Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Moondweller, I have attempted to talk to Josiah about many things regarding SS, but he just says the same thing over and over, without answering my question, all the while censuring the CC, which has nothing to do with the thread, so I guess I will attempt to continue to do the same with you.

By the way, do you believe that the Lutheran Confessions is necessary…is the accurate exposition of sacred scripture? Yes, I know that you are not a Lutheran. I have my reasons for asking.

Let’s assume that the bible alone is the Christians final authority, and not a 16th century tradition. If so, then certainly there is no need for teachers in the various Christian assemblies, the world over. Each Christian should defer to their one and only authority for doctrinal truth, edification and salvation, and leave the congregation of believers, in the church, for worship only. No need for Protestant/Catholic pastors to be up there preaching from their pulpits, for they possess zero authority to do so, if the holy bible is the Christians final authority - correct?

 

[moondweller]

tqualey:

Actually, THOSE ARE NOT AUGUSTINE’S WORDS. Go back to post #830 and read what I wrote when I first corrected your mistake here and check out the link. Really, MD… it is one thing to make a mistake, but quite another to repeat it… But, in reality, this is beside the point…

OK, I did go back and read your post. Somehow I missed it. And I did pull down my own copy of Schaff’s Church History and read about the motto. So the best we can say is that it was attributed to Augustine by a Rupertus Meldenius whose identity is still unsolved.

But, actually, it’s not necessarily beside the point of this thread. What you can do is take that same investigative process and look into the so-called “oral Tradition” of the Catholic Church, which, by definition are supposed teachings of the Apostles that were not committed to Scripture (theopneustos, Holy Writ) but instead claimed to have been infallibly passed down to each generation verbally. So why not investigate the validity of its Apostolic origin, providing for us the proof that the Apostles actually taught such doctrines and committed them to be passed down orally. I’ll wait for (1) your list of these doctrines, (2) your proof of their Apostolic origin and (3) our proof of their infallible transmission down through the centuries. Thanks, Tom.

 

[moondweller]

PRmerger:

Indeed, Catholics have essentials–as proclaimed by the Magisterium.
You also claim essentials. I presume you do not abide by the Magisterium’s decision as to what’s an essential doctrine.

(1) What are the “essential doctrines” proclaimed by your Magisterium? (2) They’re essential for what?

 

[moondweller]

Forget about his words; he was a catholic. I am attempting to see things through a Protestant lens…through your eyes! Augustine’s words are meaningless to you! I am attempting to see things, from your perspective, and you give me nothing…Let’s try it again…Please, go back and answer my questions? If you don’t want to answer my questions, then just say so…

Do you mean this question?

Moondweller, (or any non-Catholic for that matter) - I ask again: what are the non-essentials, spelled out in the bible? If they are not in the bible, (which is to be the Christians final authority) - then it’s just you opinion - correct? If you can identify them in the bible, then please do, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

If you cannot identify them, in the bible, then who, in the Protestant churches, has the authority to identify them, as non-essentials, so that I may know, what is considered extraneous and rule them out?

Your premise is incorrect. “Essentials” and “nonessentials” aren’t about “ruling in” or “ruling out” Bible verses.2 Tim 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Moondweller, I have attempted to talk to Josiah about many things regarding SS, but he just says the same thing over and over, without answering my question, all the while censuring the CC, which has nothing to do with the thread, so I guess I will attempt to continue to do the same with you

You need to directly address the content of AJs posts which have EVERTHING to do with the issue of SS. All I see in your replies is your circumventing the issue he presents and insist on asking questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Joe, is there a difference between “sola ecclesia” and “Sola Scriptura?”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I have attempted to talk to Josiah about many things regarding SS, but he just says the same thing over and over, without answering my question

LOL. I have answered any and all questions that are permitted for this thread, that deal with Sola Scriptura. I cannot discuss, at length, issues of why/how The Catholic Church at Trent affirmed the books it did, or why you can’t so much as give a single Scripture that promises The Catholic Church anything (or even MENTIONS it), or why the Saints won the Super Bowl, but all questions about Sola Scriptura have been answered.

