Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[passer_by]

First mistake is there is not a group called protestants. Never has been.

Sigh, is this what you want to talk about?

Not at all.

Of course you are. Why else would you go saying ‘well the Catholic church isn’t any less arbitrary’

I’ve met it just fine. You just don’t like my explanation. And that’s ok.

Your explanation is irrational. But I do understand this depends on the education level and grasp of logic. So I guess all I am getting now is that perhaps one of us has an inferior understanding of logic.

Which one, passer? You haven’t answered that yet from a rational position. You are saying its the CC, but how do you know it isn’t the Orthodox Church in America?

Sigh. History once again. Finding who to believe with respect to the CC or OC is not that easy. It requires a lot of historical analysis. But then its doable.

What you will discover if you study history is that Rome always had primacy. Constantinople was not even close to a claim. In fact, there other other patriarchates. So the whole thing that lead to the Schism was a political issue of power. It was never even on any specific doctrine.

But in either case, if you told me ‘passer, I am going to be an Orthodox then’, I would respect your decision more than your decision to remain Lutheran. The Orthodox decision at least makes sense.

I want you to know I take umbrage with your use of the word “retarded”. I am a teacher and I see kids with all kinds of mental disabilities.

Then you probably know what it feels like to have to repeat yourself over and over again to someone and that someone thinks there is nothing wrong with their understanding. I don’t mean to insult you but I am just saying so that you realize how I am feeling.

What do you do with your kids then? Just let them believe a lie?

To your point, the doctrines are there. The division between Lutherans and Catholics is doctrine and theology. They are what must be resolved.

No. It is the basis for the doctrines. Otherwise it is pointless. After resolving X number of doctrines up to today, the next Lutheran doctrine or CC doctrine will have to be re-evaluated. All because Lutheran’s want to hold on to an incorrect basis. I think that is unacceptable.

Now you’re getting into name calling. What good will that do? Is that going to convince me of your position. *“Passer_by thinks Luther is a madman. Therefore, I must be wrong to be Lutheran.” * Really?

Haha no Jon. All I am asking is ‘why should anyone believe Luther and his ideas?’ I see no reason to believe in Luther after believing in the risen Christ.

To this simple matter, you are yet to give any answer.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822450]

As I said before, it is the most rational thing for anyone to do to go and listen to the Apostles. It is just like listening to a person with Authority in the field of Physics.

there are lots of people in the field with authority. To whom shall I listen?

The joke here is that Protestants want to do something like randomly pick a physics book and come up with their own interpretations even when the Authorities over disagree.

Have you looked at Lutheranism at all? Not to convert, mind you, but simply to understand what we teach, and how we got there.

It is history. There is a difference between HISTORY and THEOLOGY. If I say Christ had Apostles, that is not Theology. That is a historical fact. Do you get the difference?

Sure, but you are saying the Apostles teach it your way, without a rational explanation on why your way and not the way of some other authority.

Just because I say something that is in the Bible, doesn’t make it Theology. One can use the Bible simply as a Historical book.

True indeed.

Those in Apostolic Succession do agree. Even if we took the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, they agree on almost 90% of stuff which the Lutheran’s who have no Apostolic Succession don’t even accept. Whats the deal and logic with that?

You mean to tell me the 1,000 year schism is over a mere 10%? I suspect that the agreement between Lutherans and Catholics approaches that much. At least for me, that’s the case.

You have done no such thing. To say that Apostles don’t agree is not an objection to Apostolic Succession at all.

Not what I said. I don’t object at all to AS. I said AS is not a rational position for you to use, since others who disagree with you have it too.

Even in the early Church Apostles disagreed on Circumcision. But when Peter made the call, everyone listened to him. This all goes back to History pal. Right now, you are just in denial.

Peter didn’t make the last call. Check Acts to see who was in charge.

We can dispute everything. I can dispute gravity if I wanted to. But to then go and say Gravity probably doesn’t exist because it is disputed is retarded.

I liked it when you used the term “irrational” better. At least that is a term that has intellectual integrity

So I suggest you present rational argument other than “It is disputed”.

Gosh, I have.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

there are lots of people in the field with authority. To whom shall I listen?

To any church that has Apostolic Succession. Listen to the Orthodox or Catholic. If you want, listen to them both on the things they agree.

Have you looked at Lutheranism at all? Not to convert, mind you, but simply to understand what we teach, and how we got there.

I have. There is no explanation on how you got there. It all comes down to “We believe the Bible”. When questioned why? “Because the Bible says so”.

That obviously is circular reasoning.

