I don't get sola scriptura

[Nicea325]

I think its a mixed bag. On the one hand, I am seeing a solid movement toward evangelical catholicism, a recognition of our catholicity as Lutherans. greater use of private confession, more reverent practices regarding the Eucharist, etc.
OTOH, I also see some, in my own synod, drifting in practice and thought toward what I would consider American evangelicalism, and others in other synods, drifting toward liberal protestantism. Neither of these are acceptable to me, as you can probably tell by my posts.

I don’t see either as an influence of SS, at least not in the Lutheran sense. For the liberals, I think it is a matter of drifting away from scripture and the confessions because of the influence of liberalism in the secular world. For the others, American Lutheranism has always had to fight against the influence of protestantism.

How convoluted does that sound?

Jon

Thanks! Well trust me, many Catholics today are liberal as well due to the influences of secularism and lberal protestanism. And at times I see in my own Diocese here in So.Cal. I am not a fan of it at all…:tsktsk:

 

[mackbrislawn]

JonNC;8016644 Since 1054, is it safe to say that the Church has not been a “collective body”? Could this be the reason (“popes and councils contradict each other”) that Luther turned to clear reason and scripture?

Yes, many people would say that the Church has not been a collective body since then. That since then a true ecumenical council has been impossible. And if popes and councils contradict each other, that could be a reason.

This implies God has not been able to guide the Church any more. That is why there are contradictions, because of lack of Holy Spirit guidance!

And again, that could be the reason Luther turned to clear reason and scripture. However, the problem I detect is that you quoted a second generation Lutheran theologian as warning against using human wisdom. But, that is what clear reason is–human wisdom.

I’m not convinced that the “Jesus Yes, Church No” thought represents a clear understanding of what sola scriptura is. It certainly misreads scripture.

No, I don’t think so either. And I’m not sure if anyone has a clear understanding of SS. Of course, various people will have their own understanding of what SS means, and the different understandings evolve into something different from the Reformers’ initial conception.

It is inevitable that the concept of sola scriptura evolves into a rejection of church altogether. After all, if scripture is the final authority, that seems to exclude any other source, including church and any previous generation’s understanding of scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;8017287]Yes, many people would say that the Church has not been a collective body since then. That since then a true ecumenical council has been impossible. And if popes and councils contradict each other, that could be a reason.

This implies God has not been able to guide the Church any more. That is why there are contradictions, because of lack of Holy Spirit guidance!

I know this is a disagreement I’ve had with others regarding the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit. My sense is that this is talking about the whole Church, not simply the Church Militant. And it is an active continuing guidance, not finite. He is definitely guiding the Church, even though our sinful nature leads us into differing interpretations. I have no doubt of the Spirit’s guidance of your communion and mine, and that it will culminate in a clear understanding of His truth, by all of us, either in Heaven or at parousia.

And again, that could be the reason Luther turned to clear reason and scripture. However, the problem I detect is that you quoted a second generation Lutheran theologian as warning against using human wisdom. But, that is what clear reason is–human wisdom.

Certainly, amongst Lutherans, is a determined wariness of human reason.

No, I don’t think so either. And I’m not sure if anyone has a clear understanding of SS. Of course, various people will have their own understanding of what SS means, and the different understandings evolve into something different from the Reformers’ initial conception.

It is inevitable that the concept of sola scriptura evolves into a rejection of church altogether. After all, if scripture is the final authority, that seems to exclude any other source, including church and any previous generation’s understanding of scripture.

It doesn’t exclude any other source, but places them subject to scripture. If in fact Luther and Lutheranism gets the blame/credit for SS, it seems reasonable to expect that ours is the default definition of the practice. The Formula of Concord puts it this way.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

As you can see, there is not an exclusion of Tradition, and in paragraph 3, it actually supports Tradition.

continued

 

[JonNC]

A good example of how SS properly works is Melanchthon’s defense of the doctrine of the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

…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. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc.

