different Protestant...

[DianJo]

Originally Posted by LutheranStudent

Secondly, and most importantly, Lutherans hold that good works are NOT NECESSARY to get to heaven. ONLY FAITH is NECESSARY. How people can still miss this is beyond me, since it is one of the most prevalent themes in the whole Bible. For a FEW glances, check these out:
Galatians 3:1-14
Romans 4:13-25
Acts 15:7-10
Romans 5:16-21
EPHESIANS 2:8
You see, heaven is not something that is WON. Indeed, it cannot be won, because who can keep the whole law perfectly? Nobody! For, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)

The best explanation I've seen on this is from
www.scripturecatholic.com. Here is some of it:

The phrase"faith alone" only occurs once in the Bible. "Man is justified by works and NOT faith alone." No where in Scripture does it say that man is justified or saved by "faith alone." To the contrary, man is not justified by faith alone. In Catholic theology, a man is justified by faith and works acting together, which comes solely from God's divine grace. Faith alone never obtains the grace of justification (Council of Trent, chapter 8, canon 9). Also the work "justified" (dikaiow) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham - so Protestants cannot argue James is not referring to "justification" in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn't in Rom. 4:3 either.

You cite Eph. 2:8. I'll cite Eph. 2: 8 and 9. Paul teaches that faith in the root of justification and that faith excludes "works of the law." But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by "faith alone." It only indicates that faith comes first. This must be true because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not grace. But faith alone does not justify.

Heb. 11:6 - Faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. This is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification.Faith alone does not justify a person. This gratuitous gift of faith from God also indicates the grace of hope and love the moment the person is justified.

Gal. 5:6 - The faith that justifies us is "faith working through love," not faith alone. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures - see Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6, 12-13, 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5, 19. All faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action which is necessary to perfect our faith.

James 1:22-25 - It's the doers who are justified, not the hearers. Justification is based on what we do, which menas "works." Notice that there is nothing about "false faith." The hearers may have faith but they need to accompany their faith by works or they will not be justified. See Rom. 2-13.

James 2:17, 26 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works are a couse, not just an effect of our justiication because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture says nothing about "saving faith." Protestants cannot show us from Scripture that "works" qualify the "faith" into "saving faith." Instead, Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when "faith and works" acts together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also nevers says that faith "leads to works." Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They are distinct (mind and action) and yet must act together in order to receive God's unmerited gift of justification.

Continued

[DianJo]

Continued from previous post:

James 2:20 - Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

James 2:22 - Faith is active with works and is completed by works. It does not stand alone. Faith needs works to affect our justification.

James 4:17 - James writes that the failure to do works is a sin! So works are absolutely necessary.

James 2:15-17 - Examples of the "works" are the corporal works of mercy (giving food and shelter to those in need).

James 1:27 - Another example of "works" is visiting orphans and widows in their afflication. Otherwise, if they do not perform these good works, their religion is in vain.

James 2:8 - to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is "before men" and not "before God." Scripture proves otherwise.

James 2:14 - James asks, "Can faith save him?" Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.

James 2:19 - James reminds us that even demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God, not with men. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.

James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham's justification refers to his position before God, not men.

Acts 10:35 - Peter teaches that anyone who fears the Lord AND does what is right is acceptable to Him. It is both fear and works, not fear alone.

Romans 2:13 - For it is the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Paul is referring to the "law of Christ" in Gal. 6:2, not "works of the law" in Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The "law of Christ" is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and "works of the law" mean no faith in Christ and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).
"Works of the law" refer to the law of Moses or any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul's mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the "works of the law." James is referring to "good works" (i.e., clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the "Mosaic law" (which included the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to gives us payment.

Rom. 4:5-6 - To him who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted to him as righteousness, like David, who was righteous apart from works. Here Paul is emphasizing that works must be done in faith not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (God owes us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us). Paul accepts the works performed under God's forebearance (grace) in Rom. 2:7, 10, 13 (see Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-17; and 2 Cor. 5:10) which lead to justification and eternal life. These verses have nothing to do with "faith alone".

Rom. 6:16 - Obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience is a good "work" and an act of the will which leads to righteousness before God.

I could go on - but this is really more than enough, don't you think?

[LutheranStudent]

Sorry I'm late~! I decided I needed a vacation today to catch up on some homework and the like that I had been losing grip on since I joined this great discussion. When this weekend rolls around I plan on going back and answering some of the questions I've left unanswered. As for now the only one I have time for is Edwin:

Perhaps not in your view, perhaps not in the view of the Catholic Church (since Trent). But in Luther's view there were, and as Lutheran Student points out there were plenty of people in the previous tradition to support him on this one.


Thank you, Edwin. It's comforting to know that people are researching and studying along with me!

