Does Sola Scriptura lead to Moral Relativism?

[MacQ]

The difference between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, in this regard, is that Lutherans don’t think their pastors or bishops are infallible - they’re human. They sin and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. We rely on the church, in general, to keep our teachers in line. That is certainly not a personal relativism like you describe…

Sola Scriptura simply means that our doctrines cannot contradict or come from outside of Holy Scripture, and that traditions must not contradict with Scripture. In practice, this means that the clearest portions of Scripture are afforded more “weight.” So the four, universally-accepted Gospels are the core of our canon and we build from there.

Where did you get the idea that catholics consider priests, bishops or even the Pope “infallible”?
In short we don’t.
We know they are human, sinners, and yes we can figure that they don’t have any special powers when it comes to putting on their pants.

We also rely on the Church to keep our teachers in line.

And just FYI, Catholic doctrine also cannot contradict what is in scripture. Not ever.
That we have other traditions is what folks most often criticize us for. But those traditions (while they may not appear in scripture) do not contradict anything that is written.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Tradition judges Scripture
Scripture judges Tradition.

You don’t see circular?

No. It would be circular if Scripture judged Scripture or Tradition judged Tradition.

 

[Per_Crucem]

St. Nick ain’t in the Bible either. But he still comes
down Catholic chimneys with presents.

LOL…here endeth the debate

 

[steido01]

Where did you get the idea that catholics consider priests, bishops or even the Pope “infallible”?
In short we don’t.
We know they are human, sinners, and yes we can figure that they don’t have any special powers when it comes to putting on their pants.

We also rely on the Church to keep our teachers in line.

I clarified my point in a previous post.

And just FYI, Catholic doctrine also cannot contradict what is in scripture. Not ever.
That we have other traditions is what folks most often criticize us for. But those traditions (while they may not appear in scripture) do not contradict anything that is written.

And this is where we respectfully, but seriously, disagree.

 

[marywarfield]

Where did you get the idea that catholics consider priests, bishops or even the Pope “infallible”?
In short we don’t.
We know they are human, sinners, and yes we can figure that they don’t have any special powers when it comes to putting on their pants.

We also rely on the Church to keep our teachers in line.

And just FYI, Catholic doctrine also cannot contradict what is in scripture. Not ever.
That we have other traditions is what folks most often criticize us for. But those traditions (while they may not appear in scripture) do not contradict anything that is written.

1. Well actually for me if the Church says it is never in
   error. Infallible. Most Catholics at least used to be that
   way actually. Why? Well for me I’m a dairy farmer not
   a theologian. I spend my days forking cow doo doo
   and milking cows. Theologians spend their day with
   theology. I don’t expect them to tell me how to run a
   dairy and they have no expectation of me clarifying
   theology.

2.correct. Doctrine cannot contradict Scripture.

1. Traditions, ALL of them, have some origin in
   Scripture. The confusion comes when others interpret
   that Scripture to a contrary position from the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

False conclusion. SS hasn’t changed; some communions simply don’t use it, or have used something else with similar terminology and call it SS. Kinda like how the Mormons claim that their Jesus is divine, but not really.

More like false acknowledgment on your part. SS hasn’t changed for who? Lutherans? But that is not the case outside of the Lutheran cirlce. So it has changed.

Has the doctrine of the Trinity changed?

 

[Nicea325]

I clarified my point in a previous post.

And this is where we respectfully, but seriously, disagree.

Give an example

 

[Per_Crucem]

More like false acknowledgment on your part. SS hasn’t changed for who? Lutherans? But that is not the case outside of the Lutheran cirlce. So it has changed.

Has the doctrine of the Trinity changed?

Just so I understand what your point is, Nicea. The non-Lutherans don’t practice the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, the Lutheran understanding is wrong?

 

[marywarfield]

LOL…here endeth the debate

Not for everyone though. Certain Fundamentalists
refuse visits from St. Nicholas of Myra because
they say he’s a gasp pagan. Pay back for his punching
out Arius.

 

[Nicea325]

Just so I understand what your point is, Nicea. The non-Lutherans don’t practice the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, the Lutheran understanding is wrong?

No. To claim SS has not changed at all is no small denial. Yes, Lutherans adhere to the Lutheran understanding of SS;however, those outside of the Lutheran faith do not hold the Lutheran understanding of SS or the practcice. So in essence, SS has changed. Precisely why I said doctrines as the Incarnation,Hypostatic Union did not and cannot change nor do orthodox Christians claim it has changed. Because it has not changed regardless if Protestant,Catholic,OrthodoxCoptic,etc,etc

Does that make sense?

