M
marywarfield
Guest
Yes the Reformation led to relativism. But I would
be hard pressed to place the blame on Luther’s view
of sola. Private interpretation? Absolutely responsible.
Sola Scriptura? No.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
be hard pressed to place the blame on Luther’s view
of sola. Private interpretation? Absolutely responsible.
Sola Scriptura? No.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Where did the idea of private interpretation come from?Yes the Reformation led to relativism. But I would
be hard pressed to place the blame on Luther’s view
of sola. Private interpretation? Absolutely responsible.
Sola Scriptura? No.
It seems to me sola scriptura leads inevitably to private interpretation. Luther has been quoted as saying “A ploughboy with a bible in his hand is equal to the pope in Rome.”
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
To those interested, the quote is actually from William Tyndale, not Luther when responding to a local Roman Catholic priest:Where did the idea of private interpretation come from?
It seems to me sola scriptura leads inevitably to private interpretation. Luther has been quoted as saying “A ploughboy with a bible in his hand is equal to the pope in Rome.”
*“If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!” *
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
So, he’s the one where credit is due!To those interested, the quote is actually from William Tyndale, not Luther when responding to a local Roman Catholic priest:
*“If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!” *
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Probably, Luther, Wycliffe and the Catholic scholar Erasmus all used the proverbial plough boy for why the scriptures should be translated into the vernacular.So, he’s the one where credit is due!
Tyndale seems to be the one who declared that a plough boy would know the scriptures better then some local priest.
The quote is probably apocryphal anyway.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Why would a ploughboy need to read the scriptures unless he wanted to interpret them for himself?Probably, Luther, Wycliffe and the Catholic scholar Erasmus all used the proverbial plough boy for why the scriptures should be translated into the vernacular.
Tyndale seems to be the one who declared that a plough boy would know the scriptures better then some local priest.
The quote is probably apocryphal anyway.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Because scripture is for everyone. Don’t little Catholic plough boys read scripture?Why would a ploughboy need to read the scriptures unless he wanted to interpret them for himself?
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
No, I do not.I was referring to the Roman Catholic belief that the Church cannot err, in general, nor the Pope (when speaking ex-cathedra), in particular. Lutherans do not afford this infallibility to any human-run institution or individual or even our Confessions (though we believe they do not err… I’m sure you understand the fine distinction).
Christ founded the Church, did He not - that is, the Body of Christ, and the ministries of the bishops and priests? It is not an human institution. It is divine, because it comes from God Himself. God Himself made it.
The organisation of it? Perhaps not. We need not call them bishops or * priests*. Paul used words that meant “overseer”, and “elder” respectively. But Jesus gave the Apostles the power to do things no one else could. And that stuck in Tradition.
Our pastors and bishops can err (and do), and are corrected and/or disciplined. So what sets them apart, other than having studied? The simple answer to your question is similar to what I presume yours would be: they have been called and ordained, and now have the responsibility to administer Word and Sacrament to the church.
Thank you for the link. Very interesting. So Sola Scriptura is more of a science when you Lutheran guys speak of it, than a flat statement of fact? Very interesting indeed. I wonder what the Orthodox would say? (They have no formal canon of Scripture, either, IIRC.)Sola Scriptura is not a method of proof-texting, but rather a practice of the church. In that regard, we don’t need to accept Sola Scriptura as a doctrine in itself (thus we don’t need to ‘proof-text’ for evidence that we use only Scripture) - it’s the Apostolic Faith which matters. Make a bit more sense? This link might help.
And, if I understand it correctly, the basic principles are basically those of Vincent of Lerins: “Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” - in other words, that which was most widely accepted is Scripture.
I think, to a large degree, we would agree. I think the Orthodox would, too. That is why our Bibles are so very close. But there are other books which, back then, were popular and considered Scripture - The Shepherd by Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, the Didache among others. Why are those not remembered today, or even in the early canons? Why does no one read about the phoenix in Clement’s letter?
And there are other books, such as the Letter to the Hebrews. There was dispute about it even back then. We do not even know if Paul wrote it. So why is it not considered apocryphal in your Bible or ours?
I think you know my answer - because the Church said it is or is not Scripture. What would yours be?
The “Sola Scriptura” dynamic you offer is not bad, as it gets a lot of right answers. But even Lutheranism seems to lean on the authority of the Church (as a Body of believers, led by the bishops and priests). And I would say that is because without its authority, neither the Church nor any member thereof, then or now, could convey apostolic teaching, spurious or certain.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Yes little Catholic plough boys do with one caveat- they prefer the Lord’s ScriptureBecause scripture is for everyone. Don’t little Catholic plough boys read scripture?
that Christ learned and read from, the Scripture
argued by Him with the rabbis in the temple. For
the Scripture Jesus Christ used is NOT the Scripture
used in Sola Scriptura.
