A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy

[De_Maria]

Of course you think that. I’d be surprised if you didn’t. I think there are lots communions that do practice it improperly.
But if your goal now is only to dispute it,

That’s always been the main goal, Jon. This is the apologetics section of a Catholic forum. The heretical doctrine of SS is opposed to the Catholic Doctrine of passing down the Faith of Jesus Christ by Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

The other goal, of course, is to convince any Protestants that SS is a false doctrine.

you really don’t need me anymore.

His peace

Well, thanks for your participation anyway.

I’d like to summarize the things which I learned from you.

1. You admitted that SS is not in Scripture.
2. You said that because it is not in Scripture, it is not a doctrine.
3. You admitted that there are some doctrines which are adiaphora. Which means that Lutherans decide for themselves what to believe, despite Scripture.
4. You admitted that Luther and Melancthon used Tradition as well as Scripture to decide what they considered to be doctrinal.

All those things mitigate against the idea that SS is the sole rule of faith or that SS is the sole final rule of faith.

Again, thanks for your participation. May God continue to bless you.

 

[JonNC]

You admitted that SS is not in Scripture.
correct, not explicitly
You said that because it is not in Scripture, it is not a doctrine.
correct
You admitted that there are some doctrines which are adiaphora. Which means that Lutherans decide for themselves what to believe, despite Scripture.
Absolutely, totally and completely false.

You admitted that Luther and Melancthon used Tradition as well as Scripture to decide what they considered to be doctrinal.
again, entirely false.

 

[MT1926]

We may be talking past each other. If you refer back to my original post to you on this, I set the obvious as: Virgin birth and Incarnation.

Do we agree that these are obvious and accepted by the vast number of Christians, east and west ?

Assuming we do, the council of the Church identified Theotokos. They did this based on the scriptural -obvious Virgin Birth and Incarnation.

Do we agree?

If so, then we are talking about the same thing.

Thanks anyway. I think we are talking past each other here.

Yes I agree YOU set the obvious at virgin birth and incarnation. But I’m the one who asked you about the Marian Dogmas. These being perpetual virginity, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The virgin birth and incarnation aren’t the “Marian Dogmas”.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make from the beginning. The Catholic Church set the obvious at Mary Mother of God. Not everyone sets this to be the obvious. You take my original question and expect me to accept your answer on a different subject as the answer to my original question.

I guess my direct question is Mary the Mother of God set at the “obvious” or not? and why?

 

[JonNC]

I guess my direct question is Mary the Mother of God set at the “obvious” or not? and why?

Of course she is. Using numerous scripture references, one can see as the council did, that at the Incarnation, the nature of Christ as fully man and fully God is clear, and the Blessed Virgin carried and gave birth to the Christ, the second person of the Triune God.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You admitted that SS is not in Scripture.

correct, not explicitly

Where is it even implied?

 

[De_Maria]

You admitted that there are some doctrines which are adiaphora. Which means that Lutherans decide for themselves what to believe, despite Scripture.

Absolutely, totally and completely false.

You didn’t say that, for Lutherans, worshipping the Eucharist was a matter of adiaphora?

By the way, is it adiaphora for Anglicans? Why don’t you ever mention Anglican doctrine? Why are you, an Anglican, always defending Lutheranism?

 

[JonNC]

Where is it even implied?

Various places. But at this point in the conversation, I’m not moved to pursue it.

 

[JonNC]

You didn’t say that, for Lutherans, worshipping the Eucharist was a matter of adiaphora?

Kneeling isn’t. But the doctrine of the real presence is about the doctrine of the real presence.

By the way, is it adiaphora for Anglicans? Why don’t you ever mention Anglican doctrine? Why are you, an Anglican, always defending Lutheranism?

Because in Anglicanism, SS is not the usual practice.

http://www.virtueonline.org/sola-scriptura-and-anglican-way-gavin-dunbar

 

[Teek]

I absolutely admire those who love the Word of God so much that they fight this passionately to be faithful to it—on both sides of the argument!

I do believe there is an objective truth. For me, when emotion gets involved, I have to separate myself and use only logic and reason to find truth, and then reengage the rest of my faculties.

I grew up knowing the Bible is the living Word of God. I was astounded to hear that people thought Catholics don’t read and study the Bible, because I went to a Catholic school that thoroughly taught Scripture. We even knew about the cycle of readings in Mass and that the Church Universal studies the Bible in three year. My parents were big on privately reading the Bible, so we saw that and imitated it.