 

[St_Francis]

Just so I understand what your point is, Nicea. The non-Lutherans don’t practice the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, the Lutheran understanding is wrong?

What makes the Litheran understanding correct and the others incorrect? How do you know it is the Lutheran understanding which is correct?

 

[marywarfield]

What makes the Litheran understanding correct and the others incorrect? How do you know it is the Lutheran understanding which is correct?

Ah short sweet and straight to the point.
Per Crucem I’m dying to see your answer here.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree. And that’s precisely why we reject some aspects of Catholic dogma. Because they have changed or been added.

I know that some non-Catholic Christians believe that the Church added something when they proclaimed the Immaculate Conception, but that was an idea from the earliest times about which people had different ideas, very similar to the situation regarding the divinity of Christ, which was an issue settled by the Church.

So, I am just asking about these teachings you say have been changed or added on.

 

[steido01]

No. To claim SS has not changed at all is no small denial. Yes, Lutherans adhere to the Lutheran understanding of SS;however, those outside of the Lutheran faith do not hold the Lutheran understanding of SS or the practcice. So in essence, SS has changed. Precisely why I said doctrines as the Incarnation,Hypostatic Union did not and cannot change nor do orthodox Christians claim it has changed. Because it has not changed regardless if Protestant,Catholic,OrthodoxCoptic,etc,etc

Does that make sense?

This, to me, is the silliest argument Roman Catholics make against SS. On one hand, they blame Luther for “inventing” it, but on the other hand, they deny the Lutheran explanation of it. Well, which is it? If Lutherans “started” the whole concept, doesn’t that mean Lutherans should define what it is? That other groups have perverted our terminology to describe something entirely foreign to our understanding and definition cannot reasonably be attributed to us, our practice, or the Lutheran Reformers for that matter.

Now doesn’t that make sense? The Lutheran practice of SS has not changed.

 

[JonNC]

What makes the Litheran understanding correct and the others incorrect? How do you know it is the Lutheran understanding which is correct?

It is often Martin Luther who receives the blame/credit for the practice. On that basis, shouldn’t the Lutheran understanding be the default?

Jon

 

[steido01]

Give an example

OK. Here’s three:

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

Formula of Concord, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

• Supremacy from Scripture? Hardly. Primacy, probably.
• The right to name who can be King of England or President of the United States?:ehh:
• And those who disagree place their salvation in jeopardy?:dts:

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

**Formula of Concord, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope **

Supremacy from Scripture? Hardly. Primacy, probably.
The right to name who can be King of England or President of the United States?
And those who disagree place their salvation in jeopardy?

Sorry,but your source is slanted. A secondary source, not primary.

How about using official Catholic documents to support each your points?

 

[Nicea325]

This, to me, is the silliest argument Roman Catholics make against SS. On one hand, they blame Luther for “inventing” it, but on the other hand, they deny the Lutheran explanation of it. Well, which is it? If Lutherans “started” the whole concept, doesn’t that mean Lutherans should define what it is? That other groups have perverted our terminology to describe something entirely foreign to our understanding and definition cannot reasonably be attributed to us, our practice, or the Lutheran Reformers for that matter.

Now doesn’t that make sense? The Lutheran practice of SS has not changed.

And what is more silly to believe SS was practiced,taught and believed by the early church. Some Lutherans claim it was and go to great extremes to prove it and others will say it was not practiced.

Well which is it? What is more silly? Making arguments against it or those who practice it and yet differ within their own understanding of it in the historical context?

 

[Per_Crucem]

No. To claim SS has not changed at all is no small denial. Yes, Lutherans adhere to the Lutheran understanding of SS;however, those outside of the Lutheran faith do not hold the Lutheran understanding of SS or the practcice. So in essence, SS has changed. Precisely why I said doctrines as the Incarnation,Hypostatic Union did not and cannot change nor do orthodox Christians claim it has changed. Because it has not changed regardless if Protestant,Catholic,OrthodoxCoptic,etc,etc

Does that make sense?

Not quite, no. It would be the same as arguing that Catholic ecclesiology involves the papacy being the center point of unity, with universal jurisdiction, etc. The Orthodox don’t. Therefore, the Catholic view is wrong because the Orthodox changed it. Would that be sensical to you?

 

[St_Francis]

It is often Martin Luther who receives the blame/credit for the practice. On that basis, shouldn’t the Lutheran understanding be the default?

Jon

OK, I see that. I am actually trying to find out on what basis you believe this at all? Why do you believe what Luther taught?