I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.....

[JonNC]

If i am not mistaken; John, you have described your beleief on this matter regarding how what you do is not the same as catholics.

Could you expalin how it is the same.

Well, we do not exclude, and accept as true expressions of the Christian faith the three ecumenical Creeds, the six early councils, etc. I have no doubt that we agree on this.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is confusing, as scripture does not interpret itself, and it can be readily seen by different interpretations that the “final norm” must become the interpretation (or at least reflect it). I can’t see how anyone who uses scripture can get around this fact.

Precisely the reason Lutherans do not practice individual interpretation, but rely on the Church for hermeneutics, as I stated early on this thread.
How does one get around the same fact with scripture and Tradition? Clearly, those claiming to use Sacred Tradition have the same difficulty.

Jon

 

[dogknox]

Precisely the reason Lutherans do not practice individual interpretation, but rely on the Church for hermeneutics, as I stated early on this thread.
How does one get around the same fact with scripture and Tradition? Clearly, those claiming to use Sacred Tradition have the same difficulty.
Jon

Those who use “Sacred Tradition” are the leaders of the Church… The Bishops! And the Bishops who have come before the ones of today.
Most all Early Church Father’s, were Bishops of the Catholic Church, all answered to the authority of the Pope!

Clearly you are wrong to make your statement…The Catholic Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit… “By God!”
If the Holy Spirit was to lead his; One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church into error, then he would not be perfect… he would NOT be God!

Your words…

Lutherans do not practice individual interpretation

I reply… “Martin Luther the founder of all Lutheran Churches”; did EXACTLY what you claim Lutherans do not do… He practiced individual interpretation!!!
Your roots go back to him then they stop!!

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

=dogknox;7267150]Those who use “Sacred Tradition” are the leaders of the Church… The Bishops! And the Bishops who have come before the ones of today.
Most all Early Church Father’s, were Bishops of the Catholic Church, all answered to the authority of the Pope!

So, there are no bishops outside the CC?

Clearly you are wrong to make your statement…The Catholic Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit… “By God!”
If the Holy Spirit was to lead his; One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church into error, then he would not be perfect… he would NOT be God!

So, are you saying Church leaders lack free will?

I reply… “Martin Luther the founder of all Lutheran Churches”; did EXACTLY what you claim Lutherans do not do… He practiced individual interpretation!!!
Your roots go back to him then they stop!!

You’ll excuse me if I reject your claim on both.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Those who use “Sacred Tradition” are the leaders of the Church… The Bishops! And the Bishops who have come before the ones of today.
Most all Early Church Father’s, were Bishops of the Catholic Church, all answered to the authority of the Pope!

Clearly you are wrong to make your statement…The Catholic Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit… “By God!”
If the Holy Spirit was to lead his; One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church into error, then he would not be perfect… he would NOT be God!

Here is a quote from a rather well known Catholic cardinal:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

So, perhaps, you are right after all.

Jon

 

[RebeccaJ]

Precisely the reason Lutherans do not practice individual interpretation, but rely on the Church for hermeneutics, as I stated early on this thread.
How does one get around the same fact with scripture and Tradition? Clearly, those claiming to use Sacred Tradition have the same difficulty.

Jon

I don’t think it is a difficulty. The Lutheran method you describes makes sense to me. But I don’t think of this as sola scriptura, since the term itself implies there are no hermeneutics. Do Lutherans claim to be sola scriptura?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think it is a difficulty. The Lutheran method you describes makes sense to me. But I don’t think of this as sola scriptura, since the term itself implies there are no hermeneutics. Do Lutherans claim to be sola scriptura?

In modern American evaglicalism, and some other groups, you would be right, that it seems to exclude hermeneutics. The irony , to me, is that if you deny all creeds, teachings, ect. out of hand (because they are not found in the bible), then you are actually denying sola scriptura, and instead practicing solo scriptura. The very definition of sola scriptura means that way must look at and, when not contrary to scripture, accept it as a proper reflection of the true faith, as the Creeds do.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but based on what I read in the Lutheran Confessions, our view of sola scriptura is pretty much what I’ve described, though I’m open to correction by other Lutherans. So, yes, since Luther is blamed/credited for sola scriptura, I’d say we practice it - the right way.

Jon

 

[RebeccaJ]

In modern American evaglicalism, and some other groups, you would be right, that it seems to exclude hermeneutics. The irony , to me, is that if you deny all creeds, teachings, ect. out of hand (because they are not found in the bible), then you are actually denying sola scriptura, and instead practicing solo scriptura. The very definition of sola scriptura means that way must look at and, when not contrary to scripture, accept it as a proper reflection of the true faith, as the Creeds do.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but based on what I read in the Lutheran Confessions, our view of sola scriptura is pretty much what I’ve described, though I’m open to correction by other Lutherans. So, yes, since Luther is blamed/credited for sola scriptura, I’d say we practice it - the right way.

