Follow up on SS

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
While scripture alludes to this very important role for the Church, you are correct that the actual practice is post-apostolic. But man-made traditions are not necessarily frowned upon in scripture, else there would be many things that Catholics and Lutherans both do that we would not be able to do. For example, this week is Holy Week, and while the events that inspire this traditional observance of the passion, death, and resurrection, it isn’t particularly commanded in scripture that we do so (unless one wants to expand the meaning of “in remembrance of me”).

You, Joe, know my stand on SS, and in fact the continued divisions themselves. I believe that SS has its roots in the Great Schism, and what the Reformers saw as contradictions in the western Church, councils and popes, etc. Whether or not they were right or wrong is really the issue, but that’s how it looked to them in the 1500’s. At least for me, SS becomes unnecessary if East and West are again in communion.

Jon

I understand. However, many would not give up SS even if the the CC and EOC reunited. They would still view the larger CC, now that they are one and united again, as they always have, except for you brother, and if they do reunite I’m coming after ya and hauling you off to Mass. LOL…LOL…Just having a little fun…

 

[JonNC]

I understand. However, many would not give up SS even if the the CC and EOC reunited. They would still view the larger CC, now that they are one and united again, as they always have, except for you brother, and if they do reunite I’m coming after ya and hauling you off to Mass. LOL…LOL…Just having a little fun…

I am certain many would not be effected, particularly those from non-liturgical, non- sacramental communions, not because of SS, per se, but because of their beliefs

As for me, you won’t have to drag me. lol

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response, which was to this comment:

Martin Luther’s horrific recommendations about how the Jews should be dealt with is a perfect example of the results of Sola Scriptura. Of course, nobody actually practices Sola Scriptura in the strictest sense. Everybody ‘adds’ something to Scripture. It might be the Confessions of your particular denomination, or it might be the teachings of your favorite TV Evangelist. In the case of the Catholic Church it is the Bishop of Rome, the Ecumenical Councils and the Teaching Magisterium. In the case of Martin Luther, and not just on the matter of the Jews, it was a rather twisted sense of Christian Charity and his hatred of various groups that ‘informed’ his interpretations of Scripture.

Your response was:

Sola scriptura, in the strictest sense, allows for Confessions, creeds, councils, etc. the practice doesn’t excludes them.

Actually Jon, there is no such thing as a ‘strictest sense’ of Sola Scriptura. You can claim, if you like, I suppose, that the Lutheran ‘sense’ of Sola Scriptura is the ‘best’ or ‘strictest’, and there would be some justification for your ‘sense’ whatever that might be. After all, it was Luther himself who introduced (or re-introduced) this concept into Christianity. Of course, every Protestant communion believes that they are the ones who ‘do’ Sola Scriptura ‘right’.

With Sola Scriptura, everybody has the right to decide how Scripture should be ‘used’ or interpreted and there is absolutely nothing that anybody who disagrees can say about it because they ALL use the same (lack of) logic and reason.

What I think is shocking is how early it was in Luther’s ‘career’ that he ‘accepted’ Sola Scriptura as being the rule.

“The exact date when Luther began to accept the principal of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it is very probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” (Lutheran Professor) Dr. E. G. Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 158

Schwiebert’s massive tome (900 pages) is an excellent biography of Luther and is extremely well researched and documented. If Schwiebert says that Luther accepted Sola Scriptura in 1508-9, we can pretty much take it to the bank. The reason that this is significant is that at that point, Luther was still 3-4 years away from his Doctorate of Theology. In fact, at that point, he was only a Biblical Baccalaureate and ‘Sentenarius’, which means that he was just barely allowed to teach ANYTHING at the University, and would only be allowed to teach Theology 3-4 years later. AND YET, even with very little education, already Luther had ‘determined’ that Sola Scriptura was to be the rule of faith. How impossibly arrogant for one so unprepared to determine ANYTHING.