Even so, I never thought of the gap in time between Christ and the physical Bible as we know it today. So when my non-Catholic Christian friends at the Catholic University I attended tried to save my soul from the whore of Babylon, they shook me up a bit over this question. I thought, naively, well of course everything we do is in the Bible! They asked where.

Fortunately, I had bumbled my way into a friendship with the most impactful spiritual director I could have asked for—Father Jerome Neyrey, who I give thanks to God for to this day!—who openly scoffed at the apparent feeble foundation of my faith, so easily challenged, and started grabbing books off his giant shelf and opening them up and pointing to a paragraph for me to read, and while I did that getting another until the small table we in front of me was covered two books deep.

Then he peered at me over his glasses and said, “After 2000 years of Church history filled with the greatest of saints and theologians pondering the mysteries of our faith from every angle under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, do you think you were the first to ask about that? Know. Your. Faith!”

My friends got angry. Not glad that I pointed out the truth. Angry and belittling and condemned me to hell if I don’t change my ways. Good thing Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to his Apostles, and not to everyone who cries “Lord, Lord!”

They said we added books to the Bible. I believed them. Father Neyrey just looked at me with a blank expression. So I tiptoed out of his office and found the answer myself. We had a laugh over that one later!

I told my friends, “No! Luther removed books from the Bible that had been there for a thousand years!” They dismissed the argument! The main argument they had used to tell me my faith was bogus! The argument doesn’t matter now because Luther knew what he was doing and purified the true Christian faith.

Father Neyrey called it a “Socratic stronghold”—when someone has to abandon reason, or abandon their argument and concede.

That is the only place I have ever seen the debate about Sola Scriptura land. “Where in the Bible does it say ‘the Bible alone’?” You must either abandon reason or concede the point. It doesn’t say it. It says to faithfully guard ALL that has been passed on to you. Not just SOME of what has been passed on to you.

 

[Teek]

I suppose a person could say only the Bible is trusted, the rest is too uncertain to you for you to put faith in it. That seems to be what the real argument is.

Ignoring, for now, the arguments that have already been hashed out about where the Bible came from and when…

Do you trust Jesus Christ? I would say that anyone who cares about Sola Scriptura, on either side, would emphatically say “Yes!” and try to live according to Christ’s teaching. These are all good people here, grappling with a subject of utmost importance to them, all wishing to follow Christ most perfectly! If determining what the will of God is regarding revelation is important to you, then you are my brother or sister in Christ and I love you dearly and respect you for your fidelity to Him!

I also believe there is a Truth, One, given by Christ, and I have found the utmost comfort in Christ’s words. He didn’t abandon us to reason all of this out. He came to give us certainty, not conflict. The world gives conflict. Not Jesus.

---

Matthew 16:18-19

18 And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. *
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, * and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 14:26

25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, * and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:12-15

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

---

Can you imagine what the Apostles would have thought if he said, “And one day, they shall argue about whether my mother was Assumed into Heaven—it hasn’t happened, but it will…”.

“You don’t know about the Resurrection, but when they fight tell them that during those 3 days that you all believe I am dead, I went and…”

“And the Shroud they argue about in 2017, that really is going to be…”

Or “One day, they will take pills that will kill a newly conceived child in the womb so that they can not have limits to their promiscuity…”. Or if he tried to explain artificial insemenation, or in vitro fertilization, or or the harvesting and sale of unborn baby parts?

But he gave his authority to his Apostles to teach, and he gave the Holy Spirit to them to instruct them in the things they were not yet ready for.

And surrendering to complete confidence in Jesus Christ and his Word: we can trust the teaching of the holy Catholic Church. God Himself is our guarantee.

 

[Teek]

Interesting note: when Jesus said the bit about binding and loosing, the translation got a bit muddled as to verb tense.

---

In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:19, Young’s Literal Translation). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, “Whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”

---

https://www.google.co.uz/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/binding-loosing.html

The Church isn’t making up matters of faith and morals and calling it binding.

Heaven has already bound matters of faith and morals and the Church has the authority and the grave duty to likewise bind on earth what the God has already bound in Heaven.

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Peter is the Prime Minister. He only has authority to do the will of the King. But he really has authority to do the will of the King!!

 

[JonNC]

That is the only place I have ever seen the debate about Sola Scriptura land. “Where in the Bible does it say ‘the Bible alone’?” You must either abandon reason or concede the point. It doesn’t say it. It says to faithfully guard ALL that has been passed on to you. Not just SOME of what has been passed on to you.

