I don't get sola scriptura

[JonNC]

I’m having trouble following your thinking.

first of all, I do not believe that oral Tradition and written Tradition are the same–in the sense that if one has one they don’t need the other–but that they are inseparable.

obviously the Scriptures you give here don’t teach the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. Rom 10:9 refers to oral Tradition.

again, the basic problem I have with the Protestant version of Sola Scriptura is that Protestants have always disagreed so much on what the Scriptures mean, **and that Protestants don’t come close to following S.S., **and that the Protestant oral traditions are not in Scripture

Hi Pat,
Can you tell me what you mean by, “protestants don’t come close to following SS”?

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I’m having trouble following your thinking.

first of all, I do not believe that oral Tradition and written Tradition are the same–in the sense that if one has one they don’t need the other–but that they are inseparable.

Ok, you don’t believe they are the same. Then what is the difference? Now I think what you mean by written tradition is scripture. What do you base you assertion that written tradition or scripture is inseperable from oral tradition or is this just an opinion?

obviously the Scriptures you give here don’t teach the Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura. Rom 10:9 refers to oral Tradition.

See I think that you are getting all plugged up with this oral and written tradition thing. Can’t see the forest for the trees if you get my meaning. Rom. 10:9 is not refering to oral tradition but what we need to do for our salvation ie confess and believe.

again, the basic problem I have with the Protestant version of Sola Scriptura is that Protestants have always disagreed so much on what the Scriptures mean, and that Protestants don’t come close to following S.S., and that the Protestant oral traditions are not in Scripture

And again the fact that they disagree does not mean the truth is not there. They disagree with the CC too. Are you saying that the CC is always right?

 

[patricius79]

Doesn’t say what?

what you said:

“The idea that it is is also not in scripture.”

so you are appealing to your own private oral traditions rather than Scripture alone

this is what always happens in discussions between Catholics and Protestants

Could you show me the text that states that belief in the Trinity is necessay for our salvation?

sure Mt 28:19 for one.

“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”

 

[patricius79]

Hi Pat,
Can you tell me what you mean by, “protestants don’t come close to following SS”?

Jon

sure.

I mean that none of the Protestant distinctives or arguments against the Catholic Church are in Scripture. (however I think"faith alone" can be understood in a way consonant with Catholic doctrine)

however the doctrines agreed on by Catholics and Protestants–including the definition of the Trinity–are implicit (or explicit) in Scripture

 

[Richard_Kastner]

what you said:

“The idea that it is is also not in scripture.”

so you are appealing to your own private oral traditions rather than Scripture alone

this is what always happens in discussions between Catholics and Protestants

Pat I never implied that this statement “The idea that it is is also not in scripture.” was in scripture. What it says is the idea that the belief in the Trinity is needed for our salvation is not in the bible. If you think that it is provide the text.

sure Mt 28:19 for one.

“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”

Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Where does this say that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation

 

[patricius79]

Hi Richard!

hope you are having a blessed evening in our Lord

Pat I never implied that this statement “The idea that it is is also not in scripture.” was in scripture. What it says is the idea that the belief in the Trinity is needed for our salvation is not in the bible

and the Bible doesn’t say that

your argument appeals to a source other than Scripture in a matter of faith

. If you think that it is provide the text.

Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Where does this say that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation

if you mean the oral tradition that a more explicit text is required, I would say that you sound like the Arians, another early “Sola Scriptura” group

and the Bible doesn’t say that. so your position violates S.S. and is double-standardized. the Bible doesn’t say that “belief in the Trinity is not needed for salvation”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi Richard!

hope you are having a blessed evening in our Lord

Yes I am, thank you.

and the Bible doesn’t say that

your argument appeals to a source other than Scripture in a matter of faith

Doesn’t say what?

if you mean the oral tradition that a more explicit text is required, I would say that you sound like the Arians, another early “Sola Scriptura” group

and the Bible doesn’t say that. so your position violates S.S. and is double-standardized. the Bible doesn’t say that “belief in the Trinity is not needed for salvation”

This isn’t rocket science Pat. If you think that the bible says belief in the Trinity is necessary for our salvation, you should be able to produce the text. And again the bible doesn’t say what? That we don’t have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Of coarse it doesn’t. The bible deals in positives. It would be a very large book if it listed all the things we don’t need for our salvation. And I can’t imagine anyone coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ THE SON OF GOD and not believing in the Trinity. It’s just that I don’t see that as a necessary element in our salvation.

 

[JonNC]

sure.

I mean that none of the Protestant distinctives or arguments against the Catholic Church are in Scripture. (however I think"faith alone" can be understood in a way consonant with Catholic doctrine)

however the doctrines agreed on by Catholics and Protestants–including the definition of the Trinity–are implicit (or explicit) in Scripture

OK, I understand what you mean…

not that I agree.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Yes I am, thank you.

