Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[ericc]

cont’d
Thank you for the "may not be’’. Sounds like the conditionality I also propose to all churches, teachers etc. being ‘spot on’.

I conditioned it because Orthodox Church is apostolic.

Here is your circular part. The church must formally tell you what it all means. Like the bible is only a textbook to be studied by "lawyers’’ (clerics) but not lay people. I guess we are not all disciples, and to be proficient and gifted in rightly dividing the Word.

The Church has been instructed to oversee/manage these disputes. The Church came up with the written “manual”. When she refers to the manual, you called it circular? I don’t follow. When the manual is silent, she refers to “management”. Hardly circular but very much in line with how an institution operates. Similar in some ways to Judaism: Written Torah and the Talmud corresponding to our Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The interpretation of Scriptures is always in light of Sacred Tradition. That was how Arianism was fought and defeated because although Arianism used Scriptures to back its teachings, Arianism is not back by Traditions.

All I know is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sacred Scripture, your “convenient collection”, is sufficient . Why? Because that sufficiency rests totally on the Holy Spirit. He God breathed it, He inspired the readers to see it as such, and inspired the readers to rightly divide it. He even inspires us to see the inspiration in a teacher. This sufficiency is both infallible(His part) and yet conditional , on our part depending on our depth of walk, etc… and His pure graces.
.Yes, we all follow someone, have spiritual fathers (padres).

The HS didn’t say written Scripture is all there is to it. Sure it is profitable but it hardly is “all”. Not all of God’s messages to mankind were committed to a book. The Jews have the Oral Torah the Talmud which originally wasn’t written. If written Scriptures is sufficient without an interpreter, Jesus need not institute a Church at all. But he did and early Christianity revolved around the Church and not on written words. The written word was just an aid then since preaching was all oral.

But are you traditions good for all times? How do you know that your scared tradition did not begin also with ear tickling, expediency, going with the flow etc. For sure it is now “tradition”.

Sacred Tradition (from where the Bible was birthed) is good for all times. There is no new invention here. What would be a “new” invention in your mind?

Not picking on you church, but as you point out , it is a problem in P churches. I only suggest it has always been the challenge since the beginning of the church.

It has always been a challenge since Day 1. The Church struggled to survive against all odds. Emperors were against it. Heresies abound, at one stage Arianism almost took over. Schisms, rebellions, scandals, secular kings wanted to control it, bad clergy(popes, bishops, priest, laity) you named it, we have it. Yet she lives witnessing the guarantee given by Christ. Our doctrines remained intact. As Jesus prayed for Peter to remain strong, so too we must continue to do so.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post.

It is at least as specific as the claim some make that divisions between the various western non-Catholic communions is caused by sola scriptura. The clarity is evident in a thousand years of division, and that this division is doctrinal. AFAIK, Catholics and Orthodox rely on Scripture and Tradition in this regard. Now, unless you have evidence that the division happened without regard to Scripture and Tradition, outside of it, it seems clear that Scripture and Tradition failed to maintain unity. Specifically, the central disagreement, for a thousand years now, is the role of the pope, what his primacy should be, as determined by scripture and Tradition.

Jon, you made the following claim:

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.

This claim seems to infer that the way that Lutheranism ‘uses Scripture’ came about in part because of the failure of the Catholic Church to maintain Christian Unity - Pre Reformation. The implication of course was that the Schism of 500 years prior was viewed by the Reformers as a failure of the Church, and presumably, that they felt that they were honor bound to jump in there and develop a ‘better method’ of ‘using Scripture’, so as to provide a system that would be able to be a better job of maintain Christian unity.

Well, first of all, IF that had been part of their thinking at the time, then they were horribly wrong given the massive doctrinal dissension that their concept of Christian Authority has produced. Secondly, and this was my initial point - I have never seen any indication in the literature that that was actually a consideration for the Reformers. I asked you for supporting evidence as to the point that you made and was virtually certain that you would not be able to provide any. You have not, which means that the point that you made is completely unsupported by any historical evidence, let alone the contention that it was a primary consideration regarding the development of the Lutheran means of ‘using Scripture’. I will still grant that it MIGHT have been a minor factor, but nothing more than that.

So, in your extensive study of the Reformation era, you’ve never come across:

Luther here gives words to the issue that the Lutheran Reformers faced. Now, we can disagree regarding whether or not they were right. We might even be able to agree that they were right on some things, and wrong on others. But the basic reason why the hermeneutical principle of maintaining scripture as the final norm is here.

Of course I have seen that quote and in fact on this thread and the other SS thread I have quoted at least a couple of Scholars who indicate that this quote is PROOF that Luther here professes Sola Scriptura. Luther appeals to his personal conscience and also says that he will not recant unless he is personally convicted by Scripture and plain reason. In other words, Luther himself, personally and without assistance or reference to ANY other authority, will decide what is right and what is wrong. This is exactly the definition of Private Interpretation and that is exactly how the Reformation was founded.

I fail to see how this quote supports your contention that Lutheranism’s use of Scripture was somehow the result or partially the result of the Schism. The fact that Luther himself never seemed to be very concerned with the Schism proves my point. That is unless you have information to the contrary.