Your OT was codified in 444bc by Ezra.
The Scripture Jesus used was the Greek translations
after 250bc which included Tobit, Maccabees etc.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
“The Lords Scripture” would that be the shorter RC edition, or the longer EO edition, or the even longer OO edition?Yes little Catholic plough boys do with one caveat- they prefer the Lord’s Scripture
that Christ learned and read from, the Scripture
argued by Him with the rabbis in the temple. For
the Scripture Jesus Christ used is NOT the Scripture
used in Sola Scriptura.
Your OT was codified in 444bc by Ezra.
The Scripture Jesus used was the Greek translations
after 250bc which included Tobit, Maccabees etc.
S
steido01
Guest
Perhaps that’s worth its own thread, then. My point was that something can be correct without being infallible - in other words, Lutherans do not replace a human pope for a paper one. Roman Catholics, in an understandable but mistaken comparison, often assume incorrectly.No, I do not.
Agreed. But we would say the church -even the visible church - is not confined to those in communion with Rome.Christ founded the Church, did He not - that is, the Body of Christ, and the ministries of the bishops and priests? It is not an human institution. It is divine, because it comes from God Himself. God Himself made it.
Agreed.The organisation of it? Perhaps not. We need not call them bishops or * priests*. Paul used words that meant “overseer”, and “elder” respectively. But Jesus gave the Apostles the power to do things no one else could. And that stuck in Tradition.
Precisely. It’s like a science; we call it simply a practice of our modern church, which we employ because we are removed by time from the Apostles. This is why we are equally perturbed by “Bible alone!” types. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine.Thank you for the link. Very interesting. So Sola Scriptura is more of a science when you Lutheran guys speak of it, than a flat statement of fact? Very interesting indeed. I wonder what the Orthodox would say? (They have no formal canon of Scripture, either, IIRC.)
As for what the Orthodox would say, perhaps something can be learned from the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission from the '80s:
Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.
In essence. I think this leaves open the eventual reunion of Lutheran and Roman Catholic communions - Lutherans are simply practicing a pre-Tridentine Catholic practice established by church fathers.And, if I understand it correctly, the basic principles are basically those of Vincent of Lerins: “Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” - in other words, that which was most widely accepted is Scripture.
I think, to a large degree, we would agree. I think the Orthodox would, too. That is why our Bibles are so very close. But there are other books which, back then, were popular and considered Scripture - The Shepherd by Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, the Didache among others. Why are those not remembered today, or even in the early canons? Why does no one read about the phoenix in Clement’s letter?
Well, it is afforded a lesser authority than the gospels.And there are other books, such as the Letter to the Hebrews. There was dispute about it even back then. We do not even know if Paul wrote it. So why is it not considered apocryphal in your Bible or ours?
I think you know my answer - because the Church said it is or is not Scripture. What would yours be?
Yes, the church, in general, has the authority to teach. That authority, we believe, need not be tied to one fallible human individual - and ought not to be.The “Sola Scriptura” dynamic you offer is not bad, as it gets a lot of right answers. But even Lutheranism seems to lean on the authority of the Church (as a Body of believers, led by the bishops and priests). And I would say that is because without its authority, neither the Church nor any member thereof, then or now, could convey apostolic teaching, spurious or certain.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Because scripture is for everyone. Don’t little Catholic plough boys read scripture?
No obviously for historians it is the translation most“The Lords Scripture” would that be the shorter RC edition, or the longer EO edition, or the even longer OO edition?
widely used of the Jewish Scripture at the time of Christ.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Are you speaking of the LXX? Your church removed several books from that particular translation.No obviously for historians it is the translation most
widely used of the Jewish Scripture at the time of Christ.
M
marywarfield
Guest
"Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Covenant.* He began writing these books at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24:7).* As time went by other men, divinely inspired by God, added to the books of the Old Covenant.* In addition to the Pentateuch (first 5 books by Moses) were added the books of the Prophets and the Writings (poetry and wisdom texts).* No official list of holy books was set until Ezra set the canon of the Old Covenant books circa 444 BC (some scholars date 425BC others 458BC).* After Ezra set the text of the Old Covenant with the return of the Children of Israel after the rebuilding of the second Temple,* other books were added to the Sacred Scripture: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, etc.* Some were written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic and others in the Greek language which became the international language after the conquests of Alexander the Great in 332BC (Alexander died 323BC).Are you speaking of the LXX? Your church removed several books from that particular translation.
