John Martignoni's new tract on Sola Scriptura

[pablope]

Originally Posted by JonNC
It isn’t a conundrum for us. We believe the Confessions are a right reflection of scripture.
And, pointedly, we believe they are wrong.

But that’s what I’m driving at. The Confessions are right reflection of Scripture based on what (or who)? :

That is indeed the conundrum, isn’t it? A question of authority?

Let me cite the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Even he had to submit his gospel to the Apostles for an assurance.

Who is the Apostolic authority today to say the Confessions are a right reflection of Scripture?

Or if one wants to ask in the 16th century, who had Apostolic authority then to say the Confessions were a right reflection of Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;10319632]But that’s what I’m driving at. The Confessions are right reflection of Scripture based on what (or who)? There is a dependence upon an Authority outside of Scripture…which I think you are saying is this hermeunetic. But here’s where I see if going flat…the Authority outside Scripture only goes back to the 16th century. The hermuenetic AND the Confession that is viewed as being a right reflection are NEW. The hermuenetic is a “new addition” to Christian Doctrine. If you go back any further than the 16th century…it isn’t there.

It doesn’t only go back to the 16th century, but that point aside, let’s look at the real problem, the problem that brings about the need for a secure source. If we look at the breakdown of Tradition as a result of the Schism, we see the contraqdictions and conflicts in doctrine that result from it, and most obvious is ther breakdown in authority.
Now, a Catholic can (and should) argue that the divisions of the Church that brought about the 7 great councils isn’t relevent, as some posts already have. But I contend that so long as those divisions remain, so does a division in authority. Hence the need for a source for hermeunetics that lacks this breakdown - scripture.

Well, I wish I could! Seriously, for me it’s as easy as to whom alone Christ gave the keys and the commission to strengthen his brothers and shepherd Christ’s Flock. But that’s a different topic.

I wish we could too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10320626]let’s use a real life example to test this norming norm theory. Let’s take sola fide. If I read James 2, I see that the norming norm would be that faith without works is dead, thus nullifying sola fide. You however, see it differently. so how is scripture the norming norm? And of course, its interesting to me that Luther also saw this problem. He had three solutions. The first was to try to discredit the epistle of Saint James as an epistle of straw. But he couldn’t get consensus to throw it out of the canon. Then in his translation, he inserted “Faith Alone” into St. Paul’s epistle as a counterbalance. Finally, he developed an alternative interpretation of the words of St. James. So how you can claim that scripture is a norming norm eludes me.

Well, first, Paul, I don’t see James as nullifying sola fide. so you are right; I seeit differently.
But referring to what Luther said in his preface regarding the Epistle of James, there’s a lot to the story the catch phrase “book of straw” doesn’t reveal. First,he was comapring James to the other Epistles. He also says he praises it, and mentions that the ancients, meaning primarily Eusebius, rejected it, which is true. Finally, I have heard the thought that he wanted to throw it out, but I’ve never seen a quote by him to that effect. The fact is he preached from James all through his life.
He does explain well his translational reasoning for including “allein” in Romans 3:28. It is curious that alone does not appear in any English translation, which lends support to his perspective that it had to do with speaking German.

So scripture is not the norming norm. It is your synods and Parishes. Seems to me that Lutherans have just exchanged one authority (the Pope) with one they find more to their liking. Is that anyway to understand the truth?

No, though we would counter that in the early Church the pope was not, by himself, the one authority. The councils were the authority, of which the pope was one bishop - an important one, to be sure.
But scripture is the norming norm, in that, for Lutherans, doctrine, binding the conscience of the believer, has its roots in scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

A bit off topic, but why wait for that? What if there was set up something akin to the process for bringing Anglicans into the Church as a community? Wouldn’t it be prudent to approach the Church and see if something could be set up now for Lutherans?

I think that idea is being batted around in Rome, quite honestly. I guess I’d be one who would want to wait and see what that would look like. The issue for me, of course, is the question of universal jurisdiction, which I find problematic when looking at Nicea canon 6.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans are not the real problem here, and Jon is good for offering a balanced explanation of what they believe in this regard, so we might be better off to move on and deal more with the fundamentalist sort of adherent to SS.

