Bible being the Sole Authority??

[Eufrosnia]

This was my problem as a former protestant. What I saw was, ultimately: writings interpreting writings; books speaking authoritatively about books. However, books cannot interpret books; people interpret books. Books do not speak authoritatively about books; people speak authoritatively about books.

I believe Jon would tell us that the Lutheran Church teaching office, like the Catholic Church, is responsible for speaking authoritatively.

If Jon were to say that, he has to show why the Lutheran Church teaching office is an acceptable authority with respect to proclaiming such truths/interpretations/creeds etc.

Jon will also have to keep in mind that he cannot use theological concepts to prove or show that authority. The whole problem is about Jon trying to justify adopting the Theological framework presented by the Lutheran Church teaching office to begin with. So to try and show it theologically makes no sense because it assumes what it sets out to prove.

This means that Jon has to appeal to a natural line of reasoning.

Catholic appeal to this natural line of reasoning through the fact that the Apostolic Successors are students of the Apostles who in turn were students of Christ the Rabbi who died and rose from the dead, thus proving his own authority. So the bishops of the Catholic Church have authority in the same way a student gets passed down the authority by a rabbi. So if one were to consider the teachings of Christ the Rabbi as the knowledge regarding the transcendent, the Catholic Church is the entity in charge of that field of knowledge, certifying new teachers while continuing to teach, correct and guide those who want to learn about Christ.

I am interested to see how Jon justifies the authority of the Lutheran Church teaching office in this way…

P.S. Nice to meet again in discussion Joe. Hope you are enjoying the winter

 

[batman1973]

I’d refer you to the CLMS website, myself.
Jon

Crud. The Chuch changed her name again?

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10337274]What does that even mean? How do you make any doctrine without interpretation? Lets be frank here. Aren’t Lutherans a group of people who arbitrarily decide to construct/accept a creed, accept a group of people out of nowhere as “Church” and concepts such as “Scripture is the primary norm”? Its not like any of the claims are verifiable, yes?

You see? This is what I mean. I said it was the role of the Church, within Lutheranism, to set doctrine, and you respond with, “how do you make any doctrine without interpretation.”
There is nothing arbitrary in the Lutheran confessions. I suggest you read them.

Is it not true that such a theological framework might be all lies and not reflective of the truth in the first place? More importantly, is it not true that such an arbitrary construction is unworthy of assent?

See above.

I really don’t see how you have such a deep conviction that Lutherans are doing anything sensible. It seems like the whole thing is a word play. Interpretations, doctrine, creeds are all interpretations themselves from the final authority — Scripture. So unless one can say they can definitely interpret it correctly, I see no reason to think Lutheranism as a legitimate belief regarding the transcendent.

Same argument you make everytime we converse, and my reply has not changed. You don’t have to see Lutheranism as legitimate. No one is requiring you to do so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This was my problem as a former protestant. What I saw was, ultimately: writings interpreting writings; books speaking authoritatively about books. However, books cannot interpret books; people interpret books. Books do not speak authoritatively about books; people speak authoritatively about books.

** I believe Jon would tell us that the Lutheran Church teaching office, like the Catholic Church, is responsible for speaking authoritatively**.

Exactly.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10338590]If Jon were to say that, he has to show why the Lutheran Church teaching office is an acceptable authority with respect to proclaiming such truths/interpretations/creeds etc.

I have.

Jon will also have to keep in mind that he cannot use theological concepts to prove or show that authority. The whole problem is about Jon trying to justify adopting the Theological framework presented by the Lutheran Church teaching office to begin with. So to try and show it theologically makes no sense because it assumes what it sets out to prove.

See, the thing is I don’t have to accept your framework here. I most certainly can use theological framework if I so choose, and I would contend you do the same, because when I have presented this before, you seem to ignore it in your responses.

Jon

 

[Attejohannes]

I am reluctant to come back to the discussion. Disputes like these are so seldom edifying, and the Scriptures - like sacraments - too holy to be a topic of contentious exchange of needlepricks. This is not the right way to approach them. Instead of humbly accepting them as God’s precious gift and aspiring to be enlightened by them, we profane them by making them a topic of an argument. Particularly, if the discussion deteriorates to a dispute for the sake of a dispute.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Timothy 23 - 24)”.

That said, I am grateful that because of the Reformation I have the Bible in my native language and no restrictions to use it, seek instructions, guidance, comfort and help. Even enjoy it’s beauty and poetic aspects. Feel in my anguish, how God speaks directly to me in His Word. To use this Gift as a topic of profane argument is to me like dancing on a consecrated host.

