Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13709634]

OK, let’s use your suggestion and discuss the details of an Ecumenical Council between Catholics, Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

As we have been discussing, this hypothetical Council will be conducted to resolve doctrinal issues, which means that the delegates will pray to the Holy Spirit that they be guided to insure that the decisions that it makes are correct in God’s Eyes. Once the decisions are made and published, each of the three communions will take the doctrinal teachings back and will implement them, as they agreed they would do prior to the Council. Given the pre-Council agreement to abide by the Council, there will be no

Topper,
I don’t need to discuss this hypothetical. We already have high level, ecumenical discussions that, while slow, have already bore fruit. The current approach is what the leaders of various communions have decided to do.

Jon, I know that you can’t speak from an Anglican perspective, but would you willing to commit to abiding by the decisions of the Council? Yes or no? Do you think Lutheranism would be? Yes or no?

Topper, I’d be willing to abide with a decision of Rome and Holy Orthodoxy were they to reconcile and return to complete communion, so it would be easy if my current tradition did so.

Please let me know what you think.

Honestly, that’s what I think.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;13709243]If a Sola Scriptura practice denies the Apostolic Sacred Oral Traditions, the divine authority Jesus places upon His Church, then Sola Scriptura becomes a practice of biblical contradiction.

Agreed, yet sola scriptura attempts to vouchsafe that oral traditions are consistent with scripture.

If a Sola Scriptura practice places itself as the Sole source by which God gives His revelation and teachings to His Church, can disqualify the Sacred Oral Apostolic Traditions, when both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is the full deposit of the one Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic (biblical) faith. The Sola Scriptura becomes a new wind of doctrine invented by men and not a divine revelation from God. Jesus revealed that there are many more things that are not written, when He will reveal to his Apostles, and did not John record in his gospel what Jesus said and done that are not written? Sola Scriptura cannot stand alone here.

Even the Catholic Church claims that the Church serves scripture, not the other way around. If oral tradition is consistent with scripture, then scripture cannot disqualify it. If Oral Tradition is not consistent with scripture, then it disqualifies itself.

If a Sola Scriptura practice is the Sole authority and source by which the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ are interpreted and defended from ones own interpretation. This suggests a division and contradiction by varying Christian (ecclisial faith) communities that denominate from one another, which leads to a head without a unified body.

Agreed. SS is not a practice of personal interpretation.

If a Sola Scriptura practice presents itself as God’s living Word written, that can be used for teaching, instruction and correction that is interpreted on a par with Sacred Apostolic Tradition without contradiction. Then the Sola is used in it’s correct context as other Catholic Saints have used it for teaching, instruction and refuting heresies as a canon (measuring standard), with the Keys Jesus gives them. When Sola Scriptura is used in Liturgy to teach, instruct and correct the faithful, Sola Scriptura is used in its’ correct biblical context when the Logos personfied is present in our midst.

Almost. I would say that Oral Tradition is almost on a par with scripture.

Sola Scriptura taken out of the biblical context loses it’s divine element supported by Sacred Tradition. Sola Scriptura by itself has no God given divine Keys to bind and loose on earth in order to define and defend the apostolic faith. Thus how can any Sola Scripturalist use scripture only for teaching, instruction and correction when it has no divine given authority to exercise the Keys Jesus gives to his Apostles to bind and loose upon the whole earth? Martin Luther and others of the reformation were not there when Jesus bestowed his divine Keys to His body in the Catholic Church.

Neither was Pope Leo X. But the Bishop of Rome is only one Bishop. He is the one who initially received the keys, but the other apostles received them as well. The keys belong to the Church, not one Bishop.
But you are right, that SS cannot be of value outside the teaching role of the Church.

A Sola Scriptura practice or doctrine can negate the True Presence of the Word Incarnate in our midst. A Sola Scriptura (invented by men) since it’s inception has opened the flood gates of chaos that come against the Rock to which Jesus has built His Church, but will not prevail.

I would contend that that gate was breached long before the Reformation Era. “Development of doctrine”, particularly in the area of ecclesiology, has had at least as significant a role in division of the One True Church.