One brief article I have found helpful was Jmmy Akins MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

Thanks, Michael.
I think my continuing in this thread is deflecting from your intentions, and that of Mr. Martignoni. So, I’ll back out and let you guys discuss the others.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

It doesn’t only go back to the 16th century, but that point aside, let’s look at the real problem, the problem that brings about the need for a secure source. If we look at the breakdown of Tradition as a result of the Schism, we see the contraqdictions and conflicts in doctrine that result from it, and most obvious is ther breakdown in authority.
Now, a Catholic can (and should) argue that the divisions of the Church that brought about the 7 great councils isn’t relevent, as some posts already have. But I contend that so long as those divisions remain, so does a division in authority. Hence the need for a source for hermeunetics that lacks this breakdown - scripture.

I wish we could too.

Jon

John, it occurs to me that almost everyone is subject to Religious authority. When Luther broke from papal authority, he simply replaced it with himself for all those that were willing to follow. When the Eastern Patriarchs broke from the Pope, they became the head of their own hierarchies. So these schisms are always about the pursuit of autonomy by the leaders of the schisms. These schismatic leaders will always claim that the reason for their actions is to preserve the purity of the Catholic Faith but such declarations are always problematic for two reasons.

→ they are inevitably accompanied by clear innovation on the parts of their leaders
→ they militate against Jesus’ promise the gates of hades would not prevail over His church.

 

[h2oplyer7]

View attachment 16116

I needed to take a break for my Property class, so I made this little ditty. Not totally on topic I know.

It’s not meant to be mean, but only to make a point.

Have a great day everyone!

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks, Michael.
I think my continuing in this thread is deflecting from your intentions, and that of Mr. Martignoni. So, I’ll back out and let you guys discuss the others.

Jon

 

[Rosinante]

Lutherans are not the real problem here, and Jon is good for offering a balanced explanation of what they believe in this regard, so we might be better off to move on and deal more with the fundamentalist sort of adherent to SS.

One brief article I have found helpful was Jmmy Akins MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

With all due respect, I must respectfully dissent. The Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura–as with its view of the Eucharist–is more problematic than those of the evangalicals/ fundamentalists–even if they are less wrong.

Sure, fundamentalists’ simplistic application of sola scriptura is much farther from the Truth than Lutheranism–but this has often led to a greater number of conversions from evangelicals to Catholicism, because the error of their doctrine is so easily exposed (almost like a strawman argument). The danger with Lutherans, is that they mimic Cat. teaching closely–and thereby seek to supplant their version of the Faith, for Christ’s actual Church–the Catholic Church. Much of what they say about tradition, the Eucharist, etc., follows Cat. teaching very closely–(hence the common reference to ‘catholic light’)–while downplaying significant doctrinal differneces such as sola scriptura and sola fide…yet they still compete directly with the Cat. Church, for actual SOULS–by pretending to offer a viable alternative to the Catholic Church.

 

[Rosinante]

John, it occurs to me that almost everyone is subject to Religious authority. When Luther broke from papal authority, he simply replaced it with himself for all those that were willing to follow. When the Eastern Patriarchs broke from the Pope, they became the head of their own hierarchies. So these schisms are always about the pursuit of autonomy by the leaders of the schisms. These schismatic leaders will always claim that the reason for their actions is to preserve the purity of the Catholic Faith but such declarations are always problematic for two reasons.

→ they are inevitably accompanied by clear innovation on the parts of their leaders
→ they militate against Jesus’ promise the gates of hades would not prevail over His church.

But note that the Eastern Churches actually can trace their origins to the actual Apostles–and note how their structures mirror the Cat. Church–e.g.–the Bishops and priests do NOT have private property stake in their church communities–while the protestant model is founded on private property (and inevitable profit motive) principle–where the pastors of individual church franchises own the land, the buildings, and reap the excess profits (when they exist) of their enterprises.

Is it mere coincidence, that the Catholic Church–East and West–founded by the Apostles, share a similar model–while protestant churches, conveniently rejected that model, in favor of…a more privately lucrative model???

 

[JonNC]

But note that the Eastern Churches actually can trace their origins to the actual Apostles–and note how their structures mirror the Cat. Church–e.g.–the Bishops and priests do NOT have private property stake in their church communities–while the protestant model is founded on private property (and inevitable profit motive) principle–where the pastors of individual church franchises own the land, the buildings, and reap the excess profits (when they exist) of their enterprises.

Is it mere coincidence, that the Catholic Church–East and West–founded by the Apostles, share a similar model–while protestant churches, conveniently rejected that model, in favor of…a more privately lucrative model???

This would not be correct in Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

But note that the Eastern Churches actually can trace their origins to the actual Apostles–and note how their structures mirror the Cat. Church–e.g.–the Bishops and priests do NOT have private property stake in their church communities–while the protestant model is founded on private property (and inevitable profit motive) principle–where the pastors of individual church franchises own the land, the buildings, and reap the excess profits (when they exist) of their enterprises.