Regarding the interpretation, of course it helps, if you have background knowledge and expert help in questions related to exegesis, accuracy of translation, historical context of the text etc. However, I strongly agree with the Reformators that God intended His word to everybody, and the receivers need not to be intellectual giants or Professors of Theology. St Paul did not send his epistles to theological faculties but to simple Christians, fresh converts, who did not have experts and teaching magisterium readily available nor any tradition backing them. And, as in the days of St. Paul, if you approach the text being ready to be instructed by the Scripture not to dissect it to peaces, you will spiritually benefit. Try it. It works.

If you claim that this necssarily will lead to wildly subjective interpretations, I disagree. It did not lead to thousands of denominations in my whereabouts. I do not know what has happened in the USA. Sometimes I think that your general culture, as I learned to know it during my post-doc year in the 1980’ies, is so individualist that - connected with your history of being a refuge for political and religious dissenters (which by the way is a great heritage) - it is prone to produce also a multitude of churches.

 

[jrtrent]

IMy question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

First of all, I believe the same thing as Catholics when it comes to what the Bible is. The following quotes are from a beginningCatholic.com article entitled “Understanding The Bible: A Catholic Guide To The Word of God”

The Holy Bible is unmatched in importance for learning about God, his plans for us, and how he has worked through human history for our salvation.

Pope John Paul II wrote: [Sacred Scripture] is truly divine, because it belongs to God truly and genuinely: God himself inspired it, God confirmed it, God spoke it through the sacred writers—Moses, the Prophets, the Evangelists, the Apostles—and, above all, through his Son, our only Lord, in both the Old and the New Testament.

God himself is the author of Sacred Scripture.
(Compendium of the Catechism, #18)

In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
(Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 11)

The Bible becomes the sole authority in the sense that we have no other source of divine revelation. The authority and inspiration given to the writers of scripture was not passed along after their deaths.

When one reads the statements of early church fathers (i.e., those earliest writings outside the New Testament writings) it becomes immediately evident that these writers considered all they wrote to be built upon a prior and more fundamental authority found in the writings of the apostles. Ignatius, as an example, said, in A.D. 117, that he was not competent to write to the church as though he were an apostle: “I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles.” the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Armstrong.html

Confessions, creeds, and councils can be valuable (“for here we have earnest and well-trained minds and hearts wrestling with the very authority of the Word itself” from the same article by Armstrong linked to above), but only insofar as they are seen to be accountable to Scripture alone. Again from Armstrong, “Most of the work of the historic councils of the church, and much of the thought put into now-famous confessions, is sound and good. We are foolish to think, independently as postmodern people, that we do not need such historic contributions. But even these are to be judged by the one absolute, supreme authority.”

An interesting article on the personal application of Biblical authority can be found here:

ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

 

[PRmerger]

That said, I am grateful that because of the Reformation I have the Bible in my native language and no restrictions to use it, seek instructions, guidance, comfort and help.

It is not due to the Reformation that you have your Bible in your native language, Atte.

Centuries before the Reformation Bibles were being translated into the vernacular.

veritasbible.com/resources/articles/Vernacular_Scriptures_Plentiful_before_Wycliff

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding the interpretation, of course it helps, if you have background knowledge and expert help in questions related to exegesis, accuracy of translation, historical context of the text etc. However, I strongly agree with the Reformators that God intended His word to everybody, and the receivers need not to be intellectual giants or Professors of Theology. St Paul did not send his epistles to theological faculties but to simple Christians, fresh converts, who did not have experts and teaching magisterium readily available nor any tradition backing them. And, as in the days of St. Paul, if you approach the text being ready to be instructed by the Scripture not to dissect it to peaces, you will spiritually benefit. Try it. It works.

If you claim that this necssarily will lead to wildly subjective interpretations, I disagree. It did not lead to thousands of denominations in my whereabouts. I do not know what has happened in the USA. Sometimes I think that your general culture, as I learned to know it during my post-doc year in the 1980’ies, is so individualist that - connected with your history of being a refuge for political and religious dissenters (which by the way is a great heritage) - it is prone to produce also a multitude of churches.

We are agreed, though, that one cannot read the Scriptures and come to any private interpretation that he desires, correct?

That is, someone cannot read the Gospels and come to the conclusion, “The Holy Spirit tells me that Jesus is not God. He was just a good teacher.”