What you’ve not answered is the foundational question here: Are teachers accountable for what they teach as doctrine, or is whatever they say simply to be accepted as true with docility, as Jesus speaking (at least if the self same alone so insists for the self same alone)? Was Jesus correct to warn us about false teachers and never exempt The Catholic Church from such warning? Was Jesus correct to praise the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what The Catholic Church demands, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for arbitrating it, and for declaring them wrong?

And then, if you do agree that teachers are accountable, then WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of their teachings? I agreed with The Catholic Church that the teachings of the self-same is not a sound rule for the teachings of the self same, for self agreeing with self is no indication of the correctness of self. No other rule/canon has been suggested as an alternative to Scripture.

Do you believe that the Lutheran Confessions are the accurate exposition of sacred scripture? I have my reasons for asking.

Yes, it is my belief that such is true - to the extend I know them (remember: lay people are only taught and only asked about Luther’s Small Catechism - all 8 pages of it). But a statement of faith regarding a correct exposition of the Rule is not the same as making it the rule: Lutherans embrace Scripture as the rule, not our Confessions.

Let’s assume that the bible alone is the Christians final authority, and not a 16th century tradition. If so, then certainly there is no need for teachers in the various Christian assemblies, the world over. Each Christian should defer to their one and only authority for doctrinal truth, edification and salvation, and leave the congregation of believers, in the church, for worship only. No need for Protestant/Catholic pastors to be up there preaching from their pulpits, for they possess zero authority to do so, if the holy bible is the Christians final authority - correct?

Wrong; I have no idea where you find the basis for that enormous, Gold-metal worthly leap.
No one is saying that teaching is unnecessary or without worth, but there’s only ONE saying that teachers are unaccountable for what they teach - and that one is The Catholic Church but only, exclusively, solely, singularly in the case of The Catholic Church alone; THAT one, it itself alone insists for it itself one, is simply to be accepted with docility.

.

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6275975]Hi, JonNC,

I am not entirely sure how one is ‘accountable’ - when Luther added ‘ALONE’ to Faith and tried to get rid of the Gospel of St. James. This kind of editing does cause problems with accountabilty.

Hi Tom.
Luther did not add “alone” to his translation. Alone is an English word. Luther’s translation was into German. When translating into German he used allein in order to properly translate from Greek. Luther:
"…if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
In the English, however, no translation that I am aware of has the word “alone” in Roman 3:28. Why? Because in the English it isn’t needed to be “clear and vigorous” as it was in German.
As for James, Luther said, in part. *“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…"*Luther had doubts about James’ authorship, as did many others throughout history, but he considered it part of the canon. The interesting thing about Luther’s translation into German is that he translated and included all the books customarily found in a western Bible, *plus * one!!! Perhaps it is more fitting that he be accused of adding a book to the Bible, instead of the charge that he threw out seven.

But, you know, no one is ‘accountable’ to a book, or an idea or a principle - we are accountable to people. Now, these people may well use a book to base their assessment of our work on - but, it is not the book that is holding anyone to anything. Luther, at the time, was a priest and accountable to the Catholic Church. Based on my understanding of what took place, Luther left the Church founded by Jesus Christ and joing the one founded by his ego,

So, Tom, his excommunication had nothing to do with it? Teachers, teachings, Tradition, are all subject to the measure of scripture. The 800 plus posts of this thread come down to one difference between Lutherans and Catholics: Catholics believe Tradition to be co-equal with scripture, Lutherans believe Tradition to be subject to scripture.

Luther’s argument was that with all the abuse going on that he saw there could be no hope for the Church of Christ. Luther basically despaired of God’s Grace to bring His Church around to giving good example. This despair is really not a healthy sign.

Perhaps had there been a sense of at least concern in Rome that people were corrupting and abusing the name of the Church for their own purposes, and attacked Luther’s attempts to warn the pope of said, you and I would be of the same communion.

During all of these terrible times - the Catholic Church never changed one of its doctrines: there are not two persons in the trinity, the Sacrament of Confession is a waste of time, etc. Conversely, look at how the various doctrines of the PC are in constant flux.

I really can’t speak for other PC’s, except to say, Tom, that this never has been a (singular) PC. Virtually none of them have their roots in Lutheranism.

