Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[commenter]

so you would agree that Genesis, Isaiah, Romans were actually Scripture from the moment they were penned and not when they were officially canonized.
The Catholic Church ( and others) recognized a writing as Scripture, bur did not make or cause a writing to be Scripture:
correct?

When was the New Testament created? In a way, it was created when the Word of God was among us in the flesh, no pen in hand. The New Testament was preached, long before gospels and epistles. In fact you could say the New Testament was completed, before any writing.

But when was it completed for us? In order for the words to get to us as “the New Testament” someone single authority had to determine - not just “recognize” - that a written “New Testament” ought to exist; and which few of many possible writings is should include. If the decision were based on the consensus of the hundreds of Christian communities, the New Testament canon would have been 270 books by 400 AD, and counting.

The tiny New Testament canon (that we have now) points towards a small but widely recognized Magisterium. If they had had a 270 book NT canon in 400 AD, with lots of additions and subtractions over the centuries, then I would say that points to the consensus theory, rather than the Magisterium.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Yes, Of course I believe and accept them:
Scripture is incapable of error

Scripture is 100% inerrant and 100% infallible 100% of the time.

Scripture is not 100% literal

My mistake then. I though you said you take scripture 100% literally. That is what I get for reading posts late at night when I am tired and should already be asleep.

 

[justthistime]

the sinner’s prayer-- has opened the opportunity to be born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit-- and it is based on scripture application.
Romans 3:10 ,(Titus 3:5-7)
Romans 10:9-10). We can be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8 declares, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.”

when you are down- loaded with the Holy Spirit - you will function in the 9 + gifts of the Holy Spirit- 1 cor 12-

you can call on God – and he will hear you-- and answer you-

this is why saint paul in acts 19 asked the people "what were they baptised into?

There are many and plenty- of people that quote - scripture that they have “memorized” some body’s commantary–and quote – someone’s discussion–

BUT if you do not function in the Holy Spirit – then as paul said in romans 8 – you are not part of the body of Christ and NOT part of him church-- or assembly-

you are just a social club like the “elks club”

and can pat each other on the back-- as say we got it together-

yes spiritual decernment – is more than quoting scripture–

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Which part of his list of essentials does he think Catholics don’t believe?

ETA; Ah, I see his claim, “Roman Catholicism denies salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone.” His intentionally changing the position, by adding words in where they don’t belong, namely salvation by grace through faith “alone.” I’m not Catholic but even I can see the glaring problem with his claim against Catholicism.

He harps on Trent over and over and over:

carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification

He got embarrassed badly, multiple times in debates vs Catholic apologists:

youtube.com/watch?v=cnA3nADAcMo

One 29 second clip demonstrates how badly it got for him. And he is a highly educated person, so…

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13701052]
In find it almost impossible to keep up with which ecclesiastical body is in or out of communion with the others.

Why do you find it necessary to try? I find it worthy of my time to try and live up to the moral standards of my own communion.

This is NOT what Christ intended.

Agreed.

Less than 100 years ago, ALL Protestants, at least the ‘mainline’ groups, taught that artificial birth control was a sin. Now I don’t think any of them do.

Were they all wrong on this important point of morals and doctrine THEN or are they NOW?

Perhaps it isn’t a black and white matter. This from Orthodoxy:

1. The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

The LCMS view of contraception is similar to this. Isn’t a matter of being right then, or right now.

 

[MaryT777]

Why do you find it necessary to try? I find it worthy of my time to try and live up to the moral standards of my own communion.

Jon, I would think you would understand where this poster is coming from. It’s nice to have some idea where a poster is doctrinally coming from when they post. Would it be correct to note you have during your course of life as a Lutheran studied Catholicism? It seems by your notation above you are currently learning the 1928 book of common prayer. Is that what the abbreviation stands for?

Why are you doing so?

Mary.

 

[Peter_J]

My point is you cannot use Sola Scriptura as a ‘boogyman’ for every ill in the Christian world. As a Catholic I obviously do not subscribe to SS. But I think it intellectually dishonest to blame SS for every sin imaginable.
Sin was around long before the Bible.

