Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

But then we are faced with the problem of whose interpretation of scripture is to be accepted.

I say that the Assumption of Mary is implicit in scripture; you may disagree.

I accept the doctrine on the strength of it being found explicitly in Tradition, implicitly in Scripture and promulgated by an infallible Magisterium.

You reject it because you do not find it taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture - as you (and your relatively nouveau spiritual forefathers) interpret those scriptures. And no appeal to Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium can move you to do otherwise.

Thus, sola scriptura and private judgment are the pillars upon which Protestant theology rests.

Hi Randy,
Just to follow up, I want to respond to the part of your posted that I bolded.

I know that you used the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin as an example. Considering my views, it just happened to not be a good choice to prove your point. So, I’m willing to extend beyond that, and point out briefly a few examples where the charge that I (or Lutherans in general) reject certain teachings because they are not explicit in scripture, but more importantly, that "no appeal Sacred Tradition can move me (us).

1. Unless you are here willing to state that the ancient creeds are something other than Sacred Tradition, we are so moved by the creeds as to pledge ourselves to them:
   

   The first section, not accidentally, in the Book of Concord consists of the three ancient creeds. Not a Luther writing, or that of Melanchthon, but writings of the early Church and councils.​

   The Epitome of the Formula says about them:​

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Not just some lukewarm acknowledgement of them, we pledge ourselves to them.

Luther, in the Small Catechism, teaches about the Apostles Creed

1. Regarding the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist:
   

   Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession"​

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Here he not only sites scripture, he defends the real presence with the Universal Church, east and west. He further defends the doctrine by referencing two of the Fathers, Vulgarius and Cyril.

continued

 

[JonNC]

#Luther, OTOH, goes further by referencing the Fathers as a group:
*"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”*

1. While the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is rather obvious in scripture, we can take a look at perpetual virginity, certainly not obvious, barely implicit in scripture.
   
   #From the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:
   “On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.”

And from Luther:

*“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.” *

“It should not be understood that Joseph knew Mary afterwards. Rather this is a manner of speaking in the Scriptures. As in Genesis 8, the raven did not come back “until the soil dried out;” the Scripture does not mean that the raven came back after that. So also it does not mean to say that Joseph knew Mary afterwards.”

“Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25). This had to be understood, as he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome.”

Now, no Lutheran is required to believe in her perpetual virginity, but many do, and that doesn’t come directly from scripture.

Randy, to say that we are not influenced a great deal by Tradition and the early Church is simply false. As Martin Chemnitz said:
“For we can affirm with a good conscience that we have, after reading the Holy Scripture, applied ourselves and yet daily apply ourselves to the extent that the grace of the Lord permits to inquiry into and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer antiquity. For we assign to the writings of the fathers their proper and, indeed, honorable place which is due them, because they have clearly expounded many passages of Scripture, have defended the ancient dogmas of the church against new corruptions of heretics, and have done so on the basis of Scripture, have correctly explained many points of doctrine, have recorded many things concerning the history of the primitive church, and have usefully called attention to many other things. And we long for this, that in the life to come we may see what we believe and hope concerning the grace of God on account of His Son, the Redeemer, as members of the true catholic church; that we may see (I say) the Son of God Himself, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and fathers, who held to the true foundation, and may enjoy intimate friendship with them to all eternity. Therefore we examine with considerable diligence the consensus of the true, learned, and purer antiquity, and we love and praise the testimonies of the fathers which agree with the Scripture.”

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stars,

This ridiculous caricature is cringeworthy, you quote one skeptic who twists what the doctrine means , and take a scholars quote out of its context , and you expect us to believe this

Thanks for your response.

First of all, I had no expectation that any SS Christian was going to ‘believe this’. What I was hoping for, and I don’t think that it was too much to expect, is that they would consider it, rather than simply dismissing it without consideration.

In fact, I appreciate your forceful comment, but at the same time need to tell you that the caricature that you mention is one that was published by one of Protestantism’s leading Scholars. As for McGrath (or whoever) being a ‘skeptic’ with regard to Sola Scriptura, he joins at least 70% of Christianity in that respect. Should the comments of ALL of us be disregarded because we can see the extremely obvious problems with SS?