The latest example deals with same sex marriage and ordaining practicing homosexuals as a mater of church doctrine. i am nt sure where the accountability lies there.

It lies with scripture, and for Lutherans who have brought about these seriously mistaken
ideas, with the Lutheran Confessions. They are violating both in intent and practice.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

tqualey:

it requires something **outside of itself **to function in the process of accountability.

.

Ah…

1. So, you DO believe that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach, The Catholic Church no less than any other, no less than The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or any other.
2. So, you DISAGREE with The Catholic Church that a teacher is to be exempted from accountability and norming, insist for self alone that self alone is infallible and incapable of being wrong in these matters, and demand that all just accept whatever that self-same teacher exclusively says “with docility” and “as Jesus speaking.”
3. Then, YES, such accountability REQUIRES a norm/rule/canon, as you put it, “outside of itself.”

Thus, the question I’ve been asking you for some weeks now…

WHAT is this rule/canon for the teachings of The Catholic Church that is “outside of itself” as you yourself stress is absolutely essential?

The Catholic Church says it needs none - inside or outside of itself - because it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, it and it itself exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong, it and it itself alone is infallible in these matters. It itself alone demands that people just accepts whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” “I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - so there. Just forget about accountability or norming, forget about examination, and rather just accept whatever I myself alone say.”

Now, some here have confused the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses for OTHERS (because it passionately embraces accountability for every OTHER teacher, just not it itself alone). THAT rule is as follows:
A) Catholic Tradition has defined, chosen and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
B) Scripture not in words on any page or in any book - knowable and unalterable - but rather as written in the “heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
C) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among clergy of The Catholic Church who have pledged upon death to uphold the views of The Catholic Church.
See the common denominator there? Yup. All just itself. Nothing “outside of itself” as you demand is necessary.

.

 

[PRmerger]

(1) What are the “essential doctrines” proclaimed by your Magisterium? (2) They’re essential for what?

Please answer my question first, MD. And don’t forget to give the Scripture verses that tell you it’s essential.

Like, does your pastor believe that belief in the Transfiguration of Christ is essential? Can someone go through their entire lives being a Christian without ever thinking about the Transfiguration? What does your pastor say? What verses in Scripture tell you if this is essential or secondary?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, MD,

Actually, THOSE ARE NOT AUGUSTINE’S WORDS. Go back to post #830 and read what I wrote when I first corrected your mistake here and check out the link. Really, MD… it is one thing to make a mistake, but quite another to repeat it… But, in reality, this is beside the point…

You know, I didn’t even think about whether those words imputed to St. Augustine could actually have been said by him–for, in the 4th century there were no Protestants–only Catholics!

So, even if he did actually profess this, to whom was he directing his comment? Other Catholics, of course!

Thanks for that insight, Tom!

 

[jlhargus]

Now, show us where your sola authority tells us NOT to hold Traditions whether by Word or Epistle. If there was no oral Tradition, why would your sola authority say to hold to them?

I’ll state it and ask again:

“*** If you assert otherwise then give me the list of doctrines taught by the Apostles orally only. And then provide for me the proof that they actually taught them***.”

JL: I notice you evaded my question at the top again. The last time you evaded that question, by saying, I was evading your questions.

I have answered this already. A doctrine taught by the apostles orally would be the canon of the bible. The proof or evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the constant lived out practice of the Church. One more, would be the Trinity, the evidence is found in the scriptures where it is implied and the lived out understanding in the Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils. I assume you accept the definition of the Trinity.

However if you want a list of doctrines, taught by the Apostles orally, look in the CCC. Those doctrines where originally orally handed down by the Apostles. Although they have been developed and some written down in scripture. We call it the deposit of faith, that which was ONCE delivered to the saints, as seen in [Jude1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.] Bold print added by me]

As far as evidence, that would be found in the oral Traditions the writings of the fathers, Councils of the Church, prayers used and Church worship, etc… I cannot PROVE the Apostles specifically taught anything. Not even those books of the NT. I can only give evidence, from TRADITION, those particular books are inspired and handed down by the Apostles, and TRADITION is also all you can give as evidence.