In 250 BC the Hebrew Old Covenant was translated for the first time into Greek.* This translation was called the Septuagint (named for the 70/72 Hebrew scholars who worked on the translation).* 1 & 2 Maccabees were added after this first Greek translation.* All 46 books that we have in our modern Old Testament translations were the same 46 books that Jesus read and studied.* Saint Peter and the first century Church adopted the Septuagint translation and the 46 books of the Old Testament (Covenant) as the official Bible of the New Covenant Catholic (Universal) Church.* In the early years of the Catholic Church, the Apostles began to write letters back and forth to the various churches but no New Testament, as such, existed."
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20the%20Bible.htm
I’m talking about the Old Testament.
As far as I know Jesus never read or studied the NT.
This OT is what little Catholic plough boys read now.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
"Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Covenant.* He began writing these books at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24:7).* As time went by other men, divinely inspired by God, added to the books of the Old Covenant.* In addition to the Pentateuch (first 5 books by Moses) were added the books of the Prophets and the Writings (poetry and wisdom texts).* No official list of holy books was set until Ezra set the canon of the Old Covenant books circa 444 BC (some scholars date 425BC others 458BC).* After Ezra set the text of the Old Covenant with the return of the Children of Israel after the rebuilding of the second Temple,* other books were added to the Sacred Scripture: 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, etc.* Some were written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic and others in the Greek language which became the international language after the conquests of Alexander the Great in 332BC (Alexander died 323BC).
In 250 BC the Hebrew Old Covenant was translated for the first time into Greek.* This translation was called the Septuagint (named for the 70/72 Hebrew scholars who worked on the translation).* 1 & 2 Maccabees were added after this first Greek translation.* All 46 books that we have in our modern Old Testament translations were the same 46 books that Jesus read and studied.* Saint Peter and the first century Church adopted the Septuagint translation and the 46 books of the Old Testament (Covenant) as the official Bible of the New Covenant Catholic (Universal) Church.* In the early years of the Catholic Church, the Apostles began to write letters back and forth to the various churches but no New Testament, as such, existed."
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20the%20Bible.htm
I’m talking about the Old Testament.
As far as I know Jesus never read or studied the NT.
This OT is what little Catholic plough boys read now.
Little Orthodox plough boys read the longer unabridged OT. Little Oriental Apostolic plough boys read a yet longer unabridged version. The RC removed several books that didn’t make the cut. Why do you want to read an abridged OT?I’m talking about the Old Testament.
As far as I know Jesus never read or studied the NT.
This OT is what little Catholic plough boys read now.
M
marywarfield
Guest
More to the point why do you and hold it as Sola? Lol.Little Orthodox plough boys read the longer unabridged OT. Little Oriental Apostolic plough boys read a yet longer unabridged version. The RC removed several books that didn’t make the cut. Why do you want to read an abridged OT?
In any case if you are talking about Ezdras it wasn’t in
Jesus’ or the Apostles OT either as it had not been written
yet. Lol.
And again I say we use the exact same 46 books
Christ and the Apostles used and in the same order.
If something is going to be Sola shouldn’t you start
with the actual thinking of the Apostles and Christ???
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Well, true, the message in scripture is for everyone, which is not to say that scripture is for everyone. Scripture belongs to the Church, that is, for Christians collectively. Scripture, in its God-given format,was meant for a believer to hear, while among the other members of the congregation. Originally, scripture was an aural and collective experience. The change to a literary and solitary experience is a man-made tradition.Because scripture is for everyone. Don’t little Catholic plough boys read scripture?
Not Catholic ploughboys, but It is little Protestant ploughboys reading scripture that cause so much confusion.
Indeed. The Church is found where the **word is preached **and the sacraments administered in the congregation of believers.Well, true, the message in scripture is for everyone, which is not to say that scripture is for everyone. Scripture belongs to the Church, that is, for Christians collectively. Scripture, in its God-given format,was meant for a believer to hear, while among the other members of the congregation. Originally, scripture was an aural and collective experience. The change to a literary and solitary experience is a man-made tradition.
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
Really? I would say the Church is found whereIndeed. The Church is found where the **word is preached **and the sacraments administered in the congregation of believers.
Jon
Scripture is BELIEVED and Sacraments unchanged
and administered.
Big difference.
Believed = not “reformed”.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Jon, I believes you’re right.Indeed. The Church is found where the **word is preached **and the sacraments administered in the congregation of believers.
Jon
Mack
- Status
- Not open for further replies.