Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Duane1966]

This has floated around the internet for a few years now and has been linked from various PRO-Catholic sites in order to improve the level of apologetics

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

#4, #8, and #17 seem to apply to your points

1. Do not exaggerate the inadequacy of Sola Scriptura, as if it were not possible to understand the Bible at all without the Magisterium.** In reality, if one, without help from any external authority, gives the Bible a diligent, sincere, and attentive reading, it will be possible to achieve the right answer to a fair number of questions.** Sola Scriptura is inadequate because it cannot give the Church definitive answers to every question which she needs answered in order to function as the Church. For example, it cannot give the Church a definitive answer regarding whether Christian marriage is dissoluble. On the other hand, the Bible is clear enough that the text alone suffices to tell the Church that homosexuality is evil, among other things. If one fails to recognize this then it will be impossible to come to terms with the patristic witness to the clarity of Scripture

And yet a fair number of answers for most of us is not good enough. Who cares that the Bible is clear enough where people agree, it is where it is unclear where we need a magisterium. And yet whether Christian marriage is dissoluble is maybe more important than the question of homosexuality, as many more people are affected by the taint of divorce. Funny thing about what they say about not giving the Church a definitive answer on divorce. Of all the early Church fathers, I believe only one said Christian marriage was dissoluble. Every other Church father said it was clear from Scripture, that marriage was indissoluble. Yet these authors say the Bible is unclear on this issue. Funny, the Catholic Church says it is clear.

1. Do not cite 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the “prophetic word.” He continues, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”** In context, the “interpretation” which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader.** That is, St. Peter’s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority.

And they are wrong again. From Radio Replies:

1. Peter says that “no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation,” but he adds, “for the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. I., 20-21. You leave out those last words which show that he refers to the prophets, not to ordinary readers.

The last words you quote do not qualify the preceding verse as you think. There is no doubt whatever that St. Peter warns against private interpretation in verse 20, giving the reason in verse 21. The sense is as follows: “Do not presume to think you may privately interpret Scripture for yourself. If Scripture were merely the result of natural human thought, it would be different. But it is not the result of merely human thought. The holy writers were inspired by God-and it is the Spirit of God, not your own reasoning, which can dictate the true sense.” That Spirit of God operates through the Catholic Church, the appointed and authentic religious guide of men. In the same Epistle, III., 16, St. Peter obviously shows that he was opposed to private interpretation when he says that there are many things in Scripture hard to be understood, and which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.

A simple internet search also brought up many Protestants who reject the interpretation in the article you linked to.

1. Never ask, if a Protestant believes his salvation is eternally secure, what motivation he has to do good and avoid evil. The answer is obvious (and embarrassing to the Catholic who asked the question): the love of God. The love of God is sufficient motivation to pursue holiness with all vigor, absent any considerations of self interest. The most that a Catholic can argue in this respect is that Catholic theology, which furnishes men with both the baser motive of self interest and the loftier motive of the love of God, is superior in the practical order. For, in many cases, the baser motive will effectually turn a man from evil to good whereas the loftier motive, even though it should have, did not.

You must not have read any of my posts clear. I have never asked this question. I have seen good arguments by Protestants. The arguments were poor, in my opinion, in the article you linked to.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

We are back to Meltzer’s point that within Judaism the views on oral are varied.

" But is it honest or reasonable or sensible to continue teaching the traditional version of the ‘Unbroken Chain of Oral Law’ without comment when we know that it is not correct?Should our more learned and influential rabbis not openly and clearly explain and distinguish between the two sources of Oral Law? Should they not teach that, both in practise as well as in theory, the Oral Law from Sinai and Rabbinic Oral Law are not of equal status, since even today their colleagues continue to suggest that they are. As shown above, other colleagues have acknowledged that Rabbinic Oral Law may well not be what was originally intended."

reflectingonjudaism.com/content/oral-law

Notice, that article nowhere states that the Oral Law from Sinai, was not equal to the Written Law from Sinai.

There are also many reasons for fracturing, not just over scriptural rule. Rule of Tradition has it share of blame.