OTOH, if you wish to maintain that the divisions of the One Holy Church are because of human sin, and not because of hermeneutics, per se, then we can agree.

If you’re saying that I should recognize that, even in Apostolic times, there were disagreements, that’s obvious. And I’m not chiding anyone. I’m recognizing a fact. I won’t hold the CC to a standard higher than our own: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. "

If sin were the prime factor in problem of denominalization, then that would mean that the level of sin within Protestantism is FAR higher than it is in either the RCC or the Orthodox. While sin is obviously a factor, I think that your explanation is far too simplistic and fails to take into account the role of Sola Scriptura in the fracturing. If it were just sin, then sin would not have been much of a factor for 1000 years, and then been a MASSIVE factor in the Sola Scriptura communities over the last 500 years. Is that really where you want to go? I don’t think so.

 

[Topper17]

Somewhere in a discussion of the primacy of the pope here on CAF, I mentioned that all the other patriarchates disagreed with the pope. I was reminded that the majority of the bishops, at one point, stood with Arius. Doctrinal truth does not necessarily depend on majorities.
But if you want to argue that division is okay so long as you are in the majority, be my guest.

Why in the world would you possibly suggest that I would argue that division is OK Jon?

There is no doubt that doctrinal truth does not depend on the majorities. It does however have everything to do with the speed or rate of fracturing. The difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox is that THEY DO NOT HOLD TO SOLA SCRIPTURA. As such it is VERY CLEAR as to how they have managed to hold unity almost perfectly when viewed in comparison to the divisiveness that Protestantism has exhibited in only half the time.

I pray that it happens as soon, but close works in horseshoes, not doctrine. If they are that close, then schism should be easily reconciled. A thousand years, Topper. A thousand years.
And again, if you think division is okay as long as you are MUCH closer than we are, be my guest. Personally, I don’t see it as a contest, but we’ve been through that before, too.

May I quote you on that? That: “Close works in horseshoes, not doctrine”?

I think that it applies FAR more to the doctrinally scattered Lutheran communities, who by the way, don’t even all hold to the same Confessional documents. It’s a glass houses thing. You should not point a finger at the RCC and the Orthodox when your own communion is FAR more divided in terms of the number of doctrinally independent communities.

We’ve been over this before, as well. Lutheran synods are generally part of two groups: the LWF, and the ILC. But just remember, to the extend that there are western non-catholic communions of any number, it is a division of the western Church, of which, as you pointed out, the Catholic Church is the largest.

Please correct me if I get the details wrong here Jon:

There are roughly 270 separate doctrinally independent Lutheran communities today with a total number of Lutherans worldwide reported as somewhere between 70 and 120 million, something like 4% of Christianity overall. In fact, the list of Lutheran organizations is as follows:

LWF – 72 million members from 144 separate bodies
ILC – 3,450,000 members from about 30 separate bodies, with the LCMS being the prime member.
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference – 20 bodies including the ELS and WELS
Evangelical Catholic – 7 bodies
Unaffiliated Lutheran denominations – roughly 70 including at least 5 from the US.

From what I can tell, each of these 270 separate communites are ALL responsible for their own doctrinal positions, and while they might be guided doctrinally by their overarching organization, at the very least, they will determine their own doctrine for themselves. This means that there are 270 Lutheran doctrinally independent denominations, and there will only be more as time progresses. If this is incorrect, please provide the documentation.

As for the overarching organizations, they very much appear to be transitory. For example the LWF was formed in 1947 and the membership is in constant flux. The ILC was formed in 1993 as was the CELC.

You seem to infer that the fact that there is division within the Western Church implies that there is responsibility that should be shared equally throughout Western Christendom. In other words, that the Catholic Church is as responsible for the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations as is Protestantism. That is completely illogical. There has always been heresies and the Church has always fought them. The record of ALL of them indicates who is who and who is not who.

After all, only 18 of the 30,018 denominations within Western Christendom are either Orthodox or Roman Catholic and between the two, have more than 70% of the total members. It is extremely clear that denominalization is problem almost exclusively for the Sola Scriptura communities, the Sola Scriptura communities which left the Mother Church which Christ established for us all.

The ‘problem’ with the Sola Scriptura communities is that they broke away from the source and foundation of Christian unity. And since they have no foundational unity of their own, they are continuing to fracture and at a shocking rate. It is completely illogical to hold the Roman Catholic Church responsible for those who break away into heresy. Do you hold the Apostles responsible for the Gnostics?

**If you think the Catholic Church should be held responsible at least in part, then you must believe that they should have done something different, something specifically different than what it actually did. If so, then what was that exactly? What measures should the Church have taken to oppose the heresy of Protestantism that it did not take ? **

The Catholic Church has retained slightly over half of the WHOLE of Christianity over 2000 years and 100 generations. It is the oldest organization on earth. Quite frankly I think these facts speak very well to support it as being divinely created. On the other hand, the record of doctrinal discord and confusion within Protestantism over less than a quarter of the same period of time, shows it very clearly to be exactly what the Catholic Church has proclaimed it to be.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Wannano]

Why in the world would you possibly suggest that I would argue that division is OK Jon?