I love the Sola Scriptura, that puts the bright light on those divine revelations and teachings revealed by Jesus Christ that are not written, which were apostolically handed down orally practiced in faith by all the faithful since Pentecost, unchanged to today divinely confirmed from liturgy. It is here where the Sola Scriptura is the Logos= Personified in True presence.

I think that’s what consistency with the written word is all about.

In essence, the Sola Scriptura practiced in Liturgy, where the biblical practice of teaching, instruction and correction to the faithful can be heard in practice, when faith comes in hearing and hearing the Word of God in presence personified. Outside of the Liturgy Sola Scriptura becomes word’s on a page subject to anyone’s own interpretation.

No one who understands SS properly believes it whould be taken out of the hands of the teaching authority of the Church.

It is here where Sola Scriptura is placed in it’s correct context; The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For it is for this reason ALONE above all others, why the bible books were canonized (by the authority of the Catholic Magisterium) and revealed as God breathed in liturgy.

There are numerous canons of scripture, not even counting what various western non-Catholic communions do.

Scripture commands, **we must **hold fast to the Traditions which the apostles gave us by both Oral Tradition and by Letter. Paul’s teaching contradicts a Sola Scriptura practice here…

Only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word. Paul, when he speaks of tradition, is speaking of what we know, not what was developed later.

Peace be with you

And also with you.

Jon

 

[commenter]

I would contend that that gate was breached long before the Reformation Era. “Development of doctrine”, particularly in the area of ecclesiology, has had at least as significant a role in division of the One True Church.

Kinda hard to support this argument. Communities most vehemently opposed to development of doctrine have the greatest history of division/proliferation.

No one who understands SS properly believes it whould be taken out of the hands of the teaching authority of the Church.

The problem is “who decides when Sola Scriptura is being understood ‘properly’ or improperly by the teaching authority”? Consensus seems unreliable.

Only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word. Paul, when he speaks of tradition, is speaking of what we know, not what was developed later.

In the bolded part, I assume you mean Paul, talking of what was known in the first century. Or maybe later. How do we know what Paul was referring to, without a Magisterium?
re: “only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word”; is this the quote that has launched a thousand denominations?

 

[Peter_J]

Communities most vehemently opposed to development of doctrine have the greatest history of division/proliferation.

I’m sorry, but that’s not only untrue but a little ridiculous. The pro-development West has had immensely more trouble with division than the East has.

 

[benhur]

I would never discredit the enormous importance of sacred scripture.

But we do see in ACTS 15, a dogmatic decision being made without it.

Thanks for clarifying.

Hi La,

Any difference between that first council and say the next council, or even those declarations almost two millennia later ?

What was that first council declaration based on ?

In the end , even that council was “scriptural”, per James OT quote.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;13709826]Agreed, yet sola scriptura attempts to vouchsafe that oral traditions are consistent with scripture.

Sola scriptura cannot “vouchsafe” the Oral Sacred Traditions, when the SolaScripture does not record them.

For one of many example’s; Paul teaches the Thessalonian Church, first Orally and practice, then later writes to the Thessalonian Church to continue in the prayers and Christian practices he gave them, yet Paul does not list the prayers, or the Christian practices to follow in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. Thus a Sola Scriptura cannot vouchsafe the Oral apostolic Tradition without the Oral Sacred Tradition that became practice unchanged in the Catholic church today.

The Catholic Church continues in Paul’s Oral Tradition he handed down to us. A Sola Scripturalist today would be lost to these ancient apostolic Traditions that Paul and the other apostles handed down to the Catholic faithful.

There is much more to reveal here, so I am trying to keep my responses short.

Even the Catholic Church claims that the Church serves scripture, not the other way around. If oral tradition is consistent with scripture, then scripture cannot disqualify it. If Oral Tradition is not consistent with scripture, then it disqualifies itself.

The problem I see here, is that a Sola Scripturalist cannot support the developed doctrine of the Trinity, because Trinity cannot be found in Sola Scriptura according to your above statement. Trinity is part of the God breathed revelation that stems from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Almost. I would say that Oral Tradition is almost on a par with scripture.