Jon

Thanks. What is the difference compared to Catholicism?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks. What is the difference compared to Catholicism?

We don’t hold Tradition on the same level as scripture. We hold to the creeds because they rightly reflect the truth of scripture. We accept the early councils because they
do the same.
Catholics, the way I understand it, view Tradition as an equal source of truth, of which scripture is one part.

Jon

 

[joe370]

We don’t hold Tradition on the same level as scripture. We hold to the creeds because they rightly reflect the truth of scripture. We accept the early councils because they
do the same.
Catholics, the way I understand it, view Tradition as an equal source of truth, of which scripture is one part.

Jon

Jon this seems to be my assessment of Sola Scriptura; am I missing anything?

One SS advocate tells me that the bible is the Christians only authority via private judgment.

Another SS advocate tells me that the the bible is the Christians only authority via the judgment of the church leadership.

Another SS advocate tells me that the the bible is the Christians only authority via private judgment as well as the judgment of the church leadership, and if a persons judgment does not agree with the judgment of their church leadership vis-a-vis the teachings found in the bible, then they simply defer to their own judgment, and the church leaders and the SS advocate simply agree to disagree, leaving the matter unresolved.

How is one expected to practice sola scriptura properly if one does not have a universally definitive understanding of how to put SS into practice?

Also, you said:

Catholics, the way I understand it, view Tradition as an equal source of truth, of which scripture is one part.

If tradition is not an equal source of truth, (which I believe it is,thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit) - then that seems to call into question the authenticity of the holy bible, for the simple fact that it was tradition that was ultimately employed, as the yardstick, for the Catholic Church, for determining the canon of scripture. The CC did not turn to scripture to determine which books would be counted as sacred scripture and which books would not, at a time when 7 books of the NT were still called into question by many, as to their authenticity. The CC leadership, via council, (several over time) - turned to the tradition of the CC, stemming from the time of the apostles, and passed on to their successors, through every generation, to resolve the matter.

In light of that fact it seems, to me anyway, if tradition does not share the same level of importance as scripture, and scripture was a product of tradition, then that seems to undermine sacred scripture in a cause and effect sort of way.

Your thoughts friend.

 

[dogknox]

JonNC how are you?
You asked..

So, there are no bishops outside the CC?

Yes; you are right!
**THINK: **In the Old Testament…Moses (a priest) was the Hands and the Voice of God!
Do you think it was Moses that turned his staff into the snake or was it God, working through Moses!?
The Bishop’s are the Hands and the Voice of Jesus in the New Testament! ( I leave it here as this is a whole other topic)

So, are you saying Church leaders lack free will?

I reply Free will has nothing at all to do with guiding God’s church! Free will deciding to LOVE or not to love!
Again: IF the Catholic Church was to error then the Holy Spirit is not perfect. If the Holy Spirit was not error then he would not be God! It is just this simple!
For you to be Protestant you are forced to think “the Holy Spirit lead the Church into error”!
Jesus said… “I will be with you ALWAYS to the very end of the age”!
For you to be Protestant you are forced to think “Jesus lied” that Jesus is NOT ALWAYS with his Church to the very end of the Age!
JonNC You are forced to reject the scriptures to stay in the Protest.
THINK: If Jesus is “ALWAYS WITH his Church” then there is no need for any protest!
There would not be Protestants!

You said:

You’ll excuse me if I reject your claim on both.

I reply: okay give me the scriptures!

 

[RebeccaJ]

We don’t hold Tradition on the same level as scripture. We hold to the creeds because they rightly reflect the truth of scripture. We accept the early councils because they
do the same.
Catholics, the way I understand it, view Tradition as an equal source of truth, of which scripture is one part.

Jon

Thanks.

I’m still thinking about what you said, making a distinction between sola and solo…they both mean “only”.

I’m guessing you view the Evangelical approach as solo?

To the differences in Catholicism, they must be too subtle for me to grasp. lol. Maybe the idea is pointed at specific Catholic beliefs, such as Marian doctrines?

 

[fbl9]

We don’t hold Tradition on the same level as scripture. We hold to the creeds because they rightly reflect the truth of scripture. We accept the early councils because they
do the same.
Catholics, the way I understand it, view Tradition as an equal source of truth, of which scripture is one part.

