Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[IggyAntiochus]

We do not believe in baptism for the dead.

Yeah…Mormon thing. Does the Church teach what Paul meant there?

 

[PRmerger]

But that’s because you seem to be working within a paradigm of what sola scriptura is that we don’t share.

Well, then, could you refer me to a Lutheran website (that you don’t disavow) that expresses exactly what it is that you believe is Sola Scriptura?

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah…Mormon thing. Does the Church teach what Paul meant there?

The Church does not provide exegesis for each and every verse in the Bible. Rather, "All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” CCC 134

What we can understand from the Magisterium is that 1 Cor 15:29 is not speaking of a literal baptism of the dead.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Well, then, could you refer me to a Lutheran website (that you don’t disavow) that expresses exactly what it is that you believe is Sola Scriptura?

From the Formula of Concord:

We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.

In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.

But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned

 

[IggyAntiochus]

The Church does not provide exegesis for each and every verse in the Bible. Rather, "All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” CCC 134

Amen to that.

What we can understand from the Magisterium is that 1 Cor 15:29 is not speaking of a literal baptism of the dead.

Have there been any ideas put forward?

 

[PRmerger]

In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.

This paradigm, proffered by you just a few posts up, is in contradiction to the above.

The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the homologoumena

IOW: the standard “if it was disputed as canonical, it may be considered a peripheral book” is not to be found in the Scriptures.

Therefore, it contradicts your pillar of Sola Scriptura.​

 

[PRmerger]

Have there been any ideas put forward?

Baptism of the dead

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul’s Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: “Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned.

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul’s text as follows: “Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?” The archbishop comments, as follows:

It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet's Dissertation on the matter).

In the first place, every interpretation referring the words 'baptized', or 'dead' to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice.

Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.

The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. 'Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum'. This interpretation — the one adopted by St. Chrysostom — has the advantage of giving the words 'baptized' and 'dead' their literal signification.

The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (6:2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word.

There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words 'baptism' and 'dead' in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word 'baptism' is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself — 'I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized', etc. And the word 'dead' is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words 'for the dead', uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation.

These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture. [newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)

 

[IggyAntiochus]

This paradigm, proffered by you just a few posts up, is in contradiction to the above.

The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the homologoumena

IOW: the standard “if it was disputed as canonical, it may be considered a peripheral book” is not to be found in the Scriptures.

Therefore, it contradicts your pillar of Sola Scriptura.
​

I don’t get how you’re seeing it as a contradiction.​

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul’s text as follows: “Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?” The archbishop comments, as follows:

I would be inclined to agree with what the archbishop puts forward here.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t get how you’re seeing it as a contradiction.

Take this statement A: “and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.”

Now, take this statement B: “The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the homologoumena”

IF you are following statement A, then you must be able to provide a Holy Scripture citation that serves as the standard or rule for statement B.

What Scripture verse(s) can you offer that supports statement B?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Take this statement A: “and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.”

Now, take this statement B: “The former would include the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter. These, because they were never disputed as non-canonical, are where doctrine is primarily derived from. The antilegomena would be 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, and Revelation. Because of their early disputed status, they are not where doctrine is primarily drawn from, but rather, confirms the doctrine taught in the homologoumena”

IF you are following statement A, then you must be able to provide a Holy Scripture citation that serves as the standard or rule for statement B.

What Scripture verse(s) can you offer that supports statement B?

The two concepts are not comparable. Statement A is a negative statement. That is to say, it is for determining what is and is not acceptable as a dogma of the church. In practice, this means that teachings should be compared to Scripture to see if they contradict what is set forth by the apostolic testimony.

A positive statement would be saying “We will only accept as teaching that which is expressly set forth in Scripture.” The Formula of Concord is saying the exact opposite. “We will only believe as dogma that which is not contrary to Scripture.” Do you see the difference?

Let me put it in practical terms. The perpetual virginity of Mary. Someone of a Protestant mindset would say “I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is not taught in Scripture.”

A Lutheran would say, “It is not contradicted by Scripture, therefore, it is acceptable as a tradition.”