Here he initially cites scripture, following with the testimony of the universal Church, east and west, and concluding with the ECF’s.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That is true. We have to read what is there and not what we think is there. But mistakenly thinking that the verse is talking about death of the body is very easy to do. The thing is, we always, unawares, bring something else to scripture. Scripture is never alone, we always take our biases and preconceptions to scripture. And that is a problem with SS.

.No, I’m not saying it doesn’t mean eternity with God. What I’m saying is that a more natural meaning of “everlasting life” would be that we simply would not die, but keep on living. Unless, of course, you bring something else to scripture, a prior undrstanding! So, again, scripture is not sola.

Indeed it does, at least to us who have a prior understanding of what the book of Revelation is getting at here. But not for others. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this verse symbolically and make it to say something quite different.

We also must remember that the book of Revelation was written many years later, so it was not available to the earliest Christians. They could not consult Revelation to understand what everlasting life meant because that book didn’t exist yet! They had only the prior verbal tradition to help them.

I guess so. How can you argue with logic like this?

All that I am saying is that this argument that SS is invalide because a lot of people misinterpret it is an invalide argument. It’s like saying Einstien’s theory of relativity has no merit because some people don’t understand it or draw invalide or unwarranted conclusions from it. For me SS simply means that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. The fact that some don’t understand some scriptures doesn’t change that fact.

 

[mackbrislawn]

All that I am saying is that this argument that SS is invalide because a lot of people misinterpret it is an invalide argument. It’s like saying Einstien’s theory of relativity has no merit because some people don’t understand it or draw invalide or unwarranted conclusions from it. For me SS simply means that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. The fact that some don’t understand some scriptures doesn’t change that fact.

You’re right, SS is not invalid because a lot of people misinterpret what SS is. SS is invalid for other reasons. It’s invalid because of the inability of scripture to interpret itself. It requires something else, something in addition to scripture, for it to be understood That something else may be human reason, one’s church confession, or the Holy Spirit. No matter how you cut it, scripture does not stand alone.

Insofar as scripture containing all we need for our salvation, that could be true. The Catholic Church, for instance, does teach a version of that, even if some teachings be only contained in seed form. So if that is what SS means, there really isn’t an argument.

That version of SS I heard called “material sufficiency.” That is, scripture contains all the material, the stuff, needed.

This is distinct from “formal sufficiency.” That is, scripture is in a form that can be understood easily. Because, after all, if scripture is not in a form to be understood, even if it contains everything, what good is it? Scripture may be infallible and sufficient, but if it is consistently misinterpreted, scripture has no value. Its infallibility and sufficiency are worthless.

I think this is what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:16 when he states that in the letters of Paul there are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Peter here seems to be explicitly declaring that scripture is not in a form easily understood, but in a form hard to understand.

 

[Nicea325]

All that I am saying is that this argument that SS is invalide because a lot of people misinterpret it is an invalide argument. It’s like saying Einstien’s theory of relativity has no merit because some people don’t understand it or draw invalide or unwarranted conclusions from it. For me SS simply means that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. The fact that some don’t understand some scriptures doesn’t change that fact.

But Richard, is not fair to say many may **mis-**interpret SS because there is no one strict understanding or definition of SS? I am not trying to argue with you or change your beliefs,but I myself as a Catholic have heard the same argument amongst non-Catholics.

Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You’re right, SS is not invalid because a lot of people misinterpret what SS is. SS is invalid for other reasons. It’s invalid because of the inability of scripture to interpret itself. It requires something else, something in addition to scripture, for it to be understood That something else may be human reason, one’s church confession, or the Holy Spirit. No matter how you cut it, scripture does not stand alone.

The way I see it the interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with SS or the fact that all we need to know for our salvation is contained in scripture.

Insofar as scripture containing all we need for our salvation, that could be true. The Catholic Church, for instance, does teach a version of that, even if some teachings be only contained in seed form. So if that is what SS means, there really isn’t an argument.

That version of SS I heard called “material sufficiency.” That is, scripture contains all the material, the stuff, needed.