Blessings

Duane Einsteins Relative Rule of Fracturing should be taught in all high schools.

Here it is: THE LAWs of RELATIVE FRACTURING

1.) When Fracturing occurs, we can blame misinterpretation of Scripture because it is unclear FOR 99% of said fracturing.
2.) When Fracturing occurs, we can blame Rule of Tradition 1% of the time. (This might be to high)
3.) Anyone that believes that Scripture is clear, should ask themselves, why they belong to the denomination they do, and not the one across the street. If the main difference is doctrinal, because of their denomination’s interpretation of Scripture is different than the one across the street, clearly one of the denominations must have misinterpreted, a, shall we say, clear passage of Scripture. If this has happened refer back to 1.

 

[benhur]

Notice, that article nowhere states that the Oral Law from Sinai, was not equal to the Written Law from Sinai.

Hi Randy,

Agree, I saw that. I do not doubt that some or many find oral/tradition equal or even more than Writ (but not all) . Of course I also question whether that is right, as do others, in Judaism.

Duane Einsteins Relative Rule of Fracturing should be taught in all high schools.

Here it is: THE LAWs of RELATIVE FRACTURING

1.) When Fracturing occurs, we can blame misinterpretation of Scripture because it is unclear FOR 99% of said fracturing.
2.) When Fracturing occurs, we can blame Rule of Tradition 1% of the time. (This might be to high)
3.) Anyone that believes that Scripture is clear, should ask themselves, why they belong to the denomination they do, and not the one across the street. If the main difference is doctrinal, because of their denomination’s interpretation of Scripture is different than the one across the street, clearly one of the denominations must have misinterpreted, a, shall we say, clear passage of Scripture. If this has happened refer back to 1.

Again, I agree . Did not like my post, or felt it was mushy .It is mushy because most tradition is biblical based(99%), so it is hard to split apart, or easy to see it is a an interpretive problem.

I think what I was trying to say is that fracturing occurs whether you are SS or not. Fracturing did not begin in the 15th century though it may have increased. Of course we can say you have no fracturing when everyone believes the same thing, goes by one set of beliefs, has one magisterium . I mean the Mormons do not fracture, nor do the Jw’s , nor Lutherans, or baptists nor Catholics etc for the most part.

Not sure SS has anything to do with scripture being clear or easy or not.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Randy,

Agree, I saw that. I do not doubt that some or many find oral/tradition equal or even more than Writ (but not all) . Of course I also question whether that is right, as do others, in Judaism.

Again, I agree . Did not like my post, or felt it was mushy .It is mushy because most tradition is biblical based(99%), so it is hard to split apart, or easy to see it is a an interpretive problem.

I think what I was trying to say is that fracturing occurs whether you are SS or not. Fracturing did not begin in the 15th century though it may have increased. Of course we can say you have no fracturing when everyone believes the same thing, goes by one set of beliefs, has one magisterium . I mean the Mormons do not fracture, nor do the Jw’s , nor Lutherans, or baptists nor Catholics etc for the most part.

Not sure SS has anything to do with scripture being clear or easy or not.

Blessings

Randy? Are you starwarsfan?

 

[Topper17]

I think what I was trying to say is that fracturing occurs whether you are SS or not. Fracturing did not begin in the 15th century though it may have increased. Of course we can say you have no fracturing when everyone believes the same thing, goes by one set of beliefs, has one magisterium . I mean the Mormons do not fracture, nor do the Jw’s , nor Lutherans, or baptists nor Catholics etc for the most part.

Not sure SS has anything to do with scripture being clear or easy or not.

Blessings

Hi ben,

I think that saying that fracturing ‘may have increased’ beginning with the Reformation might have been something of an understatement. And btw, Lutherans DO fracture.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

Hi ben,

I think that saying that fracturing ‘may have increased’ beginning with the Reformation might have been something of an understatement. And btw, Lutherans DO fracture.

God Bless You ben, Topper

Agree.big time. That is the trouble with freedom of conscience. Still, I think the Lord knows all His sheep, despite many clusterings in His one big Pasture.