Scripture contradicts your view, when scripture has both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as being God breathed. For instance; before anything was written or God breathed, the Gospels and teachings were given Orally in the hearing of the believers, which is God breathed. What was preached and handed down, later became written, but not all was written that was placed into Christian prayer and practices. We need the Oral Sacred Traditions and practices that the scripture give witness too, but many of the New Testament writers do not record in a letter specifically or categorically what is already believed and practiced in these new Christian communities. The written Word at many times only encourages them to continue in their Christian practices and disciplines.

Neither was Pope Leo X. But the Bishop of Rome is only one Bishop. He is the one who initially received the keys, but the other apostles received them as well. The keys belong to the Church, not one Bishop.

Pope Leo X was not personally present in the first century, but the Pope’s office as apostolic Successor to Peter was present when Jesus gave Peter the universal keys to the kingdom of God to bind and loose on earth. While all the other apostles and apostolic successors received the same keys to be practiced locally. Thus my local bishop have the apostolic keys to bind and loose within his local diocese. Yet Peter or Pope Leo X possesses both the local keys to bind and loose in Rome, and the universal keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth in communion with his brother bishops.

A Sola Scripturalist that denies Sacred Tradition, in no way has apostolic succession nor the divine keys to define or defend the apostolic faith against evil powers and principalities, with sacred scripture.

I would contend that that gate was breached long before the Reformation Era. “Development of doctrine”, particularly in the area of ecclesiology, has had at least as significant a role in division of the One True Church.

Trinity is a developed doctrine. Jesus nature is a developed doctrine that is revealed by both Oral Tradition and sacred scripture. Those Catholics who opposed these doctrines were excommunicated, which is an apostolic practice since apostolic times. Yes, Jesus did promise, that the “gate’s” plural would come against His Church.

We have to remember the Catholic Church teaches; there is no more new divine revelations since the last apostle. When the church uses the term development of doctrine. She is not indicating a new divine revelation, the development of doctrine cannot and does not contradict sacred scripture nor sacred Tradition. The development is a process when the Church defends the apostolic teachings and Jesus Christ divine revelations with more clarity to new developed languages, new ages of understanding etc. The Gospel has not changed within the Catholic church for over 2000 years and counting.

continued;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There are numerous canons of scripture, not even counting what various western non-Catholic communions do.

There is only one Canon of Scripture which the official Church councils confirmed. Because there are various canon of scripture used different rites of the apostolic church’s, these authenticate ones Orthodoxy in the apostolic faith. Any non-Catholic canon of scripture would only support that a Sola Scriptura doctrine or practice leads to misinterpretations of Jesus divine revelations, or neglects the full deposit of the Christian faith.

Only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word. Paul, when he speaks of tradition, is speaking of what we know, not what was developed later.

Paul taught orally to the Thessalonian Christian community how to follow the Church’s in Judea. He never writes what he handed down to them orally in detail for a sola Scripturalist today to teach, correct or instruct from Sola Scriptura.

Yet how is it? that the Catholic Church today still practices and follows the Judean Sacred Traditions which Paul mentions in his writings but does not disclose them. You need Oral Sacred Scripture to complete the divine God breathed Apostolic Oral teaching to reach it’s practice in place. Sola Scriptura fails tremendously here, in order to defend Paul’s oral teachings and practices he handed down.

Happy Lenten season to you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Any difference between that first council and say the next council, or even those declarations almost two millennia later ?

What was that first council declaration based on ?

In the end , even that council was “scriptural”, per James OT quote.

Blessings

Hi benhur,

Early church had a big problem with Judaizers insisting on keeping OT law as I am sure you already know.

Do you see anything in that quote from Amos chapter 9(talking about destruction and restoration of Israel) that addresses abstaining from meat, sexual immorality or circumcision? Or were the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit and their first hand knowledge of the Lord’s teaching, making decisions for the good of the church?

I think I know where you are going, but go ahead and tell me what difference you think there is in that council.

Thanks

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Kinda hard to support this argument. Communities most vehemently opposed to development of doctrine have the greatest history of division/proliferation.