There is no doubt that doctrinal truth does not depend on the majorities. It does however have everything to do with the speed or rate of fracturing. The difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox is that THEY DO NOT HOLD TO SOLA SCRIPTURA. As such it is VERY CLEAR as to how they have managed to hold unity almost perfectly when viewed in comparison to the divisiveness that Protestantism has exhibited in only half the time.

May I quote you on that? That: “Close works in horseshoes, not doctrine”?

I think that it applies FAR more to the doctrinally scattered Lutheran communities, who by the way, don’t even all hold to the same Confessional documents. It’s a glass houses thing. You should not point a finger at the RCC and the Orthodox when your own communion is FAR more divided in terms of the number of doctrinally independent communities.

Please correct me if I get the details wrong here Jon:

There are roughly 270 separate doctrinally independent Lutheran communities today with a total number of Lutherans worldwide reported as somewhere between 70 and 120 million, something like 4% of Christianity overall. In fact, the list of Lutheran organizations is as follows:

LWF – 72 million members from 144 separate bodies
ILC – 3,450,000 members from about 30 separate bodies, with the LCMS being the prime member.
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference – 20 bodies including the ELS and WELS
Evangelical Catholic – 7 bodies
Unaffiliated Lutheran denominations – roughly 70 including at least 5 from the US.

From what I can tell, each of these 270 separate communites are ALL responsible for their own doctrinal positions, and while they might be guided doctrinally by their overarching organization, at the very least, they will determine their own doctrine for themselves. This means that there are 270 Lutheran doctrinally independent denominations, and there will only be more as time progresses. If this is incorrect, please provide the documentation.

As for the overarching organizations, they very much appear to be transitory. For example the LWF was formed in 1947 and the membership is in constant flux. The ILC was formed in 1993 as was the CELC.

You seem to infer that the fact that there is division within the Western Church implies that there is responsibility that should be shared equally throughout Western Christendom. In other words, that the Catholic Church is as responsible for the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations as is Protestantism. That is completely illogical. There has always been heresies and the Church has always fought them. The record of ALL of them indicates who is who and who is not who.

After all, only 18 of the 30,018 denominations within Western Christendom are either Orthodox or Roman Catholic and between the two, have more than 70% of the total members. It is extremely clear that denominalization is problem almost exclusively for the Sola Scriptura communities, the Sola Scriptura communities which left the Mother Church which Christ established for us all.

The ‘problem’ with the Sola Scriptura communities is that they broke away from the source and foundation of Christian unity. And since they have no foundational unity of their own, they are continuing to fracture and at a shocking rate. It is completely illogical to hold the Roman Catholic Church responsible for those who break away into heresy. Do you hold the Apostles responsible for the Gnostics?

**If you think the Catholic Church should be held responsible at least in part, then you must believe that they should have done something different, something specifically different than what it actually did. If so, then what was that exactly? What measures should the Church have taken to oppose the heresy of Protestantism that it did not take ? **

The Catholic Church has retained slightly over half of the WHOLE of Christianity over 2000 years and 100 generations. It is the oldest organization on earth. Quite frankly I think these facts speak very well to support it as being divinely created. On the other hand, the record of doctrinal discord and confusion within Protestantism over less than a quarter of the same period of time, shows it very clearly to be exactly what the Catholic Church has proclaimed it to be.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

The sound of silence that you hear Topper is the sound of Jesus’ followers following His admonition to turn the other cheek…listen closely and you may hear Him weeping.

 

[benhur]

Not really. That is historical evidence. Individual Fathers are not the Church. Their opinions may differ from the Church sometimes on certain topics, but they don’t jump ship. Collectively, they are awesome!

Hi ericc,

and they were not excommunicated either.

As I also posted earlier, variances are OK, as long as you don’t rock the boat (the system).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The Church has been instructed to oversee/manage these disputes.

OK

The Church came up with the written “manual”.

Kind of like how Mary came up with, delivered Jesus?

When she refers to the manual, you called it circular?

No, I call that or La did, "prima’’ right of *first *rule.

When the manual is silent,

Yet a few folks (C’s) say all doctrine is implicit or explicit in scripture. That is not silent. Of course others (C’s) may take your position of silence but not to fear, oral is here.

she refers to “management”

OK. Sure, like a council.

Hardly circular but very much in line with how an institution operates.

It is in the eye of the beholder. When the institution uses scripture to show that only her scriptural interpretation is correct, and then call it theopneustos Tradition, that is circular

.Similar in some ways to Judaism: Written Torah and the Talmud corresponding to our Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Again all Torah is theopneustos , but not all Talmud is.

Tell me did the Torah or theTalmud inhibit the Lord’s work /ministry? What did the “management” do with His ministry?

interpretation of Scriptures is always in light of Sacred Tradition

Oh it is certainly a tool , but not theopneustos. A problematic form of biblical hermeneutics…

That was how Arianism was fought and defeated because although Arianism used Scriptures to back its teachings, Arianism is not back by Traditions.

Good observation in that Arianism wrested scripture also, but disagree with conclusion that it handicapped Athanasius to using Tradition . His primary weapon was rightly dividing the Written Word of God, the theopneustos.