This is distinct from “formal sufficiency.” That is, scripture is in a form that can be understood easily. Because, after all, if scripture is not in a form to be understood, even if it contains everything, what good is it? Scripture may be infallible and sufficient, but if it is consistently misinterpreted, scripture has no value. Its infallibility and sufficiency are worthless.

“material sufficiency” , “formal sufficiency.” I’m afraid I’m not up on this terminology. What I am saying is that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the word of God ie. 2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Gal.2
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Of coarse Jn.3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And any one of probably a hundred more that tell us that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the cross.

I think this is what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:16 when he states that in the letters of Paul there are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Peter here seems to be explicitly declaring that scripture is not in a form easily understood, but in a form hard to understand.

Some of the things that Paul says are hard to understand, but I think the gospel message comes through loud and clear no matter what your interpretive skills are.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But Richard, is not fair to say many may **mis-**interpret SS because there is no one strict understanding or definition of SS? I am not trying to argue with you or change your beliefs,but I myself as a Catholic have heard the same argument amongst non-Catholics.

Peace

Sola means alone, Scriptura means scripture. Taken together they mean scripture or the bible alone. And this for me means that the bible has that all the information we need for our salvation. Now if someone is saying that SS means something different than this. They are just playing semantics gymnastics and there probably is no reason to engage them. Unless you just enjoy that sort of game.

 

[SteveVH]

All that I am saying is that this argument that SS is invalide because a lot of people misinterpret it is an invalide argument. It’s like saying Einstien’s theory of relativity has no merit because some people don’t understand it or draw invalide or unwarranted conclusions from it. For me SS simply means that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. The fact that some don’t understand some scriptures doesn’t change that fact.

But the Bible doesn’t say that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. It says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) I have no doubt that you have heard this before but it is really something to contemplate. Why did Paul say this?

And when you say that the fact that some don’t understand does not make SS invalid, who is it that doesn’t understand? One who disagrees with you? Or, is it you? Who determines the truth that is contained in Scripture? That is why it is invalid. Its truth does not guaranty its interpretation and if one cannot be certain in their interpretation then they cannot be certain of the truth contained therein. If what you say is true then Christ had no need of founding a Church. He could have simply directed the Apostles to write down everything He said and distribute it to the world. In fact, He did not instruct them to write down anything. He knew that the truth would be found within His Church.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But the Bible doesn’t say that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in scripture. It says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) I have no doubt that you have heard this before but it is really something to contemplate. Why did Paul say this?

It doesn’t have to say it is there. It is there. The bible tells us of the salvation found in the spilt blood of the Lamb of God. Do you disagree with this?

And when you say that the fact that some don’t understand does not make SS invalid, who is it that doesn’t understand? One who disagrees with you? Or, is it you? Who determines the truth that is contained in Scripture? That is why it is invalid. Its truth does not guaranty its interpretation and if one cannot be certain in their interpretation then they cannot be certain of the truth contained therein.

SS does not guarantee anything. It is merely a state of being.

If what you say is true then Christ had no need of founding a Church. He could have simply directed the Apostles to write down everything He said and distribute it to the world. In fact, He did not instruct them to write down anything. He knew that the truth would be found within His Church.

I don’t presume to second guess my Lord. He did what He did because He had good reason. Surely you are not saying that the truth is not found in God’s word. Are you? He gave us the bible to sanctify us, make us holy.

Jn.17
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

His words are Spirit and life.

Jn.6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jn.6
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Let me ask you Steve. What is it about Jesus that we are to believe here in Jn.6:40 if not His words and were do we find His words if not in the bible?

 

[SteveVH]

It doesn’t have to say it is there. It is there.

That assumption is extra-biblical.

The bible tells us of the salvation found in the spilt blood of the Lamb of God. Do you disagree with this?

Of course not, but if this is all we need to know then the Bible should have been one sentence long.

SS does not guarantee anything. It is merely a state of being.

Sola Scriptura is a state of being? You’ve lost me here. Sola Scriptura is an assumption made by those who do not want to submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

I don’t presume to second guess my Lord. He did what He did because He had good reason. Surely you are not saying that the truth is not found in God’s word. Are you? He gave us the bible to sanctify us, make us holy.