Sure, but you are saying the Apostles teach it your way, without a rational explanation on why your way and not the way of some other authority.

I am willing to accept any other authority if you can give a basis for that authority.

True indeed.

Good that we have that straight.

You mean to tell me the 1,000 year schism is over a mere 10%? I suspect that the agreement between Lutherans and Catholics approaches that much. At least for me, that’s the case.

Actually, the schism wasn’t even over doctrine at all. The Lutheran defect was actually on doctrine.

Not what I said. I don’t object at all to AS. I said AS is not a rational position for you to use, since others who disagree with you have it too.

If you are referring to the Orthodox, they don’t disagree with me or the CC. So I don’t know what your issue is.

Peter didn’t make the last call. Check Acts to see who was in charge.

Haha you see. Again, we are already arguing interpretations of what took place. In either case, what is important is not who was in charge or who resolved it BUT THAT THEY WERE ALL DEBATING ABOUT IT WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS!

I liked it when you used the term “irrational” better. At least that is a term that has intellectual integrity

I am running out of words to describe the plight of Protestantism

Gosh, I have.

In your last post, all you said was ‘it is disputed’. Perhaps you are forgetting things from post to post

 

[JonNC]

Your explanation is irrational. But I do understand this depends on the education level and grasp of logic. So I guess all I am getting now is that perhaps one of us has an inferior understanding of logic.

Then you probably know what it feels like to have to repeat yourself over and over again to someone and that someone thinks there is nothing wrong with their understanding.** I don’t mean to insult you **but I am just saying so that you realize how I am feeling.

I don’t know, these last two thoughts sound like insults. But I’ll take your word for it.

What do you do with your kids then? Just let them believe a lie?

Honestly? I tell them to speak to each other with courtesy and respect and charity. And if in our conversation I’ve swerved from my own advice, I sincerely apologize to you.

Again, I sincerely wish you God’s peace, and pray you be blessed in His word and sacraments.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822659] To any church that has Apostolic Succession. Listen to the Orthodox or Catholic. If you want, listen to them both on the things they agree.

Actually, I do.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

I don’t know, these last two thoughts sound like insults. But I’ll take your word for it.

Good. So how do you deal with kids like that? Do you let them believe a lie?

Honestly? I tell them to speak to each other with courtesy and respect and charity. And if in our conversation I’ve swerved from my own advice, I sincerely apologize to you.

I see. So what if these kids insist on believing something illogical? Do you tell them its ok and move on? What if they want to worship the devil?

Again, I sincerely wish you God’s peace, and pray you be blessed in His word and sacraments.

I pray that God gives you the light of reason. I don’t think we are getting anywhere at all in these discussions. You simply want to outright defend yourself rather than actually wonder if what I am saying might be fatal to your position.

I can see that because it is human nature to act that way. But I pray that with time, what I have said will sink in. When that day comes, and you are honestly strong enough to abandon your Lutheran position, then we will talk.

 

[passer_by]

Actually, I do.

Jon

OH, so you believe in praying to the communion of saints? Honoring the Blessed Mother as Queen of Heaven? Assumption? Importance of Tradition as equal in authority with Scripture?

Those are all things Orthodox and Catholics agree on.

 

[JonNC]

So you believe in praying to the communion of saints? Honoring the Blessed Mother as Queen of Heaven? Assumption?

I believe in praying* with *the communion of saints, and I know that they pray for us. I have no problem with the Blessed Virgin being described as you have. I do believe that the Blessed Virgin is with her son and Savior.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

I believe in praying* with *the communion of saints, and I know that they pray for us. I have no problem with the Blessed Virgin being described as you have. I do believe that the Blessed Virgin is with her son and Savior.

Jon

So what about the equal authority of Tradition and Scripture that both the Orthodox and CC hold? If I understood you properly, this is something you reject. That doesn’t seem consistent.

 

[JonNC]

So what about the equal authority of Tradition and Scripture that both the Orthodox and CC hold? If I understood you properly, this is something you reject. That doesn’t seem consistent.

I’m willing to accept it. I’ve stated already the conditions.

 

[passer_by]

I’m willing to accept it. I’ve stated already the conditions.

What are the conditions? I might have missed it.

 

[JonNC]

What are the conditions? I might have missed it.

Reconciliation of Rome and the Orthodoxy, where they speak with a common voice on Tradition.
Most importantly, what they teach on ecclesiology - the nature and extent of the primacy of the pope.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Reconciliation of Rome and the Orthodoxy, where they speak with a common voice on Tradition.

