Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[benhur]

sorry boo boo.

 

[benhur]

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?

Hi T,

Do we have our criteria right ? I mean by your criteria Judaism failed miserably. Yet Jesus point blank says, " salvation is of the Jews", to the woman at the well. Apparently by His criteria Judaism perfectly fulfilled her mission and “unto us a child is born”

Even Lumen Gentia, Vat 2 says we are " brethren", graced by God, though separated, and yet adding to the unity that is the CC.

What you would have to show to me is that all P’s would have been brethren anyways (if the reformation never happened) ,under the CC. That is a tough sell, at least with those that came out of the CC, and were converted to Christ elsewhere.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

B]“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" - McGrath

Hi T,

CS Lewis said we are to be knowledgeable of history , and not be enslaved to a recent past.

Does McGath apply his notion to anything Catholic ? I mean I can see the O’s and P’s saying “right on” to what heresy /error can do, as not only evidenced maybe in themselves but the CC in particular…

Blessings

 

[ericc]

OKKind of like how Mary came up with, delivered Jesus? No, I call that or La did, "prima’’ right of *first *rule. 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. OK. Sure, like a council. 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 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? Oh it is certainly a tool , but not theopneustos. A problematic form of biblical hermeneutics… 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 .
Really ? So it is not able to perfectly equip , as Paul said ?Of course, but can you show me where He left something out so important as to cause worldwide division ? 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.
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.
Yes , as Barnabus wrote, “Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”.
Nothing. Same old same old , like since the Garden.
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

Thank you for your responses. But regardless of your very studied replies, you have to admit that the fruits of Protestantism, perhaps not anticipated by the Reformer pioneers, have opened a Pandora box of everyone for themselves. And the pace of disintegration is accelerating and with each decade more and more DIY churches with customizeable doctrines. I very much doubt that is the will of the Holy Spirit. Even if you can’t accept the dogmas regarding Mary, at least reconsider the Eucharist. It is Scriptural, accepted by all early Christians and backed up by historical support.

Since both of us have stated our stance and defended it, I think more of that wouldn’t be helpful. We can only pray for unity. Peace.

 

[Abu]

Benhur #196
The CC bears half the blame, at least quantitatively, with both Orthodoxy and Protestantism schisms.

What rubbish.

SCHISM. A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. “Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ,” he asks, “and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?” While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. “By false doctrines concerning God,” declared St. Augustine, “heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.” Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.) [My emphasis]
*Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

#199
What you would have to show to me is that all P’s would have been brethren anyways (if the reformation never happened) ,under the CC. That is a tough sell, at least with those that came out of the CC, and were converted to Christ elsewhere

.
No one can predict the future with mankind having freewill, and having demonstrated a tendency to schism and heresy.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

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

Mary.

Exactly! (as always)

God Bless, Topper

 

[JustaServant]

Topper, we have to be careful in debating the Protestant philosophy of Scripture Alone that we are not denigrating Scripture in the process. Being evangelical for nearly two decades gave me a healthy respect for Scripture. And an insight into the structure of the Protestant denominations/groups I was a part of. So, when I say SS is a ‘broken’ system, I am not saying Scripture is broken. I just want to make that clear.
If SS were the caricature you are describing, we would see far worse heresy, divisions, and unbelief. We have not. Is it possible because Protestants (including the fundamentalists) have retained the one major Catholic authority? Scripture itself. The splits, divisions and unbelief in the denominations were the result of moving away from Scripture, not toward it. Why? Because those parameters were set by a very Catholic book called the Bible. SS is broken only that it is broken from authority.
I had a thread a long time ago I titled: Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves their own doctrine?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683170&highlight=book
So even anti-Catholic fundamentalists have retained the one Catholic authority: the Bible they wave.

 

[Topper17]

HI Jon,

Thanks for your response,

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.

I have NOT been throwing stones at anyone. I have been posting the FACTS and also my opinions. I will tell you though Jon, I will oppose anyone and any organization which depicts the Pope as the antichrist, in ANY way shape or form. Thankfully, it is only a small slice of Lutheranism which holds to that silly accusation.

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.

But the LCMS is not part of that Agreement and is not part of the much larger LWF, which in fact is about 20 times larger than the ILC – correct? Are you in alter and pulpit fellowship with the Anglican communities also, or even the LWF Lutherans? No. As such I find it strange that you would point to the LWF as being an example of ecumenism, when your Lutheran community is not in fellowship with them.