I would, however, like to see Student's evidence that Augustine changed his view. I'm pretty sure that he didn't.


As far as this one goes, I kindof made a judgement it myself. I ran into a number of different Catholic sources that said he was rooting for the Apocrypha. I ran into several others that said he originally rooted for the Apocrypha, but changed his mind. Here is a quote from Augustine I found on
http://www.wls.wels.net/Publications...WrightELCA.htm

“The whole canon of Scriptures on which we say that this consideration of the steps of knowledge should depend is contained in the following books: the five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua, one of Judges...Ruth... the four books of Kings and two of Paralipomenon [1&2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles]...Job, ...Esther, ... the Psalms of David, and the three books of Solomon: Proverbs, the Canticles of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes... twelve single books of Prophets... Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Zephanias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. Then there are four books of four major Prophets: Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel... The New Testament contains the four evangelical books, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James; a book of the Acts of the Apostles, and a book of the Apocalypse of John.”[8]

<DIV align=left>

[8]<SPAN style="LAYOUT-GRID-MODE: line"> Saint Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine” (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 41-42.

[random element]

Lutheran Student, it's interesting watching you respond to everyone on this post. Your initial explaination on your first post is really all we needed to hear. Your joyful exclaimation of Sola Scriptura as the truth says it is all.

I find it hard to belief that you could sit there and call Mormons and the JW's not Christian - after all they follow Sola Scriptura too!! Since You Believe that Scripture is self interpreting (one of the "pillars" to believing on Sola Scripture.) How can you contest their claim (or anyone else's) to be Christian. After all it is their Interpretation. The beauty of protestantism is that truth can be shaded in so many colors that you can believe in as you see fit.
I have trouble believing you actually are debating because you have thrown in snide remarks (always unsubstatiated until someone brings it up to you and then you reply with half quotes of Church Fathers, or quotes from Scripture.) in almost every reply.
Since you believe in Sola Scriptura I can ignore every one of your Scripture Quotes because they are meaningless in a debate because of the "Magic" of Sola Scriptura -I can believe as I see fit and you can believe that you interpretation is correct "I am right and you are right" - You can't question the Holy Spirit, after all I pray and and ask for guidance reading Scripture, and I get a "burning In my bosom" when I read.

The beauty of Sola Scriptura and the combination of Sola Fide is that I could be kill a thousand people, commit a thousand Adulteries, and because I am Saved (I declared it) and believe that Scripture says I am saved because of my interpretation (with the Holy Spirit Guiding me.)

[Des]

I often wonder why protestants, who say they have the spirit and it is He who teaches them, go to Bible Study class. Why do they need to learn from others what the Bible teaches if in fact it is so easily understood?

[Little Mary]

Originally Posted by Des

I often wonder why protestants, who say they have the spirit and it is He who teaches them, go to Bible Study class. Why do they need to learn from others what the Bible teaches if in fact it is so easily understood?

I'll take that a bit further...Why do they have seminaries? Why do they have preachers at all? Why not just open the bible and have an hour of silence? Can the preachers and seminaries teach them something that the Holy Spirit can't???????

If you want, go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and order two tapes: Sola Scriptura and One Church. They touch on this question.

[Katholikos]

To LutheranStudent:

Saint Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine" that you presented as "proof" that he had "changed his mind" about supporting the original canon of Scriptures conveniently omits several books. Are the omissions yours or your sources? Here's what the saint really wrote.

QUOTE 13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles -- these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther,and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra,(1) which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach.(2) Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament(3) is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John. END QUOTE (On Christian Doctrine, Saint Augustine)

Baruch was originally part of Jeremiah and is not listed separately here.

This translation is from the University of Pennsylvania:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/ddc2.html

[Katholikos]

To: LutheranStudent

QUOTE

ST. AUGUSTINE (390 A.D.)
St. Augustine's New Testament was the same as ours today. Now we begin to see conformity [in the canon]. The influence of St. Augustine in establishing the Bible was greater probably than any other Father or than any council. People now attribute to God what was really the work of one man. While councils decided upon the canon, and their decision became embodied sentiment of the entire church, the expression was really that of but one man, the leader in the council, and when doubts arose as to the authority of a book, scholarship was not involved to decide it, for the members possessed almost none. They simply asked: "What did the Early Fathers say of it?" Prof. Davidson says:

"In relation to the New Testament, the synods which drew up lists of the sacred books show the opinion of some leading Father like Augustine, along with what custom had sanctioned. In this department no member of the synod exercised his critical faculty; a number together would decide such questions summarily. Bishops proceeded in the track of tradition or authority" (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 172).

In 393 A.D. a council met in Hippo, in Africa, discussed the canon, and adopted St. Augustine's list. St. Augustine himself was present, and was the ruling spirit.