Sounds like you’ve read that thing where a Catholic describes looking at pornography in terms of listening to his “inner Protestant”.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13701418]
I have made similar proposals and not completely tongue in cheek. I think that there should be a Protestant Ecumenical, one where they would ALL gather together, pray to the Holy Sprit to be led to the Truth, and ALL commit to adjusting their doctrinal positions to the decision of the Holy Spirit led Council.

Why would you think that? Lutherans could say, "I think that ALL western Chrsitians, including Catholics, should have a western ecumenical, and do the same as you’ve listed above.

THEN, they could come to the Church with an actually unified position, from a position of strength rather than from the weakness associated with doctrinal confusion. Then the Church would have only ONE entity to deal with ecumenically, rather than (who knows how) many. Maybe a ‘baby step’ would be for each of the various traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, etc) could have a sub Council in preparation for the overall Protestant Ecumenical one.

Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council. Perhaps that’s what the Eastern Orthodox Christians are waiting for from those of us in the west.
IOW, the not-so-tongue-in-cheek proposal amounts to polemical nonsense. ISTM that the PCPCU is quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, even though I know that some Catholic traditionalists don’t think so. They can talk to Lutherans, to Anglicans, to Orthodoxy at the same time, and not get confused. Similarly, ILC Lutherans can talk to Catholics and Anglicans and even our wayward siblings in the LWF without confusing the issues.

As outlandish as this might sound to a lot of people, I personally don’t think that there is ANY WAY to reunite Christianity short of such a radical step.

Perhaps that is one reason you are not on the PCPCU. I personally think the most radical step that would have the most dramatic impact on the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would be a reconciliation between Rome and Holy Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean I think different groups should stop dialogue, even if it looks to apologists that no progress is being made.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;13701865]Why do you find it necessary to try? I find it worthy of my time to try and live up to the moral standards of my own communion.

True, but I don’t play at the charade that all protestants ever had a unity of belief, or that its the fault of sola scriptura. Different schisms happened in the Church long before the Reformation era, and they’ve continued for twice as long as the divisions in the Western Church.

Yes.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

MaryT777;13701886:

True, but I don’t play at the charade that all protestants ever had a unity of belief, or that its the fault of sola scriptura

. Different schisms happened in the Church long before the Reformation era, and they’ve continued for twice as long as the divisions in the Western Church.

Yes.

Jon

But is not a person entitled to their own belief and opinion on this forum? I also believe that sola scriptura is ONE of the factors of disunity of belief.

I would hope since you do note you are studying materials from other denominations you would find that Catholics do so as well sometimes for similar reasons; not reasons that are sinister, LOL

Blessings,
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

But is not a person entitled to their own belief and opinion on this forum? I also believe that sola scriptura is ONE of the factors of disunity of belief.

I would hope since you do note you are studying materials from other denominations you would find that Catholics do so as well sometimes for similar reasons; not reasons that are sinister, LOL

Blessings,
Mary.

Of course. Am I not permitted to ask a question about that belief? Sola Scriptura is only a factor insofar as it relates to human sin. It is human sin, not a hermeneutical practice, that causes division within the Church. Long before sola scriptura there were Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, Eastern Orthodox and “Roman” Catholics, and since the Reformation, Old Catholics, and others. If SS is one of the factors, so is the three legged stool.

There are lots of Catholics, thank God, that study and dialogue with others for the purpose of improving the relations between our communions. There are also those who by there rhetoric and polemics clearly are opposed to that goal, and they are on both sides.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Of course. Am I not permitted to ask a question about that belief? Sola Scriptura is only a factor insofar as it relates to human sin. It is human sin, not a hermeneutical practice, that causes division within the Church. Long before sola scriptura there were Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, Eastern Orthodox and “Roman” Catholics, and since the Reformation, Old Catholics, and others. If SS is one of the factors, so is the three legged stool.

There are lots of Catholics, thank God, that study and dialogue with others for the purpose of improving the relations between our communions. There are also those who by there rhetoric and polemics clearly are opposed to that goal, and they are on both sides.

Jon

I don’t claim to read hearts and know which posters are “CLEARLY” opposed to that goal as you noted.