Jon

May i ask for the scripture for the doctrine regarding consubstantiation? To be Lutherun one needs to hold this doctrine yes?

the topic here is only Tradition, as per discussion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A few points I’ve read in this thread that I must take issue with are the idea that RC Sproul thinks Jesus is a liar with the whole gates of hell reference. I don’t seek to speak for a Calvinist like Sproul but most Protestants view Matthew 16:18 with the gates of hell not prevailing meaning more “in the long run.” The gates of hell are not just doctrinal errors but rather sin and death and Satan overcoming the salvation of the children of God. There are many interpretations of the gates of hell scriptural citation. To assume Sproul believes Jesus is a liar is unfair and looking at things through a Catholic lens for a guy who sees things through a Geneva Calvinist approach. Surely Sproul, being a devout Christian, doesn’t believe that Jesus lied. It’s too polemical and unfair to make such an accusation.

I also find it inaccurate that some in here have tried to portray all Lutheran beliefs, theology, soteriology, confessions, and beliefs to be solely those of Martin Luther. It betrays a lack of familiarity with the Reformation to ignore the mammoth contributions of men like Philip Melancthon and Chemnitz and so many other Lutheran divines that played a large role in the unfolding of the Lutheran faith.

I also notice the constant question, “well then who is your final authority when trying to understand each scriptural reference?” Many Protestants view the fundamentals, the big ticket items as the areas in which common faith and obedience must be directed—the atonement, justification, grace, imputation, sola scriptura, etc. The other things like the end of the world, the doctrines of holy communion and church polity or how to baptize and what age, etc. to be particulars that can be discussed and disagreed upon. They don’t think every single item must be hammered down with precision into a catechism. To try to apply Catholic sensibilitites to Protestant think is a waste of time and doesn’t accomplish much IMO.

 

[joe370]

Gurney, you said:

To try to apply Catholic sensibilities to Protestant think is a waste of time and doesn’t accomplish much IMO.

Of course that goes the other way too, and in the end, an amicable, mutual respect between catholics and non-catholics, I believe, is a MUST. After all we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we can’t agree on everything.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

True, true, and true. I concur with your sentiments, joe! God bless, friend.

Gurney, you said:

Of course that goes the other way too, and in the end, an amicable, mutual respect between catholics and non-catholics, I believe, is a MUST. After all we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we can’t agree on everything.

 

[dogknox]

Here is a quote from a rather well known Catholic cardinal:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
So, perhaps, you are right after all.
Jon

**Is Christ is present in a Lutheran service? **
JonNC Obviously Jesus is not REALLY present there as He is in the Holy Mass. It does that mean that Jesus is totally absent.
The Cardinal, is NOT saying, the Lutheran service utterly devoid of Christ? If Jesus Christ is present at least spiritually, how can that presence be anything other than “saving”?
That’s not to say that His saving presence at a Lutheran service is objectively received unto salvation, and Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t saying that it is.

JonNC Finding common ground shouldn’t be at the expense of the truth. If the Eucharist is not valid, then it’s not the Eucharist.

Cardinal Ratzinger Even a theology along the lines of the concept of succession, as is still in force in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Church,
JonNC He is saying>>The Lutheran Church does NOT have succession back to Jesus, the Lutheran Church is NOT “Apostolic”! It’s roots go back the sixteenth century then they stop!
He is saying>> Catholic and in the Orthodox Church are Apostolic!! BUT he says… this should not stop the dialogue!!

I found this:
Common Statement of the
Tenth Round of the
U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue

1. What follows for the relations between our churches from the analysis above, supported by the biblical and historical explanations that follow below? Building upon the earlier Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, Eucharist and Ministry and Facing Unity,(156) we propose steps toward a full, mutual recognition and reconciliation of our ministries and **the ultimate goal of full communion. **We are aware of common challenges to overcome. Nevertheless, the mutual recognition of ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter and should not be reduced to a simple judgment about validity or invalidity. In order to assess the degree of our koinonia in ordained ministry, a more nuanced discernment is needed reflecting the way that an ordained ministry serves the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, stands in continuity with the apostolic tradition, and serves communion among churches.

JonNC For Cardinal Ratzinger to have said anything other then what he did, would be slamming the door on further dialogue!! IF…
If the Lutheran churches were to become fully united with the Catholic Church then it’s priests would then also be celebrating the exact same sacrament!
Until then (if ever) the Lutheran supper is not a Catholic supper!

need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

The Cardinal is not denying the Lutheran supper!
The Cardinal is not denying the Lutheran supper has not the presence of God…
JonNC FACT: God is everywhere!

The Cardinal is** not** saying the Lutheran supper is the same as the Catholic!
He is saying… “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord”, is just that… “the LORDS!”