As for your comment that SS ‘allows for Confessions etc’………I would suggest that NEVER in Christian history has a doctrine been SO likely to produce massive doctrinal anarchy. As evidenced by Protestantism itself, Sola Scriptura is only half of the equation. Each and every Sola Scriptura Christian (or denomination) is ‘allowed’ by Sola Scriptura to determine what is ‘added’ in order to Interpret Scripture. After all, neither Scripture nor Sola Scriptura provides a clear understanding about how Scripture is to be interpreted. The proof that Sola Scriptura is NOT a teaching of Christ or the Apostles is that it has led to such massive doctrinal dissention.

As Luther first conceived SS, Scripture had added to it the ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret’. This was a combination that was deadly to Christian unity and doctrinal certainty. Some still add their own personal interpretation to Scripture exactly as Luther foolishly first taught. Others add this or that Confession or ‘Statement’ or ‘whatever’, proving nothing more than the fact that all of those Confessions and Statements are OF MAN, and when you add something OF MAN to Holy Inspired Scripture, the RESULT is OF MAN and is FRACTURED.

As I am sure you know, the Catholic Church is does NOT teach ANY version of Sola Scriptura. However, because the Catholic Church is the ORIGINAL Church, the Church that Christ founded, and had His Authority from day one, the ONLY way that rebellious men and groups could even attempt to claim their own authority was to FIRST pronounce Sola Scriptura as the rule of faith.

With all that being said Jon, do you think that Luther’s teaching of Sola Scriptura has led to doctrinal disunity within Protestantism?

If it wasn’t Luther’s Sola Scriptura (+PI), then, specifically and exactly, what was it that has led to that disunity?

Also, please note that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the Lutheran Confessions, but everything to do with what Luther taught and the results of those teachings? After all, Sola Scriptura had ‘proven’ itself LONG before the first word of your Confessions were written.

May God Continue to Bless You and Yours During this Most Holy of Weeks, Topper

BTW, were you aware that Luther probably ‘accepted’ SS as early as 1508-9?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response, which was to this comment:

Your response was:

Actually Jon, there is no such thing as a ‘strictest sense’ of Sola Scriptura. You can claim, if you like, I suppose, that the Lutheran ‘sense’ of Sola Scriptura is the ‘best’ or ‘strictest’, and there would be some justification for your ‘sense’ whatever that might be. After all, it was Luther himself who introduced (or re-introduced) this concept into Christianity. Of course, every Protestant communion believes that they are the ones who ‘do’ Sola Scriptura ‘right’.

With Sola Scriptura, everybody has the right to decide how Scripture should be ‘used’ or interpreted and there is absolutely nothing that anybody who disagrees can say about it because they ALL use the same (lack of) logic and reason.

What I think is shocking is how early it was in Luther’s ‘career’ that he ‘accepted’ Sola Scriptura as being the rule.

“The exact date when Luther began to accept the principal of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it is very probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” (Lutheran Professor) Dr. E. G. Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 158

Schwiebert’s massive tome (900 pages) is an excellent biography of Luther and is extremely well researched and documented. If Schwiebert says that Luther accepted Sola Scriptura in 1508-9, we can pretty much take it to the bank. The reason that this is significant is that at that point, Luther was still 3-4 years away from his Doctorate of Theology. In fact, at that point, he was only a Biblical Baccalaureate and ‘Sentenarius’, which means that he was just barely allowed to teach ANYTHING at the University, and would only be allowed to teach Theology 3-4 years later. AND YET, even with very little education, already Luther had ‘determined’ that Sola Scriptura was to be the rule of faith. How impossibly arrogant for one so unprepared to determine ANYTHING.

As for your comment that SS ‘allows for Confessions etc’………I would suggest that NEVER in Christian history has a doctrine been SO likely to produce massive doctrinal anarchy. As evidenced by Protestantism itself, Sola Scriptura is only half of the equation. Each and every Sola Scriptura Christian (or denomination) is ‘allowed’ by Sola Scriptura to determine what is ‘added’ in order to Interpret Scripture. After all, neither Scripture nor Sola Scriptura provides a clear understanding about how Scripture is to be interpreted. The proof that Sola Scriptura is NOT a teaching of Christ or the Apostles is that it has led to such massive doctrinal dissention.

