Follow up on SS

[joe371]

The question from our perspective is not that there is a lack of a teaching office. Rather, where the teaching office is located as well as its authority relative to the Scriptures.

Agreed. I guess it comes down to which church in the world today existed when Jesus established a teaching office within His church, in the first century?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Agreed. I guess it comes down to which church in the world today existed when Jesus established a teaching office within His church, in the first century?

I would say it comes down to where the fullness of God’s word and sacraments are present in their entirety, without error, yes. Of course, we don’t deny that the church is present in the East or in Rome. Just not without error.

 

[fbl9]

I would say it comes down to where the fullness of God’s word and sacraments are present in their entirety, without error, yes. Of course, we don’t deny that the church is present in the East or in Rome. Just not without error.

Do you believe your faith is without error?
Are the errors of the Catholic Church enough to jeopardize one’s salvation?
Thus say the Lutheran church it is right before God, as does the Catholic Church.
Stalemate
How to decide who is correct? We both read and still come to the same divided conclusions.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Do you believe your faith is without error?

Yes.

Are the errors of the Catholic Church enough to jeopardize one’s salvation?

Error always does. Having said that, I wouldn’t question the standing of a Catholic before God without reason.

Thus say the Lutheran church it is right before God, as does the Catholic Church.
Stalemate
How to decide who is correct? We both read and still come to the same divided conclusions.

That’s true. In the end, the only infallible One will sort that out.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Follow up - Eric Roberts said: “We are six…oops…no, five posts away from the magic 1000 mark. Let’s wrap it up, or start a follow-up thread folks.”

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

I don’t agree with that. My denomination and at the parish level resolves doctrinal disputes all the time and our denomination practices Sola Scriptura.

 

[joe371]

I think that while JN14:16 and JN 16:13 is all well and fine, one needs to look at JN 21:25 where is says “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” What this tell me is that there were many things that Jesus said and did and taught that was not written down. In the first early years after the resurrection, there was little thought given to writing down a Christian library. Some of this was undoubtedly due to the example of the Lord Himself, who like the rabbis of the time, taught by the spoke word, which in turn was remembered and discussed by disciples. There was no need for writing while the Apostles were still alive to clarify or verify anything uncertain.

What Jesus commanded and meant the Apostles to do was precisely what He had done Himself, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice, convince, persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face to living men and women; not entrust their message to a book which might perish and be destroyed and be misunderstood and misinterpreted and corrupted, but adopt the more safe and natural way of present the truth to them by word of mouth and the training others to do the same after they themselves were gone and so, by a living tradition, preserving and handing down the Word of God, as they had received it, to all generations.

The Gospels are incomplete and fragmentary, giving us certainly the most important things to know about our Savior's earthly life, but still not telling us all we might know or much we do know in fact and understand better through the teaching of the Catholic Church, which has preserved traditions handed down since the time of the Apostles, from generation to generation. what is contained in what we call the New Testament were called into existence at various times to meet pressing needs and circumstances, were addressed to particular individuals and communities in various places and not to the Catholic Church at large. The writing  that would be called sacred Scripture, the New Testament  was the furthest thing from the minds of the Apostles and writers, they did not or never thought that what they wrote would be put into a one volume and made to do the duty as a complete and all sufficient statement of Christian faith and morals; this in no way undervalues the written Word of God or placing it on a level inferior to what it deserves, but shows the position it was meant to occupy in the economy of the Christian Church; it was written by  the Church; it belongs to the Church, and it is her office, therefore, to declare what it means. It is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrines an divine authority; but as a complete exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of every man, this it never was and never intended to be. The Church came before the New Testament and supplements the oral teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church.

 

[joe371]

I don’t agree with that. My denomination and at the parish level resolves doctrinal disputes all the time and our denomination practices Sola Scriptura.

So your church leadership (teaching office) resolves doctrinal differences if and when they occur? Technically that is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is when each Christian (as opposed to the teaching office of the church) defers to scripture alone as their final authority. Your church, in my opinion, and as per scripture, is doing the right thing because you guys take it to the church when things can’t get resolved.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So your church leadership (teaching office) resolves doctrinal differences if and when they occur? Technically that is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is when each Christian (as opposed to the teaching office of the church) defers to scripture alone as their final authority. Your church, in my opinion, and as per scripture, is doing the right thing because you guys take it to the church when things can’t get resolved.

For Lutherans, sola Scriptura is a practice of the church not of individuals.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So your church leadership (teaching office) resolves doctrinal differences if and when they occur? Technically that is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is when each Christian (as opposed to the teaching office of the church) defers to scripture alone as their final authority. Your church, in my opinion, and as per scripture, is doing the right thing because you guys take it to the church when things can’t get resolved.

The description of sola scriptura you give is not the one held to by confessional Lutherans, joe.

 

[joe371]

The description of sola scriptura you give is not the one held to by confessional Lutherans, joe.

I know; there are at least 3 different interpretations of sola scriptura; always bothered me long ago, as a former SS advocate.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I know; there are at least 3 different interpretations of sola scriptura; always bothered me long ago, as a former SS advocate.