No, you and I both proclaim that there is a correct understanding to what the Scriptures are saying.

So the question becomes: who decides what the correct interpretation is?

In your paradigm, you cannot tell this someone who decides that the Bible says that Jesus is not divine: you are wrong.

In the Catholic paradigm, we certainly can.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible becomes the sole authority in the sense that we have no other source of divine revelation.

We have Sacred Tradition as another source of divine revelation, jr. And you believe in Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired word of God.

For you would not know that Hebrews is inspired except through Sacred Tradition.

 

[Attejohannes]

Fellow Christians

Lent is approaching. We ought to be especially reverent and observant this time of the year and focus on ourselves rather than the moral or doctrinal faults of others.

I often follow my Orthodox friend to their Vigil in the beginning Lent, and the special short prayer by St. Ephraim the Syrian that they use in the service is so fitting for every Chsitian at all times, but especially now:

“The Lord and King of my life,
abolish from me the spirit of sloth, indifference, thirst of power and idle talk.
Give me,your servant, the spirit of purity of soul, humility, patience and charity.
O King and Lord,
Let me see my transgressions and prevent me from judging my brother. For thine is the Glory for ever.
Amen”

From the Lutheran side, I would like to quote a couple of rhimes of a sacred song by unknown author dating back appr. 300 years, which is also sung at the Lenten time:
"Jesus carries his cross,
with marks of slashes in his body,
then He hangs on the cross,
forsaken by His God.
Because of all our idle talk
our Jesus is now silent"

And I am sure that you Catholics have your corresponding prayers and hymns.

So, let us be obedient for a while, and fast from idle talk, at least from wounding arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Fellow Christians

Lent is approaching. We ought to be especially reverent and observant this time of the year and focus on ourselves rather than the moral or doctrinal faults of others.

I often follow my Orthodox friend to their Vigil in the beginning Lent, and the special short prayer by St. Ephraim the Syrian that they use in the service is so fitting for every Chsitian at all times, but especially now:

“The Lord and King of my life,
abolish from me the spirit of sloth, indifference, thirst of power and idle talk.
Give me,your servant, the spirit of purity of soul, humility, patience and charity.
O King and Lord,
Let me see my transgressions and prevent me from judging my brother. For thine is the Glory for ever.
Amen”

From the Lutheran side, I would like to quote a couple of rhimes of a sacred song by unknown author dating back appr. 300 years, which is also sung at the Lenten time:
"Jesus carries his cross,
with marks of slashes in his body,
then He hangs on the cross,
forsaken by His God.
Because of all our idle talk
our Jesus is now silent"

Beautiful and poignant!

So, let us be obedient for a while, and fast from idle talk, at least from wounding arguments.

From wounding arguments, yes, we all ought to fast from them.

From loving God with our entire MIND (as commanded in Matt 22:37), we are enjoined to do this, and, as such, the CAFs is one medium in which we fulfill this mandate.

 

[billwh77]

Friend, I think this is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

JESUS, not the Bible, is the sole source of light and truth in the world.

I agree, my last statement not quite in context of what I was trying to convey concerning the bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree, my last statement not quite in context of what I was trying to convey concerning the bible.

Fair enough.

Have you considered how it is that the Bible came to be? Who was it that discerned from the over 400 ancient Christian texts which books were to be in the NT and which books were to be rejected?

 

[Porknpie]

PR said

From wounding arguments, yes, we all ought to fast from them.

We aught not argue. We should be civil and charitable, defend and explain. At times I fail in doing so and when I have awareness of this I ask for one’s forgiveness. Someone told me on CAF once that sometimes we say things on-line that we would not say in person. There is at times truth to this. Catholics are to evangelize and echo the teachings of the Church. To that mission, certainly, Catholics defending and explaining that the Catholic Church established the biblical canon with 73 books and 1,100 years later a new tradition, a new written Word of God is now followed by some that only believe 66 books are inspired and infallible is to not argue. And that a printing company removed the 7 books from protestant bibles is not to argue. It is an explanation of fact. Whether one is wounded from the Truth I judge not but pray for that person’s conversion. Christ wounded many with the Truth and ultimately it led to his crucifixion.

However, I strongly agree with the Reformators that God intended His word to everybody,

This was not a new thought with the reformation. It is Church teaching and God’s revelation since the beginning.