As Luther first conceived SS, Scripture had added to it the ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret’. This was a combination that was deadly to Christian unity and doctrinal certainty. Some still add their own personal interpretation to Scripture exactly as Luther foolishly first taught. Others add this or that Confession or ‘Statement’ or ‘whatever’, proving nothing more than the fact that all of those Confessions and Statements are OF MAN, and when you add something OF MAN to Holy Inspired Scripture, the RESULT is OF MAN and is FRACTURED.

As I am sure you know, the Catholic Church is does NOT teach ANY version of Sola Scriptura. However, because the Catholic Church is the ORIGINAL Church, the Church that Christ founded, and had His Authority from day one, the ONLY way that rebellious men and groups could even attempt to claim their own authority was to FIRST pronounce Sola Scriptura as the rule of faith.

With all that being said Jon, do you think that Luther’s teaching of Sola Scriptura has led to doctrinal disunity within Protestantism?

If it wasn’t Luther’s Sola Scriptura (+PI), then, specifically and exactly, what was it that has led to that disunity?

Also, please note that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the Lutheran Confessions, but everything to do with what Luther taught and the results of those teachings? After all, Sola Scriptura had ‘proven’ itself LONG before the first word of your Confessions were written.

May God Continue to Bless You and Yours During this Most Holy of Weeks, Topper

BTW, were you aware that Luther probably ‘accepted’ SS as early as 1508-9?

I tend to agree with you on SS. That is the whole issue with SS-who truly has it down and correct? Is there such an “orthodox” doctrine/practice for SS? I know many tell me Scripture is to be used as the norm for doctrines. Okay,but where does Scripture teach it was intended to be the norm for all Christian doctrines? More important, at what point in time did the ancient church declare Scripture is to be the norm?

 

[joe371]

I tend to agree with you on SS. That is the whole issue with SS-who truly has it down and correct? Is there such an “orthodox” doctrine/practice for SS? I know many tell me Scripture is to be used as the norm for doctrines. Okay,but where does Scripture teach it was intended to be the norm for all Christian doctrines? More important, at what point in time did the ancient church declare Scripture is to be the norm?

I have covered SS quite extensively here at CAF and have concluded that SS is a 16th century invention…the result of the Protestant Reformation, and the replacement of the authority of the Catholic Church i.e. the Bible via individual interpretation versus Jesus’ Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, guided by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. SS cannot work because SS claims that the Bible alone is the Christians only authority, which is the same as saying each and every Christian has the final authority because the Bible cannot interpret itself; no book can.

 

[Nicea325]

I have covered SS quite extensively here at CAF and have concluded that SS is a 16th century invention…the result of the Protestant Reformation, and the replacement of the authority of the Catholic Church i.e. the Bible via individual interpretation versus Jesus’ Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, guided by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. SS cannot work because SS claims that the Bible alone is the Christians only authority, which is the same as saying each and every Christian has the final authority because the Bible cannot interpret itself; no book can.

Exactly! As the old cliche says:

A book needs a teacher.

 

[JonNC]

I tend to agree with you on SS. That is the whole issue with SS-who truly has it down and correct? Is there such an “orthodox” doctrine/practice for SS? I know many tell me Scripture is to be used as the norm for doctrines. Okay,but where does Scripture teach it was intended to be the norm for all Christian doctrines? More important, at what point in time did the ancient church declare Scripture is to be the norm?

Hi Nicea,
For us, as Lutherans, the Orthodox practice is written down in the Formula of Concord.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be explicitly written in scripture, though it is alluded to in a number of places.
Some of the ECF’s do speak of scripture in a similar way, but since they would have had no understanding, first, of the Great Schism, which fractured the Church and its authority, and later the Reformation, it seems problematic for either side to employ their writings in such a way. That said, both the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy view Sacred Tradition differently than we do. Further, they view Tradition (or its teachings) differently from each other.

