Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Greetings,

So does doctrine matter?

I agree that pride is the root of all evil, really. But it’s the practice of SS that actually leads to SELECTIVE SCRIPTURA, imo. And this is why people are purposely handling snakes and drinking poison, starting new denominations etc, etc.

As a Catholic I say that the Orthodox are wrong. And we wont be united until they come back to the fullness of the truth. You know they have actually acknowledged that Rome is/was prime, but have tried to dismiss it with linguistical gymnastics:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain/

My question to them, is, first among equals is STILL FIRST, right?

So they have at least acknowledged that the referee is in Rome they just refuse to listen to him. Protestantism, OTOH, in general, seems to think that Rome is evil and insidious, even a pagan cult. So I would say the protestants, especially the fundamentalists, are much more divided with us than EO’s. And I base this off of 13 years of being protestant and hearing all the ugly remarks coming from fellow protestant brothers and sisters.

Pax
 
Tomyris #431
The division between the Catholics and Orthodox is deeper and wider than between Protestants and Catholics
.
False.

The reality is that not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches.

However, they have the genuine priesthood, and all the sacraments and thus are much closer to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church than Protestants who have rejected those realities from Christ.
 
I think it was you that correctly stated that only one person can hold the keys and open the door? 😉
Hi La,

Not me, but I said the opposite, sort of, for in Revelations we see Christ holding all keys and opening and closing doors. Of course thru Peter first, but thankfully there are more key users/holders secondly with all the other apostles, and then thru their disciples etc., etc. Otherwise we are back in the same limited boat that Christ had while on Earth, one key holder, one place, one door at time. Certainly Peter could not have opened all the doors that had to be and were opened in that first church time period. Certainly this is how we can do greater things than Christ Himself, as He said we would.

The more you limit the number of key holders, the more you limit His work, or at least the understanding of it. And for sure, all key holders look to those who used them before, for inspiration and example, Peter being the first at Pentecost.

Blessings
 
Hi La,

Not me, but I said the opposite, sort of, for in Revelations we see Christ holding all keys and opening and closing doors. Of course thru Peter first, but thankfully there are more key users/holders secondly with all the other apostles, and then thru their disciples etc., etc. Otherwise we are back in the same limited boat that Christ had while on Earth, one key holder, one place, one door at time. Certainly Peter could not have opened all the doors that had to be and were opened in that first church time period. Certainly this is how we can do greater things than Christ Himself, as He said we would.

The more you limit the number of key holders, the more you limit His work, or at least the understanding of it. And for sure, all key holders look to those who used them before, for inspiration and example, Peter being the first at Pentecost.

Blessings
Greetings benhur.

In Israel prior to the incarnation, the Kings had one official key holder. And back then everybody knew who that person was because the keys were gigantic in size and draped around his neck.

And I find it interesting that Jesus sort of continues this tradition, if you will, by handing the keys only to the apostle Peter in Matthew 16. You don’t want one apostle opening a door that the official key holder shut and locked, etc. Not that they cant open any doors, but it needs to go through the key holder who hears directly from the King. Acts 10:13

I wouldn’t call it limitation, I would call it order 😉

Pax.
 
Greetings benhur.

In Israel prior to the incarnation, the Kings had one official key holder. And back then everybody knew who that person was because the keys were gigantic in size and draped around his neck.

And I find it interesting that Jesus sort of continues this tradition, if you will, by handing the keys only to the apostle Peter in Matthew 16. You don’t want one apostle opening a door that the official key holder shut and locked, etc. Not that they cant open any doors, but it needs to go through the key holder who hears directly from the King. Acts 10:13

I wouldn’t call it limitation, I would call it order 😉

Pax.
Hi La,

Not sure of the timeline, but I know Paul also heard form the King and was made apostle to the Gentiles. I think after 14 years he finally spoke to Peter about it due to Judaizers.

Yes, Peter was given keys, but elsewhere so to were the other apostles. But I agree that only one person should go thru a doorway at a time, except for comedic effect.

Understand about "order’’. Understand the need and desire for it. Homogeneous is nice but…Some things have to be observed from afar off like a tapestry or oil painting, else it looks like chaos. To tell the Artist it must look “orderly” from close-up would be limiting His style effecting the Masterpiece.

Blessings
 
Lenten_ashes #438
…by handing the keys only to the apostle Peter in Matthew 16.
That is the reality which refutes every attempt to belittle Christ and His Magisterium in His Catholic Church, and places all others as promoting their own whims.

