Sola Scriptura: A Blind Spot but Not Worthless

  • Thread starter Thread starter Koineman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Hi Duane,
It can be the sole authority by which the Church evaluates teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogma. That’s the meaning.
Click to expand...
H Jon,

And yet Jesus, nor scripture, nor the Apostles, nor the early church taught this. They say: “take it to the church.”
Even the definition here from the Formula of Concord implies rather clearly that the Church “estimates and judges”.
Click to expand...
Truly, any practitioner of sola scriptura can conscientiously object to this formula as not being found in scripture.

Without an authority to say your interpretation is wrong, we are left with millions of different interpretations, where everyone thinks they are right.
Rather well, as the Church was able to refute this false teaching.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
Yet Arianism is still around. You have to feel sorry for Arius. If he were around in the early days of the Reformation, do you think he would be hailed as another Calvin, or Luther?

By the way, read several papers, one by an ex-priest named Dwyer, the gist I got from them was that the controversy was NOT settled by appealing to scripture, but by going outside of scripture.
 
JonNC said:
Hi Michael,
Do you have an example?
Click to expand...
Any official Church council decree or Papal decree addressed to the whole Church (Trent documents, Humanae Vitae, Marian dogma documents for example)
Any document that can be supported by scripture can be considered authoritative, though not equal to scripture. For example, quoting the Formula of Concord again:
Click to expand...
But I was not saying any authority or equal authority. I meant the same authority. I would agree that the Sacred Scriptures are considered the highest authoritative document in the Church. Other documents which come from the same authority as Scriptures can be binding, yet have their place in relation to Sacred Scripture. Otherwise, Sacred Scripture would not be closed and continually being added to.
You cannot know how much I appreciate this. It is a trying time for me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
No problem. You are a much appreciated friend/brother here at CAF!
 
Duane1966 said:
What? Umm, can you post some quotes from early sources showing the “elevation of private” interpretation? You make it sound like it was once commonplace, but I fail to see it in the ECF’s writings.

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself?* No, it is not (2 Peter1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?* Again, “NO” (Acts8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.* Even the “founder” ofSola Scriptura(Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible.*
Click to expand...
Hi Duane,

I am also afraid of anyone or any church having his or her private interpretation of not only scripture, but tradition, even history and ecf’s, that are apart from the Spirit’s intent or interpretation. But I am also afraid of that private interpretation that says I can not know that intent , that it is the sole rule for previous and present ecclesia , and that infalibly.
 
Duane1966 said:
And yet Jesus, nor scripture, nor the Apostles, nor the early church taught this. They say: “take it to the church.”
Click to expand...
Partly true, and partly false by what you leave out.

You left out the dignity and ability of the individual, to privately confront the sin first .The individual, as part of the “body” has responsibility, even authority to discern the matter.

To show the individual though "private’ is still not “alone”, he takes another individual to confront the sin. After all, “where two or more are gathered…”.

If that fails, now we take it to their assembly.

The presumption is that all three scenarios have authority, and who would say any of the three need not be at least “scriptural” ?
 
Duane1966 said:
Yet Arianism is still around. You have to feel sorry for Arius. If he were around in the early days of the Reformation, do you think he would be hailed as another Calvin, or Luther?

By the way, read several papers, one by an ex-priest named Dwyer, the gist I got from them was that the controversy was NOT settled by appealing to scripture, but by going outside of scripture.
Click to expand...
Hi Duane.

So one says it was a council, another a pope, another the Church, another scripture, settled the matter yet Ariansim is still around ? Then why pick just on scripture as a failing authority ? What does Dwyer suggest ?
 
benhur said:
The presumption is that all three scenarios have authority, and who would say any of the three need not be at least “scriptural” ?
Click to expand...
The individual can act in accordance to the faith of the Church. That is the goal! We should all stand on the same authority of the Universal Faith. The Church, which can be a very local community (Parish) to a greater jurisdiction (diocese) and further yet (Rome) and if need be all the way to the pillar Bishop (Pope Francis) has order of authority.
 
Per_Crucem said:
I can only answer for my own tradition. However, I would think the Catholic view is at least similar. They would not necessarily say that the Church is of equal authority with Scripture, rather, they would say Tradition is. In the Orthodox view, Scripture is part of the collective whole known as Tradition (we don’t separate the two into two sources of revelation. Rather, all revelation is Holy Tradition). The problem with saying that the Church was not infallible in its reception of the tradition of the canon, is that it amounts to simply a more glorified version of the individual who “feels” that Hebrews is Scripture. That is to say, if the Church could have gotten it wrong, then there’s a possibility that the Church did get it wrong.
Click to expand...
It does seem to have got it wrong as to the Sabbath.

Where is the biblical authority to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday !!:eek::eek:
 
=Duane1966;12943788]H Jon,
Click to expand...
And yet Jesus, nor scripture, nor the Apostles, nor the early church taught this. They say: “take it to the church.”
Click to expand...
Hi Duane,
My experience as a Lutheran is that is exactly what we must do. I am in the midst of such an event in my own parish - and I am taking it to the Church. Sola scriptura, properly practiced, is the use of scripture as the final norm in determining doctrine. Only the Church sets doctrine. The disagreement within my parish has to do with doctrine, so I am taking it to the District (diocese), and the Synod.
Truly, any practitioner of sola scriptura can conscientiously object to this formula as not being found in scripture.
Click to expand...
Anyone can object to anything, but if one is to be a Lutheran, at least a confessional Lutheran in the Missouri Synod, they cannot conscientiously object to doctrines of the Church, anymore than a Catholic can object to the CC’s teachings.
Without an authority to say your interpretation is wrong, we are left with millions of different interpretations, where everyone thinks they are right.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that started, not with the Reformation, but with the schism of authority 500 years before.
Yet Arianism is still around. You have to feel sorry for Arius. If he were around in the early days of the Reformation, do you think he would be hailed as another Calvin, or Luther?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Calvinists, but he would not be by Lutherans, since we accept the early councils.
By the way, read several papers, one by an ex-priest named Dwyer, the gist I got from them was that the controversy was NOT settled by appealing to scripture, but by going outside of scripture.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of him. Is he now Lutheran?

Jon
 
rcwitness said:
The individual can act in accordance to the faith of the Church. That is the goal!
Click to expand...
Yes, but not only because of gracious obedience but also gracious personal, divine revelation on the matter. That is the goal!
 
benhur said:
Yes, but not only because of gracious obedience but also gracious personal, divine revelation on the matter. That is the goal!
Click to expand...
When it comes to convicting others in the faith with authority, yes the individual can act. He can do so knowing what the deposit of faith has revealed. But the level of authority to hold others accountable increases as he seeks the greater Church for support.

He may find that he doesn’t have the support he thought he would receive.
 
rcwitness said:
So is that a Sacred Tradition not explicitly from Scripture?
Click to expand...
It may not be “explicitly” from Scripture but we have an early church father explicitly writing it down so that we can refer to it later. I would love to see more of the “Sacred Tradition” actually written by the early church fathers.

Also, is there anything in what they did that was contrary to Scripture? I didn’t see anything but maybe some of our apologists and theologians did.

I think it’s pretty cool to read how the earliest, “primitive” worship was like…

Blessings!

Rita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top