2 Thessalonians 2:5-6

[JonNC]

So, a sola scripturist should be able to accept some oral tradition since the written may not be able to refute it. Or are you really saying it must be confirmed by the written part of the Tradition which really mean Bible Alone. Which brings us back to Paul…who give does not give more weight to one or the other.

It isn’t what I accept or reject that matters. As a Lutheran, I am bound by the teachings of the Church through the Confessions.
It must be remembered that an oral speaking of the Gospel predates it being written down.
From a Lutheran standpoint, I can accept some things not confirmed explicitly by scripture. For example, I accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. The confessions refer to it, but it is not doctrine. It is adiaphoron. Those things that are doctrine, things which bind the conscience of the believer, come from scripture, and are often witnessed to by tradition. As an example, the Holy Theotokos is clear from scripture and the doctrine affirmed by the early council.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;11418587]Just a little reminder c.c.

When discussing sola scriptura with a non-Catholic bear in mind that those who believe in sola scriptura are forced to acknowledge that they are dealing with an infallible group of books, the Bible. In order to interpret the Bible, the infallible Word of God, it takes an infallible interpreter. Nothing else will do.

Forced to agree that scripture is inerrant? Sure. I don’t need forcing. As for an infallible interpreter, the issue is, of course, who.

Sola scripturists have reserved for themselves, individually, the right to interpret the infallible Bible thereby claiming a certain infallibility for themselves, individually.

This is factually false. As a Lutheran, I have no such claim for myself, but am bound to the teachings of the Church.

They, therefore, individually, or in conjunction with the particular cult they choose to associate with, put forth their own oral traditions which they believe to be infallible.

I have never used the term cult in regard to the Catholic Church, and expect the same courtesy in return. There are cults out there, but Lutheranism is not one of them, and never has been. Neither is the Catholic church.

It is ironic that when they are asked if their own spin on particular scripture passages are correct, they will insist that they are all the while saying that they as individuals or as a group are not infallible.

I have my own spin, and I am not an infallible interpreter. Lutherans do not claim to be infallible, as you already know.

I think you can see where this eventually leads.

Sometimes to a polemical comment such as your post.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

It isn’t what I accept or reject that matters. As a Lutheran, I am bound by the teachings of the Church through the Confessions.
It must be remembered that an oral speaking of the Gospel predates it being written down.
From a Lutheran standpoint, I can accept some things not confirmed explicitly by scripture. For example, I accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. The confessions refer to it, but it is not doctrine. It is adiaphoron. Those things that are doctrine, things which bind the conscience of the believer, come from scripture, and are often witnessed to by tradition. As an example, the Holy Theotokos is clear from scripture and the doctrine affirmed by the early council.

Jon

Can a Lutheran accept a Tradition without there being any reference in scripture.

 

[Traverse]

I can not speak for Lutherans, but as a non-catholic I can say many traditions can be accepted without problem. The issue is that there really isn’t a lot of capital T traditions in the catholic church that aren’t already covered in scripture somewhere, making the whole distinction kind of moot. The vestments and statues/images and things like that are based on teachings that non-catholics typically don’t agree with, but they are also small t traditions anyway and the church could exist without them.

Getting to the meat potatoes of things like the pope and the real presence are disagreed on as well, but only as a disagreement of the meaning of particular passages. The catholic church certainly believes the teachings are derived from scripture.

Therefore, traditions don’t really seem to be the issue so much as the idea that the catholic church continually claims there is more truth than what is in scripture but a non-catholic believer can’t see an example of that. I guess the immaculate conception would come close, but that’s also not a matter of belief pertaining to salvation so I’m not sure it’s relevant to a discussion of someone’s faith.

 

[concretecamper]

Traverse:

I can not speak for Lutherans, but as a non-catholic I can say many traditions can be accepted without problem. The issue is that there really isn’t a lot of capital T traditions in the catholic church that aren’t already covered in scripture somewhere, making the whole distinction kind of moot. The vestments and statues/images and things like that are based on teachings that non-catholics typically don’t agree with, but they are also small t traditions anyway and the church could exist without them.

Getting to the meat potatoes of things like the pope and the real presence are disagreed on as well, but only as a disagreement of the meaning of particular passages. The catholic church certainly believes the teachings are derived from scripture.

Therefore, traditions don’t really seem to be the issue so much as the idea that the catholic church continually claims there is more truth than what is in scripture but a non-catholic believer can’t see an example of that. I guess the immaculate conception would come close, but that’s also not a matter of belief pertaining to salvation so I’m not sure it’s relevant to a discussion of someone’s faith.