It also seems that you might believe that McGrath was misrepresented in my post. I can assure you that that is NOT the case. But if you really want to find out for yourself, rather than simply making an unsupported allegation, you might want to buy a sampling of his many books, study them, and then you can confirm for yourself that he was not taken out of context.

My suggestions from among McGrath’s 40 or so books would be as follows:

”Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, (2007)
“Reformation Thought, An Introduction”, (1988)
“Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”, (2009)
“Iustitia Dei, A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification”, (1986)

Wiki has the following to say about McGrath:

“Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford,[1] and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College.[2] He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King’s College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture,[3] Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest.[4][5]”

If you really want to find out what he thinks you could always contact him at Oxford. Short of that, possibly a few other quotes from McGrath would assist in putting my previous quotes in context.

“The early Reformation was characterized by the optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

That ‘optimistic belief’ has now been proven to have been rather foolish. If it was really possible to establish exactly what the Bible said, there wouldn’t be such tremendous doctrinal dissension and confusion within the Sola Scriptura communities.
**
“The difficulty for Protestantism was that it was found to possess no higher authority that can declare on or the other (opinions) to be in the right. **If Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, no interpretative authority can be place above Scripture…… …**We find here a set of competing Protestant orthodoxies, each with its own grounding in the Bible, **its own internal understanding of the internal dynamics of faith, and its own parameters of adjudication as to what is acceptable and what is not.” Alister McGrath, “A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 215-6

A few pages later McGrath documents some of the issues upon which Protestants disagree:

**“How is the Bible to be interpreted? This unavoidable question lies at the heart of Protestantism. **In virtually every debate that takes place within the Protestant community of faith – whether concerning the origins of humanity, the ministry of women, the nature of the end times, or the legitimacy of abortion – all sides will make an appeal to the Bible. One side will accentuate one set of texts and the other side another set, or both will appeal to the same basic texts yet interpret them differently. The outcome is a range of interpretations of the Bible. Some issues on which Protestants have offered – and continue to offer - significantly different readings of the Bible include:

1. Should infants be baptized?
2. Is Christ really present in the bread and wine?
3. Does baptism effect or signify the forgiveness of sins?
4. Should women exercise leadership roles in churches?
5. Should Christians fight in wars?”
6. What is the most authentically “biblical” form of worship?
7. Are Catholics Christians?”
   Alister McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 218

Stars, to hopefully bring the McGrath position into concrete form here, let’s say that you, a Lutheran, and a Calvinist, both of you being Sola Scriptura Christians, are having a disagreement about the Real Presence. **Given that the Scriptures and Christ and the Fathers call us all to unity, how do you two adjudicate your doctrinal differences? **
God Bless You Stars, Topper

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, I had no expectation that any SS Christian was going to ‘believe this’. What I was hoping for, and I don’t think that it was too much to expect, is that they would consider it, rather than simply dismissing it without consideration.

In fact, I appreciate your forceful comment, but at the same time need to tell you that the caricature that you mention is one that was published by one of Protestantism’s leading Scholars. As for McGrath (or whoever) being a ‘skeptic’ with regard to Sola Scriptura, he joins at least 70% of Christianity in that respect. Should the comments of ALL of us be disregarded because we can see the extremely obvious problems with SS?

It also seems that you might believe that McGrath was misrepresented in my post. I can assure you that that is NOT the case. But if you really want to find out for yourself, rather than simply making an unsupported allegation, you might want to buy a sampling of his many books, study them, and then you can confirm for yourself that he was not taken out of context.

My suggestions from among McGrath’s 40 or so books would be as follows:

”Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, (2007)
“Reformation Thought, An Introduction”, (1988)
“Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”, (2009)
“Iustitia Dei, A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification”, (1986)

Wiki has the following to say about McGrath:

“Alister Edgar McGrath (born 23 January 1953) is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford,[1] and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College.[2] He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King’s College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture,[3] Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest.[4][5]”

If you really want to find out what he thinks you could always contact him at Oxford. Short of that, possibly a few other quotes from McGrath would assist in putting my previous quotes in context.