The problem is “who decides when Sola Scriptura is being understood ‘properly’ or improperly by the teaching authority”? Consensus seems unreliable.
In the bolded part, I assume you mean Paul, talking of what was known in the first century. Or maybe later. How do we know what Paul was referring to, without a Magisterium?
re: “only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word”; is this the quote that has launched a thousand denominations?

bingo

 

[JonNC]

Kinda hard to support this argument. Communities most vehemently opposed to development of doctrine have the greatest history of division/proliferation.

The problem is “who decides when Sola Scriptura is being understood ‘properly’ or improperly by the teaching authority”? Consensus seems unreliable.
In the bolded part, I assume you mean Paul, talking of what was known in the first century. Or maybe later. How do we know what Paul was referring to, without a Magisterium?
re: “only as long as those traditions conform to that which is sure, the written word”; is this the quote that has launched a thousand denominations?

ISTM that the one constant in schism and division is development of doctrine. Thr great schism has as much to do with development of doctrine (the developed claim of universal jurisdiction is one). The complaints of the Lutheran reformers are consistently related to developed doctrine.
You are correct that I meant what Paul knew. Sorry.
If oral tradition includes something Paul didn’t know, then it isn’t the tradition he was speaking of, Magisterium or not.
All of the divisions in the Church happened under the watch of the Magisterium.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Why just communions that are loosely designated as “protestant”? Why not a dialogue of all western Christians, for example? Lutherans, for example, have little more in common with Baptists, than Catholics do. And in many ways, we have more in common with each other. I think that’s why dialogue between Lutheranism and Catholicism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism, Catholicism and Anglicanism, makes more sense. Liturgy, sacraments, creeds, put us in a category more closely aligned than “protestant”.
The my first comment set the comparison:
But okay. I’m good with that. I could have been clearer.

OK, let’s use your suggestion and discuss the details of an Ecumenical Council between Catholics, Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

As we have been discussing, this hypothetical Council will be conducted to resolve doctrinal issues, which means that the delegates will pray to the Holy Spirit that they be guided to insure that the decisions that it makes are correct in God’s Eyes. Once the decisions are made and published, each of the three communions will take the doctrinal teachings back and will implement them, as they agreed they would do prior to the Council. Given the pre-Council agreement to abide by the Council, there will be no

Jon, I know that you can’t speak from an Anglican perspective, but would you willing to commit to abiding by the decisions of the Council? Yes or no? Do you think Lutheranism would be? Yes or no?

Now we should discuss the details of who should be invited. How many delegates would you like to see total? And then, how many people do you think should be invited from each of the three groups? And, specifically, what would you think would be a fair way to apportion the Lutheran delegates among the various Lutheran ecclesiastical communities?

Please let me know what you think.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Topper,

I don’t need to discuss this hypothetical. We already have high level, ecumenical discussions that, while slow, have already bore fruit. The current approach is what the leaders of various communions have decided to do.

We have both seen some of the documents that have been written and I think that the reports indicate the magnitude of the problems associated with the divisions between us. While I have tremendous respect for anyone who undertakes this important work, I struggle with the results thus far. In fact in the Catholic tradition, we Catholics are allowed to question our officials, even including the Bishop of Rome. We are also allowed to disagree on things like policy and practice, but not doctrine, all without being considered to be ‘disloyal’ or disrespectful. Personally, I am disappointed that the dialogue committees have not progressed at a faster rate to resolve our differences. I am also afraid that Lutheranism is morphing so rapidly that it will be impossible to reach an agreement , meaning that the Lutheran ‘negotiators’ will be replaced by the next generation and that these newer members of the dialogue will disagree with the progress that has been made by their predecessors. As such, it seems to me that a process which is designed to work quickly would have a better chance of success.

As an example, the ILC is only about 20 years old now. How can we have any confidence that it will hold the same positions 20 years from now if the dialogue takes that long to conclude.

As you know, in the 50 years since the Catholic/ Lutheran dialogue began, they still have not addressed the subject of Papal Supremacy. How many more generations must pass before this critical issue is discussed?

Topper, I’d be willing to abide with a decision of Rome and Holy Orthodoxy were they to reconcile and return to complete communion, so it would be easy if my current tradition did so.

