Posted on 08/20/2005 4:17:14 PM PDT by gscc
The council of Trent produced Catholic Canons or laws that in many cases contradict scripture.
example:
Canon 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
(Anathema means cursed, and the catholic church excommunicates those who are cursed. That means to the catholic church that you are outside of the church and therefore not saved.)
This contradicts the following:
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 3:24
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. 4:3
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:1
"For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God." Eph. 2:8
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, by according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5
Given the option to believe the Bible for what it says or believe what the council of Trent says....I'll gladly believe the Bible every time.
AMEN !!!! As an LCMS member, I shudder when I see that all Lutherans are considered the same by those who don't know the difference. ELCA went over the edge long ago. What a shame !!!
When Jesus said "This IS my body.............This IS my blood", it was pretty clear He wasn't speaking of symbolism.
The early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
In other words there has not been a constant Catholic interpretation.
Sorry I don't see any contradiction. Jesus said It is what It is. It's a hard saying and people do walk away.
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.Thus the Council of Trent had the correct understanding of Scripture. In any case, this highlights the uselessness of an ecumenical council if one does not accept it as authoritative.
If Jesus is God, and He left us the Catholic Church as His instrument of salvation on earth, then we cannot of ourselves create some other means of salvation than the one God gave us. In other words, we can’t say to God: “Thanks for your plan, but I’ll do it my own way.” What Vatican II had to say on the subject was that some have a saving communion with the Church even if they don’t have an intellectual understanding of such. In other words, they are members of the Church, albeit in an imperfect way, but are not within the visible confines of the Church.
Vatican II said that if a person is, through no fault of their own, ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church, such a person may attain salvation although they are in an impoverished situation. A person who knows the Catholic Church is true and refuses to embrace the Catholic faith would be accountable for the refusal of God’s plan of salvation.
In short, God doesn’t hold us accountable for what we are innocently ignorant of. He will hold us accountable if we know and refuse, or purposely choose to deny, the light given us and remain in ignorance.
A more correct answer would be that the early church took TWO verses as literal (John 6:53,54) and disregarded the context in which it was written.
The reason for so many Jews in Jerusalem was to celebrate the Passover. This was a rememberance of a time when a lamb was sacrificed and its blood saved people from death and released Israel from slavery. The Jews do not and did not practice Passover every year to continually protect them from death and release them from slavery, but as a reminder of what God had done for them.
In the same manner, Jesus institutes a similar reminder of His great sacrifice that can save us from the slavery of sin and death if we believe. (John 6:35, 40)
In John 6:63 Jesus says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating his body.
They also ignored other verses which clearly state that communion is a "rememberance." (1 Cor.11:23-25 and Luke 22:19)
The Bible is the document that contradicts this tradition of men. Whenever there is a contradiction between tradition and the Bible, follow the Bible.
From the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod website:
Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Lord's Supper, but they do not believe, with Catholics, that the bread and wine, are permanently "changed into" Christ's body and blood [transubstantiation].If you accept the transubstantiation then welcome aboard.
You bring up an excellent point!
The question would then be...Does the Bible contradict itself when you compare James 2:24 and Romans 4:3 or Ephesians 2:8?
If it does, then it is not to be trusted or believed!
The most important thing to remember when studying the Bible is context.
Notice in James it says that Abraham was justified by faith. Gen. 15:6 shows that Abraham was justified before he was asked to sacrifice Issac. Abraham demonstrated his faith by following God's command to sacrifice Issac. His faith was demonstrated by his work, it was not that Abraham was justified by his work.
The faith for salvation is not of works just like Ephesians says, but people can say they have faith and you and I can't really know. James is talking to already saved people and instructing them in discernment of leaders, plus encourageing them to demonstrate to others their faith through service.
The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply needs to be studied better. The Bible is inspired by God, but the council of Trent and the Canons produced are a work of imperfect men.
IMHO, I really tend to wonder about the formal Luthern Church when its Bishop/bishop urges an ecumenical council between the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches along with the Lutherans in an explicit cause to target another denominational interpretation of Prophecy.
Perhaps he might bite off a smaller piece of the pie, such as maybe bringing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy closer together,...or maybe coming into agreement on a few doctrines betwen the Roman Catholic Church and Lutherans,....or maybe even find a bishop or one diocese to entertain as a sister church on a handful of Bible doctrines between two denominations,....but to ignore the significant number of differences as though they do not exist, while proposing liberal action to satisfy worldly passions, while ignoring the gifts of the Holy Spirit, really tips his hand as seeking worldly gain regardless the consequence.
It's one thing to discern between denominational interpretations of Prophecy, and another to bring into the fray multiple denominations, then to bring in issues of pre/post/amillenialism, then issues of pre/mid/post tribulation, then to bring in issues of ecclesiological authority, then to bring up issues of spiritual gifts, then to bring up secular issues of political correctness, and then to become frustrated by the world and the church not following his ideas.
IMHO, he might have bitten off more than he can chew even if he continues to interpret Scripture on his lonesome, rather than first remaining in faith through Christ and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide him appropriately.
You are correct in stating that the Catholic church teaches that salvation is ONLY available through the Catholic Church. (see catechism pg 215 #816, pg 224 #846)
However, if you check in God's Word (the Bible), you will not find a single verse requiring one to go through a church to be saved! In fact, the opposite is taught:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlastin life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life..." John 5:24 (Jesus talking)
"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47 (Jesus speaking)
The Apostle Paul gives step by step instructions on how to be saved: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10
Notice no church is required. So if Catholicism is right then the Apostle Paul is a liar along with John who wrote, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." John 1:12
The key is belief in Jesus. Who are you trusting? Man made dogma or the inerrent Word of God?