[Note: Hippo adopted the same list canonized by the Council of Rome in 382, Pope Damusus I presiding.]

In 397 A.D. was held the third council of Carthage. St. Augustine was again present. It adopted a decree as follows:

"It was also determined that besides the canonical scriptures, nothing be read in the church under the title of Divine Scriptures. The Canonical scriptures are these:"
Then follow the names of the books of the Bible as we have them now, except some variations in the order. END QUOTE

http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/4th_century.htmQ

[Note: Carthage, like Hippo, where St. Augustine was bishop, affirmed the canon adopted at the Council of Rome in 382 and sent its decrees to Rome for confirmation. A letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 listed the same canon of Scriptures as contained in the decrees of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and as contained in the Vulgate edition of the Bible, based on the Council of Rome, which was also published in 405.]

JMJ Jay

[Little Mary]

You go, Kat!!

[Katholikos]

Contarini wrote: Perhaps not in your view, perhaps not in the view of the Catholic Church (since Trent). But in Luther's view there were [second-class scriptures]

, and as Lutheran Student points out there were plenty of people in the previous tradition to support him on this one.

There were so many opinions about which writings were Scripture and which were not that the Catholic Church had to settle the matter in council, where questions have always been dealt with from the very beginning of the Church (see the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15). Neither Jerome nor any other early Christian writer decided the canon --the Catholic Church did. In obedience, Jerome translated the Vulgate, based on the canon decreed by the Council of Rome, at the personal request of Pope Damusus I.


In 1522-34 Luther, in his megalomania, thought God appointed him to evaluate and approve or discard sacred books that had been designated as Scripture since the original canon was named in 382. Such appalling audacity!

I'd like to know your explanation as to exactly what Luther's point was in removing eleven books and placing them at the back of his German translation of the Bible since you say it was not to show his disdain for them -- in spite of what his prefaces say! He dissed the so-called "apocrypha" but not Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, even though he treated them exactly the same?

JMJ Jay

[LutheranStudent]

Hello Everyone!

Well, let me get down to addressing the things that I have left unanswered for the sake of time or research. John Ennis says in post #79:



And with Cyprian; in the same letter you cite, he says, "For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases...if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition."



Exactly. If we return to the source we will find the truth. What is that source? Christ himself and the Holy Scriptures. I repeat that I have found nothing in them to support Catholic views on Mary as a co-redeemer, purgatory, veneration of saints, etc. Do you really think that the apostles in Scripture would have believed in these things and not mentioned them anywhere in the twenty-seven books?



I have also been reading the writings of the fathers for about 2 hours every day to see if they really subscribed to such things. So far, I have found nothing that really contradicts with Confessional Lutheran theology, and nothing to support the aforementioned doctrines of the modern Catholic Church. My books already have hundreds of post-it notes sticking out to mark pages that I believe to be distinctly anti-Catholic theology. I shall try to employ them reasonably when you return, John, but let me share with you just this one which I found interesting. It was written by Vincent of Lerins. (Comm., 3:7-8, trans. NPNF, 2nd ser., XI, pp. 132-133)



“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced to any fraud of novelty.”



To St. Vincent of Lerins it surely seemed that the one church on earth could surely not depart from the truth of Scripture during his time. If only he could have seen the extreme changes that would eventually take place. He did have a hint of it, though, which is why he allowed for men to break from the mainstream church to follow the gospel originally taught to Christians, that is salvation full and free. It looks to me as though St. Vincent believed in holding to the tradition of teachings as opposed to holding onto the men in a succession.



This is all vital, if occasionally tedious. Your point that, the closer you look at the early church, the more it resembles Luther's creed, is fundamental. It was the first question I asked when my own faith was challenged by my in-laws: "How could the Church have got it wrong for 15 centuries, till Luther finally got it right?"



It’s like I said, John, I remain convinced that there was always a faithful remnant. After all, it wasn’t until after the Reformation that the Catholic Church sealed such issues as the Apocrypha and justification by works. (Council of Trent) It looks as though someone was trying to keep their political prestige, eh? Say “hi” to your in-laws for me John.

[LutheranStudent]

DianJo Said,

Heresy has existed as long as time itself but because heresy exists doesn't mean we shut the doors of the Church because she might teach something that is infected with heresy. On the contrary, she will fight even harder to make sure that the truth is preserved. The bible IS A TRADITION of the Church.



Please read the above statement by Vincent of Lerins on matters of heresy, DianJo. I believe that you find, as the early Christians did, that when heresy infects a portion of the church it is necessary to separate yourself from that heresy, for the preservation of faith. I had always thought that this would be the Catholic point of view, too. As far as your assessment of The Bible as a tradition of the Church, I say “Yes!” The Bible came about through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the careful, guiding hand of God in the early Christian church. So now there are things found in the doctrine of the church that are not found in Scripture, what are we to say? Have things really remained the same?