“The early Reformation was characterized by the optimistic belief that it was possible to establish exactly what the Bible said on everything of importance and make this the basis for a reformed Christianity.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 161

That ‘optimistic belief’ has now been proven to have been rather foolish. If it was really possible to establish exactly what the Bible said, there wouldn’t be such tremendous doctrinal dissension and confusion within the Sola Scriptura communities.
**
“The difficulty for Protestantism was that it was found to possess no higher authority that can declare on or the other (opinions) to be in the right. **If Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, no interpretative authority can be place above Scripture…… …**We find here a set of competing Protestant orthodoxies, each with its own grounding in the Bible, **its own internal understanding of the internal dynamics of faith, and its own parameters of adjudication as to what is acceptable and what is not.” Alister McGrath, “A History of Defending the Truth”, pg. 215-6

A few pages later McGrath documents some of the issues upon which Protestants disagree:

**“How is the Bible to be interpreted? This unavoidable question lies at the heart of Protestantism. **In virtually every debate that takes place within the Protestant community of faith – whether concerning the origins of humanity, the ministry of women, the nature of the end times, or the legitimacy of abortion – all sides will make an appeal to the Bible. One side will accentuate one set of texts and the other side another set, or both will appeal to the same basic texts yet interpret them differently. The outcome is a range of interpretations of the Bible. Some issues on which Protestants have offered – and continue to offer - significantly different readings of the Bible include:

1. Should infants be baptized?
2. Is Christ really present in the bread and wine?
3. Does baptism effect or signify the forgiveness of sins?
4. Should women exercise leadership roles in churches?
5. Should Christians fight in wars?”
6. What is the most authentically “biblical” form of worship?
7. Are Catholics Christians?”
   Alister McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 218

Stars, to hopefully bring the McGrath position into concrete form here, let’s say that you, a Lutheran, and a Calvinist, both of you being Sola Scriptura Christians, are having a disagreement about the Real Presence. **Given that the Scriptures and Christ and the Fathers call us all to unity, how do you two adjudicate your doctrinal differences? **
God Bless You Stars, Topper

That (large red) In and of itself is a HUGE deal.

If we are correct and Jesus Christ is the source, center and summit of our faith in the Eucharist, then most protestants are spiritually malnourished and in serious threat of hell fire. And you could even make the argument that they are not real Christians(I’m not making that argument, but others have)

If the Baptist and others are correct and communion is just a symbolic ordinance, then we as Catholics are guilty of wafer idolatry and WE are in danger of hell fire for worshiping something other God, Himself.

So I always pose this question…does doctrine matter and who (and by what authority) determines “essential” from non essential?

Good post, Topper!!!

 

[JonNC]

This ridiculous caricature is cringeworthy, you quote one skeptic who twists what the doctrine means , and take a scholars quote out of its context , and you expect us to believe this

You know, Stars, the rise of how Lutheranism uses scripture as the final norm came about, at least in part, as a result of the failure of the use of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, along with the Magisterium, to maintain unity of agreement on the doctrines of the Church.
Even with this in mind, Topper presents us with this scenario:

Stars, to hopefully bring the McGrath position into concrete form here, let’s say that you, a Lutheran, and a Calvinist, both of you being Sola Scriptura Christians, are having a disagreement about the Real Presence. Given that the Scriptures and Christ and the Fathers call us all to unity, how do you two adjudicate your doctrinal differences?

The differences that we have with the Calvinists regarding the real presence are stark and clear. He is right, however, our differences do not conform with Christ’s call for unity, and this has been the case for almost 500 years.
OTOH, the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Rome has lasted for almost a thousand years, and that has been with both sides claiming Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
I guess the answer to Topper’s question is, we don’t know. You’ve been at it for twice as long. Perhaps you can show us how to adjudicate differences.