Personally, I see red flags when I hear about uniting denominations. The Great Commission is to preach the gospel, which is salvation. Talk of unity is usually a side track towards compromise on the gospel.
In Matthew 10:34-39 Jesus says that he did not come to bring peace on this earth, but that his message (salvation) would set people against one another.
The message from the pulpit should be to preach the gospel, all of it, and to believe it, even if it seems "wierd." This guys message seems to be, let's water down the parts we don't like or understand, and then we can be larger and stronger.
Nothing you have posted contradicts with what I mentioned above. There is salvation outside the Church but it lacks the fullness offered by Christ though His church. His intent was to establish a Church that would go forth into the world on a universal mission of teaching, sanctifying and governing (i.e. the ecclesial expression of Christ's own trifold ministry of prophet, priest and king).
Naturally, Christ could easily have chosen a variety of different methods for reaching the world with his message of forgiveness and redemption but it remains a fact that he chose a particular method: Using the Church as His own body, endowing it with authority and guidance (cf. Luke 10:16, John 16:12), and His promise that the Church, which would be comprised of good and bad members (Matt. 13:24-30), would exist until the end of the world (cf. Matt. 28:20).
You are right, kosta50. Protestants do not use the same Bible as Orthodoxy's nearly 2000-year-old version.
However, not all Lutherans are Protestant. And a proper Lutheran Bible contains, in addition to the New Testament and the Old Testament books accepted by Protestants and Jews, a set of other books listed in a special section, the "Apocrypha".
Luther's original version contained the "apocryphal" books accepted by Roman Catholics. Some modern versions, such as the one I own, also include "apocryphal" books not in the Roman Cathholic canon, but accepted by the Orthodox Church and/or certain Oriental Orthodox churches.
Some passages from the "Apocrypha" are occasionally read in Lutheran services, e.g., "let us now phrase famous men". However, the "Apocrypha" is generally assigned a lower status than the other Old Testament books among Lutherans.
Even among us Lutherans who have and use a Bible that includes the "Apocrypha", it is not quite the same Bible as the Orthodox one. First of all, our "apocryphal" books are in an appendix. Second of all, the Orthodox who use an English Bible prefer a translation of Old Testament books from the Septuagint, while our Bibles are translated from several sources, dominated by Hebrew and Aramaic sources in the case of the Old Testament.
Nevertheless, "Bishop" Hanson's call for a rump "council" is not really about different versions of the Bible, but about authority in the Church to interpret scripture. I will repy to that main issue in another post.
Nah, Gerald Kieschnick of the LCMS is the "Lutheran Pope."
As a liberal protestant, Hanson thinks that the main problem is those nasty "fundamentalists" who take scripture and in many cases tradition seriously, and refuse to use such "progresive" methods of interpretation as the "literary theory", "feminist theory" and "queer theory" that rule the English and literature departments of many colleges and universities, and which have seeped into the seminaries. To these liberal elitists, any conservative or orthodox Lutheran (or other Christian) is a "fundamentalist" or even a "fundagelical", even Evangelical Catholics or Evangelical Orthodox Lutherans and their counterparts outside the Lutheran sphere. I have seen articles in which some of these ELCA liberal elitists have used the term "fundagelical" to describe, for example, any Lutheran who opposes gaysbian pastors or "blessing" gaysbian "unions". And I have personally heard ELCA liberal elitists describe Orthodox Christians as "rigid" and "archaic".
Those "nasty fundagelicals" are opposing the efforts of these ELCA liberals to back the cause of their favorite "pets", especially gaysbians and feminazis. And they are doing it on the basis of scripture. The liberals feel the need to put a stop to that, in order to advance the cause of "progressiveism".
Besides, most ELCA laity stubbornly back Israel, rather than the elitists' "Palestinian" "pets". Most of these layfolk are in no way dispensationalists or "apocalypticists" (sp?), but back Israel on the basis of rather normal types of scriptural interpretation, and out of the concern for simple justice. But these laity are "nasty fundagelicals" anyway, so it is easy for people like Hanson to lump them in with the true dispensationalists in certain conservative Protestant churches.
I have BIG NEWS for "Bishop" Hanson. No Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic leader has ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER in supporting him in his bogus liberal protestant project to "combat fundamentalism"!!!!
Yes, there are real issues in how Christians should interpret scripture, and the role of church authorities (e.g., popes, bishops, and councils), tradtion, the Church Fathers, theology professors, etc. etc. in helping us do so. Ironically, it is the liberal revsionists themselves, who claim to "respect the authority of scripture" but come up with such wacko and heterodox ideas from their interpretation of it, who have exposed the weaknesss of "unaided" interpretation of scripture by each and everyone. (However, scripturally literate Lutheran laity usually do a much better job of interpreting scripture than these revisionists.)
In the Lutheran/Orthodox sphere of ecumenical discussions, there have been some fine dialogues on the role of scripture and tradition in Christian life and practice. Let these and other parallel dialogues (e.g., Lutheran/Catholic, Catholic/Orthodox) continue, and let the results of them be disseminated to layfolk for our own edification and discussion. But there is no need for a bogus liberal-inspired project to "combat fundamentalism".
Ministers of death they are, but ladies definitely they are not who would kill their children in the womb.
The ELCA health care plan, I am ashamed to state, covers abortion with few restrictions for all women covered under the plan; including the wives and daughters of male clergy.
Attempts to bring the plan into compliance with the denomination's social teaching statement limiting abortion to rape, incest, maternal life, or severe fetal deformation have been rebuffed for all of the usual "we don't want to interfere with a woman and her Doctor" reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.