I don’t see why this is important. The Orthodox and CC both agree that Tradition is equal in authority. So why the need to wait?

Most importantly, what they teach on ecclesiology - the nature and extent of the primacy of the pope.

Once again, this is an issue on a very specific doctrine. I don’t see why this effects your belief on Tradition and Scripture having equal authority?

If anything, then you will have to reject Scripture too for the time till they arrive at reconciliation. Do you? Why not?

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822755]I don’t see why this is important. The Orthodox and CC both agree that Tradition is equal in authority. So why the need to wait?

Not important? It is, ISTM, the major disagreement for a thousand year schism. No?
So, which Tradition is equal in authority? See my point?

Once again, this is an issue on a very specific doctrine. I don’t see why this effects your belief on Tradition and Scripture having equal authority?

Which Tradition? We agree that scripture is the word of God.

If anything, then you will have to reject Scripture too for the time till they arrive at reconciliation. Do you? Why not?

For the reasons I’ve stated above. We know scripture to be the word of God.

Jon

 

[couponfit]

Short Answer: it’s a combination of generalizing your position, looking backwards into history, and relying on emotional reaction as logical verification of “truth.”

Long Answer:

God exists → God revealed the Bible → therefore it is holy and authoritative for teaching.

Man exists → Man is innately sinful and proud → therefore, man is not a source of authority

Thus, we must rely on the Bible over Man.

They then assert that “Holy Tradition” is the work of man, looking at specific examples without looking at their historical background.

The word “Pope” isn’t in the Bible, therefore it must be un-Biblical. And while there is a route of authority via Jesus → Peter ->Disiples ->other disciples via “laying on” of hands, this is interpreted as simply an initiation ritual, and not a chain of spiritually authoritative succession. “On this rock” Christ built his Church, but Peter, as a man, was fallible outside of what was listed in the Bible.

Without this, there’s no basis for tradition, so what’s left is to take the Bible, the sole source of authority, on it’s own. Essentially, they stand at this point in time, hand-in-hand with these views, and look backward, rather than allowing the original point in history to craft their views.

I fully agree that it’s inconsistent and illogical, and that it generalizes the nature of Holy Tradition and Apostolic succession to fit into its argumentative scheme. However, when you’ve been practically bred into the Protestant tradition, it’s hard to see beyond that - especially when some of the die-hards assert that following Holy Tradition in itself is tantamount to relinquishing your Christian faith.

There’s also the “evidence” against Catholicism/Orthodoxy →

If you are truly Christian, you’ll know God (euphemism for emotional experience) → we feel cold and empty in Traditionalist churches → we feel the “presence” of God (i.e., I get a happy, warm, and fuzzy feeling) in these non-Traditionalist churches.

I have a lot of friends that left the Catholic Church or are familiar with its services, who feel it is “Godless” because they don’t get the same euphoria from the Divine Liturgy as they do from singing Protestant Praise songs to a band in a church.

Having said all of these, those who support Sola Scriptura will then dive into the text and look for verses that support these views. That’s where the “all Scripture is profitable for teaching” is used. Once I actually used that against someone in a friendly discussion, and they were stumped. They respected my views, but never really talked religion with me again.

Hi, I liked reading your comment. The last paragraph went over my head. Can you please rephrase it so I can better understand.

 

[passer_by]

Not important? It is, ISTM, the major disagreement for a thousand year schism. No?
So, which Tradition is equal in authority? See my point?

But historically, the schism was not grounded in discrepancy of Tradition. It was more so on who had primacy. So I can naturally understand if you don’t want adopt either church’s position on Primacy but why not Tradition?

Which Tradition? We agree that scripture is the word of God.

For the reasons I’ve stated above. We know scripture to be the word of God.

But is it not from Tradition that we know how to interpret Scripture?

In other words, if we only had Scripture and no Tradition, then is Scripture not worthless as a theological text? Because one can interpret it in infinitely many ways?

 

[couponfit]

Look you’re look at this too too broadly. Each protestant church is really independent. Methodists and Pentecost’s are very different. Most have doctrine, and normally they link their doctrine directly to the bible.