Satan also wrested Writ against the Lord in the desert temptations. Did Jesus cite the Talmud, a Tradition, a magisterium ? Of course not . You fight fire with fire .

The HS didn’t say written Scripture is all there is to it. Sure it is profitable but it hardly is “all”.

Really ? So it is not able to perfectly equip , as Paul said ?

Not all of God’s messages to mankind were committed to a book.

Of course, but can you show me where He left something out so important as to cause worldwide division ?

If written Scriptures is sufficient without an interpreter, Jesus need not institute a Church at all.

And if the Church were so unconditionally theopneustos beyond the apostles, why have any Writ at all ?

As an example, I am sorry but must say that Pope Pius XII, in my opinion, is not as theopneustos as St. Peter, when in 1950 he spoke ex cathedra on the Assumption of Mary.

The written word was just an aid then since preaching was all oral.

Ericc, such tenor is so unhistoric to our Tradition. The oral was first spoken by personally hand picked men by Jesus. Their writings were for such continuance of clarified authority and instruction.

Sacred Tradition (from where the Bible was birthed) is good for all times.

Yes , as Barnabus wrote, “Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”.

There is no new invention here. What would be a “new” invention in your mind?

Nothing. Same old same old , like since the Garden.

It has always been a challenge since Day 1. The Church struggled to survive against all odds. Emperors were against it. Heresies abound, at one stage Arianism almost took over. Schisms, rebellions, scandals, secular kings wanted to control it, bad clergy(popes, bishops, priest, laity) you named it, we have it. Yet she lives witnessing the guarantee given by Christ. Our doctrines remained intact. As Jesus prayed for Peter to remain strong, so too we must continue to do so.

OK. I know you see the Catholic Church and all her doctrines and the papacy as such a prayed for triumph. Others may see it differently , but for sure “His Truth is marching on”.

Blessings

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Just,

God Bless You Just, Topper

Sorry for the delay in answering Topper, been under the weather all week.
As to your questions:
I never implied SS was ‘never’ broken, simply that it already was broken. However you should remember SS means something very different to a Lutheran than a fundamentalist. The fundamentalist simply takes the philosophy to it’s natural end.
I agree about the fundamentalist conferences. It is hard however not to at the very least admire the effort put forth to stem the tide of secularism in the denominations.

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

The only thing that insures or guarantees heresy is a sin nature. That’s like saying the various laws of the Catholic Church cause the sin it prohibits. You cannot blame a broken system for causing heresy simply because that is not what the system was designed to do. A weak system is simply incapable of stemming the tide of heresy. Incapable is not the same as causing.
That is all I am saying.
Weak is not sinister, it is only weak. Criticize SS for being weak, broken and incapable. But to say it ‘causes’ heresy goes too far.

 

[MaryT777]

The sound of silence that you hear Topper is the sound of Jesus’ followers following His admonition to turn the other cheek…listen closely and you may hear Him weeping.

I hear the weeping of all of our sins. Lord have mercy on ME a poor miserable sinner,

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13754758]Why in the world would you possibly suggest that I would argue that division is OK Jon?

Here’s what I said:
" But if you want to argue that division is okay so long as you are in the majority, be my guest."
and
**“And again, if you think division is okay as long as you are MUCH closer than we are, be my guest.” **
You made your arguments as comparisons.

There is no doubt that doctrinal truth does not depend on the majorities. It does however have everything to do with the speed or rate of fracturing. The difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox is that THEY DO NOT HOLD TO SOLA SCRIPTURA. As such it is VERY CLEAR as to how they have managed to hold unity almost perfectly when viewed in comparison to the divisiveness that Protestantism has exhibited in only half the time.

Why are you yelling? I know very well that neither affirm sola scriptura, though one dialogue between Orthodoxy and Lutherans came to this agreement:

1. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

1. Pointing to scripture is pointing to the “euangelion” of salvation, to Christ and therefore to the holy Tradition which is the life of the church, to act as criterion of its authenticity and so to stress the church’s unity and catholicity for the joyful common praise of the triune God.

I think that it applies FAR more to the doctrinally scattered Lutheran communities, who by the way, don’t even all hold to the same Confessional documents. It’s a glass houses thing. You should not point a finger at the RCC and the Orthodox when your own communion is FAR more divided in terms of the number of doctrinally independent communities.

Hey, you threw the first stone. You’ve been throwing stones at Luther and Lutheranism since you’ve been here. Just remember that every division in the western Church has Rome at it’s roots. That doesn’t let Lutherans off the hook, but neither does it let the CC.

There are roughly 270 separate doctrinally independent Lutheran communities today with a total number of Lutherans worldwide reported as somewhere between 70 and 120 million, something like 4% of Christianity overall.

Incorrect. The fact that Lutherans practice a different polity than the CC doesn’t mean all synods are doctrinally different, but I suspect you already knew that, since I’ve told you that before. Synods and national churches in the ILC are in unity. AFAIK, all the synods and national in the LWF are also in doctrinal unity. They almost all share altar and pulpit fellowship. Many in Europe are part of the Porvoo Agreement, which means they are in altar and pulpit fellowship with Anglican churches there.