Blessings

 

[JonNC]

Do you believe these were written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I believe the Augsburg Confession are a right reflection of the truth of scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;13724419]Fair enough. But your “Tradition” is not authoritative in the sense that Scripture is authoritative, and I don’t see how the early Church could have practiced sola Scriptura when all it had for the first few decades was Tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors.

Why would you expect the use of sola scriptura at that time, at least in a New Testament sense? On the other hand, how often does Christ Himself say, “It is written,…” So, obviously, written scripture was available to Christ.

Using a timeline with approximate dates for the deaths of the Apostles and the formulation of the canon, when was the earliest date at which the Church could have practiced sola Scriptura if it had wanted to?
And what was the latest date by which the Church should have been practicing sola scriptura?

Let’s put it this way, at what point do you think it would have been okay for the Church to claim Tradition that was not consistent with scripture? At what point is it okay for the Church to bind the conscience of the believer to something that is not at least implicit in scripture?
I believe the Church has consistently used scripture as the norm since the early Church. I believe the use of Tradition as a vital tool for the teaching and understanding of the true faith is consistent with the practice of sola scriptura. So, the questions you ask, in my view, do not actually respond to the Lutheran approach to hermeneutics.

Your questions create a dichotomy that I do not believe exists. At best, they assume a view that sola scriptura excludes the use and necessity of Tradition, not to mention the role of the Church. Further, they assume that the writings and teachings of the apostles, not to mention the OT, were somehow missing until the fourth century. I reject these assumptions, hence you are asking me to defend teachings that I don’t hold.

Aw, Jon…don’t you know you’re the only Lutheran in my life?

That’s too bad, Randy. Unlike many Lutherans, I make a terrible jell-o mold.
And anyway, the times they are a-changing.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Duane1966;13717003]Jon, those words were from Pope Gregory the Great. He said Constantinople was subject to the Apostolic See (Rome). He said the second quote. So you can show me writings from the early patriarchs disputing supremacy?

Sure.
“To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…” - St. Cyprian

“Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other Apostles, as Christ Himself testified when, after the triumph of His Passion and Resurrection, He appeared to them and breathed upon them, and said to them all, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if ye forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if ye retain the sins of any, they are retained. - St. Bede

There’s more.

Jon, will you admit that your 600 year, and Arianism statements, as they relate to supremacy are wrong?

I will admit that there may have been some claiming a supremacy of Rome prior to 900 AD. That doesn’t make the claim of supremacy any more true.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I believe the Augsburg Confession are a right reflection of the truth of scripture.

Jon

So…simple yes or no…being a right reflection of scripture…were these written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Being right reflection of scripture…these are free of any error?

 

[Duane1966]

Sure.
“To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…” - St. Cyprian

“Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other Apostles, as Christ Himself testified when, after the triumph of His Passion and Resurrection, He appeared to them and breathed upon them, and said to them all, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if ye forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if ye retain the sins of any, they are retained. - St. Bede

There’s more.

Nice quotes from great saints Jon. But, neither of those saints were patriarchs, so you still have not answered the question.

I will admit that there may have been some claiming a supremacy of Rome prior to 900 AD. That doesn’t make the claim of supremacy any more true.

Jon

Not just some, practically all of the West.

Jon, how come Pope St. Clement says the Corinthians are sinning if the disobey what Jesus says through him?

Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin,

He must be wrong about it being a sin. Why is it a sin for the East to disobey when this particular pope got involved, but not when other popes got involved?

How can someone, in this case Clement, say if you disobey you are sinning, if they don’t have jurisdiction over you?

From St. John Chrysostom:

"In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest;** and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact to the last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’ And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbor ever so little, God will not overlook it." (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])

He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir;** for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren;** and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

"If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."**

**“God allowed him to fall, *because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world ***[Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

“When he is told, ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ he says, ‘Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.’ Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: ‘And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.” (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])

Sure seems like St. John Chrysostom felt like St. Peter had universal jurisdiction. And St. John was made a patriarch later, and yet he never retracted any of these statements.