And please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I read what you wrote as saying that you would leave Lutheranism and join a unified RCC/Orthodoxy. Is that correct?

Of course you realize that if the CC and the Orthodox were to reach full communion, there would be seven Sacraments. The Mass would be a Sacrifice. Salvation would NOT be by Faith Alone, not any of the various definitions of Faith Alone. Sola Scriptura would have absolutely no place in such a combined RCC/EOC reunion.

Are you saying that you would be willing to change your doctrinal positions such that you would be able to believe, support, and teach these doctrinal positions?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Stilldreamn]

And please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I read what you wrote as saying that you would leave Lutheranism and join a unified RCC/Orthodoxy. Is that correct?

Speaking for myself - should this unification take place I would see that as the work of the Holy Spirit and fulfillment of God’s will that “they be one, even as We are One.” I expect that the Spirit would be simultaneously be moving through all Christian communions and gathering up the scattered sons and daughters.

It may not happen until the last trumpet sounds, but even so…

 

[rcwitness]

Infant baptism was not widespread and prevalent a tradition til centuries later.

This is an assumption.

 

[rcwitness]

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Benhur, and the reformed position is referring to baptism of desire. But that is the exception not the norm. (see thief on the cross)

But I suppose we wont solve baptismal regeneration disagreement here today, or anytime over the next thousand years lol

 

[rcwitness]

Hi La,

Actually I thought i was strongly referring to whether baptism is regenerational or not, much like was circumcision or not. I mean Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to go get recircumcised. But that is another topic.

No. And we are not Anabaptists either

But does the CC have one infallibe doctrine that is not claimed to be scriptural , that the bible has not legitimized even provided a rule of faith ?

Pretty much… Although Prayer to the Saints and Mary’s Assumption and PV are quite silent in Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi La,

Any difference between that first council and say the next council, or even those declarations almost two millennia later ?

What was that first council declaration based on ?

In the end , even that council was “scriptural”, per James OT quote.

Blessings

I doubt any Council doesn’t refer to Scripture, though.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I doubt any Council doesn’t refer to Scripture, though.

I told him they made a dogmatic decision without it. Meaning, they had no solid scriptural precedence to do what they did in ACTS 15. They needed to make calls for the betterment of the emerging church and all they really had was themselves, armed with the deposit of the faith and a promise from the Lord.

 

[commenter]

All of the divisions in the Church happened under the watch of the Magisterium.

Jon

The great, seldom-reported fact of history is the incredible unity of Catholicism, for hundreds of millions of people, across hundreds of cultures, for many centuries. You can point out the glass of unity is not 100% full for everyone, but - there is a glass! The template may be imperfect, but there** is **a template that has worked to an astonishing degree.

It is not glued to a particular culture, like other forms of Christianity. Whether “development” of doctrine is a good or bad thing can be debated…but I would argue that controlled development by the Magisterium is far more limited than the uncontrolled development of most of Protestantism, especially in the US. The Magisterium is more of a brake than an accelerator.

What would Protestantism look like without that highly visible template within view? Would they have the same assumption that there** is** a thing called “Christian orthodoxy” that ought to be true for all times, all cultures? Yes I know they have Scripture, and traditions, but having the visible template currently filled with Christians has an impact. Without the template of the Magisterium, would Protestants even have the concept of “religious divisions”, recognized as a “problem”?

 

[Peter_J]

Speaking for myself - should this unification take place I would see that as the work of the Holy Spirit and fulfillment of God’s will that “they be one, even as We are One.” I expect that the Spirit would be simultaneously be moving through all Christian communions and gathering up the scattered sons and daughters.

It may not happen until the last trumpet sounds, but even so…

Hi Still. I don’t think I have the time/energy to put my thoughts on this into a nice linear form … so I’ll post something different: Never the Twain?

Apologies if you’re already familiar with it.

Then, in a moving Protestant response to this suggestion, S. M. Hutchens addressed the Orthodox and Roman Catholics: “If you two grand ladies can figure out which of you is the real Mrs. Jesus, then perhaps the rest of us can come on home.”

…