Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Abu]

benhur #412
Would I be wrong to please ask that you write what you mean when you say “Church”? Otherwise we see our own definition of church in their.

Instead of the mistaken “our own definition”, heed St Ignatius:
The Church to which the followers of Christ gave allegiance is the Church established by the Christ whose name “Catholic” was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) in his Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

You have been enlightened on this many times.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both/and. Pope Benedict reiterated the point that the Church serves the word of God. I can’t imagine trying to understand the scriptures without my upbringing in the Church.
OTOH, even with scripture the Church has always struggled to agree.

Jon

I’m curious, Jon…I’m not familiar with the statement you’re referencing, but “Word of God” can have multiple meanings. Jesus, for instance, is the Word made flesh.

So, do you think, in context, that Benedict was speaking of the scriptures specifically or exclusively?

Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I’m curious, Jon…I’m not familiar with the statement you’re referencing, but “Word of God” can have multiple meanings. Jesus, for instance, is the Word made flesh.

So, do you think, in context, that Benedict was speaking of the scriptures specifically or exclusively?

Thanks.

Knowing him, no. But I think the intent, if I recall the context, was to reinforce the fact that the CC serves the word of God including scripture.

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other please.

 

[benhur]

Instead of the mistaken “our own definition”, heed St Ignatius:
The Church to which the followers of Christ gave allegiance is the Church established by the Christ whose name “Catholic” was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) in his Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

You have been enlightened on this many times.

Hi Abu,

Yes, but that does not address the fact that O’s say they are “Catholic” and P 's also. Not sure Ignatius denied the patriarchal system , or that Rome was governed not by one head bishop but by a group of bishops. You must address your particular view of Catholic beyong Ignatius.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #417
Yes, but that does not address the fact that O’s say they are “Catholic” and P 's also. Not sure Ignatius denied the patriarchal system , or that Rome was governed not by one head bishop but by a group of bishops. You must address your particular view of Catholic beyong Ignatius.

You never seem “sure” of anything. No wonder you are in confusion, despite all the facts you’ve been given. You really need to drop your confusions and get the facts.

You even seem ignorant of the reality that nearly all Protestants would NOT “say they are ‘Catholic’ ”

A few “Orthodox” may “say they are “Catholic”, but that is only one of the many names used as the facts show:
oca.org/questions/teaching/what-is-the-proper-name-for-the-orthodox-church
Question
What is the proper name for the Orthodox Church? One sees so many, and of such different variety!
“Answer
It must be understood first of all that names like Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc. are all names for one and the same Church with one and the same faith and practice. Of course within these churches there are cultural differences which do not touch the essence of the faith as such.

“Sometimes the Orthodox Church is also called the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Oriental Church, or the Christian Church of the East, or the Orthodox Catholic Church, or the Graeco-Russian Church. But once more, these are all different names for the same Church.

“Care must be exercised not to confuse the Orthodox Church with the Eastern Christian Churches in union with the See of Rome: the so-called Uniates, or Byzantine or Greek Catholics. And also there is the distinction to be made between the Orthodox and the so-called Oriental Orthodox or Lesser Eastern Churches such as the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian, Indian, and other churches which are very close to the Orthodox Church but not part of it.

“In America it must be noticed that the new autocephalous (self-governing) Church which used to be the Russian Orthodox Church of America is now simply called the Orthodox Church in America.”
[My emphases].

What would help you is to absorb the clarity and truthfulness of St Ignatius, not try to ignore him – that clarity, to which infallibility is added, is what Christ gave His Catholic Church in dogma and doctrine, and no other church.

 

[Tomyris]

Instead of the mistaken “our own definition”, heed St Ignatius:
The Church to which the followers of Christ gave allegiance is the Church established by the Christ whose name “Catholic” was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107) in his Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

You have been enlightened on this many times.

I looked up the passage in Ignatius, which does contain that phrase. You will also find Ignatius’ typically strong emphasis on episcopal authority in that passage. I have long admired the devotion to Christ portayed in the epistles ascribed to him, but he goes way overboard in his personal opinions about church structure, which encouraged the episcopal model over and against Christ’s original presbyterian plan. You will agree he was not infallible.

Actually there is an earlier reference to *katholikos *in the Book of Acts.

Jesus said where two or three are gathered in His name, there he is in the midst of them. So Ignatius would agree that any time two Protestants pray, there is the Catholic Chuch.

We recognize “catholic” as meaninig ‘universal’, to distinguish from ‘Catholic’ meaning the church headquartered at Rome, which is certainly not universal, as not all Christians are members, so it really isn’t universal, therefore it isn’t catholic. So, by the logic of Ignatius quoted it seems he would reject the papacy in its stand that it alone is the catholic church. But it does not really make that claim, but rather acknowledges that Protestants are somehow imperfectly joined to it. Complex and muddled, as opposed to the clarity of Ignatius.