Doesn’t say what?

This isn’t rocket science Pat. If you think that the bible says belief in the Trinity is necessary for our salvation, you should be able to produce the text. And again the bible doesn’t say what? That we don’t have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Of coarse it doesn’t. The bible deals in positives. It would be a very large book if it listed all the things we don’t need for our salvation. And I can’t imagine anyone coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ THE SON OF GOD and not believing in the Trinity. It’s just that I don’t see that as a necessary element in our salvation.

And the Bible also is not needed for salvation. One cannot read their way to heaven.

 

[patricius79]

Doesn’t say what?

This isn’t rocket science Pat. If you think that the bible says belief in the Trinity is necessary for our salvation, you should be able to produce the text. And again the bible doesn’t say what? That we don’t have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Of coarse it doesn’t. The bible deals in positives. It would be a very large book if it listed all the things we don’t need for our salvation. And I can’t imagine anyone coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ THE SON OF GOD and not believing in the Trinity. It’s just that I don’t see that as a necessary element in our salvation.

I keep hearing things that are not in Scripture

for example, you seem to be saying "one can insist on ideas not in Scripture if they are negative statements like “the Bible doesn’t say that we need to beleive in the Trinity to be saved”

but the Bible doesn’t say that. and the early Church taught the Catholic positions.

while nobody in the first millenium comes close to the distinctively Lutheran or Protestant Evangelical oral traditions/interpretations

as to “not rocket sciencce”… apparently Catholics are right about the difficulty of Scripture, since Protestants from the beginning were greatly at odds even about basics like free will

you and Jon probably disagree on a bunch of important doctrines.

the Reformers–supposed believers in S.S.-- seemed to have hated each others guts

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I keep hearing things that are not in Scripture

for example, you seem to be saying "one can insist on ideas not in Scripture if they are negative statements like “the Bible doesn’t say that we need to beleive in the Trinity to be saved”

but the Bible doesn’t say that. and the early Church taught the Catholic positions.

I know it doesn’t say that. That’s why I made the statement. If you disagree show me where it says that we do need to believe in it to be saved.

while nobody in the first millenium comes close to the distinctively Lutheran or Protestant Evangelical oral traditions/interpretations

You really need to identify who “nobody” is, what it is they come close with, and what the “distinctively Lutheran or Protestant Evangelical oral traditions/interpretations” are.

as to “not rocket sciencce”… apparently Catholics are right about the difficulty of Scripture, since Protestants from the beginning were greatly at odds even about basics like free will

you and Jon probably disagree on a bunch of important doctrines.

the Reformers–supposed believers in S.S.-- seemed to have hated each others guts

So I guess you won’t or can’t show me where in the bible it says we need to believe in the Trinity for our salvation. My guess is can’t. I’ve been studying the bible for a while now and I’ve never run across it. As for disagreeing with Jon, I don’t know perhaps. But I know that I disagree with you on a lot.

 

[patricius79]

You really need to identify who “nobody” is, what it is they come close with, and what the “distinctively Lutheran or Protestant Evangelical oral traditions/interpretations” are.

.

you seem to be having some trouble comprehending language. perhaps you could read my posts more carefully. I don’t mean any offense

as to your idea that Mt 28:19 is not sufficient to show that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved…

the Bible doesn’t say that.

as to “nobody”…

I mean that there is no historical person in the first millenium that shares roughly the overal interpretation of the New Testaments made by Lutherans, or Protestant Evangelicals, or any other Protestant group

the early Church did not interpret Scripture as do “Sola Scriptura” Christians today

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8135885]

while nobody in the first millenium comes close to the distinctively Lutheran or Protestant Evangelical oral traditions/interpretations

On the Lutheran side, an example please.

you and Jon probably disagree on a bunch of important doctrines.

Probably so. Not surprising since we come from different communions. I might disagree with him more than with you, which calls into question your above comment.

I certainly disagree with your unusual understanding of sola scriptura.

the Reformers–supposed believers in S.S.-- seemed to have hated each others guts

That was, obviously, a different era. The CC did its fait share of “hate their guts”, too. Hopefully, we are getting beyond that. I certainly don’t hate you or Richard. :grouphug:

Jon

 

[patricius79]

On the Lutheran side, an example please.