But if someone were to suggest a reset, as it were, to the 7 general councils, and do away with doctrines and development of doctrines since then, I’d for one would be willing to sign on.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,
For us, as Lutherans, the Orthodox practice is written down in the Formula of Concord.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be explicitly written in scripture, though it is alluded to in a number of places.
Some of the ECF’s do speak of scripture in a similar way, but since they would have had no understanding, first, of the Great Schism, which fractured the Church and its authority, and later the Reformation, it seems problematic for either side to employ their writings in such a way. That said, both the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy view Sacred Tradition differently than we do. Further, they view Tradition (or its teachings) differently from each other.

But if someone were to suggest a reset, as it were, to the 7 general councils, and do away with doctrines and development of doctrines since then, I’d for one would be willing to sign on.

Jon

Blessings Jon and Happy Easter! May the Lord continue to bless you and your loved ones.

Jon,

I really appreciate you as a Lutheran taking the time to explain and express your traditions to us. I rather here it from the direct source than an outside source.

Peace

 

[JonNC]

I have covered SS quite extensively here at CAF and have concluded that SS is a 16th century invention…the result of the Protestant Reformation, and the replacement of the authority of the Catholic Church i.e. the Bible via individual interpretation versus Jesus’ Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, guided by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. ** SS cannot work because SS claims that the Bible alone is the Christians only authority, which is the same as saying each and every Christian has the final authority because the Bible cannot interpret itself; no book can**.

Hi Joe,
It isn’t the same. Sola scriptura is only the practice of holding doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. And that is done by the Church, which receives its teaching authority from scripture - at least in the words of the “great commission”.

I can’t speak for what other communions do, but Lutherans rely on the teachings of the Church for holding doctrines accountable. I don’t have a say in what is or is not doctrine, as a Lutheran.

We can, of course, discuss why one might recognize the authority of Lutheran teaching, as opposed to that of the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church. My own response would be that, while unity to me is very important, so is doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon and Happy Easter! May the Lord continue to bless you and your loved ones.

Jon,

I really appreciate you as a Lutheran taking the time to explain and express your traditions to us. I rather here it from the direct source than an outside source.

Peace

Thanks, my friend.

BTW, a correction in my post; I should not have capitalized “orthodox”.

Jon

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,
It isn’t the same. Sola scriptura is only the practice of holding doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. And that is done by the Church, which receives its teaching authority from scripture - at least in the words of the “great commission”.

I can’t speak for what other communions do, but Lutherans rely on the teachings of the Church for holding doctrines accountable. I don’t have a say in what is or is not doctrine, as a Lutheran.

We can, of course, discuss why one might recognize the authority of Lutheran teaching, as opposed to that of the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church. My own response would be that, while unity to me is very important, so is doctrine.

Jon

I suppose the big question for those who defer to the church, continues to be: which Church received its authority from its founder, Jesus Christ, regarding answers about disputed questions of faith…

 

[joe371]

Hi Nicea,
For us, as Lutherans, the Orthodox practice is written down in the Formula of Concord.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be explicitly written in scripture, though it is alluded to in a number of places.
Some of the ECF’s do speak of scripture in a similar way, but since they would have had no understanding, first, of the Great Schism, which fractured the Church and its authority, and later the Reformation, it seems problematic for either side to employ their writings in such a way. That said, both the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy view Sacred Tradition differently than we do. Further, they view Tradition (or its teachings) differently from each other.

But if someone were to suggest a reset, as it were, to the 7 general councils, and do away with doctrines and development of doctrines since then, I’d for one would be willing to sign on.