For:
‘Although it was extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.” The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.” ’
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-se…q=equally&db=5
 
That is the reality which refutes every attempt to belittle Christ and His Magisterium in His Catholic Church, and places all others as promoting their own whims.

For:
‘Although it was extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.” The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.” ’
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-se…q=equally&db=5
Once the petros/petras argument inevitably falls on it’s face, it becomes very difficult to deny the primacy of Peter.

TBH, as a protestant I had placed my hope in the petros/petras argument because I could not fully comprehend Jesus entrusting the Church to Peter, who was, let’s say very rough around the edges and mistake prone…but it turns out that is exactly what he did. 1 Corinthians 1:27
 
Hi La,

Not sure of the timeline, but I know Paul also heard form the King and was made apostle to the Gentiles. I think after 14 years he finally spoke to Peter about it due to Judaizers.

Yes, Peter was given keys, but elsewhere so to were the other apostles. But I agree that only one person should go thru a doorway at a time, except for comedic effect.

Understand about "order’’. Understand the need and desire for it. Homogeneous is nice but…Some things have to be observed from afar off like a tapestry or oil painting, else it looks like chaos. To tell the Artist it must look “orderly” from close-up would be limiting His style effecting the Masterpiece.

Blessings
Hi Ben.

Other apostles were commissioned, but only one was handed the keys and specifically told to “Feed my sheep”. John 21

And I am certainly not saying God didn’t use other people/vessels to accomplish his mission.

I’m also certain the pontiff has advisers and makes mistakes just like the rest of us. But in the end if a referee is needed, we have one in the Catholic church. The Orthodox lack this and that probably explains why they are not unified on a particular canon and other issues.

Pax
 
Other apostles were commissioned, but only one was handed the keys and specifically told to “Feed my sheep”. John 21
Hi La,

commissioned for what ,to loose and bind also ?. But yes, Peter was a leader, did many “firsts”, was primary spokesperson, was told to act as leader as he had been (after the thrice denial) to feed, strengthen the sheep/ brethren. Absolutely. Almost pope like.

Still like “first amongst equals” for many reasons that you have probably heard before.
But in the end if a referee is needed, we have one in the Catholic church
Yes you do have a referee, at least ( I mean much more). Not sure referee (leader yes) was needed in early church, save for the Judaizing problem , leading to a council as referee.
Blessings
 
Hi La,

commissioned for what ,to loose and bind also ?. But yes, Peter was a leader, did many “firsts”, was primary spokesperson, was told to act as leader as he had been (after the thrice denial) to feed, strengthen the sheep/ brethren. Absolutely. Almost pope like.

Still like “first amongst equals” for many reasons that you have probably heard before.
Yes you do have a referee, at least ( I mean much more). Not sure referee (leader yes) was needed in early church, save for the Judaizing problem , leading to a council as referee.
Blessings
Hi Benhur.

If a apostle forgave a sin it was forgiven, if he retained it then it wasn’t forgiven. (John 20:23)That’s pretty important( example of loosing and binding). We also believe the last supper was very important and that these commissioned apostles can now consecrate the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian life.

In the Catholic church, the same 73 books in the Latin Vulgate from the end of the 4th century are the same ones in our bibles today. In the EO church they do not possess a formal, universally approved Biblical canon. Depending on what part of the world you are in the bible’s may differ. That’s what I mean when I say it’s nice to have a referee if need be. Because it is necessary at times.

Pax
 
Hi Benhur.

If a apostle forgave a sin it was forgiven, if he retained it then it wasn’t forgiven. (John 20:23)That’s pretty important( example of loosing and binding). We also believe the last supper was very important and that these commissioned apostles can now consecrate the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian life.

In the Catholic church, the same 73 books in the Latin Vulgate from the end of the 4th century are the same ones in our bibles today. In the EO church they do not possess a formal, universally approved Biblical canon. Depending on what part of the world you are in the bible’s may differ. That’s what I mean when I say it’s nice to have a referee if need be. Because it is necessary at times.

Pax
Hi La,

Again God has put in us the need for order, agree. But we must be careful in its timing.

You may feel “refereed” and tranquil in your number of books, and I would think done in good faith and rationale. Yet that does not mean it is a better list than the others, also done in good faith and rationale. The final Referee is yet to shed further light and wisdom on the matter.

The Lord did not seem to mention any lack of referee problem for OT Writ , as to the books.

Blessings
 
Hi La,

Again God has put in us the need for order, agree. But we must be careful in its timing.

You may feel “refereed” and tranquil in your number of books, and I would think done in good faith and rationale. Yet that does not mean it is a better list than the others, also done in good faith and rationale. The final Referee is yet to shed further light and wisdom on the matter.

