Does scripture interpret scripture?

[JonNC]

Why would we need to read the Augsburg Confessions? It seems that if the Bible alone is the norm, then it is the only standard by which the Lutheran Church should be judged.

Stew,
Where have I said that no other writings may be considered? In fact, often I have pointed out that writings can and do reflect the truth of Christ: the creeds and early councils, etc.
The practice of sola scriptura holds these things accountable, it doesn’t exclude them.
Scripture is the final norm, by which all teachers, teachings, doctrines and dogma are accountable, but that doesn’t mean the Church does not have a teaching role.
For example, Luther wrote the Small catechism so that a held of household could teach his family the faith. That doesn’t violate sola scriptura.

Your question asks me to defend a practice that I reject, that being solo scriptura.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Stew,
Where have I said that no other writings may be considered? In fact, often I have pointed out that writings can and do reflect the truth of Christ: the creeds and early councils, etc.
The practice of sola scriptura holds these things accountable, it doesn’t exclude them.
Scripture is the final norm, by which all teachers, teachings, doctrines and dogma are accountable, but that doesn’t mean the Church does not have a teaching role.
For example, Luther wrote the Small catechism so that a held of household could teach his family the faith. That doesn’t violate sola scriptura.

Your question asks me to defend a practice that I reject, that being solo scriptura.

Jon

I guess we need an "operational’ definition of SS - particularly since it’s not found anywhere in Scripture.

And like most doctrines in Protestantism, it seems to be a moving target.

 

[JonNC]

I guess we need an "operational’ definition of SS - particularly since it’s not found anywhere in Scripture.

And like most doctrines in Protestantism, it seems to be a moving target.

For Lutherans, its always been the same. I thought I posted this before, but…

from the Formula of Concord

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which **all dogmas together with [all] 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.

2] 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, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. 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 [categorical] 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.

Hope this helps hold the target in place.

Jon

 

[Cavaradossi]

I disagree - if one relies on something other than scripture to assist them in interpreting scripture, then he has obviously violated the principle of SS.

That’s a caricature. Sola Scriptura classically means that the Scriptures alone are good for affirming doctrines and providing correction. It never really touches on the sticky question of hermeneutics.

 

[JonNC]

That’s a caricature. Sola Scriptura classically means that the Scriptures alone are good for affirming doctrines and providing correction. It never really touches on the sticky question of hermeneutics.

A caricature I continually have to speak to. :sad_yes:

Jon

 

[pablope]

Guanophore,

Not really no, I think they are wrong, but utilise little ad Hominem, in the same was reformed confessions don’t use it. They certainly strongly condemn false teaching though.

Again, scripture being our clearest indication of Apostolic thought, he gets much of it spot on.

Lincs

May I repost my question to you, Linc…from post 159:

What gospel truth and according to whom, Linc? As I asked you before…how can you be sure Calvin’s teachings are without error? Following the example of St Paul, who did he submit his writings/teachings to?

Who ordained and sent Calvin?
Luther seemed, by his actions, set himself to be speaking for the Church, same with Calvin…he set himself up as the rightful interpreter of Scripture.

What value is their brilliance, teachings and what not…if it was borne out of disobedience?

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

Indeed and for me the Gospel proclaimed by Rome is a clear departure from that of scripture, our clearest guide to what the apostolic message was. As such the CC proclaims a different gospel, and I am bound to reject it.

What do you think where Rome erred? What is the gospel proclamation? And where does Rome differ with this original gospel proclamation?

 

[JonNC]

May I repost my question to you, Linc…from post 159:

What gospel truth and according to whom, Linc? As I asked you before…how can you be sure Calvin’s teachings are without error? Following the example of St Paul, who did he submit his writings/teachings to?

Who ordained and sent Calvin?
Luther seemed, by his actions, set himself to be speaking for the Church, same with Calvin…he set himself up as the rightful interpreter of Scripture.

What value is their brilliance, teachings and what not…if it was borne out of disobedience?

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

What do you think where Rome erred? What is the gospel proclamation? And where does Rome differ with this original gospel proclamation?

Hi Pablope,
Luther first set out to inform the pope of the abuses taking place in Europe.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 17:30

What is your point, 1voice? Do you think people were just ignorant before the canon of scripture was formed, so God looked the other way?

 

[guanophore]

That’s a caricature. Sola Scriptura classically means that the Scriptures alone are good for affirming doctrines and providing correction. It never really touches on the sticky question of hermeneutics.