St Paul did not send his epistles to theological faculties but to simple Christians, fresh converts, who did not have experts and teaching magisterium readily available nor any tradition backing them

The early Church had Priests, Bishops and Deacons who taught the fresh converts the Word of God, first by the oral Word of God / Tradition and then through the Depost of Faith: Sacred Tradition and the Written Word.

This follows St. Paul’s instructions to the early Church and to us, hold fast to what you have been told, both spoken and written. Catholics do just that. That’s not arguing. It’s stating fact.

 

[aidanbradypop]

PR said

We aught not argue. We should be civil and charitable, defend and explain. At times I fail in doing so and when I have awareness of this I ask for one’s forgiveness. Someone told me on CAF once that sometimes we say things on-line that we would not say in person. There is at times truth to this. Catholics are to evangelize and echo the teachings of the Church. To that mission, certainly, Catholics defending and explaining that the Catholic Church established the biblical canon with 73 books and 1,100 years later a new tradition, a new written Word of God is now followed by some that only believe 66 books are inspired and infallible is to not argue. And that a printing company removed the 7 books from protestant bibles is not to argue. It is an explanation of fact. Whether one is wounded from the Truth I judge not but pray for that person’s conversion. Christ wounded many with the Truth and ultimately it led to his crucifixion.

This was not a new thought with the reformation. It is Church teaching and God’s revelation since the beginning.

The early Church had Priests, Bishops and Deacons who taught the fresh converts the Word of God, first by the oral Word of God / Tradition and then through the Depost of Faith: Sacred Tradition and the Written Word.

This follows St. Paul’s instructions to the early Church and to us, hold fast to what you have been told, both spoken and written. Catholics do just that. That’s not arguing. It’s stating fact.

 

[jrtrent]

We have Sacred Tradition as another source of divine revelation, jr. And you believe in Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired word of God.

For you would not know that Hebrews is inspired except through Sacred Tradition.

As an Anglican, I have a high regard for tradition. John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, writing in 1900, said in response to questions from Orthodox Christians:

Concerning tradition. The Church of England accepts and venerates the primitive traditions of the Church which are in harmony with Holy Scripture, remembering that the canon of Scripture itself is received from tradition. In this way it accepts the term “Trinity,” which describes the relation of the three holy persons of the Godhead, the observance of the Lord’s Day, and the baptism of infants and other similar beliefs and practices of the universal Church. The Church of England has always proclaimed itself studious of antiquity and averse to novelties. anglicanhistory.org/england/jwords/some.html

In a joint declaration by the REC and APA, it is further stated:

In substance, the tradition of the Church is none other than the rule of faith discerned in Scripture. In practice, tradition also refers to the teaching of the faith through time. In neither sense of the word does tradition indicate a source of authority separate from or parallel to Scripture. Nor does it indicate a source of authority equal to that of Scripture. Rather, Scripture provides the standard for tradition. Tradition thus has a derivative authority for Christians, and only when tradition is understood aright . . .

Taken materially, it [tradition] is the presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church over time. Taken formally, it is the evidence of this presence as found, for example, in the three historic Creeds, the first four undisputed Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers of the early Church, the range of Anglican divines, the historic Books of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. The process of discerning tradition in this latter sense involves bringing this evidence before the bar of Scripture, where it is cleared and kept, convicted and discarded or corrected.

So while I have a high regard for tradition, I know many Protestants that would find your statement that a person believes in Sacred Tradition just by virtue of having quoted scripture to be just as offensive as many Catholics would find the statement that they worship Mary just by virtue of praying to her.

 

[PRmerger]

So while I have a high regard for tradition, I know many Protestants that would find your statement that a person believes in Sacred Tradition just by virtue of having quoted scripture to be just as offensive as many Catholics would find the statement that they worship Mary just by virtue of praying to her.

The first statement is true. You do indeed acknowledge Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the NT.

The second statement is false. Catholics do not worship Mary.

Regarding the first statement: I applaud your candor in giving submission to Sacred Tradition.

This is HUGE. You, then, acknowledge that you do not believe revelation comes only from Scripture, but also from Tradition.

And you acknowledge that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility. On multiple occasions.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am reluctant to come back to the discussion. Disputes like these are so seldom edifying, and the Scriptures - like sacraments - too holy to be a topic of contentious exchange of needlepricks. This is not the right way to approach them. Instead of humbly accepting them as God’s precious gift and aspiring to be enlightened by them, we profane them by making them a topic of an argument. Particularly, if the discussion deteriorates to a dispute for the sake of a dispute.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Timothy 23 - 24)”.