I can’t give an example because to my knowledge there is no historic person in the first millenium that roughly shares the Lutheran or Luther’s interpretation of the N.T.

that sort of fact is one of the reasons why I don’t go with the “Sola Scriptura” groups

I don’t mean any offense however. I know that you and other Protestants are very gifted peopel

That was, obviously, a different era. The CC did its fait share of “hate their guts”, too. Hopefully, we are getting beyond that. I certainly don’t hate you or Richard. :grouphug:

right on brother

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Protestants: If Scripture alone is sufficient,

OK. Let’s start with this. Strictly speaking, “sola scriptura” does mean “scripture alone”. But in practice, it doesn’t mean scripture alone, but scripture supreme. That is, that of all the authorites God has placed over the believer, scripture is the highest authority and all other authorities must submit to it. Historically, sola scriptura has always referred to the authority of scripture, not the exclusivity of scripture. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc, preachers, teachers, pastors, elders, etc, or the authority of the Church to determine doctrine or exercise discipline.

then what do you do with different interpretations of individual verses and passages? If Person A and Person B differ in their interpretation, how is it decided who is right? Do you resort to an outside authority, such as a pastor or a Bible scholar?

Yes. If it is an issue that is a matter of adiaphora or something that isn’t defined in scripture as essential, then we just shake hands and agree to disagree.

If it is an essential, then we go to the elders and/or pastor. Typically, though, most disagreements are resolved before the need to appeal to the Church.

If so, doesn’t that run contrary to sola scriptura?

No. In fact, if they judge and act according to scripture, then that would be an affirmation of sola scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

=Rag Hanger;8139597]OK. Let’s start with this. Strictly speaking, “sola scriptura” does mean “scripture alone”. But in practice, it doesn’t mean scripture alone, but scripture supreme. That is, that of all the authorites God has placed over the believer, scripture is the highest authority and all other authorities must submit to it. Historically, sola scriptura has always referred to the authority of scripture, not the exclusivity of scripture. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc, preachers, teachers, pastors, elders, etc, or the authority of the Church to determine doctrine or exercise discipline.

Hi, and welcome to CAF. I’ve been trying to explain this for a while, that the sola in sola scriptura means the final norm to which doctrines, teachers and teachings are held accountable. Hope you have better luck.

Yes. If it is an issue that is a matter of adiaphora or something that isn’t defined in scripture as essential, then we just shake hands and agree to disagree.

Yes, this is the approach Lutherans take to some (not all) of the Marian teachings

If it is an essential, then we go to the elders and/or pastor. Typically, though, most disagreements are resolved before the need to appeal to the Church.

Agreed, with the caveat that elders/pastors involved must be true to the confessions and doctrines of the Church.

Thanks, Jon

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Yes. If it is an issue that is a matter of adiaphora or something that isn’t defined in scripture as essential, then we just shake hands and agree to disagree.

If it is an essential, then we go to the elders and/or pastor. Typically, though, most disagreements are resolved before the need to appeal to the Church.

.

Seems like this just puts us back where we started. Even in determining what is essential, interpretation is required. Whose interpretation of Scripture should be used in deciding what is “essential” and what is not?

Continuing along those lines, to what end are we applying the concept of “essential”? Essential for salvation? Essential for the fullest and most abundant Christian life? Essential for Christian unity? Are we content with the lowest common denominator (whatever allows me to slip into heaven by the skin of my teeth) or are we searching for the fullness of what Jesus has to offer?

 

[JonNC]

Seems like this just puts us back where we started. Even in determining what is essential, interpretation is required. Whose interpretation of Scripture should be used in deciding what is “essential” and what is not?

For confessional Lutherans, the Lutherans confessions are the determination of what’s doctrine, and what’s not, what’s essential and what’s adiaphora.

Continuing along those lines, to what end are we applying the concept of “essential”? Essential for salvation? Essential for the fullest and most abundant Christian life? Essential for Christian unity? Are we content with the lowest common denominator (whatever allows me to slip into heaven by the skin of my teeth) or are we searching for the fullness of what Jesus has to offer?

Salvation and Christian unity may be quite similar essentials, though differeing expressions of a doctrine may not be Church dividing. For the fullest and most abundant Christian life, personal piety plays a role. For example, while all Catholics are required to believe Invocation, Catholics are not required to practice invocation.

Jon

 

[patricius79]

OK. Let’s start with this. Strictly speaking, “sola scriptura” does mean “scripture alone”. But in practice, it doesn’t mean scripture alone, but scripture supreme. That is, that of all the authorites God has placed over the believer, scripture is the highest authority and all other authorities must submit to it…

I don’t agree that that is what Sola Scriptura means in practice. for one thing, many would not agree with that definition, right?

one of the definitions out there is that Scripture alone is the rule of faith

 

[Rag_Hanger]

I don’t agree that that is what Sola Scriptura means in practice. for one thing, many would not agree with that definition, right?

You don’t have to agree with it, but that’s the way it’s been understood and practiced historically.

one of the definitions out there is that Scripture alone is the rule of faith

Yes, and we correct that misconception every single day.

Like I said, if it was the only rule of faith, then we wouldn’t have creeds, confessions, catechism’s, church councils, the authority of the church, officers within the church, gifts for the edification of the body, etc.