The Lord did not seem to mention any lack of referee problem for OT Writ , as to the books.

Blessings
Greetings.

Our Lord called the keepsakers of the OT writ snakes and children of the devil.

And they changed canons just like they have edited their Talmud at will, plus put traditions of men above the Word of God.

So yeah, we should proceed with caution but be thankful He cared enough about us to not leave as orphans.

Pax
 
Our Lord called the keepsakers of the OT writ snakes and children of the devil.
Hi La,

Forgive me but my immediate reaction is , “Wow, that sounds like Luther and the CC going tit for tat on one of their heated dialogues”

As far as the keepers of OT Writ, our Lord also said listen and obey them when they speak from the seat of Moses (conditional).

Our Lord also called Peter the devil.
And they changed canons just like they have edited their Talmud at will, plus put traditions of men above the Word of God.
Changed canons ? Had debate with Septuagint, maybe (so did Christianity). Talmud is not Writ and quite voluminous, so not sure how minor editing would have any impact.
plus put traditions of men above the Word of God.
Absolutely happened, and still can happen. even had some bad doctrine (leaven). Any church care to examine themselves and say ,“Lord if their be any such way in us…”, or should a church say, "Lord, thank you that you have not formed us like those "others.’’ ? The Lord certainly examined the OT covenant keepers and more often than not against that which was written, or said of what was written.
So yeah, we should proceed with caution but be thankful He cared enough about us to not leave as orphans
How about this, “Wow, glad our Lord cares more about us than them (in OT)” ?

Blessings
 
Hi La,

Forgive me but my immediate reaction is , “Wow, that sounds like Luther and the CC going tit for tat on one of their heated dialogues”

As far as the keepers of OT Writ, our Lord also said listen and obey them when they speak from the seat of Moses (conditional).

Our Lord also called Peter the devil.

Changed canons ? Had debate with Septuagint, maybe (so did Christianity). Talmud is not Writ and quite voluminous, so not sure how minor editing would have any impact.
Absolutely happened, and still can happen. even had some bad doctrine (leaven). Any church care to examine themselves and say ,“Lord if their be any such way in us…”, or should a church say, "Lord, thank you that you have not formed us like those "others.’’ ? The Lord certainly examined the OT covenant keepers and more often than not against that which was written, or said of what was written.
How about this, “Wow, glad our Lord cares more about us than them (in OT)” ?

Blessings
Hi ben. 🙂

I suppose that’s the story, they “Had debate with Septuagint”.

Or maybe the Septuagint (in particular the book of Wisdom, chapter 2) was being used to convert Jews to Christianity :highprayer:, and they wanted that to cease so they acted accordingly.

And the Talmud is their own commentary so that may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but what if they edited it, and poof, OT passages that were once considered Messianic in nature are no longer considered Messianic because it was obvious that Jesus fulfilled them. That would be pretty disingenuous.

I love Israel and the Jews. But I wont be taking any canonical advice from post incarnate, non-Jesus believing Jews. Not sure why Luther felt like that was such a great idea.

Pax
 
Hi ben. 🙂

I suppose that’s the story, they “Had debate with Septuagint”.

Or maybe the Septuagint (in particular the book of Wisdom, chapter 2) was being used to convert Jews to Christianity :highprayer:, and they wanted that to cease so they acted accordingly.

And the Talmud is their own commentary so that may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but what if they edited it, and poof, OT passages that were once considered Messianic in nature are no longer considered Messianic because it was obvious that Jesus fulfilled them. That would be pretty disingenuous.

I love Israel and the Jews. But I wont be taking any canonical advice from post incarnate, non-Jesus believing Jews. Not sure why Luther felt like that was such a great idea.

Pax
Hi La,

I can only think that they did not get rid of Isaiah, which is even more Messianic and more Jesus. But yes Wisdom is quite prophetic . Cool.

Yes, if they edited Talmud , that would be kicking against the pricks.

Anyways, I was talking about Judaism/Writ before and up to Christ’s earthly ministry, not their reaction to Him in their writings/Writ afterwards.

Blessings

PS-Christians also have had the debate over the Septuagint, mostly over how many books to exclude, and all canons excluded some.
 
I was trying to respond to your question, “If the Church taught error on faith and morals it couldn’t be a pillar and ground of truth, could it?”. I answered from another direction ( other than looking for a perfect church to fulfill being pillar of truth). I took from what “is’’ that we have three types of ''churches” as the O’s and P’s and C’s. They indeed each contain and are grounded in truth, and are a pillar, even a candle of light to the world. That there are some differences in practice, even doctrine, does not diminish the pillar, the light. Of course if we were all perfect and united, the light might be “better”, but apparently His grace is still sufficient.
You post each is grounded in truth. I would say there is truth in all Protestant Denominations some more than others. I would say many Protestants aren’t even grounded in the simple principles and foundation of the doctrines of Christ most especially baptism.