As for the list, we Lutheran have an answer:

1. Should infants be baptized? Yes
2. Is Christ really present in the bread and wine? No, the bread and wine are the body and blood
3. Does baptism effect or signify the forgiveness of sins? yes
4. Should women exercise leadership roles in churches? depends on the role, but not the ordained ministry
5. Should Christians fight in wars?” depends
6. What is the most authentically “biblical” form of worship? There are numerous
7. Are Catholics Christians?” Absolutely

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

The bolded part I disagree with. SS is a broken system, but I hardly think it encourages heresy.

The trans-denominational fundamentalist conferences of the late 19th century were formed to fight the heresy of liberal theology. I don’t think it’s quite fair to say they encouraged it. The purpose of the conferences were to form the ‘fundamental’ doctrines of Christianity. which is, an authority. Even among independent churches you have a ‘doctrinal’ statement which the authority as to what that church believes. So there IS authority. A fence that prevents the church from falling into heresy.

Again, I agree SS is a broken system for a variety of reasons. But encouraging heresy? No, that goes too far.

You say that SS is a broken system. It seems that the question then is whether it was ever NOT broken. As you probably know, the Catholics of the time of the early Reformation warned that SS would lead to massive doctrinal dissension and confusion. They had the wisdom to recognize that SS could lead in only one direction.** Do you believe that SS ever was or ever could be anything other than “broken”? **

As for those conferences, they were an effort to stem the tide of doctrinal confusion. They may have even had a positive effect. However, at that point the cows were so far out of the barn as to be completely over the horizon.

Various ecclesiastical communities can establish themselves as being ‘in charge’ of doctrine for their members, but as we have seen from history, that hardly keeps people from deciding from their own ‘authority’ to interpret, that those communities were wrong. They then either start their own community or vote with their feet and go to one that they feel is more in line with what they, personally believe.

As long as the individual has the option to leave and be able to justify it to themselves, there WILL be continued fracturing. The ONLY way to maintain doctrinal unity is to have ONLY ONE CHURCH, exactly the way that Christ and the Apostles wanted it.

**How about this Just? Rather than the term “encouraging”, how about if Sola Scriptura INSURES or maybe even GUARANTEES that there will be heresy? **

I wish I had started collecting the various conflicting definitions of Sola Scriptura 20 years ago or so. I’ll bet I would have over a dozen by now, with none of them in agreement with another. That’s the thing that is so confusing. The various SS communities cannot even agree on what SS is and they cannot agree on the principals by which Scripture is interpreted.

If there is only one Church, there is at least the possibility to have the unity of doctrine and the actual doctrines that Christ and the Apostles taught. But if there are competing communities with differing doctrines, then heresy has come into play. **Of course the various new communities can claim that it is the Original Church which has fallen into heresy, but on what authority do they do so? The only thing that they can use to justify their claim is Sola Scriptura and the Interpretation of their particular community, and since these things have already been PROVEN to be unreliable, that means that their accusations have very little credibility. **

Does that make sense?

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[Rohzek]

In view of Protestants general refusal to admit to extra-biblical writings, I did not attempt to support mine with such extra-biblical writings as they tend to go past them without much impact.

But since you brought it up, it is easy to proof text any position. Just use a dragnet to scoop up all those in favor and hide those not in favor. Since I have not gone into depth those sources that you provided, I am not able to establish the proper context of which those statements were made. Notwithstanding that, you understand that the Church does not agree with ALL opinions of every Church Fathers, Latin or Greek.

It is a bit more exhaustive than that insofar that I included every Latin exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew from approximately 400 AD to 1200 AD. The only one lacking is the anonymous commentary in the High Medieval Glossa Ordinaria, which mostly just cropped together the interpretations of previous writers. So this isn’t just a few people here and there believing such. It’s pretty widespread, especially when the manuscript tradition was widespread for at least Hrabanus Maurus and Hilary.

General speaking without going into specifics, it would be difficult to see how one without the keys to bind and loose can do it. You claim with faith. The Arians probably believed faithfully what they thought was right. They quoted scriptures to support their stand too (the ancient version of sola scriptura). Where they failed was in Traditions. What they preached is not backed up by Traditions. Do you think they would have the ability to bind and loose something different that was taught previously? Heaven would be in chaos if everyone can bind and loose different contradicting doctrines as long as they do it with “faith”. It is difficult to give credence to a lay person’s claim to have the ability to bind and loose. How could he prove his case? Even if he can do miracles, the Church still need to gives its blessings to recognize that individual’s gift. The Church is all too aware of the power of the evil one to pass himself off as a being of light.