In fact, the list of Lutheran organizations is as follows:

LWF – 72 million members from 144 separate bodies
ILC – 3,450,000 members from about 30 separate bodies, with the LCMS being the prime member.
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference – 20 bodies including the ELS and WELS
Evangelical Catholic – 7 bodies
Unaffiliated Lutheran denominations – roughly 70 including at least 5 from the US.

From what I can tell, each of these 270 separate communites are ALL responsible for their own doctrinal positions, and while they might be guided doctrinally by their overarching organization, at the very least, they will determine their own doctrine for themselves. This means that there are 270 Lutheran doctrinally independent denominations, and there will only be more as time progresses. If this is incorrect, please provide the documentation.

Yep. Its incorrect, as I explained above. Lutheranism has its divisions, no doubt. Its a sad fact. By and large, the division doesn’t come from sola scriptura, but instead from moving away from it, from moving away from a quia subscription to scripture and the confessions toward a quatenus subscription.

You seem to infer that the fact that there is division within the Western Church implies that there is responsibility that should be shared equally throughout Western Christendom. In other words, that the Catholic Church is as responsible for the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations as is Protestantism

I’m not inferring it, I’m stating it outright. You’ve stated over and over that Luther is the blame for these “30,000” denominations, which is utter nonsense. But assuming he is, and her came out of the CC, then by extension the CC is primarily responsible for the divisions.
OTOH, if you believe that western Christians make their own choices what communion to be a part of, that Zwingli and Calvin, the Anabaptists, and all the others since, made their own decisions, then I can understand why you would want to deny that the CC is responsible, and I would generally agree.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

After all, only 18 of the 30,018 denominations within Western Christendom are either Orthodox or Roman Catholic and between the two, have more than 70% of the total members.

This is incorrect. The same methodology that came up with the number 30,000 also says their are 240 Catholic Churches worldwide.
And we are back to majority rules again.

It is extremely clear that denominalization is problem almost exclusively for the Sola Scriptura communities, the Sola Scriptura communities which left the Mother Church which Christ established for us all.

You mean Orthodoxy? You see, Topper, you can claim we are all heretics, and that Rome only and exclusively is the Mother Church, but it doesn’t have an impact on anyone that hears it. The 30,000 denominations arguments doesn’t convince anyone.

The ‘problem’ with the Sola Scriptura communities is that they broke away from the source and foundation of Christian unity. And since they have no foundational unity of their own, they are continuing to fracture and at a shocking rate. It is completely illogical to hold the Roman Catholic Church responsible for those who break away into heresy. Do you hold the Apostles responsible for the Gnostics?

You mean Orthodoxy?

**If you think the Catholic Church should be held responsible at least in part, then you must believe that they should have done something different, something specifically different than what it actually did. If so, then what was that exactly? What measures should the Church have taken to oppose the heresy of Protestantism that it did not take ? **

To whom much is given, much is expected. Solve the thousand year old schism that is, in part, responsible for the divisions in the Western Church.
Throwing the term heresy around, as I said, doesn’t impress, doesn’t convince.

The Catholic Church has retained slightly over half of the WHOLE of Christianity over 2000 years and 100 generations. It is the oldest organization on earth. Quite frankly I think these facts speak very well to support it as being divinely created. On the other hand, the record of doctrinal discord and confusion within Protestantism over less than a quarter of the same period of time, shows it very clearly to be exactly what the Catholic Church has proclaimed it to be.

Back to majorities again. Holy Orthodoxy makes the same claim, and with more of the patriarchates of the Church.

God Bless You Jon,

And also with you, Topper.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13754752]
This claim seems to infer that the way that Lutheranism ‘uses Scripture’ came about in part because of the failure of the Catholic Church to maintain Christian Unity - Pre Reformation. The implication of course was that the Schism of 500 years prior was viewed by the Reformers as a failure of the Church, and presumably, that they felt that they were honor bound to jump in there and develop a ‘better method’ of ‘using Scripture’, so as to provide a system that would be able to be a better job of maintain Christian unity

Well, I think it is obvious, yes, If one looks how the doctrine developed in the west after the schism. If one looks at the complaints the Lutheran Reformers brought forward, most have to do with developments after the schism.

Well, first of all, IF that had been part of their thinking at the time, then they were horribly wrong given the massive doctrinal dissension that their concept of Christian Authority has produced.

Again, sola scriptura is only responsible for doctrinal dissension if Scripture and Tradition are.

Secondly, and this was my initial point - I have never seen any indication in the literature that that was actually a consideration for the Reformers. I asked you for supporting evidence as to the point that you made and was virtually certain that you would not be able to provide any. You have not, which means that the point that you made is completely unsupported by any historical evidence, let alone the contention that it was a primary consideration regarding the development of the Lutheran means of ‘using Scripture’. I will still grant that it MIGHT have been a minor factor, but nothing more than that.