Is it mere coincidence, that the Catholic Church–East and West–founded by the Apostles, share a similar model–while protestant churches, conveniently rejected that model, in favor of…a more privately lucrative model???

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession. But you are implying that the Protestant churches are all about the money. While it might be true that a few are indeed very profitable enterprises, I think we can say in all charity, that it is not the profit motive that drives most protestant churches.

 

[paul_c]

Well, first, Paul, I don’t see James as nullifying sola fide. so you are right; I seeit differently.
But referring to what Luther said in his preface regarding the Epistle of James, there’s a lot to the story the catch phrase “book of straw” doesn’t reveal. First,he was comapring James to the other Epistles. He also says he praises it, and mentions that the ancients, meaning primarily Eusebius, rejected it, which is true. Finally, I have heard the thought that he wanted to throw it out, but I’ve never seen a quote by him to that effect. The fact is he preached from James all through his life.
He does explain well his translational reasoning for including “allein” in Romans 3:28. It is curious that alone does not appear in any English translation, which lends support to his perspective that it had to do with speaking German.

No, though we would counter that in the early Church the pope was not, by himself, the one authority. The councils were the authority, of which the pope was one bishop - an important one, to be sure.
But scripture is the norming norm, in that, for Lutherans, doctrine, binding the conscience of the believer, has its roots in scripture.

Jon

Well, we can agree that the basis of the doctrine of salvation is revealed in scripture. The problem is of course that scripture is not clear enough on its own to reveal all doctrines in the same way to every reader. For that you require an interpretative authority. I think you would probably agree on that as well.

As for the early councils, it is the Catholic viewpoint that the council’s actions are only valid when approved by the Pope. Don’t be deceived by the different leadership styles of the various popes. At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter claimed jurisiction saying " [BIBLEDRB]acts 15:7[/BIBLEDRB]. other Popes were content to let the councils play out with gentle behind the scenes direction through the legates. But it is the 4th council and its run up that clearly shows that the primacy of the Popes in the early councils. This particular council was called to address the monophysite heresy: that Jesus had only a divine but not a human nature. As this article shows, there was a council initially held in Ephesus in 449 that ratified this heresy. Pope Leo voided the council and called another, held in Chalcedon, where Leo’s view of the two natures of Christ was announced and Dioscurus,the archbishop of Alexandria was excommunicated. newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

This council directly contradicts your view that the Pope didn’t have worldwide authority in the early church.

 

[Rosinante]

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession. But you are implying that the Protestant churches are all about the money. While it might be true that a few are indeed very profitable enterprises, I think we can say in all charity, that it is not the profit motive that drives most protestant churches.

Not saying it’s ‘all about the money’–however, I do maintain that this aspect is more than mere coinicidence–and, it (although never expressly admitted) serves as one of the greatest obstacles to re-uniting the Church.

Point being: even if you could pursuade a protestant pastor of the Truth…you still have to negotiate the inherent conflict of interest resulting from having to surrender one’s livlihood (and the source for those dependent upon same–i.e.–spouses, kids, etc)–with accepting said Truth. IOW: many of them may be too invested, and not just emootionally–to ever surrender their position, even in the name of Truth.

In all charity–for charity cannot exist, outside of Truth.

(civility, diplomacy, warm and fuzzy feelings may surely flourish in the ash heap of compromised truth; but not charity).

 

[Rosinante]

This would not be correct in Lutheranism.

Jon

That’s not the way I read this article:

What Can the Lutheran Laity Do to Stop the Change and Keep Their Church Lutheran?

by Rev. Jack Cascione

1. Start Your Own Lutheran Congregation.

…

lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00049.htm

Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken, but it seems to me that if I fronted the expenses and assumed the risk for founding a Lutheran Church–I’d get to reap the beny’s as well–as with any capitalist enterprise. I’d just have to pay the ‘retired pastor’ his salary (and if I were a duly accredited–or licensed–or ordained–(whatever the proper nomenclasure is) pastor, I’d be able to keep the excess without having to pay the ‘retired pastor’ anything–since I’d be the pastor.

 

[paul_c]

Not saying it’s ‘all about the money’–however, I do maintain that this aspect is more than mere coinicidence–and, it (although never expressly admitted) serves as one of the greatest obstacles to re-uniting the Church.