In addition, it is my understanding that each of those 270 Lutheran communities have the absolute authority to establish or revise doctrines and practices, for themselves, as they see fit, and also to join or leave one or any of the other various overarching Organizations at any time they wish. This means that they are doctrinally independent from any other organization.

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.

The divisions are caused by ‘moving away from Sola Scriptura’? Does that mean moving away from **your particular version **of Sola Scriptura or does it mean moving away from some universally agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura? Do those who have ‘moved away’ agree with you that they have, or do they have some kind of ‘alternate explanation’ with regard to their separation from you, or alternately, your separation from them?

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.

So then, the Apostles are partly responsible for the Gnostic heresy. Is that correct or not Jon? Yes or no? According to your logic the Apostles MUST be partly responsible, but I doubt that you would be willing to state that.

As a matter of fact, you and I have both proved the point by our actions. Each of us have converted to something that we think was ‘better’. So, yes, we DO make our own choices as to what communion to be a part of. This would seem to mean that you agree as to the ‘responsibility’ of the Church.

This is incorrect. The same methodology that came up with the number 30,000 also says their are 240 Catholic Churches worldwide.

Jon, as you know full well, that 240 number is hogwash because the vast majority of those communions are in communion with Rome in EVERY way. In addition, I would say that if the 30,000 figure bothers you, or if you believe that Protestantism should not be labeled as a heresy, I would suggest that you contact Catholic Answers and ask them to change those ‘details’ in the tract “The Great Heresies”. If you can get them to change either that designation or the number, then I will follow suit. Until then I will use that NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR approved designation and numbers used in that article. Please let me know how that turns out. In this respect, clearly I am supporting the Catholic Answers and Catholic Church position and you are opposing them both.

 

[Topper17]

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.

Its not me who made that determination Jon, but the Catholic Church and it is supported by Catholic Answers. Like I said, just simply ask them to change it and give them your justification.

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.

I would agree that it is almost never immediately convincing to those to whom the charge is directed. The goal is not to upset them, but to cause them to think – to consider the argument that they are. I think that it is important for people to actually think about these things.

**In addition Jon, your response was not at all a response to what I actually wrote and asked you. ****You seem to want to hold the Catholic Church to be at least as responsible as the Reformers for our division. This would mean that the Church should have handled the whole affair differently. I asked you what it was, specifically and exactly, at what point in time, that the Church did wrong and then, also, what you think it actually should have done instead. Specifics rather than generalized claims.

This is KEY Jon and I look forward to your specific and exact answer.**

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.

By this same argument ALL of the heretics of Christian history can claim that councils and popes have failed, which of course results in their supposedly being led by God to develop their own competing communities. (Come to think of it, haven’t virtually all modern heretics claimed that popes and Councils have failed.) IF Councils and Popes have failed, as Luther and you claim, then there should be compelling proof as to that ‘fact’.

I think that the post Reformation history of the Church would indicate that Luther’s position (which also appears to be yours) is not all that compelling.

As you know, ALL heretics have appealed to Scripture and the Fathers say that they don’t have the right to. If Scripture is to be interpreted by the individual then there will be radical unorthodox beliefs as a result. **Are you really saying that someone who is being charged, or already has been, must be convinced that they are wrong and that if they are not convinced, then it is the fault of the Church for not convincing them? **
**
Is that the way that you see it for Lutherans who have gone astray and have challenged the authority of your community to set doctrine? ** I think not. How does Lutheranism handle those people? An answer which is a response to the above would be appreciated.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Topper, we have to be careful in debating the Protestant philosophy of Scripture Alone that we are not denigrating Scripture in the process. Being evangelical for nearly two decades gave me a healthy respect for Scripture. And an insight into the structure of the Protestant denominations/groups I was a part of. So, when I say SS is a ‘broken’ system, I am not saying Scripture is broken. I just want to make that clear.
If SS were the caricature you are describing, we would see far worse heresy, divisions, and unbelief. We have not. Is it possible because Protestants (including the fundamentalists) have retained the one major Catholic authority? Scripture itself. The splits, divisions and unbelief in the denominations were the result of moving away from Scripture, not toward it. Why? Because those parameters were set by a very Catholic book called the Bible. SS is broken only that it is broken from authority.
I had a thread a long time ago I titled: Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves their own doctrine?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683170&highlight=book
So even anti-Catholic fundamentalists have retained the one Catholic authority: the Bible they wave.

I was a protestant for 13 years, myself.

And I think ***it is ***as bad as Topper has described. It saddens me as a former protestant and a member of Christendom that we have such horrible division in our faith. And SS is to blame…well, that and human pride.