I guess I thought Martin Luther said put the best construction on discussions and, , well everything in his commentary on the 8th commandment. I agree with that and think it’s one of his finest comments.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t claim to read hearts and know which posters are “CLEARLY” opposed to that goal as you noted.

I guess I thought Martin Luther said put the best construction on discussions and, , well everything in his commentary on the 8th commandment. I agree with that and think it’s one of his finest comments.

Mary.

I didn’t say anything about reading hearts. I said, "There are also those who by their rhetoric and polemics clearly are opposed to that goal, and they are on both sides. "

And I agree with his 8th commandment commentary as well. That doesn’t mean that we should be blind to what someone says, or writes. Note the complaints about Pastor Fisk on this forum recently: Are Catholics who complain about Fisk complaining about what he says, or are they reading his heart? I think the vast majority of posters here who are Catholic would be complaining about his words.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I didn’t say anything about reading hearts. I said, "There are also those who by their rhetoric and polemics clearly are opposed to that goal, and they are on both sides. "

And I agree with his 8th commandment commentary as well. That doesn’t mean that we should be blind to what someone says, or writes. Note the complaints about Pastor Fisk on this forum recently: Are Catholics who complain about Fisk complaining about what he says, or are they reading his heart? I think the vast majority of posters here who are Catholic would be complaining about his words.

Jon

It’s not all so clear to me as it is to you, Jon. I readily admit as such. That said we are as different as Catholic and Lutheran and as similar as two believing Christians in the words of a favorite LCMS Pastor of Mine!~~~ moving on.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

It’s not all so clear to me as it is to you, Jon. I readily admit as such. That said we are as different as Catholic and Lutheran and as similar as two believing Christians in the words of a favorite LCMS Pastor of Mine!~~~ moving on.

Mary.

Agreed!

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

I have made similar proposals and not completely tongue in cheek. I think that there should be a Protestant Ecumenical, one where they would ALL gather together, pray to the Holy Sprit to be led to the Truth, and ALL commit to adjusting their doctrinal positions to the decision of the Holy Spirit led Council.

THEN, they could come to the Church with an actually unified position, from a position of strength rather than from the weakness associated with doctrinal confusion. Then the Church would have only ONE entity to deal with ecumenically, rather than (who knows how) many. Maybe a ‘baby step’ would be for each of the various traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, etc) could have a sub Council in preparation for the overall Protestant Ecumenical one.

As outlandish as this might sound to a lot of people, I personally don’t think that there is ANY WAY to reunite Christianity short of such a radical step.

What do you think?

God Bless You Lenten, Topper

You’re right; it’s outlandish because it displays a lack of knowledge concerning the history Protestant denominations.
More often than not, differences between Protestants have their foundation in ideology, not doctrine.
The Fundamentalist Conferences, of the late 19th century and at the turn of the 20th century did exactly what you are attempting to describe. Almost every Protestant denomination came together to form commonalities in doctrine. This they achieved. What divided them had nothing to do with doctrine. It had to do with power, personalities and ideology. Historic Fundamentalism in America is dead, not because of doctrine, but because personalities got in the way of reunion.
However, the results of those Conferences are still around today. Protestant denominations come together for many reasons that have little to do with doctrine.
Not sure what this “radical step” is you are describing. Are you talking forced uniting?

 

[JustaServant]

Not only to various communions interpret Scripture differently**, they also have varying understandings** of what Scripture actually is. Not to mention, what* is* scripture and what is not.

Confusing, rather generalized statement. What Protestant communions do what you describe?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Why would you think that? Lutherans could say, "I think that ALL western Christians, including Catholics, should have a western ecumenical, and do the same as you’ve listed above.
Then all of you could approach the ILC for a council. Perhaps that’s what the Eastern Orthodox Christians are waiting for from those of us in the west.

OK, I made a proposal, one which I think would actually work IF everyone could put aside their differences long enough to consider it. You don’t like my proposal I guess, unless the ILC could be in charge, which I guess is natural for an ILC member to think.

I am not sure that the ILC would be a logical choice to assume a leadership role in this proposed Ecumenical Council. Why do you think they should be put in that kind of position and do you think that Christianity Worldwide would accept the ILC in such a role?