** “Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.”

“Oral Tradition” by definition is supposedly Apostolic teachings (i.e., taught by the Apostles) not committed to Scripture but instead passed down infallibly by word of mouth, generation to generation. This, btw, is not at all what Paul was referring to in 2 Thess. 2:15.

JL: You are right the way you have presented oral Tradition is NOT at all what Paul was referring to. Oral Tradition is not passed down by word of mouth nor is it passed down infallibly, it is infallibly discerned by the pope and bishops. They have the gift, the Holy Spirit, of discernment, given in ordination thru apostolic secession. It is discerned in light of scripture and the writings of the fathers, councils, worship, etc…

I know as a former Protestant how difficult oral Tradition is to understand, but all Protestant denominations have oral traditions, and they don’t even know it. It is those traditions that make a Baptist different and distinguishable from a Presbyterian, a Presbyterian from a Methodist, a Methodist from a Lutheran etc… That’s why they each have different interpretations of the same scriptures, which is interpreted thru the lens of their particular tradition.

I hope your next post will supply me with the list of those doctrines orally passed down from the Apostles that are different from those found in the Scriptures, along with the proof that they actually taught them. Thank you in advance.

JL: There is no such thing as an oral Tradition different from those found in the Scriptures, they must agree. For instance what is you tradition of baptism, how do you baptize, who do you baptize, what prayers do you say if any, how do you prepare those you baptize, this would be your lived out expression or tradition of the doctrine of baptism. The Church was baptizing before the NT was even a concept. Her Traditions were already lived before the NT. The Church did not look in the NT for her teachings, she was teaching before the NT.

 

[jlhargus]

Hi, Jhargus.

Great post!

God bless

JL: Thanks Tqualey

 

[Roblox84]

Sola scriptura defines the scripture as our authority. It entails the supremacy of scripture, but again this must not be misunderstood (as it is often stereotyped) as meaning scripture by itself or scripture isolated - it acknowledges language, ancient culture, history and anything else that might affect our interpretation of scripture. It simply highlights the role of scripture above everything else as self-sufficient, as it comes almost literally from God Himself.

Here is how James White outlined sola scriptura in a debate with Patrick Madrid:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby. (link)

I am also interested on different view points on this topic. But wouldn’t everything that you mentioned about SS be going against the bible since even the bible states that tradition is key and is just as important?

 

[Roblox84]

Then there are the focus of the interpretation some ,like myself, focus on the Four Gospels that covered the life of Jesus as principle over the other books of the NT which were made by the Apostles. Noting that they may have applied their own biases and foibles into the mix making them lesser than the Four Gospels. Not that they are not important they are Apostles after all but not Jesus Himself, who we are to emulate.

For example if there is a conflict on a subject say women in ministry as pastorals (priests, pastors, heads of churches) Jesus never really said anything for or against it. But did always teach all were equal before God so it would make sense that women could be Called to serve in such roles to me. Others would naturally refer to Apostles for additional considerations which I consider lesser sources since cultural biases clearly were at play.

So how its applied is determined by what books one considers canon and which ones historical or supportive of a secondary nature.

But there also are references in the bible that indirectly suggest that women cannot be priests.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank ou for your thoughtful post. I do have some limitations here… but, I will do my best.

Hi Tom.
Luther did not add “alone” to his translation. Alone is an English word. Luther’s translation was into German… Because in the English it isn’t needed to be “clear and vigorous” as it was in German.

My biggest limitation here is that I know nothing of German. I have heard it quite often that he added ‘alone’ to Faith …but, you are right this is an English word and he did translate the Latin into German. I am really at a loss on this one. My understanding of what you are saying is that he ‘added’ nothing, but was being faithful to the intent of the verse. Is this correct?

As for James, Luther said, in part. *“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…"*Luther had doubts about James’ authorship, as did many others throughout history, but he considered it part of the canon.

My understanding was that he called James’ Book “an epistle of straw” (lacking in substance?) and this was because of conflict about the necessity for works vs Faith (alone). At the very least, Luther was not into praising James’ work…and I really thought he wanted to exclude it.

