Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the Reformation churches are supersessionist. It is the Christian Churches that were never apart of the Church-State system that recognize that GOD is not done with Israel and that the covenants made with Israel have not been transferred to Christians.
It’s not biblical, and no Christian held this belief prior to Luther.
I've heard this comment so many times that when I began to examine Sola Scriptura for myself it was one of the first things I looked at. Did Sola Scriptura exist in practice prior to Luther? The answer is clearly YES!
In March 744AD, Clement of the Scotch Church was condemned as a heretic by a council at Soissons because he believed "no councils, writings, decisions of the church that are contrary to Scripture have authority over Christians".
Apparently the institutional church was so afraid of this belief that Boniface called a synod at Soissons 2 March 744.
Millers Church History has the details if you wish to examine this on your own.
Interesting way of putting it, and accurate as far as I’m able to decipher. I can’t think of a denomination that has been a State Church that doesn’t believe this, or one that hasn’t that does.
Being a State Church breeds hubris in more ways than one, it would seem. The Founders were more right than they ever knew.
I believe what gets missed when this point is brought up is what the common point is among those with different views. If all parties believe in Sola Scriptura they start with the same source, the Bible. It's pretty easy to have a real discussion and understanding when we use the same source.
Right on the money. Good post.
Thanks for your reply.
It helps to have the same source, yes; however, it’s not a source like math book.
This is why we have variations on what Scriptures mean in terms of doctrine and dogma. Using the same source does not mean the same interpretation of the meaning that source.
Let me try and clarify it a little more. I could be wrong and I am happy to look at any serious input on the idea. I believe the Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran churches are all supersessionist. These churches are similar to the Roman Catholic Church in that they were protected entities of the state and to varying degrees had influence or control over their respective states.
Other churches that existed prior to the Reformation, or emerged after it, that were always separate from the state are not usually supersessionist; for example the Waldensian, Anabaptist, Methodist among others.
Being a State Church breeds hubris in more ways than one, it would seem. The Founders were more right than they ever knew.
I couldn't aree more!
Where do I keep adding to Scripture ? Show me the posts where you claim that I've added something to Scripture.
The Christian church during the Apostolic Era and generations immediately following had this problem and yet they muddled through without the use of coercive force to impose their understanding. It was with the rise of the belief that there must be one interpretation that everyone adheres to that led to a hierarchy in which tradition, creeds and confessions began to supersede Scripture.
To an extent, yes and to an extent no.
I doubt many of those in the NT early church or those to whom Jesus taught and preached and healed, had a clear understanding of who He was. And yet their faith in Him saved them, according to HIS own words in Scripture.
Not only that, no human being is perfectly capable of perfectly understanding who Jesus is and was.
The criteria is that you believe the Jesus of the NT. Any other Jesus can't save.
For example, this could open a can of worms, but the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus presented in Scripture. Putting faith in that one, cannot save. If someone knowingly puts their trust in that Jesus, the half-brother of Lucifer (Satan), that Jesus cannot save because that is not the Jesus presented in Scripture.
So, just because some group of men get together and explain what they think Jesus is the best they can express it, doesn't mean they're right.
So, I'll trust in the Jesus of Scripture. If someone wants to trust in the Jesus of the creeds, they are free to do so, but should not be surprised if it doesn't turn out so well in the end.
I didn’t say adding to scripture. You said scripture is all we need - yet it wasn’t all you needed to describe your position, make your argument, etc. Scripture wasn’t all you needed.
Let's simplify then. Does it matter if Christ is God? Does the Most Holy Trinity matter? Does it matter whether Christ rose from the dead? Does it matter whether Christ is of one substance with God the father, or human only, or divine only? Does it matter whether Christ equal to the Father or subsidiary? Whether He was incarnate God or became divine later...
Using the same source, Holy Scripture, there have been different interpretations on these questions.
Whatever answers/interpretation you have, this comprises a large portion of your personal creed.
Thanks for your reply.
They muddled through to the faith we have today by the councils of the Church, beginning with the one in Jerusalem.
Without this, we would have something similar to what we have today - a wide variety of doctrine and dogma based on the same source. And each claiming the meaning of that source based on their authority. We even see it claimed on each individual's authority.
However you feel about it, this has not resulted in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." It fails in practice.
Thanks for your reply.
And there is a hierarchy in the early Church. Without a hierarchy and authority, we have what St. Paul corrected in his epistles. Each his own authority is not how the Church was established.
The criteria is that you believe the Jesus of the NT. Any other Jesus can't save.
Throughout history up until today, the "Jesus of the NT" has been 'determined' to be many different things. A major concern of the creeds is to describe what is correct and what is not.
Your own determination is your own creed. If it varies from that of the creed, then you are outside the belief of the Church.
But it's not that simple. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different canons.
So which canon is correct? That requires an authority outside of Scripture.
In March 744AD, Clement of the Scotch Church was condemned as a heretic by a council at Soissons
I don't have any reason not to believe you.
But in 1400 years of Church history, that makes Luther and this guy.
How do you get the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith out of this?
It seems to me that you, among most other Protestants, read the doctrine into these various passages.
Which highlights another problem with Luther's doctrine.
Scripture is the final authority. It is all we need. We don’t need creeds or councils, doctrinal statements or magisteriums.
As far as what I say, I state my position and appeal to Scripture as the final authority to back it up. Considering the difficulty some people have understanding the clear teachings of Scripture, sometimes other words are necessary, but they are not creeds or councils nor am I demanding adherence to them. They are just a matter of clarification for those with reading comprehension issues.
Anything outside of Scripture used to determine who Jesus is, is meaningless.
Your own determination is your own creed.
Baloney......
If it varies from that of the creed, then you are outside the belief of the Church.
I don't care if I am outside the Catholic church. I am in the body of Christ by faith in Him, not part of any denomination by adherence to any creed.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
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.