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.....

[fbl9]

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

I can agree with it being truly a mystery
My source “The Catholic Encyclopedia” by Our Sunday Visitor attributes this doctrine(consubstantation) to Lutherans. The authors are wrong then.

 

[JonNC]

I can agree with it being truly a mystery
My source “The Catholic Encyclopedia” by Our Sunday Visitor attributes this doctrine(consubstantation) to Lutherans. The authors are wrong then.

Not to play dueling sources, but I found Wiki’s to be (unlikely as it may seem), fairly accurate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

Jon

 

[Ignatius]

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.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment?

Perhaps all of our friens here who believe in Sola Scriptura can enlighten us and give us the Official, Authoritative definition of Sola Scriptura adhered to by all Denominations.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Perhaps all of our friens here who believe in Sola Scriptura can enlighten us and give us the Official, Authoritative definition of Sola Scriptura adhered to by all Denominations.

That’s the point-all denominations do not hold to sola scriptura. And some that claim to don’t really understand it.

 

[fbl9]

That’s the point-all denominations do not hold to sola scriptura. And some that claim to don’t really understand it.

Since you did not provide a sola scripture defination it could be said that you aren’t a sola scripture adherant.?

 

[fbl9]

Not to play dueling sources, but I found Wiki’s to be (unlikely as it may seem), fairly accurate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

Jon

Thanks for sharing this with me…i did notice that it stated some Lutherans hold to consubstantation. I take it that those that do are in the minority?
I now understand your theology in this regard.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Since you did not provide a sola scripture defination it could be said that you aren’t a sola scripture adherant.?

No, I would say that I’m a sola scriptura adherent–assuming the method is rightly understood. See my post #11 and JonNC’s posts which I deferred to.

 

[fbl9]

I think Sproul’s description is actually reasonably accurate in the first couple of paragraphs, but then after that, things go downhill. Many Evangelicals are very confused about this, as Sproul obliquely points out, so the OP’er should be aware of this as well. Sola scriptura does not = interpretive free-for-all.

Also, every Christian group has its own interpretive tradition that they follow, whether they admit it or not.

Sola scriptura is about final authority, not about what is or is not “infallible.” Sola scriptura generally supports tradition, unless tradition conflicts with Scripture.

JonNC’s doing a good job of explaining this, imo.

No, I would say that I’m a sola scriptura adherent–assuming the method is rightly understood. See my post #11 and JonNC’s posts which I deferred to.

John"s tradition is supported by scripture regarding the sacremental union of the Eucharist,
Now i do not know your beleifs in this regard if i am wrong correct me, your tradition of a symbolic eucharist is also supported by scripture.
Both of you are correct

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for sharing this with me…i did notice that it stated some Lutherans hold to consubstantation. I take it that those that do are in the minority?

I would take it as such, as well. Lutherans sometimes suffer from poor catechesis just like Catholics sometimes do. I would point those to Melanchthon’s Apology to th Augsburg Confession.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

I now understand your theology in this regard

thanks,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

John"s tradition is supported by scripture regarding the sacremental union of the Eucharist,

Actually, I view it as more. When you read Melanchthon in the above quote, he takes the time to reference three things:

1. scripture first
2. the historic teachings regarding the Eucharist, both east and west.
3. The ECF’s - Vulgarius, and later in the text, Cyril.
   I would suggest that no communion that claims a symbolic presence can reference 2 or 3.

Now i do not know your beleifs in this regard if i am wrong correct me, your tradition of a symbolic eucharist is also supported by scripture.
Both of you are correct:confused

No. If he believes a symbolic presence, he’s wrong.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Perhaps all of our friens here who believe in Sola Scriptura can enlighten us and give us the Official, Authoritative definition of Sola Scriptura adhered to by all Denominations.

I have asked over and over; there isn’t one.

 

[JonNC]

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

Indeed, gurney. And I would say it is entirely possible that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into Christ’s body and blood.
So, the issue comes down to, what did Christ say about it? And the only thing He says is the bread “is my body”. Everything else is speculative, IMO. And that’s why I find the Apology’s explanation so powerful. Melanchthon says, “in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.”
That just seems spot on; what we see, taste, smell is bread and wine, when in fact it is the body and blood of Christ, as He told us.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

what we see, taste, smell is bread and wine, when in fact it is the body and blood of Christ, as He told us.Jon

My thoughts also. I might add the adverb “really” in there somewhere.

 

[Big_Dummy]

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.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment?

Hi Joe, any understanding of any of the sola’s divoriced from the others will simply produce a strawman representation. Seek to understand all five solas as an unit of theology.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe, any understanding of any of the sola’s divoriced from the others will simply produce a strawman representation. Seek to understand all five solas as an unit of theology.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Sola fide for example, has nothing to do with Sola scriptura. Number 2, 3, 4 and 5 have nothing to do with number 1.

1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)​

2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)​

3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)​

4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)​

5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)​

 

[joe370]

I think Sproul’s description is actually reasonably accurate in the first couple of paragraphs, but then after that, things go downhill. Many Evangelicals are very confused about this, as Sproul obliquely points out, so the OP’er should be aware of this as well. Sola scriptura does not = interpretive free-for-all.

I agree; Sola scriptura should never = interpretive free-for-all, for that is not scriptural.
Dave, who was entrusted with the authority to definitively interpret scripture?

Also, every Christian group has its own interpretive tradition that they follow, whether they admit it or not.

 

[simspt]

SS is the practice of holding scripture as the final norm, as opposed to individual interpretation.

Jon

but dont Lutherans and Catholics hold certain interpretations of scripture as their final norm eg trinity, incarnation etc arent they used as norms when evaluating theological arguments?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I agree; Sola scriptura should never = interpretive free-for-all, for that is not scriptural.
Dave, who was entrusted with the authority to definitively interpret scripture?

The idea of this authority resting in one person (or a very select group) is a big piece of what the Reformation resisted. I.e., there’s no one person who decides “up or down” whether a particular practice conflicts with Scripture or not. Someone can certainly make this argument individually, but it’s not up to one person to decide. E.g., Martin Luther argued that a number of practices were contrary to Scripture. Many, many people agreed with him. Some people agreed with him on some things but not others.

Contemporary church bodies would typically address controversial issues through a system of representative democracy–usually through an assembly of laity and clergy reaching a consensus on an issue. Although these decisions would be binding (in a sense) on the church body, I don’t think anyone would consider them inerrant. Similarly, Catholic councils gather and vote on particular documents; Catholic cardinals will come together to vote on the next pope. The differences are in “who” is making the decisions and the amount of authority claimed for the decisions reached.

 

[JonNC]

Jon

but dont Lutherans and Catholics hold certain interpretations of scripture as their final norm eg trinity, incarnation etc arent they used as norms when evaluating theological arguments?

Sure, but I’m not sure what your driving at. So, before I respond further, maybe you could elaborate?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

Sola scriptura is about final authority, not about what is or is not “infallible.” Sola scriptura generally supports tradition, unless tradition conflicts with Scripture.

Where does scripture teach the written Word of God is the final authority? Where does Jesus or one of the 12 make the same claim?