 

[PRmerger]

The two concepts are not comparable. Statement A is a negative statement. That is to say, it is for determining what is and is not acceptable as a dogma of the church. In practice, this means that teachings should be compared to Scripture to see if they contradict what is set forth by the apostolic testimony.

A positive statement would be saying “We will only accept as teaching that which is expressly set forth in Scripture.” The Formula of Concord is saying the exact opposite. “We will only believe as dogma that which is not contrary to Scripture.” Do you see the difference?

Let me put it in practical terms. The perpetual virginity of Mary. Someone of a Protestant mindset would say “I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity because it is not taught in Scripture.”

A Lutheran would say, “It is not contradicted by Scripture, therefore, it is acceptable as a tradition.”

Fair enough.

Then apply this paradigm to an objection you have to Catholicism. What area is there that you believe we contradict the SS paradigm you espouse?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Fair enough.

Then apply this paradigm to an objection you have to Catholicism. What area is there that you believe we contradict the SS paradigm you espouse?

That would have to be taken teaching by teaching. A broad brush cannot be applied to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for there is far too much that is good and scriptural in both to do so.

If I may shift gears for a moment. The most important thing to do is, rather than discuss sola scriptura in theory, to focus on how the Scriptures actually function in practice within Lutheranism. The Reformed traditions apply the word of God in a systematic way. We do not. You will never find Lutherans preaching a sermon for 40 minutes on obtuse biblical exegesis, as is apt to be the case in American Evangelical churches. You know what I mean…wasted breath on Greek constructs in 1 Corinthians, for example.

The Bible is not a systematic textbook on doctrine. It is a living, breathing thing which is meant to be proclaimed. Scripture is, above all, a liturgical text. It is meant to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for sinners within a liturgical, sacramental context. It is meant to be the means by which the Holy Spirit brings the Son of God into the hearts of sinners to create life in them, where only death and sin reigned before. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. In that respect, much is to be commended about the East’s focus on the liturgy as the word of God, because that is what it truly is. The invocation of the Trinity, the confession of sins of the faithful, the absolution given by the presbyter, the texts of the Scriptures read, the sermon given by the minister, the Body and Blood of Christ distributed for the forgiveness of sins. This, truly, is all the word of God. The Bible is meant to facilitate this.

Study, exegesis, etc., all those things are good and profitable. But it’s not primarily what it’s for. I only mention these things because it’s so easy to get bogged down in these debates on esoteric concepts that we can lose sight of why God gave us a written apostolic record.

 

[batman1973]

That would have to be taken teaching by teaching. A broad brush cannot be applied to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for there is far too much that is good and scriptural in both to do so.

If I may shift gears for a moment. The most important thing to do is, rather than discuss sola scriptura in theory, to focus on how the Scriptures actually function in practice within Lutheranism. The Reformed traditions apply the word of God in a systematic way. We do not. You will never find Lutherans preaching a sermon for 40 minutes on obtuse biblical exegesis, as is apt to be the case in American Evangelical churches. You know what I mean…wasted breath on Greek constructs in 1 Corinthians, for example.

The Bible is not a systematic textbook on doctrine. It is a living, breathing thing which is meant to be proclaimed. Scripture is, above all, a liturgical text. It is meant to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for sinners within a liturgical, sacramental context. It is meant to be the means by which the Holy Spirit brings the Son of God into the hearts of sinners to create life in them, where only death and sin reigned before. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. In that respect, much is to be commended about the East’s focus on the liturgy as the word of God, because that is what it truly is. The invocation of the Trinity, the confession of sins of the faithful, the absolution given by the presbyter, the texts of the Scriptures read, the sermon given by the minister, the Body and Blood of Christ distributed for the forgiveness of sins. This, truly, is all the word of God. The Bible is meant to facilitate this.

Study, exegesis, etc., all those things are good and profitable. But it’s not primarily what it’s for. I only mention these things because it’s so easy to get bogged down in these debates on esoteric concepts that we can lose sight of why God gave us a written apostolic record.

Well put, sir.

 

[PRmerger]

That would have to be taken teaching by teaching. A broad brush cannot be applied to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for there is far too much that is good and scriptural in both to do so.