Of course I’m not saying that the truth is not found in God’s word. What I am saying is that the truth contained in God’s word does not reveal itself if not interpreted correctly. Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. It existed within the Church before the Gospels or the epistles were written and nearly four hundred years before they were officially determined to be inspired writings.

And the Bible does not sanctify us or make us holy. It can lead us there, but it is the person of Christ who sanctifies us and makes us holy. And how does He do that? He does that through his Church, the union of God with man in Christ, through the sacraments administered by His Church. The 6th Chapter of John is a great example of why you need the Church and not just the Bible (which, incidentally, was given to you by this Church). Christ comes to us and lives within us and sanctifies us through the gift of the Eucharist and the other sacraments.

Jn.17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

His words are Spirit and life.

Jn.6
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jn.6
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Let me ask you Steve. What is it about Jesus that we are to believe here in Jn.6:40 if not His words and were do we find His words if not in the bible?

Why don’t you read the entire 6th chapter of John. He is speaking about the Eucharist. Those left on their own to interpret these words often miss the true meaning. At best they have their opinion. And where do we find His words if not in the Bible? In the liturgy of the Church, in the very life of the Church. Remember, the Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Sola means alone, Scriptura means scripture. Taken together they mean scripture or the bible alone. And this for me means that the bible has that all the information we need for our salvation. Now if someone is saying that SS means something different than this. They are just playing semantics gymnastics and there probably is no reason to engage them. Unless you just enjoy that sort of game.

Hi Richard,

Would you agree with me that the sola in sola scriptura refers to scripture being the final or sole norm, that it does not imply that teachings that rightly reflect scripture should be excluded?

IOW, do you agree with the description of SS found in the Formula of Concord, which I quoted in post #63?

Jon

 

[patricius79]

Well, I think the reformers would here argue that they were returning to the early Church teachings. For example, regarding the power and primacy of the Bishop of Rome, citing the Council of Nicea to refute universal jurisdiction.

I don’t know that Nicaea says anything against universal jurisdiction

but supposing it did. how could one claim that this was a true confession of faith without violating Sola Scriptura?

Armstrong quotes Carrol:
*
We know that later, at the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (680), it was stated as accepted fact - though very much against the interest of the partisans of the episcopate of Constantinople, where the Council was held, who sought to build up their see as a rival to Rome - that ‘Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, and Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled the great Synod of Nicaea’ (Hefele, loc. cit.) . . . *
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-silvester-and-council-of-nicaea.html

The reformers (I’m always implying Lutheran when I say reformers) very much wanted to keep AS. This they attest to in the confessions. OTOH, what about Orthodox bishops?

they have Succession. but notice how we are already into history rather that Sola Scriptura. so Chemnitz has brought us to a denial of Sola Scriptura, but leading you to insist on sentences not shown to be deduced from Scripture nor in Scripture expliictly

E. Orthodox scholars, and the fathers, testify very much against the distinctive Protestant oral traditions about the Papacy and Succession:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm

I don’t think that anyone in the first millenium really comes close to the Sola Scriptura related oral traditions: e.g. Luther’s interpretation of Scripture. still less the Anabaptist interpretation, or the Calvinist.

I do know people who think that Luther really didn’t believe in “faith alone” in a heretical way, and that he didn’t really mean to separate from the Church. maybe so. but still his position was objectively heretical on free will, etc

again, to relate back to the topic at hand: Sola Scriptura seems ironically to be about oral traditions, and particulary very modern oral traditions

QUOTE]I wouldn’t argue this.
that’s good, because to defend conraception is impossible without violating Sola Scriptura

Luther did not teach double-predestination. It is such a significant point of
disagreement (along with many others) for me as a Lutheran, that were I to have to choose between Catholic and Reformed, the choice would be easy - Catholic

.

that’s good. but Luther did teach double predestination:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/05/prominent-lcms-lutheran-pastor-paul-t.html

the Lutheran Pastors I’ve met are very strong on “faith alone” in a strict and heretical way–“nobody likes the Joint Declaration” they tell me–and against purgatory, though the fathers taught opposite to their posiiton.