Point being: even if you could pursuade a protestant pastor of the Truth…you still have to negotiate the inherent conflict of interest resulting from having to surrender one’s livlihood (and the source for those dependent upon same–i.e.–spouses, kids, etc)–with accepting said Truth. IOW: many of them may be too invested, and not just emootionally–to ever surrender their position, even in the name of Truth.

In all charity–for charity cannot exist, outside of Truth.

(civility, diplomacy, warm and fuzzy feelings may surely flourish in the ash heap of compromised truth; but not charity).

I admit to not being an expert in this, but it appears to me that the earliest Protestant churches, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, maintain church ownership rather than being “franchisees”. I would agree with you that the newer the church, the more likely it will be run as almost an independent business. And yes, even in new testament times, it was apparent that some people preached about God for profit. But remember, there was a time when being a Catholic bishop could also be quite lucrative and not all bishops were saints. Thankfully Trent cleaned up most of that.

 

[JonNC]

** I admit to not being an expert in this, but it appears to me that the earliest Protestant churches, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, maintain church ownership rather than being “franchisees”**. I would agree with you that the newer the church, the more likely it will be run as almost an independent business. And yes, even in new testament times, it was apparent that some people preached about God for profit. But remember, there was a time when being a Catholic bishop could also be quite lucrative and not all bishops were saints. Thankfully Trent cleaned up most of that.

This is my understanding, and is certainly the case with our parish.

Jon

 

[Church_Militant]

With all due respect, I must respectfully dissent. The Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura–as with its view of the Eucharist–is more problematic than those of the evangalicals/ fundamentalists–even if they are less wrong.

Sure, fundamentalists’ simplistic application of sola scriptura is much farther from the Truth than Lutheranism–but this has often led to a greater number of conversions from evangelicals to Catholicism, because the error of their doctrine is so easily exposed (almost like a strawman argument). The danger with Lutherans, is that they mimic Cat. teaching closely–and thereby seek to supplant their version of the Faith, for Christ’s actual Church–the Catholic Church. Much of what they say about tradition, the Eucharist, etc., follows Cat. teaching very closely–(hence the common reference to ‘catholic light’)–while downplaying significant doctrinal differneces such as sola scriptura and sola fide…yet they still compete directly with the Cat. Church, for actual SOULS–by pretending to offer a viable alternative to the Catholic Church.

And I would say that you see terrible enemies where there are not so much. Lutherans do not “compete”, Some actually come into our most holy faith, and, although they lack valid orders and sacraments, the very fact of their liturgy, and their interest in and respect for Sacred Tradition still points to the fullness of truth within the Catholic Church. Their Trinitarian baptism is valid and so their faithful do become Christians by it and the Church accepts it.

I suggest that you not subject our friend Jon to such “friendly fire” of your apologetics. The Lutherans like Jon are amenable to meaningful dialog, and we should honor that with sincere and charitable discussion.

You might invest in Mark Brumley’s excellent book
shop.catholic.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/135x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/o/how-not-to-share-your-faith.jpg How NOT To Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins Of Apologetics And Evangelization

This would not be correct in Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[Truthstalker]

Back to the OP:

The Bible…Alone? (The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura)

Introduction
Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. This belief is known as Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.

I wonder who these “Many Christians” are who reject any subsidiary or inferior authority?
I would expect most Christians recognize denominational and pastoral authority, so he seems to be addressing only those Lone Ranger types who totally reject the idea of church. I doubt that can be considered “many”. My understanding of SS is that Scripture is the Sole ULTIMATE authority, which allows things such as denominational doctrinal platforms to be regarded as authoritative, as long as they defer to Scripture if shown to contradict Scripture. I’ve never heard anyone state that nothing except Scripture is to be considered to be any sort of authority.

 

[zz912]

Back to the OP:

I wonder who these “Many Christians” are who reject any subsidiary or inferior authority?
I would expect most Christians recognize denominational and pastoral authority, so he seems to be addressing only those Lone Ranger types who totally reject the idea of church. I doubt that can be considered “many”. My understanding of SS is that Scripture is the Sole ULTIMATE authority, which allows things such as denominational doctrinal platforms to be regarded as authoritative, as long as they defer to Scripture if shown to contradict Scripture. I’ve never heard anyone state that nothing except Scripture is to be considered to be any sort of authority.

There are some that adhere to Solo Scripture (Scripture Only), but even for Sola Scriptura, the argument still holds true. Because there MUST be at least one thing that holds the exact same level of authority as Scripture.

You cannot confer authority you do not possess. And something/someone has conferred upon the 66/73 books of the Bible the authority of Scripture. Someone/something has declared that Scripture is the the word of God. This something/someone must also possess the authority as the word of God.