If you think that the ILC would be willing to begin this process, then as far as I’m concerned, I would be all for it. Personally I don’t care HOW we all achieve doctrinal unity, just that we actually DO. So, with that I have to ask:

If the ILC were to be placed in a leadership role for such Council, how do you, as a member of the ILC, think it should be structured and organized? What would the details of such an ILC led Council look like?

IOW, the not-so-tongue-in-cheek proposal amounts to polemical nonsense. ISTM that the PCPCU is quite capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, even though I know that some Catholic traditionalists don’t think so. They can talk to Lutherans, to Anglicans, to Orthodoxy at the same time, and not get confused. Similarly, ILC Lutherans can talk to Catholics and Anglicans and even our wayward siblings in the LWF without confusing the issues.

First of all Jon, there is absolutely no polemical nonsense. I believe that if nothing else, discussing the specifics as to any of these kinds of proposals will be helpful in achieving that unity, even if we eventually chose to pursue it in a different manner. I am FAR more interested in achieving the desired results than I am in the means, but by the same token, also believe that actually discussing the means, the specifics of such an effort can only help us achieve our goal.

You mention ILC/PCPCU discussions. I am not aware that there is anything substantial going on in that arena. Could you point me to where I can find the details of these discussions? I will suggest to you though that if you have any intentions of healing the wounds to unity that have separated you from the LWF, you probably should not refer to them as ‘wayward siblings’. That in fact, to me at least, seems sort of “polemical”.

Perhaps that is one reason you are not on the PCPCU.

I am not sure I understand this remark.

I personally think the most radical step that would have the most dramatic impact on the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would be a reconciliation between Rome and Holy Orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean I think different groups should stop dialogue, even if it looks to apologists that no progress is being made.

Jon

I agree that that Orthodoxy/RCC unity would be wonderful and as you know, these two Churches are in dialogue. However, that leaves the rest of Christianity with NO role at least initially. Rather than simply ‘wait around’, why not a solution which requires everyone to take part in trying to achieve some sort of unity.

BTW, personally, I think that this proposed Ecumenical Council would be best attained in stages. All Lutherans would meet in their own Council, heal their divisions doctrinally first. All Calvinists would do the same and on and on. And then ALL of the healed groups could meet together with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics in one Council, with each committing to abide and teach the doctrinal formulations achieved by the consensus. Criticize me if you must, but my personal opinion is that this process would have the best chance of achieving unity. Of course, everyone would have to be committed to potentially altering their doctrines to match up with those that the Holy Spirit would instill into the Council decisions.

Anyway, that’s my personal opinion and I think I have the right to express it.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Lenten,

Thanks,

Topper,

I think it’s a fantastic idea. And It’s not something I had ever even imagined until I saw that quote by the Pontiff the other day. I’d love to see it as I really hate all the division in Christendom. 5 new denominations started every week so this problem isn’t going away.

They have organizations such as “Christians united for Israel” and others that have many pastors form different denominations. So I think it’s feasible.

In regards to a list of essentials, prominent pastor Matt Slick from CARM.org has it all mapped out on his website, which gets a ton of traffic, BTW:

carm.org/essential-doctrines-of-christianity

And he is a total anti-Catholic zealot. Basically the entire ministry might as well be labeled Jack Chick ministry.

BTW, he frequently debates Catholics on his radio show and online. He starts off the conversation by telling you that you are going to hell.

I am very aware of Matt Slick and his ‘regard’ for the Catholic Church. I guess people who think like that might not want to sign on for the proposed Council. It would be their loss.

As you mention, there are 5 new communities being formed each week, and while the various ecumenical efforts are great as far as they go, it doesn’t seem like they have enough positive momentum to reverse the course of dissention. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that the disunity continues to get worse despite of their efforts.

I realize that this ‘Council Thing’ is a pretty radical idea, and I also recognize that there would be HUGE barriers to its formation and success. But like everybody always says "All things are possible with God’. It seems to me that even discussing it and getting a little into the details about how this Council would be structured would be a step in the right direction in that it would at least get people thinking about reconciliation.

God Bless You Lenten, Topper

 

[JustaServant]

As you mention, there are 5 new communities being formed each week,

Documentation please?