And TBH I wish the Church had not defined everything with Mary and left things sort of how the Orthodox Church has. Because I think that has prevented many inquiring protestants from coming home.

All that being said, SS is out of control and protestantism needs reform within it’s own ranks. And if they don’t want to except the Catholic Church then they really need their own hierarchy to maintain order.

I think these so called liberal “churches” need to be told by someone, anyone, that they don’t represent orthodox Christianity. How can they turn from their sin if nobody checks them on it?

Interestingly enough, thanks to the gross immorality we see from the ECUSA and others, we as Catholics are more united with mainstream protestantism than ever before as we both stand for righteousness, or at least we should be.

 

[JustaServant]

Interestingly enough, thanks to the gross immorality we see from the ECUSA and others, we as Catholics are more united with mainstream Protestantism than ever before as we both stand for righteousness, or at least we should be.

And why is that? Because we both rely on a very Catholic book: the Bible. I hardly think the immorality in the ECUSA can be blamed on SS. It can blamed on a sin nature from people who would tell you they do not believe in SS. Just like cafeteria Catholics don’t believe in the authority of the Church.
It seems to me we are arguing over who has the most sin and heresy and each pointing the finger at the authority of the other.
It’s not a contest.

 

[JustaServant]

As you know, ALL heretics have appealed to Scripture and the Fathers say that they don’t have the right to.

Not really.
The Mormons created their own bible, the JWs created their own unique translation, the Christian Scientists adhere to the writings of their founder over scripture. Even the prosperity preachers use extra-Biblical, new age teachings to form their beliefs. They simply pound the round Scripture into their square holes.

 

[JustaServant]

Jon, as you know full well, that 240 number is hogwash because the vast majority of those communions are in communion with Rome in EVERY way.

No. Jon is talking about the same methodology, I.E. the same argument to try to inflate the numbers. Equating the methodology is not the same as stating it as fact.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And why is that? Because we both rely on a very Catholic book: the Bible. I hardly think the immorality in the ECUSA can be blamed on SS. It can blamed on a sin nature from people who would tell you they do not believe in SS. Just like cafeteria Catholics don’t believe in the authority of the Church.
It seems to me we are arguing over who has the most sin and heresy and each pointing the finger at the authority of the other.
It’s not a contest.

All true, but people ***can ***and HAVE BEEN using the bible to justify just about anything with their twisted interpretation of it. Dating back to the slavery age in this country.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Not really.
The Mormons created their own bible, the JWs created their own unique translation, the Christian Scientists adhere to the writings of their founder over scripture. Even the prosperity preachers use extra-Biblical, new age teachings to form their beliefs. They simply pound the round Scripture into their square holes.

Right, but don’t all these badly plagiarized bibles you mentioned actually stem from SS?

One you didn’t mention is Islam. They read this:

John 14:16 New International Version (NIV)

16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

And Muslims say, yup, it’s talking about Muhammed who is leading us to all truth…in the Koran!!

 

[Wannano]

All true, but people ***can ***and HAVE BEEN using the bible to justify just about anything with their twisted interpretation of it. Dating back to the slavery age in this country.

I agree with you and JustaServant but I wonder if it doesn’t date back to the origin of the Bible?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I agree with you and JustaServant but I wonder if it doesn’t date back to the origin of the Bible?

Arianism almost tore the Church apart.

Didn’t happen thanks to the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Does protestantism have such a promise?

I’d argue that they do not. Not that Christ wont spiritually be with His protestant believers, but He wont necessarily hold those particular institutions up.

 

[JustaServant]

Right, but don’t all these badly plagiarized bibles you mentioned actually stem from SS?

That makes no sense. How could it stem from SS. The books these groups follow are not plagiarized, but ADDED to. Seems the book of Revelation has something to say about that. Ask an author whose work was added too or had passages removed, whether thy still consider it their work.
The Islam remark is just silly. Islam began in the 6th century, long before a concept of SS.

 

[JustaServant]

All true, but people ***can ***and HAVE BEEN using the bible to justify just about anything with their twisted interpretation of it. Dating back to the slavery age in this country.

I can use the Bible to claim God is really a ham sandwich. You can’t blame SS on that, just the inner workings of imagination.

 

[JustaServant]

Arianism almost tore the Church apart.

Okay, good example.
Arianism was a heresy that grew out of ideas from people who claimed authority. Long before SS.
I have to get back to work. Will answer later.