[Hb6:1 Therefore **leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.]

In all honesty Ben, what you posted, I find totally off the wall. Three contradicting groups could never remotely be seen as a pillar and ground of truth. God is not the author of confusion and division, scattering people of faith. What is your historic and scriptural evidence?

In Mt16:16 Scripture tells us Christ is building one Church giving the keys to one person. That would be one body, one bride. Christ prayed for that One Church in the Garden before He died.

[Jn17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 **That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.] Why did Christ pray all may be One? Answer: That the world may believe. That means the world would See One Visible Vineyard, One Catholic Church.

He didn’t pray they be three or thousands. In fact there couldn’t be three as there is no such thing as One Protestant Church but thousands. Unless you consider your own particular Protestant denomination as the only true Protestant Church.

[Rms16:17 Now **I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.]

[Eph4:14 That we henceforth **be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.] I have yet to see a man with three bodies.

[Hbs13:17 **Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.]

[Acts2:41 Then **they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.]

Those that gladly received his word, One Hope were baptized for forgiveness of sins and receive the One Spirit One Baptism and Added to them. One Apostolic Fellowship. One Body, the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. They continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine, One Faith Teaching . They continued in breaking of bread=mass and prayers=liturgy, One worship of One Lord God and Father of all.

[1Cor1:9 God is faithful, by whom **ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.]

[Lk22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29 And **I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.]

[Lk9:49 And **John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.] In Luke we can see there are those who believe and cast out devils in Jesus’ name. Yet do not follow nor listen to the One Fellowship Christ has sent to teach the whole would till the end. All validly baptized are spiritually united to the Church yet not united in body and teaching, they follow not with us.
 
It would also be better if our reactions to our differences were more “spiritual”.This is where the Corinthians come in, to not boast in our leaders, in boasting of being of Peter and me of Paul etc… to “pacify those that contend” (Didache), "
“Spiritual” may mean to you, don’t speak of one Church or infallibe truth but only in general loose terms being PC. I have never heard a Catholic boast of being of Peter as opposed to Paul. That seems to be your thing as you posted above, I put it in bold print, saying, and me of Paul. You seem to be boasting you follow Paul as though he teaches a different gospel than Peter and the other apostles. Catholics don’t pit one against the other as they all have their place in the One Body of Christ as Chirst places them. They all teach the same gospel, One Faith, One baptism for forgiveness of sins not different faiths running into thousands.

We boast in Christ and what He has done in the Church. Giving the Holy Spirit to guide those leaders He set in place to lead and guide them into all truth. Why would Christ promise the Spirit to guide them into all truth if He didn’t really mean it or couldn’t do it? With your theory He should have promised the Spirit to lead them into hit and miss truth. Never knowing when something is gospel truth or error.
 
Thanks for sharing. In my time with Pentecostals , half their members came out of the Catholic church, vice versa from you. Interesting that when one has Christ he may seek an institution ( as you), while others who have the "institution’’(Catholics) seek and find a Christ elsewhere. Many of the reformers were heavily bedded in the Catholic institution but found that by itself was not effectual to true , new spiritual life In Christ. (A la Nicodemus)
I don’t recall the bible saying Nicodemus was born again, to true spiritual life, as Christ said by water and of the Spirit. Look what those reformers created, instead of reforming, they fail prey to Satan building nothing more than a Tower of Babel.

Yes when one has Christ they seek truth, through prayer, study of scripture and Church history. Following that history back to the institution Christ is building. That naturally leads them to see the Catholic Church is the One Church Christ is building. They see it is One, as Christ prayed, Jn17:20-21, not a Tower of Babel scattering people of faith into thousands of contradicting contentious denominations, with only a five hundred year history at best, most not even that and still many less than one hundred years and still more added every year.

That’s why many Protestant pastors come into the Church along with lay Protestants. The Church get well learned converts while you get those who know little. There once was a link about a conference of Evangelicals discussing why Evangelicals are becoming Catholic. They took the link down I suppose because like me many used it.

When not well grounded in the faith and scripture one is easy pray for a few isolated verses to sway them. It has been estimated in the seventies and eighties, the Kumbayah years, two generations of young Catholics were poorly or incorrectly catechized=taught. It could also just be the sign of the times.

[2Thes2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, **except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top