Not I, but rather St. Paschasius Radbertus, St. Hrabanus Maurus, and most importantly St. Hilary of Poitiers.

Perhaps you can give some examples of those that had the power to bind and loose without being given the keys to do that.

You’ve misunderstood me. According to Hilary et al, all of those who have the faith have the keys. There is no separation between the two. In addition to that, it was the Patristic and Latin consensus for at least 1200 years that the keys were synonymous with the powers of binding and loosing. They were not considered to be something different from those powers.

 

[ericc]

It is a bit more exhaustive than that insofar that I included every Latin exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew from approximately 400 AD to 1200 AD. The only one lacking is the anonymous commentary in the High Medieval Glossa Ordinaria, which mostly just cropped together the interpretations of previous writers. So this isn’t just a few people here and there believing such. It’s pretty widespread, especially when the manuscript tradition was widespread for at least Hrabanus Maurus and Hilary.

Not I, but rather St. Paschasius Radbertus, St. Hrabanus Maurus, and most importantly St. Hilary of Poitiers.

You’ve misunderstood me. According to Hilary et al, all of those who have the faith have the keys. There is no separation between the two. In addition to that, it was the Patristic and Latin consensus for at least 1200 years that the keys were synonymous with the powers of binding and loosing. They were not considered to be something different from those powers.

1 set of keys were given to Peter only. He never relinquished these keys. Only he can open and shut with those keys. Can another open the door that Peter has shut with his keys? Who has the other set of keys? None.

The faith that you quoted The Fathers is based upon the Catholic Church. There was no other faith then except for heretical faiths. Since Peter has the only set of keys, the keys that the Fathers refer to should only be seen as generic keys to heaven, not the one specifically held by Peter. Only he can open and shut. If others posses keys that can open what Peter has shut, then those keys are worthless. Imagine the keys of your house that everyone on the street has a duplicate of. You might as well not have a door.

 

[Rohzek]

1 set of keys were given to Peter only. He never relinquished these keys. Only he can open and shut with those keys. Can another open the door that Peter has shut with his keys? Who has the other set of keys? None.

The faith that you quoted The Fathers is based upon the Catholic Church. There was no other faith then except for heretical faiths. Since Peter has the only set of keys, the keys that the Fathers refer to should only be seen as generic keys to heaven, not the one specifically held by Peter. Only he can open and shut. If others posses keys that can open what Peter has shut, then those keys are worthless. Imagine the keys of your house that everyone on the street has a duplicate of. You might as well not have a door.

That’s not true. Allow me to quote from what I thought you read, because it directly contradicts your argument:

As it can be seen, all of these writers understood Peter as the rock only metaphorically. They focused on the rock as either being Christ or the confession of faith. Almost all of the writers considered the keys to be the exact same as the powers of binding and loosing, and not to be a distinct entity. The only exceptions are Jerome and Rupert, only because Jerome and Rupert do not discuss the keys. Therefore, they all believed that all of the apostles received the keys, with a few exceptions: Hrabanus Maurus, Paschasius Radbertus, and Hilary of Poitiers . Their positions were quite radical in that they believed that every Christian believer held the keys by virtue of faith, not just the apostles and their successors.

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/

And as for there being other keys, you have no grounds found in Tradition for that statement. The Fathers and Saints quoted in the above link clearly state that those same keys given to Peter were also given to the apostles, at least. There never has been a mention of “generic keys” and “Petrine keys” as though they are different. Such notions are novelties and innovations.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

I am very happy to see that here, on this particular thread about Sola Scriptura, it is permissible to bring up Luther and use him to defend a position.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Luther, in the Small Catechism, teaches about the Apostles Creed….