The bible cannot and never will contradict Tradition because the bible came from that Tradition. The books of the bible were measured against the Tradition of the Apostles and the Old Testament scripture. To suggest that we should no longer trust the Traditions of the church for this reason is ludicrous.



Hmm. That’s an interesting statement, Diana. Scripture cannot contradict ‘tradition’? In this case I am assuming you mean tradition as taught today by the Catholic Church? Well then I refer you back a few posts to the challenge I made. Show me in Scripture where God supports Mary as co-redeemer, veneration of saints, righteousness by works, etc. John Ennis, to whom I originally issued a similar challenge regarding apostolic succession, responded that he could not prove it since I didn’t believe in the Fathers as truly authoritative. The challenge, however, is still open to anyone.



I still am thankful for your kind rebuke and forgiveness, Diana, I just wanted to respond to these items before we got too far down the line.

[LutheranStudent]

Katholikos stated reaffirmed John Ennis’ statement that Luther removed the Book of James and Jude along with the OT Apocrypha to the back of the Bible. In this case they are correct. He did it because he had a great deal of skepticism about their canonicity. He arrived at this idea through a number of different reasons, the primary being that he did not understand what James was truly saying. My research has revealed that many clergy in the Pre-Reformation Catholic Church felt the same way, as they did about the Apocrypha. I have yet to find out when the NT books were placed back into the NT, or by whom. John Ennis suggested that it was done by Philip Melancthon. This would not surprise me in the least, since Melancthon often was often a voice of reason to Luther, (who, I admit, tended to get a bit worked up. He admitted the same thing.) Neither would it surprise me if Luther himself restored it to the NT, once he had realized it’s true content. Here is a quote:







Luther sees a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out, “Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’”[i][51] Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”[ii][52] In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:



“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”[iii][53]


End Quote.





http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a6



This website is a sub-site of another, for those actually interested in Luther’s views on the Apocrypha and the canon, please visit:



http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

[LutheranStudent]

Katholikos said,

“The so-called "Apocrypha" (erroneous Protestant terminololgy) were part of the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint, which the Church inherited from Jesus and the Apostles.”



It is true that the Apocryphal books were part of the Greek Septuagint, and yet interesting to note that NONE of them are quoted by the apostles in the NT, despite hundreds of different OT quotes including at some from EVERY other book. By reading the writings of the apostles, it would look as though they didn’t give them much credit, either. Although I have read very little of the Apocrypha, does my memory serve me correctly when I say that they make no claim to inspiration, or references to the coming Messiah?



During the winter months of 1512 to 1513, when he was reading the Epistle to the Romans, the great enlightenment of Sola Fide came to Luther. It was a completely novel doctrine, new to him and new to the world. The Apostles did not teach it; consequently, the Catholic Church has never taught it. I maintain that little green men live on the moon.



Katholikos, you’d better run and tell that to the church fathers:



Chysostom:

“True wisdom is the gospel, the means of salvation through the cross of Christ. The perfect are those who believe. They are indeed “perfect” because they know that all human things are utterly helpless, and therefore they ignore them, being convinced that they have nothing to gain from them. This is what true believers are like.” Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 7.1.



Theodoret of Cyr:

“The law condemned sinners, but grace receives them and justifies them by faith. It leads them to holy baptism and grants them forgiveness of sins.” Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 303. Migne PG 83:395



Didymus the Blind:

“It is not we, but He who enables our faith, accepting us and judging us by it.” Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church. NTA 15:24



Augustine:

“If the belief is correct that circumcision served instead of baptism in the saints of old, (OT) What shall be said of those who believed God before this was commanded, except that they pleased him by faith, because as it was written in Hebrews “Without faith it is impossible to please God”? Letter to Dardanus 187.34. FC 30:248



Fulgentius:

“For the grace of justification is given in the present time, but the grace of glorification is saved as a future grace. The one is of faith, the other of sight. Paul says that now, “We walk by faith, not sight.” What the saints believe now, then they will see.” To Monimus I 11:5. FC 95:202



I will address this again later with Scripture passages.

[LutheranStudent]

Traditional Ang asked,

“And, with that doctrine in mind, how do you derive the doctirnes such as Christ's Consubstantiality to the Father or the Trinity without Recourse to the Creeds created by that same Universal Church in Council?”



Same place the early Christian church got it from:

Jesus says,

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” John 15:26



“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”Matthew 28:19



“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30



And Scripture also says,

“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.”Genesis 1:26



“May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”2 Corinthians 13:14



“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”Deuteronomy 6:4



“There is no God but one.” 1 Corinthians 8:4



Lutherans accept the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and Athenasian Creed as being doctrinally sound because they are rooted in Scripture.