(“faith alone” is a phrase found nowhere in Scripture except where it is explicitly denied… so it violates S.S., which cannot be its basis)

likewise one can’t confess a denial the patristic, Augustinian doctrine of purgatory (cf. also Gregory of Nyssa e.g.) without insisting on sentences not shown to be deduced necessarily from Scripture

thus it is not clear if there is any objective meaning to “sola scriptura” in practice. (

( S.S. itself cannnot be proven from Scripture either, which says to “hold fast to the traditions, whether written or oral” 2 Thes 2:15)

You would have to expand on what what you mean by “prevalent Sola Scriptura oral traditions”. That said, none of these folks are Lutheran, to my knowledge. France I believe is Anglican, and perhaps not prone to SS in the first place. But to the point of Matt. 16, you might think that I run counter to “ss oral tradition” as well, because I think there is more to this than just St. Peter’s confession of faith.
Jon

I mean the Protestant Evangelical oral traditions e.g. about Communion, Apostolic Succession, Contraception, Communion of Saints, etc

I agree that the Sola Scriptura movement was very divided (as well as immoral, as Luther so strongly testifies). Lutherans are more orthodox in many ways

I do agree with Carson, France, and the Lutheran scholar Cullman and the N.T. that the Church is built on Simon Rock

certainly the Protestant Evangelical oral traditions about how the Church is not built on Simon Rock cannot be based on Sola Scriptura

 

[jnpl1185]

This problem touches on a matter of ambiguity on the nature of Free Will between Luther and Erasmus. If you read De servo arbitrio (and the Augsburg confession, though not written by Luther still represents Luther’s own preaching and writings), Luther does not deny Free Will in the ontological sense, allowing some little bit of freedom in everyday matters. He denies the efficacy of our deeds–our freedom to do things that are in actuality and in themselves good in the eyes of God. Our everyday freedom to choose to accept or reject God remains.

Neither Luther nor any of the Lutheran reformers I am aware of taught Calvinist double predestination, which as I understand it claims that no matter what you do, whether you believe or not, your fate is already sealed. To say that Luther believed that is simply an incorrect claim. As the passage in the link indicates, Luther does believe that God knows in eternity who will be saved and who will be damned. But his choice to save or damn is dependent on our faith–Calvinists do not teach this. Yes, it is predetermined who will have faith and who will not, but it is the faith itself which is the efficient cause for salvation, not God’s choice. They teach that God wants all men to be saved and that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting grace by having true, living faith. It is this responsibility in faith and our resulting certainty in salvation that makes the difference. It’s all in the Augsburg Confession and even De servo arbitrio maintains those with faith in Jesus Christ and his promises can be certain of salvation. The only matter where we have no efficacy is in matters of attaining salvation by deeds–Spiritual matters.

Predestination itself is not the source of salvation, it is our faith which is the ultimate determining factor. Even within this very work, toward the end in the last section, it speaks of how our faith is reckoned as justice in God’s eyes, as was Abraham’s. So yes, these snippets in the link from De servo arbirtio are all true and accepted by Lutherans–but it is not the whole story, even by Luther’s standards. Although God knows in eternity who will be saved, we have the efficacy to turn to Him and believe and we can have comfort in our salvation because of God’s promise.

In Catholicism, God also knows in eternity who will be saved and who will be damned. But you have the power (at least in the everyday sense of making a choice) to cooperate with God’s promises or not. And so do we. It is our understanding of what this cooperation entails that separates us. We say it’s true, living faith (which, even according to Luther’s own writings, must result in Good works due to its very nature). Catholics still stress the need for works alongside faith (rather than as an outcome of faith) and ecumenical dialogue will determine whether we will ever come to an understanding on this. In short, Catholics and Lutherans have a strong chance at agreement as the Joint Doctrine on Justification shows (flawed though it may be). Catholics and Calvinists seem to me much less likely of finding a middle ground.