And that does apply to those who say “Bible alone”, who reject the creeds because they are not “in the Bible”.
But that isn’t the sola scriptura of the 16th century Evangelical Catholic Reformation.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You didn’t say that, for Lutherans, worshipping the Eucharist was a matter of adiaphora?

Kneeling isn’t. But the doctrine of the real presence is about the doctrine of the real presence.

Ok. But, as I pointed out, Lutheran theologians say that worshipping he Eucharist is idolatry because the bread and wine remain. So, is it adiaphora to worship the Lutheran Eucharist?

By the way, is it adiaphora for Anglicans? Why don’t you ever mention Anglican doctrine? Why are you, an Anglican, always defending Lutheranism?

Because in Anglicanism, SS is not the usual practice.

http://www.virtueonline.org/sola-scriptura-and-anglican-way-gavin-dunbar

Not the “usual” practice. Yet, you believe it strongly enough to put up a robust defense. So, is it adiaphora, for you, Jon, as an Anglican, to accept, believe, practice and defend SS?

 

[MT1926]

Fortunately, I had bumbled my way into a friendship with the most impactful spiritual director I could have asked for—Father Jerome Neyrey, who I give thanks to God for to this day!—who openly scoffed at the apparent feeble foundation of my faith, so easily challenged, and started grabbing books off his giant shelf and opening them up and pointing to a paragraph for me to read, and while I did that getting another until the small table we in front of me was covered two books deep.

Sounds to me like you got a swift kick in the pants.

Then he peered at me over his glasses and said, “After 2000 years of Church history filled with the greatest of saints and theologians pondering the mysteries of our faith from every angle under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, do you think you were the first to ask about that? Know. Your. Faith!”

This is exactly what I think of every time I get asked some of the stupidest questions from a person who thinks the Church never once put an ounce of thought into any of the dogmas.

They said we added books to the Bible. I believed them. Father Neyrey just looked at me with a blank expression. So I tiptoed out of his office and found the answer myself. We had a laugh over that one later!

OUCH! How long did it take you to remove Father’s boot that time.?

This was a great story. Thanks for sharing.

God Bless

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Where is it even implied?

Various places. But at this point in the conversation, I’m not moved to pursue it.

I understand. After all, your chosen denomination, Anglicanism, doesn’t even believe it.

"To conclude: the classically Anglican and Reformed approach to doctrinal authorities is not “Bible-only”, "

 

[Teek]

But that isn’t the sola scriptura of the 16th century Evangelical Catholic Reformation.

For clarity in communication, what I mean when I refer to “sola scriptura,” is that notion that the Church is not the authority in the proper understanding of Scripture, and that what the Church teaches as Tradition is therefore suspect.

I don’t think that differs from the concept as it existed in the 16th Century. I feel that it is the essence of the divide between Christians, between Catholics and those who are not Catholic! Catholics rely on the authority of the Church in disputes about interpretations and have remained one Church. Those who reject the Church’s authority, and Christ’s authority to found a Church and guide it in Truth, have not remained united in their profession of faith, in their way of giving worthy worship to God, in their Sacramental reception of Grace, or in their way of living in the world as followers of Christ.

---

In the 4th century Saint Augustine wrote that the Bible was the supreme guide. However, he added that the Church taught the exact meaning of the Scripture and it’s correct interpretation. In the 16th century, Cajetan, the Pope’s representative who opposed Luther, declared that any interpretation had to take into account former commentaries and reflect Church doctrine.

What did Luther reply ? He said that Scripture should only be interpreted according to “the conscience, bound by the Word of God”. Luther broke away from the Church saying that the Bible was not necessarily linked to traditional interpretation. Everyone recognised the sovereign authority of the Bible, but Luther contested its traditional inextricable association with its interpretation by the Church : this is one of the meanings of “Sola scriptura”, that the Bible should not be interpreted by the clergy.

---

https://www.museeprotestant.org/en/notice/the-reformation-and-the-bible-sola-scriptura/

 

[spina1953]

Sola Scripture, some people believe this to be doctrine as the sole authority… When the Reformation began, those protesting the Catholic Church no longer accepted the Churches authority so needed a new authority and so the Bible became that authority. When Jesus was preaching and teaching there was no Jewish canon of Scripture, the Sadducees believed only in the first 5 books of Moses, the Pharisees believed in the first 5 books of Moses and the psalms the writings, There was no clear conon of what we call the OT at that time. There also was no NT writings. jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything, and those who did write never once ever thought that what they wrote was sacred Scripture. In fact they would have been amazed that anyone would believe that Scripture was the final authority or that anyone could just pick up the Bible and read it with ease.