The interesting thing about Luther’s translation into German is that he translated and included all the books customarily found in a western Bible, *plus * one!!! Perhaps it is more fitting that he be accused of adding a book to the Bible, instead of the charge that he threw out seven.

Are you saying that Luther didn’t throw out seven books from the OT? if not Luther, then who pitched thenm?

So, Tom, his excommunication had nothing to do with it? Teachers, teachings, Tradition, are all subject to the measure of scripture. The 800 plus posts of this thread come down to one difference between Lutherans and Catholics: Catholics believe Tradition to be co-equal with scripture, Lutherans believe Tradition to be subject to scripture.

No, I would say Luther’s excommunication had a lot to do with his rejection of the Pope’s authority and desire to do things his own way. He was not the first to criticize corruption - but, at least as I see it, he threw out the baby with the bath water.

Perhaps had there been a sense of at least concern in Rome that people were corrupting and abusing the name of the Church for their own purposes, and attacked Luther’s attempts to warn the pope of said, you and I would be of the same communion.
Could be, JonNC…

I really can’t speak for other PC’s, except to say, Tom, that this never has been a (singular) PC. Virtually none of them have their roots in Lutheranism.

This is a generalization … but, I thought I was ‘generally’ correct in that Lutherans believe in SS and this is what this thread is about. All ofhte PCs that I am aware of take SS as a foundational item in their belief system - so, I just joined them all together. If Lutherans do not hold to SS, then please correct me on this matter.

It lies with scripture, and for Lutherans who have brought about these seriously mistaken
ideas, with the Lutheran Confessions. They are violating both in intent and practice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, JonNC, but that is the entire foundation for multiple errors. Forgetting same sex marriage - take a look at John 20:21 where Christ give the authority to forgive sin to the Apostles after His Resurrection. Catholics have the Sacrament of Confession, **my understand is: **that Lutherans want people to go directly to God to have their sins forgiven. Here is an issue where the clearly stated words of Christ are cancelled out by modifying SS so that the words do not mean what they say they mean.

Jon

Always a pleasure to share a post with you, JonNC.

God bless

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

If Luther said “Justification by faith” where did he envisage this faith come from?
If it is a gift of God then we are not justified primarily by faith but by Grace. If by Grace then we are justified by the free gift of God, not by sola scriptura, not by reading and following, but by responding in Love’s free gift.

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6280689
Always a pleasure to share a post with you, JonNC.

The sentiment is mutual, Tom.

I am really at a loss on this one. My understanding of what you are saying is that he ‘added’ nothing, but was being faithful to the intent of the verse. Is this correct?

Exactly.

My understanding was that he called James’ Book “an epistle of straw” (lacking in substance?) and this was because of conflict about the necessity for works vs Faith (alone). At the very least, Luther was not into praising James’ work…and I really thought he wanted to exclude it.

You might take a look at the link. Granted, it is Protestant in its outlook, but it has some important quotes by Luther and others regarding James, as well as Luther’s view of the canon.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a5

Are you saying that Luther didn’t throw out seven books from the OT? if not Luther, then who pitched thenm?

Luther translated and included all 73 of the books of a typical western Bible of his time, plus the Prayer of Manassas. What he did in his translation is place the duetero-canonical books in a section by themselves between the OT and NT. And even the original KJV, some 80 years later had them. And most European Lutheran Bible have them. The exclusion of the D-C’s seems to come much later than Luther, and for Lutherans, seems peculiar to America.
In a literal sense, Lutherans never closed the canon, and it is my understanding that Lutheran theologians tend to use and view them more highly than other Protestants.

No, I would say Luther’s excommunication had a lot to do with his rejection of the Pope’s authority and desire to do things his own way. He was not the first to criticize corruption - but, at least as I see it, he threw out the baby with the bath water.

What would you consider the baby? What was the bath water?

This is a generalization … but, I thought I was ‘generally’ correct in that Lutherans believe in SS and this is what this thread is about. All ofhte PCs that I am aware of take SS as a foundational item in their belief system - so, I just joined them all together. If Lutherans do not hold to SS, then please correct me on this matter.

Even how we practice SS is quite different than many other Protestant groups, particularly the more contemporary ones. Taht said, I understand your point.