“All who call on God in true faith, earnestly from the heart, will certainly be heard, and will receive what they have asked and desired.” -ML

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8020711]I don’t know that Nicaea says anything against universal jurisdiction

but supposing it did. how could one claim that this was a true confession of faith without violating Sola Scriptura?

It doesn’t, so the point ( Lutherans accepting Nicea) is moot. But if it did, and it rightly reflected scripture, it would not be a violation of sola scriptura - “the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures”. Sola scriptura is a holding of dogma, teachers, teachings, accountable to scripture, not excluding them.

Armstrong quotes Carrol:

they have Succession. but notice how we are already into history rather that Sola Scriptura. so Chemnitz has brought us to a denial of Sola Scriptura, but leading you to insist on sentences not shown to be deduced from Scripture nor in Scripture expliictly

Why are you under the impression that sola scriptura excludes history?

Orthodox scholars testify very much against the distinctive Protestant oral traditions about the Papacy and Succession:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm

I don’t think that anyone in the first millenium really comes close to the Sola Scriptura related oral traditions: e.g. Luther’s interpretation of Scripture. still less the Anabaptist interpretation, or the Calvinist.

Not surprising that they would, as they too claim to be the one true Church, built on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. There was also no schism of the Church, and conflicting opinions (such that they divided the Church) regarding councils - which ones are truly ecumenical, etc.

again, to relate back to the topic at hand: Sola Scriptura seems ironically to be about oral traditions, and particulary very modern oral traditions

Not an irony if Tradition reflects the truth of scripture.

that’s good. but Luther did teach double predestination

Perhaps it can be construed that way. However, it is not a teaching of our communion, and upon reading the confessions, it never has been. Luther was quite welcome to his opinions, but he, too, is held to account before scripture.

the Lutheran Pastors I’ve met are very strong on “faith alone”–“nobody likes the Joint Declaration” they tell me–and against purgatory, though the fathers taught opposite to their posiiton.

I’m very strong on faith alone, and I like the JDDJ.

(“faith alone” is a phrase found nowhere in Scripture except where it is explicitly denied… so it violates S.S., which cannot be its basis)

The phrase is irrelevent. The teaching, that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ, and not by works, is there. It is also there that a faith that lacks works is not a saving, but a dead faith. A saving faith is a faith that works through love.

likewise one can’t confess a denial the doctrine of purgatory without insisting on sentences not shown to be deduced necessarily from Scripture

Now on this I also agree. Scripture does not speak of an intermediate state/place for purgation, though purgation does occur. So, the practice of SS provides that it cannot be doctrine, and the conscience of the believer cannot be held to it.

thus it is not clear if there is any objective meaning to “sola scriptura” in practice. (as I believe you said, S.S. itself cannnot be proven from Scripture either)

Again, see the definition from the Formula of Concord.

I do agree with Carson, France, and the Lutheran scholar Cullman and the N.T. that the Church is built on Simon Rock

As I said, I certainly believe Peter’s role is more than his confession of faith. I’m not convinced that his postion amongst the apostles leads to the current position of universal jurisdiction as Rome defines it.

certainly the Protestant Evangelical oral traditions about how the Church is not built on Simon Rock cannot be based on Sola Scriptura

Again, it depends on how one defines his role. Surely, his confession is a solid foundation, though I’m not sure how one can completely disconnect him from his confession.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That assumption is extra-biblical.

You’re saying that we need something other than faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him? What would that be and where do we find it?

Of course not, but if this is all we need to know then the Bible should have been one sentence long.

No offence, but who are you to say how long God should make His word. And again what else is needed?

Sola Scriptura is a state of being? You’ve lost me here. Sola Scriptura is an assumption made by those who do not want to submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

Sola scriptura is merely the statement that all the information that we need is found in the bible or the state of being of the bible. Do you disagree with this? If you do please answer the above question and tell me what else it is that we need for our salvation and where do we find it?

Of course I’m not saying that the truth is not found in God’s word. What I am saying is that the truth contained in God’s word does not reveal itself if not interpreted correctly.

So you agree with SS then, that the truth of salvation in Jesus Christ is contained in scripture?

Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. It existed within the Church before the Gospels or the epistles were written and nearly four hundred years before they were officially determined to be inspired writings.

You ned to clarify this. What existed in the “Church before the Gospels or the epistles were written”

And the Bible does not sanctify us or make us holy. It can lead us there, but it is the person of Christ who sanctifies us and makes us holy.

Don’t you think that this is splitting hairs. Of coarse we are sanctified by the “Word” made flesh, Jesus Jn.1:14, but you don’t in any way think that Jesus in Jn. 17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. is talking about His words found in the bible?

Jn.6:63 “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

And how does He do that? He does that through his Church, the union of God with man in Christ, through the sacraments administered by His Church. The 6th Chapter of John is a great example of why you need the Church and not just the Bible (which, incidentally, was given to you by this Church). Christ comes to us and lives within us and sanctifies us through the gift of the Eucharist and the other sacraments.

The last time I looked Jn.6 was in the bible.

[quoteWhy don’t you read the entire 6th chapter of John. He is speaking about the Eucharist. Those left on their own to interpret these words often miss the true meaning. At best they have their opinion. And where do we find His words if not in the Bible? In the liturgy of the Church, in the very life of the Church. Remember, the Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.
[/QUOTE]

Well again because some don’t accept the truth or misunderstand it does not mean that it is not there.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi Richard,

Would you agree with me that the sola in sola scriptura refers to scripture being the final or sole norm, that it does not imply that teachings that rightly reflect scripture should be excluded?

IOW, do you agree with the description of SS found in the Formula of Concord, which I quoted in post #63?

Jon

As I have stated sola is Latin for alone. Scriptura means scripture taken together they mean as far as I am concerned that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. I’m not familiar with the “Formula of Concord” The above definition works for me. So if you want to dicuss SS within those parameters, I am willing.

 

[JonNC]

As I have stated sola is Latin for alone. Scriptura means scripture taken together they mean as far as I am concerned that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. I’m not familiar with the “Formula of Concord” The above definition works for me. So if you want to dicuss SS within those parameters, I am willing.

Thanks, Richard.

The Formula of Concord is part of the Lutheran Book of Concord, our confessions. It seems clear that you and I have a difference of opinion about what the sola in sola scriptura refers to.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

You’re saying that we need something other than faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him? What would that be and where do we find it?

Please show me where I said that.

No offence, but who are you to say how long God should make His word. And again what else is needed?

You said, or at least implied, that all we need to know is the saving blood of Jesus Christ. My comment only took your statement to its logical conclusion.

Sola scriptura is merely the statement that all the information that we need is found in the bible or the state of being of the bible. Do you disagree with this? If you do please answer the above question and tell me what else it is that we need for our salvation and where do we find it?

Christ gave all authority to His Church. The power to bind and loose and whatever it binds on earth will be bound in heaven and all that it looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. Christ gave the Church the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That is where you find it. No, it is not all in the Bible.

So you agree with SS then, that the truth of salvation in Jesus Christ is contained in scripture?

Yes, the truth of salvation of Jesus Christ is found in Scripture, but the realization of salvation is found in His Church, of which He is the Head. So no, I do not in any way agree with SS. We must have an authoritative interpreter of Scripture and the Church to administer the saving grace of Christ. A relationship with Christ means a relationship with His Church.

May I ask you why you believe that Christ started the Church?

You ned to clarify this. What existed in the “Church before the Gospels or the epistles were written”

The deposit of faith containing the fullness of truth, handed down orally by the Apostles.

Don’t you think that this is splitting hairs. Of coarse we are sanctified by the “Word” made flesh, Jesus Jn.1:14, but you don’t in any way think that Jesus in Jn. 17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. is talking about His words found in the bible?

The New Testament had not been written when this was said so he could not have been referring to it. Christ is the Word made flesh.

The last time I looked Jn.6 was in the bible.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Well again because some don’t accept the truth or misunderstand it does not mean that it is not there.

Well, there may be gold in the hills, but unless you find it doesn’t get you too far.