God needs men in funny robes and hats for us to correctly understand His revelation. Especially when, at times, some of those men were sleeping with and having children by their own daughters.

My uncle converted to Roman Catholicism. I visited him and my aunt at their home in Florida once and attended mass with them. Their priest was fantastic. However, my uncle and aunt told me that the diocese hated the priest because the priest was pro-life and the diocese was very strongly pro-choice (and theologically and politically liberal on many other matters, as well). The only reason that the diocese tolerated that priest was because the church paid the diocese $1 million per year for the priest.

You want me to trust an organization like that to interpret God's word for me?

I believe that God wants each of us to read the Scriptures for ourselves to determine if our teachers are teaching correctly, just like the Bereans in Acts 17:11. The Bible is replete with example after example of people reading God's word for themselves and being held accountable for it.

Quote:

---

You say what does it matter when some/many of the church leaders are corrupt?

---

Key difference is that I don't place my faith or trust in any man (other than Christ) or organization. You do.

And out of idle curiosity, how do you think I'm backpedaling? I don't feel or think that I am.