But this has nothing to do with Karl Barth or Sola Scriptura. I am not familiar enough with his stand on SS to comment on it.

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #419
Jesus said where two or three are gathered in His name, there he is in the midst of them. So Ignatius would agree that any time two Protestants pray, there is the Catholic Chuch.

In that case you would have to obey Christ and join His Church which He so clearly established as post #409 confirms. You forget that by the second century “Catholic” also meant “faithful to the teachings of Christ”.

But, how could anyone who denies Christ’s own Church – be truly “Catholic”, shun the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, and use contraception, abortion, support remarriage after a valid marriage, and euthanasia?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I looked up the passage in Ignatius, which does contain that phrase. You will also find Ignatius’ typically strong emphasis on episcopal authority in that passage. I have long admired the devotion to Christ portayed in the epistles ascribed to him, but he goes way overboard in his personal opinions about church structure, which encouraged the episcopal model over and against Christ’s original presbyterian plan. You will agree he was not infallible.

Actually there is an earlier reference to *katholikos *in the Book of Acts.

Jesus said where two or three are gathered in His name, there he is in the midst of them. So Ignatius would agree that any time two Protestants pray, there is the Catholic Chuch.

We recognize “catholic” as meaninig ‘universal’, to distinguish from ‘Catholic’ meaning the church headquartered at Rome, which is certainly not universal, as not all Christians are members, so it really isn’t universal, therefore it isn’t catholic. So, by the logic of Ignatius quoted it seems he would reject the papacy in its stand that it alone is the catholic church. But it does not really make that claim, but rather acknowledges that Protestants are somehow imperfectly joined to it. Complex and muddled, as opposed to the clarity of Ignatius.

But this has nothing to do with Karl Barth or Sola Scriptura. I am not familiar enough with his stand on SS to comment on it.

Greetings.

Jesus also instructs us to take matters to "the church " for final judgment. Matthew 18:17.

That only works if A.) Said church is visible and B.) That visible church is united as one.

But you are correct, this is off topic of SS

 

[Tomyris]

Greetings.

Jesus also instructs us to take matters to "the church " for final judgment. Matthew 18:17.

That only works if A.) Said church is visible and B.) That visible church is united as one.

But you are correct, this is off topic of SS

After a warning from the moderator, we should stay on target.

From what I know of Barth (very little), he would not see a visible church as a violation of Sola Scriptura - neither do I - nor would a united church be a violation (neither do I see it as one). I would think limiting required theology to what the Bible says and respectfully disagreeing with other interpretations (i.e. a SS approach) would go further to unity than habitually excommunicating those in disagreement, a strategy which has not produced unity. The Chalcedon schism and the Orthodox-Catholic schism are still with us. The same approach was taken with the Reformation, with the same result.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

After a warning from the moderator, we should stay on target.

From what I know of Barth (very little), he would not see a visible church as a violation of Sola Scriptura - neither do I - nor would a united church be a violation (neither do I see it as one). I would think limiting required theology to what the Bible says and respectfully disagreeing with other interpretations (i.e. a SS approach) would go further to unity than habitually excommunicating those in disagreement, a strategy which has not produced unity. The Chalcedon schism and the Orthodox-Catholic schism are still with us. The same approach was taken with the Reformation, with the same result.

OK, but at what point are these disagreements heretical and who determines that?

That’s one of my biggest problems with SS. Non-Catholic Christians say something like, “well, we all agree on the essentials”.

But there’s no inspired chart of “essentials” in the bible. And of course nobody to referee all these squabbles on the protestant side.

Pax

 

[benhur]

You even seem ignorant of the reality that nearly all Protestants would NOT “say they are ‘Catholic’ ”

Hi Abu,

Understand. And what they mean is not “Roman Catholic”, but certainly part of the 'universal/catholic church"

But of course they say they are not Roman Catholics as you say you are not P or O, and all vice versa. This despite claiming the same Lord and Chritsology and apostolic foundation, and same Writ, and many, many doctrines and practices.

Thank you for info on O’s .

Still disagree on your view of Ignatius and his “Catholic” exemplifying today’s "Catholic’’.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

In that case you would have to obey Christ and join His Church which He so clearly established as post #409 confirms. You forget that by the second century “Catholic” also meant “faithful to the teachings of Christ”.

Hi Abu,

And what were those teachings ? Hearsay testimony is ok but also problematic . As Barnabus says ,…" those knowledgeable of the Lords precepts, keep them, as many as are written".