You have got it completely backwards and I see a bit more clearly the issues. Traditions do not need to add to scripture. Tradition is used to interpret scripture. Without Tradition as the compass, people will get lost in scripture…which history has already proved out.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Nicea325]

Forced to agree that scripture is inerrant? Sure. I don’t need forcing. As for an infallible interpreter, the issue is, of course, who.

The Infallible church Christ founded. How can an infallible set of books have determined all by themselves there are infallible? An external factor or the extension of Christ Incarnation called the church is that factor.

 

[Tomster]

The Infallible church Christ founded. How can an infallible set of books have determined all by themselves there are infallible? An external factor or the extension of Christ Incarnation called the church is that factor.

Indeed!

And, of course, that extension of Christ’s Incarnation, which is the Church, is His Mystical Body as St. Paul teaches.

But now, back on topic.

Some might ask where did St. Paul get the authority to teach the doctrine off the Mystical Body of Christ?

The answer is that from the miraculous meeting near Damascus St. Paul received four great concepts:

1. The realization that the risen Christ was the Messias in whom the prophecies were fulfilled
2. That the Jesus who walked on earth is identical with the pre-existing, eternal Son of God
3. That Christ dwells mystically in His followers as in another physical body (Acts 9:5; 1 Corinthians12:13; Ephesians 5:30)
4. His own calling as the Apostle of the Gentiles

The Damascus vision was the vision that gave him his calling, and it can be compared to the visions in which the prophets were called. Because of that vision he was unable to keep silent about Christ, “for a necessity lieth upon me. Foe woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16)

Here we see the mission given to St. Paul by a direct vision from God. From this examination we can now have a somewhat clearer idea of who that mysterious power is who is holding back that other mysterious power, “the champion of wickedness”.

Looking at verse seven of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, the power that holds “the champion of wickedness” in check will be removed from the enemy’s path. Who or what will remove this power that presently holds “the champion of wickedness” in check?

Verse 3 gives us a beginning, an initial indication, of how this all will take place. The apostasy must come first.

When will the apostasy begin? Or, has it already begun?

 

[Tomster]

It isn’t what I accept or reject that matters. As a Lutheran, I am bound by the teachings of the Church through the Confessions.
It must be remembered that an oral speaking of the Gospel predates it being written down.
From a Lutheran standpoint, I can accept some things not confirmed explicitly by scripture. For example, I accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. The confessions refer to it, but it is not doctrine. It is adiaphoron. Those things that are doctrine, things which bind the conscience of the believer, come from scripture, and are often witnessed to by tradition. As an example, the Holy Theotokos is clear from scripture and the doctrine affirmed by the early council.

Jon

Just a note Jon, in over 500 years the Lutheran Confessions have never received an imprimatur from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body. They have never been accepted as official “teachings of the Church”. St. Paul never taught them either. They are simply fallible man-made traditions

 

[Nicea325]

Indeed!

And, of course, that extension of Christ’s Incarnation, which is the Church, is His Mystical Body as St. Paul teaches.

But now, back on topic.

Some might ask where did St. Paul get the authority to teach the doctrine off the Mystical Body of Christ?

The answer is that from the miraculous meeting near Damascus St. Paul received four great concepts:

1. The realization that the risen Christ was the Messias in whom the prophecies were fulfilled
2. That the Jesus who walked on earth is identical with the pre-existing, eternal Son of God
3. That Christ dwells mystically in His followers as in another physical body (Acts 9:5; 1 Corinthians12:13; Ephesians 5:30)
4. His own calling as the Apostle of the Gentiles

The Damascus vision was the vision that gave him his calling, and it can be compared to the visions in which the prophets were called. Because of that vision he was unable to keep silent about Christ, “for a necessity lieth upon me. Foe woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16)

Here we see the mission given to St. Paul by a direct vision from God. From this examination we can now have a somewhat clearer idea of who that mysterious power is who is holding back that other mysterious power, “the champion of wickedness”.

Looking at verse seven of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, the power that holds “the champion of wickedness” in check will be removed from the enemy’s path. Who or what will remove this power that presently holds “the champion of wickedness” in check?

Verse 3 gives us a beginning, an initial indication, of how this all will take place. The apostasy must come first.

When will the apostasy begin? Or, has it already begun?

Precisely! For the life of me, I simply cannot comprehend how so many non-Catholics who believe a fallible church fixed and canonized an infallible book called the Bible? Then the whole Bible would be in question.

 

[JonNC]

Can a Lutheran accept a Tradition without there being any reference in scripture.

It depends on what you mean by accept, and what you mean by Tradition. For example, Lutherans generally accept the 7 ecumenical councils. We wouldn’t use the term “infallible” to describe them. Authoritative for the Church. And they are, as a result, witnesses to the truth of the faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The Infallible church Christ founded. How can an infallible set of books have determined all by themselves there are infallible? An external factor or the extension of Christ Incarnation called the church is that factor.

