Z
Zenkai
Guest
Lutherans follow the Bible along with the writings of Luther (Large Catechism, Small Catechism, etc). Reformed and Presbyterians follow the Bible along with the writings of John Calvin. Etc.
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Hmmm…they may not admit it…but they follow some sort of tradition…the tradition of their founder in interpreting the Bible passages…without realizing it.
This may shed more light…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology.
How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.
This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
N
Nabooru
Guest
The Protestant church dispenses with, or at least does not accept as full-blown doctrine, those items of faith not presented in the Bible. We don’t believe that something should be considered dogma just because the pope said it. It needs to have at least a scriptural basis. It’s not like God suddenly remembered that He forgot to put that whole “no contraception” or “mortal/venial sin” thing in the Bible and had someone else say it for Him before He forgot again.
All except the most liberal churches (I’m looking at you, ECUSA and PCUSA) admit that in the Creeds lie the essentials of faith. Deny them, and you are not a Christian. (Now I’m looking at you, LDS.)
All except the most liberal churches (I’m looking at you, ECUSA and PCUSA) admit that in the Creeds lie the essentials of faith. Deny them, and you are not a Christian. (Now I’m looking at you, LDS.)
L
LoyalViews
Guest
No, Protestants follow a man-made tradition, along with their own interpretation of the Bible.
T
tabycat
Guest
Only if It follows what thay believe.
Ok, let’s be clear. Lutheranism practices sola scriptura, which is the practice of the Church to hold all teachings and doctrines accountable to scripture as the final norm.
To the extent that Luther’s writings are accountable to scripture - some are, some are not - we accept them. We alo accept the ancient creeds and early councils, and the balance of the Lutheran Confessions.
Jon
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
But would, say, a Southern Baptist say that is what sola scriptura is?
L
LoyalViews
Guest
I know where you’re going with thisBut would, say, a Southern Baptist say that is what sola scriptura is?
C
cath4alltime
Guest
They follow there own interpretation of what they think ir says.
You’ll have to ask a Southern Baptist. The OP made a specific reference to Lutherans which, I believe, did not accurately describe Lutheran practice.But would, say, a Southern Baptist say that is what sola scriptura is?
Jon
M
MasterAsia
Guest
LOLBut would, say, a Southern Baptist say that is what sola scriptura is?
JonNC and I had an extensive discussion about that - “Sola Scriptura”. It sure brings back nice memories.
hehe
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I see your point.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I know where you’re going with this
The pleasure was mine.LOL
JonNC and I had an extensive discussion about that - “Sola Scriptura”. It sure brings back nice memories.
Jon
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Actually, there are references to mortal/venial sins in the Bible. Example:
1 John 5:16-17 (NAB)
And it isn’t that God forgot to put something in the bible. The Bible was assembled from already written works inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean that everything that was taught was written down. This is where looking into Church history comes in, aka. Tradition, to see what the early Christians taught and believed.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
To this I ask, who says He intended to put whatever doctrine in the Bible?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Nabooru,
Where in the Bible is it taught that the Queen of England is head of the Church?
F
funny4god
Guest
Furthermore Where in the Bible it states that we shall have a Man to be the head of the church.Will someone elaborate in this subject please. Thank you God Bless:thumbsup:
C
CopticChristian
Guest
F
funny4god
Guest
Again Show me please from the Bible and the Bible alone Where it states that A Church should have a Man as the Head of the church.Thank you and God Bless you.
- Status