Of course I have seen that quote and in fact on this thread and the other SS thread I have quoted at least a couple of Scholars who indicate that this quote is PROOF that Luther here professes Sola Scriptura. Luther appeals to his personal conscience and also says that he will not recant unless he is personally convicted by Scripture and plain reason. In other words, Luther himself, personally and without assistance or reference to ANY other authority, will decide what is right and what is wrong. This is exactly the definition of Private Interpretation and that is exactly how the Reformation was founded.

Yes, I know this is you apologia, that Luther was a self-centered heretic that claimed all authority as his own. The fact is he makes in that statement a clear reference to the failure of councils and popes, and turns istead to scripture and clear reason. He also provides the diet the opportunity to convince him.

I fail to see how this quote supports your contention that Lutheranism’s use of Scripture was somehow the result or partially the result of the Schism. The fact that Luther himself never seemed to be very concerned with the Schism proves my point. That is unless you have information to the contrary.

Topper, he says that councils and popes have disagreed. What could that mean, other than that in the west the development of doctrine didn’t jive with the Early Church. A great example is how popes continued to claim more and more authority for themselves in contradiction to Nicaea canon 6 and the testimony of the rest of the pre-Schism Church.
Now clearly, the Lutheran Reformers bear some guilt in this, as well. For example, Lutherans also say the Filioque, a change in the creed without the consent of an ecumenical council. But the point remains, this is root of holding scripture as the final norm.

If sin were the prime factor in problem of denominalization, then that would mean that the level of sin within Protestantism is FAR higher than it is in either the RCC or the Orthodox. While sin is obviously a factor, I think that your explanation is far too simplistic and fails to take into account the role of Sola Scriptura in the fracturing. If it were just sin, then sin would not have been much of a factor for 1000 years, and then been a MASSIVE factor in the Sola Scriptura communities over the last 500 years. Is that really where you want to go? I don’t think so.

Here we go with the contest again. Plank and speck, Topper. Every denomination in the western Church has its roots in the western See. Every one of them.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

His Peace, Topper.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Hi Topper ,

You had me going till you blamed it all on SS. Good switcheroo also, for I was not speaking of P’s but more C’s sometimes, and in particular your post saying disagreements are allowed, just not singing a different tune (don’t teach it, don’t leave).

I am fully aware that Sola Scriptura Christians have a great deal of difficulty seeing the damage that it has done to Christian Unity and also to Christianity itself.

As far as Mr. Harvard , not sure who he is. America and its founding was certainly concerned with spirituality.

To blame SS is only head shaking for me, as you stick to your guns. Does nothing in lifting up your magisterium for me, much less call for unity.

If you are not aware of who Christopher Dawson is then might want to find out. In fact, he was one of the prior centuries leading Historians and wrote dozens and dozens of important works on Church History. He was relatively young when he converted from Anglicanism to the Church. According to Wiki: “Dawson has been called “the greatest English-speaking Catholic historian of the twentieth century”.

In other words ben, he is worth knowing about and in my estimation, worth reading.

As for SS and ‘not lifting up the magisterium’, it seems to me that it is important to determine whether SS is a doctrine of Christ and whether it has divided Christianity? Don’t you agree? Isn’t it worth discussing?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Wannano]

I hear the weeping of all of our sins. Lord have mercy on ME a poor miserable sinner,

Mary.

Me too, thanks Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13756426]
I am fully aware that Sola Scriptura Christians have a great deal of difficulty seeing the damage that it has done to Christian Unity and also to Christianity itself.

That’s a rather huge blanket statement. Do you have data? Do Catholics recognize the damage to unity done as a result of the Great Schism?

As for SS and ‘not lifting up the magisterium’, it seems to me that it is important to determine whether SS is a doctrine of Christ and whether it has divided Christianity? Don’t you agree? Isn’t it worth discussing?

It is neither. It is a practice.

Jon

 

[Wannano]

Why in the world would you possibly suggest that I would argue that division is OK Jon?

There is no doubt that doctrinal truth does not depend on the majorities. It does however have everything to do with the speed or rate of fracturing. The difference between Protestantism and the Orthodox is that THEY DO NOT HOLD TO SOLA SCRIPTURA. As such it is VERY CLEAR as to how they have managed to hold unity almost perfectly when viewed in comparison to the divisiveness that Protestantism has exhibited in only half the time.

May I quote you on that? That: “Close works in horseshoes, not doctrine”?

I think that it applies FAR more to the doctrinally scattered Lutheran communities, who by the way, don’t even all hold to the same Confessional documents. It’s a glass houses thing. You should not point a finger at the RCC and the Orthodox when your own communion is FAR more divided in terms of the number of doctrinally independent communities.

Please correct me if I get the details wrong here Jon:

There are roughly 270 separate doctrinally independent Lutheran communities today with a total number of Lutherans worldwide reported as somewhere between 70 and 120 million, something like 4% of Christianity overall. In fact, the list of Lutheran organizations is as follows:

LWF – 72 million members from 144 separate bodies
ILC – 3,450,000 members from about 30 separate bodies, with the LCMS being the prime member.
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference – 20 bodies including the ELS and WELS
Evangelical Catholic – 7 bodies
Unaffiliated Lutheran denominations – roughly 70 including at least 5 from the US.