Jon

How can we know that the great Schism did in fact fracture Jesus’ church and therefore its authority, derived from God? Perhaps the church to which Jesus said - the gates of hell will never prevail - continues to rightfully teach authoritatively, because God continues to infallibly and ineffably guide the church?

There was a pretty significant schism prior to the great 11th century schism. For example, the council of Chalcedon, where we see a Christological debate, and the eventual schism which ensued, which is why that council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern Churches that still exist today.

Today we see non-Chalcedon churches and Chalcedonian churches. If schisms can take away authority then isn’t it safe to suggest that the 5th century schism fractured Jesus’ church and therefore its authority, derived from God? After all those non-Chalcedon churches date back to the apostolic age. I suppose my point is: schisms do not necessarily end God’s authority via His church?

 

[Nicea325]

How can we know that the great Schism did in fact fracture Jesus’ church and therefore its authority, derived from God? Perhaps the church to which Jesus said - the gates of hell will never prevail - continues to rightfully teach authoritatively, because God continues to infallibly and ineffably guide the church?

There was a pretty significant schism prior to the great 11th century schism. For example, the council of Chalcedon, where we see a Christological debate, and the eventual schism which ensued, which is why that council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern Churches that still exist today.

 

[joe371]

Nicea325;

The church is divided and fractured,but how would God’s authority cease? Has HE said it has ceased? Did the Holy Spirit leave us orphans? Our God is not the Mormon god (Jesus) who was weak and simply could not cut it until Joey showed up 1800 years later. Foolishness!

Exactly.

Nothing can cause God’s authority to cease, not even schisms.

 

[spina1953]

One of the reasons why SS does not work IMHO is that the Apostles did not have the NT to rely on for their preaching and teachings about the Good news that Jesus taught them and wanted passed on. As St. John in his Gospel said near the end of his Gospel there are many things Jesus said and did that were not written down, yet were all the same passed on, since Jesus did not say to the Apostles write down what I have taught you. I think reading why the four Gospels were written down in the first place seems to me to be a good starting place in understanding why SS does not work. Also there are so many things in Scripture that the Catholic Church is silent on, and doctrines and dogma generally are not defended till they are put into question and then it might take years or centuries till the question is defined.

 

[joe371]

One of the reasons why SS does not work IMHO is that the Apostles did not have the NT to rely on for their preaching and teachings about the Good news that Jesus taught them and wanted passed on. As St. John in his Gospel said near the end of his Gospel there are many things Jesus said and did that were not written down, yet were all the same passed on, since Jesus did not say to the Apostles write down what I have taught you. I think reading why the four Gospels were written down in the first place seems to me to be a good starting place in understanding why SS does not work. Also there are so many things in Scripture that the Catholic Church is silent on, and doctrines and dogma generally are not defended till they are put into question and then it might take years or centuries till the question is defined.

The inspired books of the Bible, called the canon, were decided upon by the Catholic Church via several councils after well over three hundred of years of debate i.e. for the first three centuries of Christianity, there were no Protestant Churches and there was no codified, bound Bible with a New Testament, and therefore absolutely no way to practice the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. It’s not a condemnation of SS; just a historical fact.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Some of the ECF’s do speak of scripture in a similar way, but since they would have had no understanding, first, of the Great Schism, which fractured the Church and its authority, and later the Reformation, it seems problematic for either side to employ their writings in such a way. That said, both the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy view Sacred Tradition differently than we do. Further, they view Tradition (or its teachings) differently from each other.

But if someone were to suggest a reset, as it were, to the 7 general councils, and do away with doctrines and development of doctrines since then, I’d for one would be willing to sign on.

I would suggest that it is problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates to suggest that the ECF’s support Sola Scriptura, because they do not, whereas it is not difficult for Catholics to suggest that the ECF’s recognized the authority of both Scripture and Tradition alongside each other, because they do.