That said, I am grateful that because of the Reformation I have the Bible in my native language and no restrictions to use it, seek instructions, guidance, comfort and help. Even enjoy it’s beauty and poetic aspects. Feel in my anguish, how God speaks directly to me in His Word. To use this Gift as a topic of profane argument is to me like dancing on a consecrated host.

Regarding the interpretation, of course it helps, if you have background knowledge and expert help in questions related to exegesis, accuracy of translation, historical context of the text etc. However, I strongly agree with the Reformators that God intended His word to everybody, and the receivers need not to be intellectual giants or Professors of Theology. St Paul did not send his epistles to theological faculties but to simple Christians, fresh converts, who did not have experts and teaching magisterium readily available nor any tradition backing them. And, as in the days of St. Paul, if you approach the text being ready to be instructed by the Scripture not to dissect it to peaces, you will spiritually benefit. Try it. It works.

If you claim that this necssarily will lead to wildly subjective interpretations, I disagree. It did not lead to thousands of denominations in my whereabouts. I do not know what has happened in the USA. Sometimes I think that your general culture, as I learned to know it during my post-doc year in the 1980’ies, is so individualist that - connected with your history of being a refuge for political and religious dissenters (which by the way is a great heritage) - it is prone to produce also a multitude of churches.

Jones,

Finland has a population of 5.4 million and the world population is presently over 7 billion. I don’t know the math on that however 5.4 million/7 billion is the percent that Finland occupies in the world as it concerns population. This is I believe 0.054/7= 0.77 % of the world population or less than 1%. Someone else can check the math. So your population is not the world population nor is it the world experience.

Next, what happened or is happening in Finland is this, as I understand it…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Finland

Most people in Finland are at least nominally members of a Christian church, but since the 1980s, there has been a rapid increase in the number of people without religious affiliation.[1] Prior to Christianisation, Finnish paganism was the primary religion.

The Protestant reformation reached Sweden and Finland in the 1520s. Its strength derived not from the people or the clergy but from the fact that it was instituted by royal decree. One aspect of Luther’s doctrine especially interested King Gustav Vasa: it entitled him to break the secular power of the Church and transfer its income and property to the state.[citation needed]

Sweden accepted the Confession of Augsburg at Uppsala in 1593. Lutheranism became the state religion. It guaranteed the unity of the realm and tolerated no deviation. The Reformation severed all ties with Rome. The supremacy of the Pope was replaced by that of the King of Sweden, who stripped the Church of its income and property. Mikael Agricola, the first Lutheran Bishop of Finland, translated the New Testament into Finnish. Divine services gradually became more Lutheran and were conducted in the vernacular. The monasteries were closed, and priests allowed marrying.

Finland is a country with both Eastern and Western influences. 77.2% of the population are members of the main state church, the Lutheran Church of Finland. The second state church is Finland’s Orthodox Church with 1.1%. Other religions count for 1.5% of the population, and 20.1% have no religious affiliation. Christian influences from both the East and the West reached Finland a thousand years ago. Missionary efforts on the part of the Western church were however stronger, and most of Finland was under the Roman Catholic Church and Swedish rule by the beginning of the 14th century. The Catholic Church brought European civilization to Finland. It united dispersed tribes into a single nation and provided an advanced system of administration. The Church ministered to the destitute and infirm by maintaining houses for the poor and hospitals. It fostered learning and the arts.

Your Christain roots are Catholic, and the government declared Lutheran thought to be the State religion. You live in a microcosm, however your experience is not the world experience and what you have to say should be seen as what happens when there is isolation, it is only your experience.

 

[jrtrent]

The first statement is true. You do indeed acknowledge Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from the NT.

The second statement is false. Catholics do not worship Mary.

I did not state that Catholics worship Mary, only that the accusation that they do would be found offensive. Similarly, there are many Protestants who do not acknowledge tradition, and would be offended by the accusation that they do.

Regarding the first statement: I applaud your candor in giving submission to Sacred Tradition.

This is HUGE. You, then, acknowledge that you do not believe revelation comes only from Scripture, but also from Tradition.

And you acknowledge that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility. On multiple occasions.

And this is also HUGE. By equating my understanding of tradition with your own, you acknowledge that the Anglican divines, the historic Books of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are evidences of the presence of the Holy Ghost at work in the Church. I had no thoughts of proselytizing, but your eyes are opening at last.