This is true, but evangelicals have been under so much fire that the definition has been revised to avoid being placed in the indefensible position of adding a “doctrine”. It has now been reclassified as a “hermeneutic principle”, instead of a doctrine.

Either way, the function of it is the same. It is a standard, created during the Reformation, by which the authority appointed by Christ could be replaced by another supposedly more reliable source.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Pablope,
Luther first set out to inform the pope of the abuses taking place in Europe.

Jon

Right Jon,

Luther DID bring up issues to the Church and to scholars of the Church. He DID try to Reform what already existed. Both Him and Eck were very hard headed men so… the rest is history…

<Separate from Jon’s post>

Anyone that DID NOT try to bring the issues up to the Church first and just left and/or just created their own version of the Church is an Inventor, not really a reformer imho.

I can’t get past the idea that I can Reform something if I am not trying to reform from within first. If I break away without any attempt to reform from within I am just making something different. You can only reform that already exists. If it is something new, its an invention not a reformation.

Only the Church can reform itself, as it continues to be that which existed, exists and continues to exist.

Just my 2 pennies.

Peace be with you,

Jose

 

[guanophore]

Hi Pablope,
Luther first set out to inform the pope of the abuses taking place in Europe.

Jon

Oh would that the Pope had listened and responded with humility and obedience to the Gospel! Alas, I think he was so thick in the abuses, and so full of hubris, he believe he could swat Luther like an annoying fly, as had been done so many times before with the same complainers.

I wonder how things might have been different, had we holy popes such as we have had in the last century.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh would that the Pope had listened and responded with humility and obedience to the Gospel! Alas, I think he was so thick in the abuses, and so full of hubris, he believe he could swat Luther like an annoying fly, as had been done so many times before with the same complainers.

I wonder how things might have been different, had we holy popes such as we have had in the last century.

[SIGN]AMEN to that [/SIGN]

 

[1voice]

What is your point, 1voice? Do you think people were just ignorant before the canon of scripture was formed, so God looked the other way?

I simply quoted the Apostle…

 

[guanophore]

I simply quoted the Apostle…

Yes, you did. Did you quote the Apostle in response to the threat topic, or in answer to the other member, who asked “what did people do to get saved before the canon of scripture was formed”?

 

[1voice]

Yes, you did. Did you quote the Apostle in response to the threat topic, or in answer to the other member, who asked “what did people do to get saved before the canon of scripture was formed”?

I didnt realize there was a “threat”

…I was responding to the post.
Paul indicates that God’s expectation changed based on the level of God’s revelation.

The Jews had the Torah /Law / Prophets for a thousand + years before the “Canon” was produced. It would be logical to conclude that it was used by the early Church… The already existent written work was certainly frequently quoted by Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

I didnt realize there was a “threat”

…I was responding to the post.
Paul indicates that God’s expectation changed based on the level of God’s revelation.

The Jews had the Torah /Law / Prophets for a thousand + years before the “Canon” was produced. It would be logical to conclude that it was used by the early Church… The already existent written work was certainly frequently quoted by Jesus.

And what about the Christians in the 3rd century? How were they saved without the Bible?

 

[mackbrislawn]

As for ad Hominem, indeed in places it is present, as it is in virtually all works for both sides in the reformation period I have ever read.

 

[guanophore]

I didnt realize there was a “threat”

…I was responding to the post.
Paul indicates that God’s expectation changed based on the level of God’s revelation.

The Jews had the Torah /Law / Prophets for a thousand + years before the “Canon” was produced. It would be logical to conclude that it was used by the early Church… The already existent written work was certainly frequently quoted by Jesus.

Thank you.

What you have described here is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition. It is the Revelation by God of Himself.

So, how did people get saved before the NT canon was developed?

 

[1voice]

And what about the Christians in the 3rd century? How were they saved without the Bible?

Probably the same thing that Phillip did when he saw the Ethiopian eunich on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.

 

[mackbrislawn]

When did this thread take on a very “condescending” manner? With respect, it’s gotten a rather uncomfortable atmosphere to it now, compared to it earlier on.

If this is how it is, I may simply pull out…

This is one Catholic to another. Of course, you may listen in, but it is not said to you directly. It is an attempt to understand another way of thinking than ours, and how it could get started.
After all, this is a Catholic forum.

Protestants have always been accused of having a “canon within the canon” and my view is that the way to read scripture is to start at the beginning, not at the middle nor end. Teaching builds upon teaching. So understand first teaching first, so as not to misunderstand later teaching. To avoid being unlearned.