#Luther, OTOH, goes further by referencing the Fathers as a group:

*"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”*

And from Luther:

*“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.” *

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I am very happy to see that here, on this particular thread about Sola Scriptura, it is permissible to bring up Luther and use him to defend a position.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

I don’t think using Luther, or anyone else, regarding a position related to the thread is impermissible. Apparently, what the Eric doesn’t want any of us to do is hijack a thread by making it all about Luther, or anyone else, with the intent of grinding a personal axe. But it isn’t my desire to speak for him.

His blessing also with you.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

I don’t think using Luther, or anyone else, regarding a position related to the thread is impermissible. Apparently, what the Eric doesn’t want any of us to do is hijack a thread by making it all about Luther, or anyone else, with the intent of grinding a personal axe. But it isn’t my desire to speak for him.

His blessing also with you.

Jon

I can assure you Jon, that nobody that I know of here is doing anything even close to grinding a personal ax.

 

[benhur]

It is hardly circular. The Church didn’t claim for herself. Jesus said to take it to the Church. Unless you doubt Jesus said that. But we are discussing personal interpretation not the Church.

Hi ericc,

Ok it is not circular because your church says so.

Yes scripture tells us when one is at fault with you talk to him, then take another with you, and finally take it to the congregation/church.

We are discussing SS, not private interpretation.

As the Egyptian eunuch said, without a guide , how can one know? For us, we can check against what the Church teaches. What/who do you check against?

The Ethiopian and Philip both held to normative Writ. That does not exclude the church/teacher/preacher etc.

Someone mentioned "sour grapes’’ in a post about P’s. Maybe it is the other way around, sour grapes because we go to other teachers/preachers/ churches on some things.

You wouldn’t want to check against a book

Why not, everybody else does, even the CC.

How can it not be a problem? A thousand persons can claim a thousand different interpretations and all claim to speak for the Church?

Ok , so just do not let them speak with authority, for that is centralized, like unionized (for many churches, ordination).

Why not ask how can folks be so far apart on the same evidences, the same Lord ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

As I have said previously, anyone can speak truth. The gifts are given to many even to those that didn’t walk together as the Lord has said. However, it is clear that even those that didn’t walk together do sing from the same hymn book. My focus is more of those that don’t. Those that preached a different gospel. Those that denies the Church that Jesus himself built on Peter. Those that reject the Shepard that Jesus appointed when it was time for him to leave the Apostles.

I’d like to reiterate the point I made previously. It is fine to disagree (a mechanism has been set up by Jesus to resolve issues) but it is not fine to leave and sing a different tune.

Yes , sometimes I think folks/church do not care so much about what you think, practice, espouse, as long as you do not rock the boat, and keep on being a card carrying member otherwise.

Blessings

 

[JonNC]

I can assure you Jon, that nobody that I know of here is doing anything even close to grinding a personal ax.

That’s good to hear, Topper. I know that on an anonymous setting, where facial expressions cannot be seen, and voices cannot be heard, that the type and volume of written text can make it appear that way.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Good post.

I’d say SS is a modern day assumption by our separated brethren.

Looking at the 3 Abrahamic faiths, all rely on something outside their man texts. Judaism has the Talmud, Islam has Hadith and of course we have the magisterium and capital “T” tradition.

The few denominations that are close to us actually practice “Prima scriptura”. And that is sort of what Catholicism practices. So we aren’t all that far apart from that faction of protestant Christendom.

Hi La,

never heard of "prima scriptura’’. is it this : “Christian doctrine that canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” other sources of divine revelation”.?

At first glance sounds like SS.

Also, it is my understanding that SS was a necessary response to veering a way from “prima” to “aequalis scriptura”.

Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

That’s good to hear, Topper. I know that on an anonymous setting, where facial expressions cannot be seen, and voices cannot be heard, that the type and volume of written text can make it appear that way.

Jon

It seems like you are trying to make a point here, but I don’t know what it is. Could you please be more explicit?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

never heard of "prima scriptura’’. is it this : “Christian doctrine that canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” other sources of divine revelation”.?

At first glance sounds like SS.

Also, it is my understanding that SS was a necessary response to veering a way from “prima” to “aequalis scriptura”.