In a way it almost makes sense. Almost! I think what I have to do to understand solo scriptura is to imagine the intention was to cut off the protestants from the church. Further, solo scriptura is easy for a cessationist to accept if you consider that the basic element of solo scriptura is that the revelation of God and Christ in the old and new testament is complete. Thus it doesn’t really take a lot of effort to accept that the bible alone is enough for our salvation. Yet, you’d be hard pressed to find any protestant churches who do not have doctrine, creeds, and assemblies. So we always go back to the concept that Protestantism is designed to justify breaking from the church during a time when it appeared to many priests and laity that the church leadership at the municipal level was filled with corruption and vice. Having read of a catholic priest who just got sentenced to 3 years in prison for embezzling and another two Bishops who resigned I can almost see their view point. But there’s a big big difference between a pastor or priest succumbing to sin during weakness and attempting to discredit the doctrine and dogma of the church and the magistarium.

I guess to really understand we would have to see ourselves in Luther’s shoes at a time when the rich could buy salvation, when rape and vice was common with the ordained, and at a time when serfs were murdered and left to die with the blessing of the church. Or at least that’s how the common person saw it. Like I said, it almost makes sense.

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8822796]But historically, the schism was not grounded in discrepancy of Tradition. It was more so on who had primacy. So I can naturally understand if you don’t want adopt either church’s position on Primacy but why not Tradition?

Are you sure it isn’t a descrepancy of Tradition? Orders and primacy seem to be the underpinning of Tradition. When one looks at the early councils, the Bishops (Archbishops, Metropolitans, etc) came or were represented.
Let’s look at the councils. The east and west are in agreement that the first 7 are authoritative. Correct? From there on, there is no such agreement regarding their authoritative nature. So, look at the Lutheran perspective, or at least the way I see it, we accept those 7. In with the seventh council, Lutherans rejected iconoclasm.

But is it not from Tradition that we know that Scripture is the word of God?

If you mean is it through the Church that we come to know scripture, and that it is the word of God, sure.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Are you sure it isn’t a descrepancy of Tradition? Orders and primacy seem to be the underpinning of Tradition. When one looks at the early councils, the Bishops (Archbishops, Metropolitans, etc) came or were represented.
Let’s look at the councils. The east and west are in agreement that the first 7 are authoritative. Correct? From there on, there is no such agreement regarding their authoritative nature. So, look at the Lutheran perspective, or at least the way I see it, we accept those 7. In with the seventh council, Lutherans rejected iconoclasm.

I think, as I have read in history (I am not a historian so this is not first hand knowledge) is that the whole issue was of political nature. Constantinople grew in power over the other Eastern Patriarchates. But historically, they always listened to the Roman decisions and even asked for help from Rome in clarifying matters.

Have you studied this part of history? Perhaps any references that indicate to the contrary?

If you mean is it through the Church that we come to know scripture, and that it is the word of God, sure.

What I mean to say is that Scripture is a collection of words. As you probably have first hand experience as well, it can be interpreted in infinitely many different ways that even contradict each other. So how does one use Scripture without Tradition for guidance?

Like reading Acts, you will say Peter did not have primacy. Someone else reading it will say Peter had Primacy. So unless we turn to Tradition, and an Authority, aren’t we lost as to how to interpret it?

So Scripture would be like a book that is not of importance till we can decide on which Tradition and Authority to pick, no?

And is this the best Christ could do?

 

[JonNC]

Look you’re look at this too too broadly. Each protestant church is really independent. Methodists and Pentecost’s are very different. Most have doctrine, and normally they link their doctrine directly to the bible.

In a way it almost makes sense. Almost! I think what I have to do to understand solo scriptura is to imagine the intention was to cut off the protestants from the church. Further, solo scriptura is easy for a cessationist to accept if you consider that the basic element of solo scriptura is that the revelation of God and Christ in the old and new testament is complete. Thus it doesn’t really take a lot of effort to accept that the bible alone is enough for our salvation. Yet, you’d be hard pressed to find any protestant churches who do not have doctrine, creeds, and assemblies. So we always go back to the concept that Protestantism is designed to justify breaking from the church during a time when it appeared to many priests and laity that the church leadership at the municipal level was filled with corruption and vice. Having read of a catholic priest who just got sentenced to 3 years in prison for embezzling and another two Bishops who resigned I can almost see their view point. But there’s a big big difference between a pastor or priest succumbing to sin during weakness and attempting to discredit the doctrine and dogma of the church and the magistarium.

I guess to really understand we would have to see ourselves in Luther’s shoes at a time when the rich could buy salvation, when rape and vice was common with the ordained, and at a time when serfs were murdered and left to die with the blessing of the church. Or at least that’s how the common person saw it. Like I said, it almost makes sense.

Just a point that there is a difference between solo scriptura, and sola scriptura. Lutherans reject solo scriptura, the idea that all Tradition, all councils and creeds are to be excluded. It certainly isn’t what Luther taught.

Jon