 

[JonNC]

So…simple yes or no…being a right reflection of scripture…were these written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Being right reflection of scripture…these are free of any error?

Don’t make it more than it is. In terms of doctrine, we believe that the Augsburg Confession presents a right reflection of scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Nice quotes from great saints Jon. But, neither of those saints were patriarchs, so you still have not answered the question.

Not just some, practically all of the West.

Jon, how come Pope St. Clement says the Corinthians are sinning if the disobey what Jesus says through him?

He must be wrong about it being a sin. Why is it a sin for the East to disobey when this particular pope got involved, but not when other popes got involved?

How can someone, in this case Clement, say if you disobey you are sinning, if they don’t have jurisdiction over you?

From St. John Chrysostom:Sure seems like St. John Chrysostom felt like St. Peter had universal jurisdiction. And St. John was made a patriarch later, and yet he never retracted any of these statements.

St. John Chrysostom: “Of all spiritual magistratures,” he says, “the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? ‘And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.’ Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy–no one before, none above him. For he says: ‘First, apostles.’ And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof.”

If the apostolate is the highest rank, then St. Peter has no higher rank to attain. All of the apostles are equal. They are equal in rank and power.

“One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of dignity which unites natures;** for then Peter and John, who were of equal dignity with each other, being both Apostles** and holy disciples would have been one, and yet the two are not one…” St. Cyril

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

St. John Chrysostom: “Of all spiritual magistratures,” he says, “the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? ‘And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.’ Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy–no one before, none above him. For he says: ‘First, apostles.’ And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof.”

If the apostolate is the highest rank, then St. Peter has no higher rank to attain. All of the apostles are equal. They are equal in rank and power.

“One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of dignity which unites natures;** for then Peter and John, who were of equal dignity with each other, being both Apostles** and holy disciples would have been one, and yet the two are not one…” St. Cyril

Jon

Chrysostom quite clearly contradicts you Jon. He says quite clearly that they are not all equal. Jon, just because all are Apostles, does not mean they are all equal. By your logic, since Eisenhower was a general, and so was Bradly, Eisenhower could not tell Bradly what to do. But we know that is not true. Again here is the quote from Chrysostom. You cannot deny that he says they are not all equal.

"In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact to the last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three.

He says Peter, James, and John were above the rest, and that Peter was above James and John.

"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world**

He says Peter is ruler. He never says that the other Apostles are rulers. That means they are not equal. Nor does Jesus say anywhere that they are all equal.

 

[JonNC]

Chrysostom quite clearly contradicts you Jon. He says quite clearly that they are not all equal. Jon, just because all are Apostles, does not mean they are all equal. By your logic, since Eisenhower was a general, and so was Bradly, Eisenhower could not tell Bradly what to do. But we know that is not true. Again here is the quote from Chrysostom. You cannot deny that he says they are **not all equal.**He says Peter, James, and John were above the rest, and that Peter was above James and John.
He says Peter is ruler. He never says that the other Apostles are rulers. That means they are not equal. Nor does Jesus say anywhere that they are all equal.

Then the question remains, why did none of the eastern patriarchates side with the Bishop of Rome in 1054 (please don’t tell me politics, as that was a thousand years ago)? Their claim, not mine, has for more than a thousand years is that St. Peter’s primacy is not one of power, or jurisdiction, or supremacy, but of honor.
Their claim remains today, that Peter is an apostle, but he did not have, ever, supremacy.
They read the same Fathers of the Church. They read the same words, and they do not come to the same conclusion. And without that unity of conclusion, Luther’s remark that councils and popes disagree has validity. That “Scripture and Tradition”, not just sola scriptura, are responsible for division within His One True Church is a fact, and a significant portion of that division has to do with the papal claim of universal jurisdiction, right or wrong.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Chrysostom quite clearly contradicts you Jon. He says quite clearly that they are not all equal. Jon, just because all are Apostles, does not mean they are all equal. By your logic, since Eisenhower was a general, and so was Bradly, Eisenhower could not tell Bradly what to do. But we know that is not true. Again here is the quote from Chrysostom. You cannot deny that he says they are **not all equal.**He says Peter, James, and John were above the rest, and that Peter was above James and John.
He says Peter is ruler. He never says that the other Apostles are rulers. That means they are not equal. Nor does Jesus say anywhere that they are all equal.