Not to put too fine a point on it, JonNC, but that is the entire foundation for multiple errors.

What is?

Forgetting same sex marriage - take a look at John 20:21 where Christ give the authority to forgive sin to the Apostles after His Resurrection. Catholics have the Sacrament of Confession, my understand is: that Lutherans want people to go directly to God to have their sins forgiven.

Lutherans agree, and your understnading of the Lutheran view is mistaken. From the Augsburg Confession:

Article XI: Of Confession.
1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession 2] an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.

And from the Small Catechism, which every Lutheran youth is catechized from (I think you will find it interesting):
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Many Lutherans, myself included, consider Confession/Holy Absolution a sacrament.

Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

As we have some and not all of his works it’s difficult to know exactly what Luther believed.
When Luther began preaching he was part of the troubled unrest sweeping Europe. The poor and persecuted were welcoming of someone standing as a figure-head, especially someone with Luther’s credentials.A well respected and highly regarded Catholic scholar who dared to question the Church.

“Civil confusions often spring from trifles but decide great issues” (Aristotle)

The financially troubled needed a leader and it was not necessarily a religious answer they were seeking. They wanted liberty from oppression, Luther was now a political leader preaching Scripture.

Nothing is clearer in history than the adoption by successful rebels of the methods they were accustomed to condemn in the forces they deposed and every act of rebelling expresses a nostalgia for innocence.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

In a literal sense, Lutherans never closed the canon, and it is my understanding that Lutheran theologians tend to use and view them more highly than other Protestants.

If I understand you correctly, with an ‘open’ canon, that would mean that if someone found ancient writings in the Holy Land, there would be a concern about seeing if these writings were to be included in the Bible. For example, if a lost epistle of St. Paul would be found it generate an interest in determining if were authentic, and if so, to include it in the NT?,

What would you consider the baby? What was the bath water?

“The Baby” would be the church founded by Christ on Peter as recorded in Matt 16. “The Bath Water” would be all of the corruption [sale of indulgences, simony, moral laxity and public scandal] that Luther correctly viewed as not compatable with the mission that Christ had given to His Church.

Luther had a role model in St. Catherine of Sienna (1347-1380) of someone who worked with the Church of Christ to bring it back to the right path. Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm And, you know… Luther had it easy … he had only ONE pope to be concerned with!

Even how we practice SS is quite different than many other Protestant groups, particularly the more contemporary ones. Taht said, I understand your point.

What is?

Did you mean, “Even now…”? While I do not understand the distinction you are making - if in fact you are saying that SS is being practiced, then there can be no other authority (that would be by definition…) So, if the leaders of the Lutheran church were to say “x” this would have to have some kind of authority significance to those who would be members of the Lutheran church. As I see it, SS sets the stage for ‘private interpretation’ and, in so doing enables multiple groups to interpret as they will. So, you have some PC that say, for example, that Baptism is necessary, some saying it is optional and those who claim it is not required. Where there is unity is that all reject the Catholic Church as the Church founded by Christ in Matt 16.

Lutherans agree, and your understnading of the Lutheran view is mistaken. From the Augsburg Confession: Well, that is why we dialogue … now, cut me a little slack here … after all, this is not “LAF” but CAF, eh?

And from the Small Catechism, which every Lutheran youth is catechized from (I think you will find it interesting):
bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

Many Lutherans, myself included, consider Confession/Holy Absolution a sacrament.

Jon
Again, thank you for the links. God bless your activities in Christ.

 

[garysibio]

If it is Fundamentalists that you seek look up David Hunt, MacArthur, John Piper and James White. Keep in mind however that Sola Scriptura means different things to different Christians and plays itself out differently. For instance SS plays out far differently within the Lutheran Church than it does in Baptists churches. Even among the four names that I gave you I am sure that there are differences in beliefs with regards to SS.

God bless you

I wouldn’t recommend Dave Hunt. Try William Lane Craig instead.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Garysibio,

You guys are obviously more familiar with this topic then I am.

So tell me, how is SS so different in different groups? Can you give me an example of how a particular topic plays out in one chruch as opposed to another?

I wouldn’t recommend Dave Hunt. Try William Lane Craig instead.

God bless,