That’s fine, except that different parts of the Church (not even talking about Lutheranism) has accepted as canonical different books as part of the “infallible” list. And apparently, interpret them differently. So, who is to know which see is the “infallible” interpreter, outside of taking one on its say-so>

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Just a note Jon, in over 500 years the Lutheran Confessions have never received an imprimatur from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body. They have never been accepted as official “teachings of the Church”. St. Paul never taught them either. They are simply fallible man-made traditions

Hmm. Somehow I am not surprised that you would say this. Of course, we are indeed part of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. And, of course, we would disagree that with your statement that St. Paul didn’t teach what we teach.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

That’s fine, except that different parts of the Church (not even talking about Lutheranism) has accepted as canonical different books as part of the “infallible” list. And apparently, interpret them differently. So, who is to know which see is the “infallible” interpreter, outside of taking one on its say-so>

Jon

But my friend, if that is the determing factor, we can also add into the mix, Arians, Jehovah Witnesses,Mormons,etc who reject the Incarnation, Trinity,etc,etc. The fact that mother church (west/east) split does not have a bearing on doctrinal matters. What has been defined as orthodox has been determined.

 

[The_Wizard]

This got off topic really fast!

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Can a Lutheran accept a Tradition without there being any reference in scripture.

It depends on what you mean by accept, and what you mean by Tradition. For example, Lutherans generally accept the 7 ecumenical councils. We wouldn’t use the term “infallible” to describe them. Authoritative for the Church. And they are, as a result, witnesses to the truth of the faith.

Jon

If one accepts the 7 ecumenical councils, one is bound to accept all written or unwritten traditions of the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[JonNC]

If one accepts the 7 ecumenical councils, one is bound to accept all written or unwritten traditions of the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Why?

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

If one accepts the 7 ecumenical councils, one is bound to accept all written or unwritten traditions of the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Why?

Jon

Nicea II

1. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Tomster]

Hmm. Somehow I am not surprised that you would say this. Of course, we are indeed part of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. And, of course, we would disagree that with your statement that St. Paul didn’t teach what we teach.

Jon

And it doesn’t surprise me that you would disagree. The fact still remains that the Church has never given an imprimatur to any of the Lutheran confessional statements. Why do you think that is Jon?

 

[Tomster]

That’s fine, except that different parts of the Church (not even talking about Lutheranism) has accepted as canonical different books as part of the “infallible” list. And apparently, interpret them differently. So, who is to know which see is the “infallible” interpreter, outside of taking one on its say-so>

Jon

Well then Jon, let’s talk about Lutheranism.

Obviously as a good Lutheran, Jon, you would have to accept the words of your spiritual father, Dr. Luther on his say-so wouldn’t you?

Luther replaced the infallible teaching authority of the Church by his self-bestowed personal infallibility in interpreting the Bible. In theory, he conceded the right of every believer to do this: “In matters of faith each Christian is for himself Pope and Church, and nothing may be decreed or kept that could issue (result) in a threat to faith.” But in practice it was Luther’s interpretation which must be accepted: “He who does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is God’s and not mine.”

Luther did not believe in universal freedom of opinion in religious matters. What he demanded was freedom for his own opinions. Those who disagreed with him, whether Catholic or Protestant were dismissed as “pig-dogs”, “dolts”, “fiends from hell”. His interpretaion of the Bible was the saving truth; all else were lies and delusions. It is hardly surprising that some Reformers (desenters from the desenter) who disagreed with him remarked sardonically that it was a small gain to have got rid of the Pope if they were to have in his place the Pope of Wittenberg.

Having said this, it’s no wonder why you wouldn’t want to talk about Lutheranism. You really should brush up on the words of your spiritual Father, Jon, and admit that for you as a Lutheran, Dr. Luther’s interpretation of the Bible is infallible and quit dragging the Sees of the East and the West into all of your responses. Just admit it, Jon, for you as a Lutheran the only See(s) where the infallible interpretations of the Bible can be found are the fragmented synods of Lutheranism.

 

[Tomster]

But my friend, if that is the determing factor, we can also add into the mix, Arians, Jehovah Witnesses,Mormons,etc who reject the Incarnation, Trinity,etc,etc. The fact that mother church (west/east) split does not have a bearing on doctrinal matters. What has been defined as orthodox has been determined.

True enough! Unless of course you are a disciple of Dr. Luther. Then what was once declared as orthodox has now become subject for review and declared unorthodox.

This discussion is blending nicely. It goes right to my OP.