Dogknox

 

[JonNC]

=fbl9;7270969]May i ask for the scripture for the doctrine regarding consubstantiation? To be Lutherun one needs to hold this doctrine yes?

No, as the idea of consubstantiation is rejected by Lutherans. What Lutherans believe is that the bread and wine are the true and substantiation body and blood of Christ. Is is is. This is my body, etc. What we do not do is use the metaphysical terminology of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, as they they describe the dispositions of the bread and wine. Oddly enough, consubstantiation is the idea, from my understanding of Duns Scotus, a Catholic.
Sacramental Union, a Lutheran called it, “in with and under” the bread and wine is not intended, from what I have been taught, to make a statement about substance and accidents, but to make clear that Christ used bread and wine, blessed it and said it is His body and blood, truly a mystery.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Jon,

I was reading Luther the other night and when he was speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist he mentioned that it was entirely possible for the presence of Christ to dwell WITH the bread and WITH the wine so I think many take some of his speculative statements like that to be consubstantiation, which essentially is reflective of that “with” language.

Blessings!
gurney

No, as the idea of consubstantiation is rejected by Lutherans. What Lutherans believe is that the bread and wine are the true and substantiation body and blood of Christ. Is is is. This is my body, etc. What we do not do is use the metaphysical terminology of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, as they they describe the dispositions of the bread and wine. Oddly enough, consubstantiation is the idea, from my understanding of Duns Scotus, a Catholic.
Sacramental Union, a Lutheran called it, “in with and under” the bread and wine is not intended, from what I have been taught, to make a statement about substance and accidents, but to make clear that Christ used bread and wine, blessed it and said it is His body and blood, truly a mystery.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

**Is Christ is present in a Lutheran service? **
JonNC Obviously Jesus is not REALLY present there as He is in the Holy Mass. It does that mean that Jesus is totally absent.
The Cardinal, is NOT saying, the Lutheran service utterly devoid of Christ? If Jesus Christ is present at least spiritually, how can that presence be anything other than “saving”?
That’s not to say that His saving presence at a Lutheran service is objectively received unto salvation, and Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t saying that it is.

JonNC Finding common ground shouldn’t be at the expense of the truth. If the Eucharist is not valid, then it’s not the Eucharist.

Cardinal Ratzinger Even a theology along the lines of the concept of succession, as is still in force in the Catholic and in the Orthodox Church,
JonNC He is saying>>The Lutheran Church does NOT have succession back to Jesus, the Lutheran Church is NOT “Apostolic”! It’s roots go back the sixteenth century then they stop!
He is saying>> Catholic and in the Orthodox Church are Apostolic!! BUT he says… this should not stop the dialogue!!

I found this:
Common Statement of the
Tenth Round of the
U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue

1. What follows for the relations between our churches from the analysis above, supported by the biblical and historical explanations that follow below? Building upon the earlier Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, Eucharist and Ministry and Facing Unity,(156) we propose steps toward a full, mutual recognition and reconciliation of our ministries and the ultimate goal of full communion. We are aware of common challenges to overcome. Nevertheless, the mutual recognition of ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter and should not be reduced to a simple judgment about validity or invalidity. In order to assess the degree of our koinonia in ordained ministry, a more nuanced discernment is needed reflecting the way that an ordained ministry serves the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, stands in continuity with the apostolic tradition, and serves communion among churches.

JonNC For Cardinal Ratzinger to have said anything other then what he did, would be slamming the door on further dialogue!! IF…
If the Lutheran churches were to become fully united with the Catholic Church then it’s priests would then also be celebrating the exact same sacrament!
Until then (if ever) the Lutheran supper is not a Catholic supper!

need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

The Cardinal is not denying the Lutheran supper!
The Cardinal is not denying the Lutheran supper has not the presence of God…
JonNC FACT: God is everywhere!

The Cardinal is** not** saying the Lutheran supper is the same as the Catholic!
He is saying… “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord”, is just that… “the LORDS!”

Dogknox

You know, he could have said "where two or more are gathered in His name, etc. But he didn’t. You can try to devalue his words all you want, but he is saying it is more than just that. Is he saying that it is some how the same as Catholic Eucharist from a Catholic perspective? Of course not, but he certainly has a higher view of our communion than the terms you use.

So, there are no bishops outside the CC?

Yes; you are right!

He is saying>> Catholic and in the Orthodox Church are Apostolic!! BUT he says… this should not stop the dialogue!!

So, you say that there are no bishops outside the Catholic Church, and he says there are.
Whom should I believe?

Jon