The Apostles following Jesus taught orally and referred to OT writings to show how jesus fulfilled it Those who did write what was to become the NT writings never once ever thought that what they wrote was sacred or that Scripture was the final Word and Authority. In fact John the Apostles wrote that there was more that Jesus said and did that was not written down but what was written was that one might come to believe.

It was the Catholic Church who decided what was sacred Scripture and what was not. This was due because there were a great many writings that were being used but were suspect. Everyone should read Scripture or Bible but that does not mean they can understand everything that is written in the BIble. There are many things in the Bible that is not easy to understand, so guidance is needed and the Catholic Church provides that guidance since she alone has the authority to say what it means and says.

Sola Scripture has caused countless interpretations; each person deciding what a verse says and means all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the author of truth and not of chaos and confusion. The early Christians did not have the NT and no one owned any of the OT scrolls. How then did these early Christians know the Word of God when they did not have a BIble for several hundred years? They did not have a bible to use as a final authority. and when the Church decided on a canon of Scripture it was never intended to be the final Word or to be some sola Scripture anyone could read and decide for oneself what it should or could mean and say. Sola Scripture only leads to private interpretations to pick and choose what one want something to mean and say which is quite different form what God intended it to mean and say or what the inspired biblical writers intended. There is a great many things in Scripture not easy to understand, which is why the Catholic Church frowns on private interpretations based on sola Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Ok. But, as I pointed out, Lutheran theologians say that worshipping he Eucharist is idolatry because the bread and wine remain. So, is it adiaphora to worship the Lutheran Eucharist?

No, you provided a partial quote without context, which appears to be in reference to Corpus Christi processions and the like, not worship during the sacramental act.
If you worship Christ , it is impossible to not worship Him in the Sacrament.

Not the “usual” practice. Yet, you believe it strongly enough to put up a robust defense. So, is it adiaphora, for you, Jon, as an Anglican, to accept, believe, practice and defend SS?

I’ve put up a defense of what Lutherans actually believe against misconceptions, and maybe mischaracterizations

 

[Teek]

OUCH! How long did it take you to remove Father’s boot that time.?

Ah, the boot. I believe you can still see the mark!

I had only ever encountered a soft explanation of what we believe, only an almost hushed presentation so as not to offend. Certain that the faith is true, but gentle. And unoffensive. And definitely not to disagree with anyone else.

It wasn’t until Fr. Neyrey reacted with so much outright certainty that I realized how the tremulous presentation of our beliefs undermines our ability to have certainty in our faith. He didn’t care if he hurt my feelings! I was being an idiot!

After the multiple Fr. Neyrey theological beat downs I earned for myself, I knew. I KNEW! We are RIGHT! We have nothing to answer to! We have all of the answers! Look how defiantly certain Father is! Let them come with their toughest shots, their worst attacks! We have an answer for everything built on ROCK, not sand!

Why do we always walk lightly like the sand might burn our feet when we are standing on solid ground?!

Oh, the humiliating memories…such triumphant beat downs!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Ok. But, as I pointed out, Lutheran theologians say that worshipping he Eucharist is idolatry because the bread and wine remain. So, is it adiaphora to worship the Lutheran Eucharist?

No, you provided a partial quote without context, which appears to be in reference to Corpus Christi processions and the like, not worship during the sacramental act.
If you worship Christ , it is impossible to not worship Him in the Sacrament.

Is there a difference in the Lutheran Eucharist during the Sacramental act and in the Eucharist after the Sacramental act?

Not the “usual” practice. Yet, you believe it strongly enough to put up a robust defense. So, is it adiaphora, for you, Jon, as an Anglican, to accept, believe, practice and defend SS?

I’ve put up a defense of what Lutherans actually believe against misconceptions, and maybe mischaracterizations

You’ve put up a defense on your opinion as to what Lutherans believe.

1, Many other former Lutherans have challenged your ideas on this very forum.
2. I have found that Lutheran theologians do not teach what you claim they do.
3. And, actual, live and practicing Lutherans disagree with you.

So, you’re really just representing yourself and your ideas.

So, since Anglicans don’t defend SS, why do you?