From what I can tell, each of these 270 separate communites are ALL responsible for their own doctrinal positions, and while they might be guided doctrinally by their overarching organization, at the very least, they will determine their own doctrine for themselves. This means that there are 270 Lutheran doctrinally independent denominations, and there will only be more as time progresses. If this is incorrect, please provide the documentation.

As for the overarching organizations, they very much appear to be transitory. For example the LWF was formed in 1947 and the membership is in constant flux. The ILC was formed in 1993 as was the CELC.

You seem to infer that the fact that there is division within the Western Church implies that there is responsibility that should be shared equally throughout Western Christendom. In other words, that the Catholic Church is as responsible for the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations as is Protestantism. That is completely illogical. There has always been heresies and the Church has always fought them. The record of ALL of them indicates who is who and who is not who.

After all, only 18 of the 30,018 denominations within Western Christendom are either Orthodox or Roman Catholic and between the two, have more than 70% of the total members. It is extremely clear that denominalization is problem almost exclusively for the Sola Scriptura communities, the Sola Scriptura communities which left the Mother Church which Christ established for us all.

The ‘problem’ with the Sola Scriptura communities is that they broke away from the source and foundation of Christian unity. And since they have no foundational unity of their own, they are continuing to fracture and at a shocking rate. It is completely illogical to hold the Roman Catholic Church responsible for those who break away into heresy. Do you hold the Apostles responsible for the Gnostics?

**If you think the Catholic Church should be held responsible at least in part, then you must believe that they should have done something different, something specifically different than what it actually did. If so, then what was that exactly? What measures should the Church have taken to oppose the heresy of Protestantism that it did not take ?

I will probably get burned by this but what strikes me as obvious is that the CC should have responded with the love of Christ to people who interpret Jesus’ teachings differently than them. To torture and kill in ways unimaginable only fueled the Reformation processes as onlookers witnessed the murders of people who died singing and praising God.**

 

[Topper17]

Hi LA,

Thanks for your response.

Hey Topper!

Evangelizing Muslims is pretty much impossible thanks to the anti-Christ indoctrination found within their holy writ. As I’m sure you probably know, many of them are so dedicated that they memorize the entire book. Christians, OTOH, well I’d say if you quizzed all of them right now, not even half could name all 10 commandments.

The scholar is correct in that Islam really lacks any official hierarchy or Magisterium. So far the only sects besides Sunni/Shi’ite that I have seen are the “Quran-only” Muslims. They are Americanized and mostly resemble protestant Christianity. Not sure of your experience with Islam; but if you think Protestant SS lacks the proper foundation, reading the Quran and making any sense of it w/o Hadith is pretty much impossible since it lacks context or chronology. So I really have no idea how these folks function at all.

There are also a few sects that Sunni’s would consider totally heretical like the NOI, Bahai and Ahmadiyya(extremely peaceful, wonderful people here) But overall I’m shocked they do not have the major division issues we have with protestant Christendom. I think they will, eventually, like the scholar implies, just not yet.

God bless ya!

When there is no overarching authority or Magisterium to settle matters once and for all, every successive generation seems to feel the need to ‘fix’ the doctrines of the previous generation, and as we have seen, these teachings RARELY are more ‘orthodox’ than the beliefs that they are replacing.

Anglican Theologian Alister McGrath comments again on the similarities between Protestantism and Islam:

**“It is the essence of Protestantism to reexamine and renew itself, responding to the environment, on the one hand, and its own reading of the Bible, **on the other. Protestantism has undergone massive change in the twentieth century – change that would have been unpredicted and unanticipated in the closing years of the nineteenth century. Protestantism is uncontrollable. As with Islam, there is no centralized power, no institutionalized authority to regulate or limit its development. Protestantism is increasingly open to political radicalization, with unforeseeable implications. ……So what is the future of Protestantism? Those who base their answer on the fortunes in Western Europe, its original heartlands, many offer a somewhat negative answer.” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, pg. 477-8

BTW, I agree that the Bahia’s are for the most part, really great people, people who would make fantastic Christians. However the Bahai Faith really is really just a heresy of Islam, and I would say, actually an overreaction against the militancy and of Islam.

God Bless You LA, Topper

 

[benhur]

The Catholic Church has retained slightly over half of the WHOLE of Christianity over 2000 years and 100 generations. It is the oldest organization on earth. Quite frankly I think these facts speak very well to support it as being divinely created.

Hi T,

You might be right, you might be wrong.

I am reminded how the Sanhedrin also said that if it is of God (Jesus sect) it will survive .If not of God , it will eventually dissolve. Of course wisdom does not teach that. If that were the case the things contrary to God will “dissolve” on their own. I do not think the Buddhists, or Hindus, or the Islamic folk are going to dissolve any time soon. Or closer to home the P’s, or Mormons, or JW’s etc. So longevity and age do not on their own justify divine origin.

I understand the human need for it though. The continuity, the historicity, the belonging. We were created to belong, to God and His kingdom family for sure. But since the beginning, at the Garden, two kingdoms, two families have existed. They both can claim "age’’, even since the beginning (almost). Of course only one can claim it is divine, being children of the Promise(s) as given to Adam and Eve. The other are children of darkness, Satan’s seed.