Right. I’m not asking for a broad brush. Can you give an example of a teaching of the CC that you feel we contradict the SS paradigm you espouse?

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible is not a systematic textbook on doctrine. It is a living, breathing thing which is meant to be proclaimed. Scripture is, above all, a liturgical text. It is meant to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for sinners within a liturgical, sacramental context. It is meant to be the means by which the Holy Spirit brings the Son of God into the hearts of sinners to create life in them, where only death and sin reigned before. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. In that respect, much is to be commended about the East’s focus on the liturgy as the word of God, because that is what it truly is. The invocation of the Trinity, the confession of sins of the faithful, the absolution given by the presbyter, the texts of the Scriptures read, the sermon given by the minister, the Body and Blood of Christ distributed for the forgiveness of sins. This, truly, is all the word of God. The Bible is meant to facilitate this.

Study, exegesis, etc., all those things are good and profitable. But it’s not primarily what it’s for. I only mention these things because it’s so easy to get bogged down in these debates on esoteric concepts that we can lose sight of why God gave us a written apostolic record.

Amen! Very Catholic of you to say!

I would add that the Bible is not where doctrine is to be extracted.

Rather, the entire faith was given, once for all, to the saints.

And it is the Scriptures which confirm and affirm these doctrines.

 

[Lincoln7]

Amen! Very Catholic of you to say!

I would add that the Bible is not where doctrine is to be extracted.

Rather, the entire faith was given, once for all, to the saints.

And it is the Scriptures which confirm and affirm these doctrines.

If the bible is not where doctrine is to be extracted, why was it even written and sent to congregations in the first place? It seems, with respect, it is not needed in the sola ecclesia paradigm.

On the use of Jude 1:3, indeed, and we find no mention of modern catholic dogma either in scripture or the earliest church, if it was once delivered with clarity, I don’t see why we don’t find papal infallibility for example clearly expressed, unless it was not delivered. It seems scripture is used solely to find what Rome says is true.

Kind Regards

Lincs.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Amen! Very Catholic of you to say!

I would add that the Bible is not where doctrine is to be extracted.

Well, the Scriptures teach doctrine. So I think it can be extracted inasmuch as it does have a didactic purpose.

Rather, the entire faith was given, once for all, to the saints.

And it is the Scriptures which confirm and affirm these doctrines.

I would agree. The New Testament assumes that everything that Christ taught His disciples has already been passed to the Church. Scripture then serves as a corrective to insure that the deposit of faith is not later changed or amended. Most of the NT epistles are written in order to correct churches that had strayed from the apostolic witness and/or where controversy had arisen (Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Hebrews, etc.)

I thought perhaps this might be good for further reading angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.fagerberg.html

 

[PRmerger]

If the bible is not where doctrine is to be extracted, why was it even written and sent to congregations in the first place?

To affirm and confirm the kerygma.

It seems, with respect, it is not needed in the sola ecclesia paradigm.

God’s Word is not needed?? Bite your tongue.

That’s like saying that Christ’s humanity is not needed since we have Christ’s divinity.

That’s like saying reason is not needed if we have faith.

That’s like saying love is not needed if we have good works.

That’s like saying a mom is not needed if a dad is present in your life.

That’s like saying science is not needed since we have religion…

In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[PRmerger]

On the use of Jude 1:3, indeed, and we find no mention of modern catholic dogma either in scripture or the earliest church, if it was once delivered with clarity, I don’t see why we don’t find papal infallibility for example clearly expressed, unless it was not delivered. It seems scripture is used solely to find what Rome says is true.

Kind Regards

Lincs.

I will rewrite your comment and substitute another “latecomer” in the dogma department, and see if it clarifies anything about doctrinal development for you, Lincs.

(Incidentally, you added to Scripture the words “with clarity”. That is NOT part of the kerygma.)

On the use of Jude 1:3, indeed, and we find no mention of modern catholic dogma either in scripture or the earliest church, if it was once delivered with clarity, I don’t see why we don’t find-] papal infallibility/-] the hypostatic union for example clearly expressed, unless it was not delivered. It seems scripture is used solely to find what Rome says is true.