Post #409 is understood by P and O’s church’s also, and do not see themselves as "separated’’.

But, how could anyone who denies Christ’s own Church – be truly “Catholic”, shun the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, and use contraception, abortion, support remarriage after a valid marriage, and euthanasia?

Abu, me thinks,“thou art careful and troubled about many things:but few things are needed–or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better,”

We go from the few things of Nicea to the many of Trent.

Do we not both have what is "better’’ ? If one is in Christ they are in His Church, His Body, the Bride, the “Better”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

boo boo edit mistake

 

[Abu]

“If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments” [Jn 14:15,21].

Now, among those are the very specific commands [Post #409] of Christ for all who seek Him to follow His chosen St Peter and his successors through whom alone Christ committed the fullness of Truth, and assuring them of that, ending with “And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (See Mt 28: 18-20).

We have seen how much of Christ’s teaching through His Church is ignored or diluted in teaching outside of Her. [Post #384].

 

[steve49]

The implications of Barth’s position may surprise you.

shamelesspopery.com/karl-barth/

The two men may differ on what they believed the early Church Fathers believed but they must be in agreement that the early Church could not believe in a book they didn’t write yet or in some cases live yet. The early Church could believe in the Tradition that was later written in the books but the books weren’t there.

Also, the article does not mention that the Bible does not come with a Table of Contents and what makes up the books of the Bible. In Tradition we have what makes up the Bible. It was passed down and was not originally written down.

I think RC Sproul once called the Bible a fallible list of infallible books. I agree that it is a fallible list in some cases. You need a complete list.

 

[benhur]

“If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments” [Jn 14:15,21].

Now, among those are the very specific commands [Post #409] of Christ for all who seek Him to follow His chosen St Peter and his successors through whom alone Christ committed the fullness of Truth, and assuring them of that, ending with “And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (See Mt 28: 18-20).

We have seen how much of Christ’s teaching through His Church is ignored or diluted in teaching outside of Her. [Post #384].

Hi A,

And we can see how some teachings/practices are more biblical than others. We can also see how some are more apostolic than others. As we may be in trouble of being outside of the church , so to in being outside of Writ and outside of being apostolic.

Blessings

 

[benjohnson]

The only way you “lose” is to remain where you are - in the Protestant camp. Because neither the EO nor the Catholics - the two groups you are looking to for your sign - believe that Protestantism is what Jesus sought to establish.

Speaking only for myself - even if I were to accept that the Catholic church is the more-correct church than my Lutheran church I would still have consider that the parishioners and my family rely in some measure on my small efforts in the Lutheran church.

It wouldn’t be fair to abandon the life raft for the Barque of St. Peter if I know it will damage the life raft in the process.

Also, the local Catholic parish has OCP hymnals so I’m safe for now.

 

[Tomyris]

OK, but at what point are these disagreements heretical and who determines that?

That’s one of my biggest problems with SS. Non-Catholic Christians say something like, “well, we all agree on the essentials”.

But there’s no inspired chart of “essentials” in the bible. And of course nobody to referee all these squabbles on the protestant side.

Pax

We don’t all agree on the essentials. We don’t all agree on what they are or what they should be. Witness the bitter and current fight between the PCUSA (which seems to be fatally culturally compromised) and the EPC, which defends Scripture as final authority overagainst the stand of that denomination and its theological tradition of veering deeper into an unrestrained liberalism. Tradition brings a lack of mooring as tradition is whatever the leaders say it is, in contrast to Scripture.

The lack of agreement holds true between the Catholics and the Orthodox. Actually, no. The Catholics loudly proclaim that they and the Orthodox agree on all major issues and most if not all of the minor, except for the papacy, and then only regards supremacy, and the Orthodox hotly, and I mean hotly, deny this. There is no one to referee between you there. The division between the Catholics and Orthodox is deeper and wider than between Protestants and Catholics.

It’s not really a SS problem, this lack of referees, but often one of human pride and arrogance, power and control. Churches that do not practice SS seem to have the same problem.

I could point to the first Nicene council, and to the second, both of which my denomination accepts because the findings were in accordance with Scripture.

I’ve looked at Barth a little. He seems to get referred to a good bit in Horton’s “The Christian Faith”, a recent Reformed systematic theology text.

 

[Tomyris]

You certainly do need to “adjust” your understanding by listening to Christ Himself, something you have failed to do, consistently, resulting in being stuck in a sectarian rut.

The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So only the Catholic Church founded by Christ Himself holds and offers the fullness of His Truth and can teach infallibly on faith and on morals.

You love to post this. I have refuted it before and you ignored my refutation. Why should I bother?