The other positions do not matter. I don’t base the Catholic definition of Scripture, church, and Tradition on what the Orthodox mean by Scripture, church, and Tradition. Therefore, don’t base the Lutheran understanding of SS on how Baptists define it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The other positions do not matter. I don’t base the Catholic definition of Scripture, church, and Tradition on what the Orthodox mean by Scripture, church, and Tradition. Therefore, don’t base the Lutheran understanding of SS on how Baptists define it.

Bro’,

You guys are not SS…

Really.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Bro’,

You guys are not SS…

Really.

If SS means we only use scripture, and nothing else, then clearly, no. Within a Lutheran framework, there is a three-fold tier of authority of theology, piety and practice. 1 - Scripture; 2 - The Confessions (i.e., the Church teaching, practicing and adjudicating the Scriptures); 3 - other human writings. The first tier is the alone (what the alone in Scripture alone refers to) infallible authority and divine source by which the other two are judged and normed.

 

[joe371]

If SS means we only use scripture, and nothing else, then clearly, no. Within a Lutheran framework, there is a three-fold tier of authority of theology, piety and practice. 1 - Scripture; 2 - The Confessions (i.e., the Church teaching, practicing and adjudicating the Scriptures); 3 - other human writings. The first tier is the alone (what the alone in Scripture alone refers to) infallible authority and divine source by which the other two are judged and normed.

Judged and normed, when doctrinal disunity arises, by the teaching office of he Lutheran Church? The LC is definitely not a SS proponent, in the strictest sense i.e. like us you defer to church teaching office and they use one two and three? My good friend JonNC says the same thing. The LC is a lot like the CC.

 

[joe371]

The other positions do not matter. I don’t base the Catholic definition of Scripture, church, and Tradition on what the Orthodox mean by Scripture, church, and Tradition. Therefore, don’t base the Lutheran understanding of SS on how Baptists define it.

You are right.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Judged and normed, when doctrinal disunity arises, by the teaching office of he Lutheran Church? The LC is definitely not a SS proponent, in the strictest sense i.e. like us you defer to church teaching office and they use one two and three? My good friend JonNC says the same thing. The LC is a lot like the CC.

Just a chip off the ol’ block.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From the “Historicity of the Church” thread, a Sola Scriptura argument has inevitably leaked. In order to preserve the thread’s OP, I am transferring a question one of the posters brought up:

But where in scripture alone ,is the seat of the bishop of Rome (as you claim) seen to be passed on to another?

My answer is:

Where in scripture alone does it say that it has to be in scripture alone? If that’s the case, we would not have a New Testament in scripture alone.

On a side note:

This is a prime example of why I started that thread. This common argumentation against the Church. “Where in the scripture alone can I find that”?

It is a desperate attempt at ignoring history and church development. And it ignores the most basic of all things: How, When, Where, Who discerned what is to be considered Scriptures?

Unless those questions are addressed properly, that type of argumentation is fallacious, because it ignores how the elements (history and development) of that very same source (Scriptures) are inseparable form those same elements (history and development).

It also ignores some a basic question:

1. Where does it say in the scripture alone that it has to be in scripture alone?

And it also ignores the very reality that those 27 books found in the New Testament were declared inspired by the Church. Gasp! You mean there are not listed in those very same pages? Hmmm, no they are not.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is a prime example of why I started that thread. This common argumentation against the Church. “Where in the scripture alone can I find that”?

It is a desperate attempt at ignoring history and church development. And it ignores the most basic of all things: How, When, Where, Who discerned what is to be considered Scriptures?

Understandable. But doesn’t that assume what it seeks to prove? In other words, the argument is is that it does not have to be present in Scripture, because it’s present in tradition/church history. That assumes, though, that tradition/church history is divinely inspired and can teach revealed dogma. At that point, you’ve already accepted the question as a premise and introduced circularity. Not saying that I disagree. It’s just one of the difficulties for the position that tradition contained in the post-apostolic church (and not contained in Scripture) is divine.

 

[marywarfield]

Understandable. But doesn’t that assume what it seeks to prove? In other words, the argument is is that it does not have to be present in Scripture, because it’s present in tradition/church history. That assumes, though, that tradition/church history is divinely inspired and can teach revealed dogma. At that point, you’ve already accepted the question as a premise and introduced circularity. Not saying that I disagree. It’s just one of the difficulties for the position that tradition contained in the post-apostolic church (and not contained in Scripture) is divine.

I do not understand why people have such a hard time
with this.
Sacred Scripture is the purely and entirely the result
of Sacred Tradition being written down to preserve it.
To throw out Sacred Tradition as true or relevant plainly
one needs to also throw out the results: Scripture.

The only circular argument here IS Sola Scriptura.
Keep tradition you keep the Bible. If you throw out
Tradition you MUST also throw out the Bible AND
Sola Scriptura.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Follow up - Eric Roberts said…

Who the heck is Eric Roberts?