Hi D,

This seems stupid to say or ask, but I thought Jerome thought the apostle John greater than Peter, because Peter was married and John was not.

I know the context is to marry or not to, but if the apostles are equal to begin with, then maybe marriage could be a hampering. But if Peter were the greatest, then Jerome is saying quite a bit about what marriage can do negatively. It seems to knock down Peter below John by two notches (from greater, to equal, to less than).

What a mess.

Blessings

" But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although
elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends
upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a
head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why
was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age,
because Peter was the eider:…Peter is an Apostle, and
John is an Apostle - the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter
is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a
prophet. " #788 Jerome against Jovianus

patriarchywebsite.com/bib-patriarchy/Jerome-Against-Jovinianus.txt

 

[MaryT777]

Don’t make it more than it is. In terms of doctrine, we believe that the Augsburg Confession presents a right reflection of scripture.

Jon

The Augsburg Confessions are an interpretive voice for scripture no matter how you look at it. That negates Sola Scripture in and of itself that there are such Confessions.

 

[Duane1966]

Then the question remains, why did none of the eastern patriarchates side with the Bishop of Rome in 1054 (please don’t tell me politics, as that was a thousand years ago)? Their claim, not mine, has for more than a thousand years is that St. Peter’s primacy is not one of power, or jurisdiction, or supremacy, but of honor.
Their claim remains today, that Peter is an apostle, but he did not have, ever, supremacy.
They read the same Fathers of the Church. They read the same words, and they do not come to the same conclusion. And without that unity of conclusion, Luther’s remark that councils and popes disagree has validity. That “Scripture and Tradition”, not just sola scriptura, are responsible for division within His One True Church is a fact, and a significant portion of that division has to do with the papal claim of universal jurisdiction, right or wrong.

Jon

Pride Jon. You know it, and I know it. But politics definitely played a part, and do to this day. But as you said earlier, majority means nothing. If it did, Arianism would be true, as something like 80% of Christendom believed in it. It is hard for Orthodox to prove ever, that would be putting words into the mouth of Eastern bishops of the first four centuries. In reality, they are silent. Cyprian, whom you quoted earlier is an interesting case. He had no problem with papal supremacy, until the supremacy was exercised on him. Was the conflict with the pope the sin of his that both Augustine and Jerome say only his martyrdom redeemed? Something to think about. Also, as was shown earlier, when Victor exercised supremacy, the East in the end did what he had asked of them. It is funny that not one bishop of the East never wrote that he did not have the power to do that. As the Protestant scholar Harnack said in that article I linked to in an earlier post stated:

If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been an innovation then someone would have opposed it, as the Fathers were not slow in doing with innovations in the Church when they cropped up from time to time. However, the Primacy of Rome and the claims of its bishops was no secret or innovation.** If it was, then not one single patristic opponent of the decisions of Rome ever claimed that Rome lacked the authority to render the decisive judgment on matters of doctrine or discipline.** This is significant, because there were Fathers who had both doctrinal and disciplinary disputes with the Roman See from time to time

Jon, we read the same Bible as Lutherans, {except for the disputed books) but we draw different conclusions. How can that be?

 

[JonNC]

The Augsburg Confessions are an interpretive voice for scripture no matter how you look at it. That negates Sola Scripture in and of itself that there are such Confessions.

Actually, it is precisely how sola scriptura works. The Augsburg Confession is normed by the final norm, scripture.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The Augsburg Confessions are an interpretive voice for scripture no matter how you look at it. That negates Sola Scripture in and of itself that there are such Confessions.

Meaning of sola scriptura:

Bible the final authority
Tradition secondary authority , and authoritative

sola scriptura = prima scriptura , it dosent mean a lack of tradition