Posted on 07/25/2013 10:44:56 AM PDT by Gamecock
Any truly saved person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit could answer that question without hesitation. It’s because when one is save Christ indwells that individual and changes their heart to want to please God and detests the sin that his/her human nature still tends towards. When indwelt by the Holy Spirit the desire to obey and please God is a desire that becomes part of the changed heart.
>>what difference to their salvation does it make whether they go to church on Sunday?<<
It doesn’t but the changed heart wants as much interaction with other truly saved people and desire to praise and worship causes the truly saved to want to attend. Only those who don’t understand true salvation don’t understand that desire but think it’s a duty.
>>or they won't be saved no matter what they do?<<
There again, the truly saved understand that it’s not “no matter what they do” but the desire changes to not want to do those things contrary to God’s will.
Yes, please explain it. Why the need for a catechism (another book) if the One Book has all the answers one needs?
Also, where is there mention of confession in the article? I don’t see it.
A catechism is nothing more than a statement of belief. If you say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.", that is a catechism and you can cite scripture to support your catechism. Catechisms organizes our doctrine.
Here is the Heidelberg Catechsim.
It’s there reread it.
What is your understanding of the REFORMED definition of the term "Sola Scriptura?"
Thanks Harley.
Isn’t the theory since Luther that scripture is readable and its interpretation obvious? Why would you need to pick one interpretation organize that into a statement of belief?
I think you may be saying it’s just a different wording or organization; but isn’t it also to say what you believe versus what others believe - based on the same scripture, alone?
Thanks Gamecock.
I believe the term depends on who you ask. I’ve heard ones that seem more reasonable, but less sola. And ones less reasonable and more sola.
So it depends. And I think that is part of my point. If the meaning of scripture is obvious, why the need to define beliefs and doctrines?
Today many of these grand documents are all but forgotten. It is good to be reminded of them. Statements like the Heidelberg Catechism isn't about denominational differences but about what defines Protestants from Catholics. It is our belief in general about the natural of God using sola scriptural as our guide. Regrettably, the reason many Protestants today find nothing wrong with Catholic belief is they have simply have forgotten these documents. They read through these documents disagreeing with portions-even though the scripture references are right in front of them. But there were good reasons the Reformation occurred.
These confessions and catechism are important. Most Protestant church website may have at most 5 or 6 statements of beliefs. These are usually generic and may (or may not) have a piece of scripture attached. ("We're a caring church.", "We're an inclusive church.", etc.) Before I attend any unknown church I usually read their Statement of Beliefs on their website. But it becomes hard to know what any church believe anymore. Even among denominational churches, there are some very off the wall beliefs. Most church statements are extremely generic because they want to get you "in the door". Totally dishonest.
Protestants should embrace documents like the Heidelberg catechism-not shy away from them. They contain the foundational truths of Protestants.
So if I understand what you are saying, your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is all (my word) Scripture is obvious?
A lot of folks claim Sola Scriptura, that is why I am asking your understanding of the Reformed formulation.
I see your point here: to separate, distinguish from Catholic.
But, a lot of Protestants have the same creeds and there are definitely confessional arguments and distinctions between them.
My main question still is the one I think Luther ran into: if your doctrine is all you need is scripture and it’s meaning is obvious, what happens when someone gets a different meaning than you from it?
CF: Luther and Zwingli.
I think “the meaning is obvious (or the same because it is the same scripture) is one underlying assumption of sola scriptura.
I think when Luther discovered that this was not the case, interpretative catechisms/confessions became necessary. And this revealed a problem with sola sciptura - really, almost regardless of the specific definition.
So the logic of sola scriptura is violated if you need another document that says what doctrine you get from scripture in order to be of the Reformed faith.
thanks for your reply
Ok, I think I understand your confusion. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Sola Scriptura NEVER clings to all of Scripture being understandable to every Christian. Simply put, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.
The Confessions and Catechisms are not, in any way, given superior or equal status to Scripture. Rather they are a summery of essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
I can think of this working it’s way out in three ways.
1. It protects God’s people from erroneous teaching. Let’s say a pastor gets in the pulpit and preaches we are saved by out own works. A Saint in the congregation know this is wrong, but will have to through Scripture trying to remember how to refute that statement. Or he can just open his handy Confession/Catechism and then approach the preacher and ask if he heard the preacher right. If the preacher confirms what the member heard, the summery of Scripture can be used to bring charges in a church court.
2. While Scripture is the Sole Rule of faith, the confessions and Catechisms are useful for instructing children and new believers. The footnotes prove what is being taught.
3. Let’s say Bod stands up in a small group and proclaims an new understanding. Rather than pour through Scripture, the catechism easily refutes false views brought out in small groups. Now the other side of the coin what if members of a church or group start pouring false teaching on a member. The member can double check, quickly, if he is right or the group, without have to spend hours studying Scripture.
Yes. In the Presbyterian church I’m attending we often have pastors from other denominations addressing the congregation. If one is rooted in the main tenants of the faith, the other issues take care of themselves.
What if Bob via sola scriptura says his understanding is correct and yours wrong? Which rules? Catechism or scripture?
Who determines the main tenets and on what authority? What if another disagrees on something like salvation by election?
If the church courts determine Bob to have a true understanding, the catechism may be changed.
If he is proven wrong, then it won’t be taught in the church. If he insists he is correct, and can’t in good faith worship in that church, then he should peacefully leave that church.
Thanks Gamecock, that makes sense.
Still...
:)
This seems to place a church court authority over scripture, something I thought was verbotten.
Nah. The church court is subordinate to Scripture.
How so? What if they become Bobs?
Does the catechism rule them?
It goes back to 32.
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.