So Topper, I am with you in that need to be part of an ‘ancient’ Family, even sons of Abraham, or sons/daughters of the eternal Father. Unfortunately, just how the Family is an institution divides us, and must be spiritually discerned.

Of course, do not forget the lesson of Elihu. God is not a respecter of persons, and with respect to this post, even of “age” . His divine “understanding” is graced upon who He wills

Blessings

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

I hope that you are feeling better now. Thanks for your response.

Sorry for the delay in answering Topper, been under the weather all week.

As to your questions:

I never implied SS was ‘never’ broken, simply that it already was broken. However you should remember SS means something very different to a Lutheran than a fundamentalist. The fundamentalist simply takes the philosophy to it’s natural end.

Exactly! They reached the ‘logical conclusion’ of the basic most “pure” understanding of Sola Scriptura. But while they are the ones who most openly exhibit the belief in the ‘right’ to Private Interpretation, that tendency exists in ALL Reformation communities. As you know, there are a LOT of different versions of Sola Scriptura, how to interpret Scripture and in fact, even what Scripture actually is.

I agree about the fundamentalist conferences. It is hard however not to at the very least admire the effort put forth to stem the tide of secularism in the denominations.

The only thing that insures or guarantees heresy is a sin nature. That’s like saying the various laws of the Catholic Church cause the sin it prohibits. You cannot blame a broken system for causing heresy simply because that is not what the system was designed to do. A weak system is simply incapable of stemming the tide of heresy. Incapable is not the same as causing.
That is all I am saying.

The sinful nature will gravitate towards heresy, and mankind itself, having a ‘corporate fallen nature’ will gravitate towards heresy also. It seems to me that that is exactly why Christ established in his Church a means which is capable, if followed, of avoiding heresy. Of course the Reformation rejected that ‘means’ and with predicable results.

Weak is not sinister, it is only weak. Criticize SS for being weak, broken and incapable. But to say it ‘causes’ heresy goes too far.

Agreed. Weak does not mean ‘intentional’. Remember though that the Reformers were warned over and over again that fracturing would be the result of their radical teaching of Sola Scriptura. It would seem that they didn’t show great wisdom in not heeding those warnings.

For some reason, I have been on some kind of a McGrath jag lately. Given that he wrote an excellent book on Heresy, I think that the comments of this Protestant Scholar are appropriate:

**“Heresy lies in the shadow lands of faith, a failed attempt at orthodoxy whose intentions are likely to have been honorable but whose outcomes were eventually discovered to be as corrosive **as Nikolaos Balanos’s iron clamps.” McGrath, ‘Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”. Pg. 13

**“Protestantism places the interpretation of Scripture at the heart of its theology and recognizes no authority above Scripture. **This being the case, ** it is obliged to recognize that multiple interpretations of Scripture will ensue, with no authorized means to determining which is ‘orthodox’ and which ‘heretical’. ** This difficulty can be alleviated, but not resolved, by appealing to the judgment of antiquity concerning which views were heretical and which orthodox. **Yet, ultimately Protestantism would wish to keep such questions open, at least theoretically maintain the possibility that such patristic judgments might require revision in the light of ongoing biblical interpretation.” **Ibid, pg. 217

Last buy certainly not least:

“….the essence of heresy. [is] A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it. Sometimes a doctrine that was once thought to defend a mystery actually turns out to subvert it. ** A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in its unwillingness to accept that it has failed.” **Ibid, pg. 31

If the doctrinal chaos and uncertainty of belief that has resulted from the Reformation cannot be recognized as an indication of failure, then what would it take to force that recognition?

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[benhur]

It is completely illogical to hold the Roman Catholic Church responsible for those who break away into heresy. Do you hold the Apostles responsible for the Gnostics?

Hi T,

The Gnostics, were they even Christian, in the end, even at the beginning, as John asks in his epistles ?

Most reformers were quite Catholic, even some clergy. Apples to oranges, this Gnostic thing.

But how about this example, operating under the spirit as in the Didache:

"Thou (the church, the christian) shalt not make a schism but thou shalt pacify them that contend"

The early church had a division between gentiles and Jews. The church appeased both sides.The gentiles did not need Jewish circumcision, but they did adapt some Jewish culinary habits. It was a compromise. The Jews were appeased.

Takes two to tango , and two to untangle. The CC bears half the blame, at least quantitatively, with both Orthodoxy and Protestantism schisms.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I am fully aware that Sola Scriptura Christians have a great deal of difficulty seeing the damage that it has done to Christian Unity and also to Christianity itself.

Hi Topper,

Agree, just as Catholics and others do not see the spiritual damage done by tolerating error, even going against conscience /revelation on a matter, or going along to get along.

Yes, there is a balance, but there is also a time for* everything.*

In other words ben, he is worth knowing about and in my estimation, worth reading.

Ok ,thanks T

As for SS and ‘not lifting up the magisterium’, it seems to me that it is important to determine whether SS is a doctrine of Christ and whether it has divided Christianity? Don’t you agree? Isn’t it worth discussing?

Following theopneustos is still proper , even if it divides (which Christ prophesied it would )

Blessings