As for the Great Schism, which DID fracture the Church temporarily, if it is anything at all it is proof that the Church could survive that Schism and return to unity. I think it is remarkable and is evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. Protestantism has demonstrated that it has almost no ability to heal it’s internal wounds to unity. Your contention that the Schism ‘fractured the Church and it’s authority’ does not apply to the Catholic Church but very much does to Protestantism.

If you would really be willing to return to the doctrinal positions of just after the first 7 general councils, does that mean that you would be willing to give up Sola Scriptura AND Salvation by Faith Alone?

It isn’t the same. Sola scriptura is only the practice of holding doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. And that is done by the Church, which receives its teaching authority from scripture - at least in the words of the “great commission”.

If, as you say, the Church receives it’s teaching authority from Scripture, and that a validly authorized Church would not teach error, then the conclusion from your statement is that since the Catholic Church teaches differently than the Lutheran church, the Catholic Church does not have the ‘authority of Scripture’ to teach.

Is that your position – that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to teach?

I recognize that I might be misunderstanding you here because not only what you have said seems so foreign to Catholic ears, but so also is the way in which it was said. Could you please clarify?

God Bless You and Yours on this Good Friday Jon, Topper

 

[marywarfield]

Hi Jon,

I would suggest that it is problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates to suggest that the ECF’s support Sola Scriptura, because they do not, whereas it is not difficult for Catholics to suggest that the ECF’s recognized the authority of both Scripture and Tradition alongside each other, because they do.

As for the Great Schism, which DID fracture the Church temporarily, if it is anything at all it is proof that the Church could survive that Schism and return to unity. I think it is remarkable and is evidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. Protestantism has demonstrated that it has almost no ability to heal it’s internal wounds to unity. Your contention that the Schism ‘fractured the Church and it’s authority’ does not apply to the Catholic Church but very much does to Protestantism.

If you would really be willing to return to the doctrinal positions of just after the first 7 general councils, does that mean that you would be willing to give up Sola Scriptura AND Salvation by Faith Alone?

If, as you say, the Church receives it’s teaching authority from Scripture, and that a validly authorized Church would not teach error, then the conclusion from your statement is that since the Catholic Church teaches differently than the Lutheran church, the Catholic Church does not have the ‘authority of Scripture’ to teach.

Is that your position – that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to teach?

I recognize that I might be misunderstanding you here because not only what you have said seems so foreign to Catholic ears, but so also is the way in which it was said. Could you please clarify?

God Bless You and Yours on this Good Friday Jon, Topper

This is a good point. To Carholic ears fractured has an oddball
ring to it. It’s as if those that left the Church managed to split
it, damage it or change it. But from where Catholics sit nothing
changed at all. We pray for the dead now as we did two thousand
years ago and we did when Luther objected. We still look
to Tradition for Scripture and Scripture for Tradition.

It’s a sad fact that many believe something changed
in Catholicism but in actual fact-no.

 

[spina1953]

The inspired books of the Bible, called the canon, were decided upon by the Catholic Church via several councils after well over three hundred of years of debate i.e. for the first three centuries of Christianity, there were no Protestant Churches and there was no codified, bound Bible with a New Testament, and therefore absolutely no way to practice the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. It’s not a condemnation of SS; just a historical fact.

Hi Joe 371: I agree! However, there were during the later half of the 1st. century Paul’s letters as well as the four Gospels, while not used or read in every Church by the end of the 1st. century the Gospels were considered inspired as well as some of Paul’s letters.

Yet, for the most part oral preaching and teaching that was passed on by the Apostles was the norm, and what had been written only supplemented oral teachings of those who succeeded the Apostles till the time when what was written became the canon of the Catholic Church.

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe 371: I agree! However, there were during the later half of the 1st. century Paul’s letters as well as the four Gospels, while not used or read in every Church by the end of the 1st. century the Gospels were considered inspired as well as some of Paul’s letters.

Yet, for the most part oral preaching and teaching that was passed on by the Apostles was the norm, and what had been written only supplemented oral teachings of those who succeeded the Apostles till the time when what was written became the canon of the Catholic Church.