Blessings

Greetings, Ben.

In a sense, yes it is.

The Catholic church would agree, so long as the scripture is properly interpreted.

Not sure of your particular denomination, but in the Anglican church I was introduced to the book of Wisdom and the other “disputed” books as they still use them for teaching purposes and bible studies, etc.

It was also not uncommon to hear the pastor quote form the Didache or a ECF in regards to church practices. The reason= "We don’t want to try and reinvent the Lord’s church" is the explanation given.

I think that’s a good idea because some of these churches have turned into worldly looking rock concerts, tbh.

The Lord be with you!

 

[Topper17]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your post and your kind words.

Stars, to hopefully bring the McGrath position into concrete form here, let’s say that you, a Lutheran, and a Calvinist, both of you being Sola Scriptura Christians, are having a disagreement about the Real Presence. **Given that the Scriptures and Christ and the Fathers call us all to unity, how do you two adjudicate your doctrinal differences? **

That (large red) In and of itself is a HUGE deal.

If we are correct and Jesus Christ is the source, center and summit of our faith in the Eucharist, then most protestants are spiritually malnourished and in serious threat of hell fire. And you could even make the argument that they are not real Christians(I’m not making that argument, but others have)

If the Baptist and others are correct and communion is just a symbolic ordinance, then we as Catholics are guilty of wafer idolatry and WE are in danger of hell fire for worshiping something other God, Himself.

So I always pose this question…does doctrine matter and who (and by what authority) determines “essential” from non essential?

Good post, Topper!!!

The question of what is an ‘essential’ is also key, as you note.

Over the years I have seen a lot of people claim that all Protestants are in agreement ‘on the essentials’, and as such, that they have some sort of ‘unity’ (small ‘u’ of course). When I see that I normally ask them for a list of these ‘essentials’. The veteran Protestant apologists will NEVER give you a list, even though they had just told you that, essentially, there was a list. Once in a while, a newbi will offer up a list, which by the way is always EXTREMELY SHORT. So then I ask them for what the ‘accepted understanding’ is for each of these issues. The result is normally something that very few Christians would agree with.

The point is that within Protestantism, the list of so called ‘essentials’ goes all over the map as does everything else with the beliefs of the Reformation communities. And yet, we hear from some of them all about the ‘clarity’ of the Scriptures. Well – if the Scriptures are so amazingly clear on its doctrinal teachings, then how in the world to all of (those other) Protestants manage to get it all so wrong?

Heiko Oberman, a Reformed Scholar makes the following rather surprising assessment about Sola Scriptura and the supposed clarity of Scripture.

**“For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seem to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures.”**Oberman, “Luther, Man Between God and the Devil”, pg. 220

The answer of course is that Sola Scriptura is not a teaching of Christ or of the Apostles, and it is also something that the Fathers would have recognized as heresy. Without a organized and visible Church to authoritatively teach and correct, there will be more and more denominaliztion and more and more secularization.

If the Scriptures are actually NOT ‘clear’, which they obviously are not, then that places a tremendous burden on any idea that Sola Scriptura could lead to doctrinal purity. Plus, when you throw in all of the various and conflicting human mechanisms by which to interpret Scripture, the result is doctrinal chaos.

Protestantism has absolutely no way out of its problems with doctrinal dissention and confusion. It cannot settle its internal doctrinal differences because each ecclesiastical community is so vested in its own authority. All of these various ‘authorities’ are supposedly ‘Biblical’ and are also supposedly the best at interpreting Scripture. But then, along comes another Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli or another dozen John Smiths, and then we have another addition to the now more than 40,000 separate doctrinally independent groups.

What you almost never see is a Protestant explanation which assigns responsibility for all this doctrinal chaos on anything BUT Sola Scriptura.

I wonder what a complete outsider (to Christianity) would think about the massive doctrinal confusion that has developed within Protestantism in the short 500 years it has been in existence.

God Bless You LA, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

It seems like you are trying to make a point here, but I don’t know what it is. Could you please be more explicit?

Nope. Just responding to your comments.

Jon