T
Third_Day
Guest
As a Lutheran what is your interpretation of James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?”
Do you consider James an “epistle of straw” like Martin Luther did?
- Status
Do you consider James an “epistle of straw” like Martin Luther did?
T
Third_Day
Guest
=
THe Bereans accepted the apostolic interpretation of Paul. Without Paul’s authority to interpret the scriptures the Bereans would have never seen Christ as the Messiah. Without apostolic guidance to interpret scripture all you are doing is practicing private interpretation where the true meaning is up for grabs.
T
Third_Day
Guest
.
SInce hermeneutics is a responsibility of the “Church” and the “Church” decides what is inspired what “Church” are you talking about. The Catholic or the Lutheran?
Is this decision by the Church bound in heaven?
L
LaymanX
Guest
Well, I think there are some things that need to be clarified. First, there is the protestant doctrine of the perspecuity of Scripture. What it basically says is that certain kinds of teachings (namely the basic Gospel about sin and salvation in Christ) in the Bible are plain to anyone who hears or reads it, even a little child. Second, there are things in Scripture that require more effort to understand. Some may require us to suspend judgment and look up other plainer passages which seem to address the same issue. If that doesn’t work, the SS advocate may ask teachers and get their opinions on it. Then they can go back to Scripture and try to make the best sense of it. But, if the SS still can’t come up with a final answer, then, ultimately, certain things are best left in ambiguity.
There is no place of comfort for an SS in the sense of infallible certainty. SS would claim that some things are better left in ambiguity. Therefore, your question about having “certainty” already misses the point. SS people are uncertain about many things because they doubt fallen human beings (even themselves) and trust that God gave them enough plain things in Scripture for them to get by and do God’s will on a daily basis.
Then the next question would be: “How much is enough?” SS thinks that (1) the Gospel is enough, (2) other things such as Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement are fairly plain to infer from Scripture, but may need help from confession and creeds, and (3) the other complex things regarding the dynamics of salvation, the millennial kingdom, the basic structure of church hierarchy, etc. etc. vary from person to person. But most SS would say that the Gospel and some basic advice on how to love God and others is plain. And that is enough to get by. They don’t need pope or any special teacher to make those plain things in Scripture any plainer. Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Francis
J
joe370
Guest
Hey LaymanX…
So you are saying: a sola scriptura advocate, using the practice of sola scriptura, cannot know, with certainty, (regarding certain conflicting doctrines such as the Eucharist or Baptism) - which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?
J
joe370
Guest
So you are saying that I can know which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture, simply by studying the scriptures, and interpreting the scriptures as I am moved by the holy spirit, and deciding for myself which sola scriptura advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture, and which sola scriptura advocate is NOT?
J
joe370
Guest
If people do address this thread I was really hoping we could all stay focused on the OP, if possible. I am really trying to understand the practice of sola scriptura.
J
joe370
Guest
I don’t think Jon would mind me jumping in and answering that question. Jon was referring to the Lutheran church, and so far, his answer is the only one that makes any sense to me. As far as your comment about the Church bound in heaven, I will have let Jon field that one.
J
joe370
Guest
I totally agree with you…
L
LaymanX
Guest
With regards to transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration, an SS advocate would take a very lax position on it. They wouldn’t be completely agnostic towards those doctrines, but neither would they be dogmatic about it. If someone taught the doctrine of Real Presence, they would respect that person’s perspective on it. If another taught Spiritual Presence, they would respect that person’s perspective on it. If another taught Symbolic Presence, they would respect that person’s perspective on it. The SS advocate would consider these doctrines as secondary doctrines which are extremely helpful, but not essential for salvation or basic Christian living. Some may wish to debate their teachers, but that would be okay, because these are secondary doctrines.
Hope that helps.
Francis
T
Third_Day
Guest
Joe, I am focusing on the OP. Here is what I asked the Lutheran poster:If people do address this thread I was really hoping we could all stay focused on the OP, if possible. I am really trying to understand the practice of sola scriptura.
As a Lutheran what is your interpretation of James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?”
Do you consider James an “epistle of straw” like Martin Luther did?
The OP is on the authority of scripture. Is IT the final authority.? Is it possible that James is in fact an epistle of straw.? Who wrote the book of James? No Church Father until the late Second Century quotes from it. In the fourth century Eusebius and others questioned if it should be part of the canon.
The fact the Luther left this “epistle of straw” in his German translation shows that even he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church and NOT scripture alone which is silent on the authenticity of James and other books.
J
joe370
Guest
Secondary doctrines??? 
Interesting perspective. So you are saying: a sola scriptura advocate, using the practice of sola scriptura, cannot know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?
Interesting perspective. So you are saying: a sola scriptura advocate, using the practice of sola scriptura, cannot know, with certainty, which SS advocate is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?
J
joe370
Guest
L
LaymanX
Guest
Yes, it is shocking that so many doctrines can turn into “secondary doctrines.” But that is what happens when people have low view of Sacred Tradition. The lower their view, the greater the number of “secondary doctrines.”Secondary doctrines???
As to your second question (which you seem to be repeating multiple times). Can a SS advocate distinguish with certainty which teacher is teaching truth and which teacher is teaching error? With regards to primary doctrines - Yes. With regards to secondary doctrines - No. This is why SS advocates usually have a very thin Catechism of the Church which is their Confession of Faith. Most SS advocates only subscribe to a particular confession, which is less than 10 pages. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) is over 800 pages!
In Christ,
Francis
J
joe370
Guest
I understand…
Only because I have yet to receive an answer, other than JonNC and now you.
Could you provide a short list of what you consider, primary doctrines and secondary doctrines?
W
wmscott
Guest
I have asked this in another thread and it does seem appropriate to ask it here. If you are claiming to be SS and that is all there is, then why do many of the Protestant denominations who only practice the sacraments of marriage and baptism not fully participate in all seven of the sacraments? What of the other five, all of which were given to us and are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church. Also all of which are Biblical. Holy Eucharist, being sealed with the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation, the sacrament of Reconciliation through confession, the sacrament of the Anointing of the sick, and Holy orders. I will spare all of you by listing out the scriptural references unless you would like them. I keep hearing that everything I need is in the Bible, yet five of the seven sacraments are ignored. 
J
joe370
Guest
Like Third Day said, and I agree with him: Without apostolic guidance to interpret scripture, all one is doing (sola scriptura advocate that is) - is practicing private interpretation, where the true meaning is up for grabs, and rightfully so, when one adheres to sola scriptura, scripture alone as the Christians final authority.I have asked this in another thread and it does seem appropriate to ask it here. If you are claiming to be SS and that is all there is, then why do many of the Protestant denominations who only practice the sacraments of marriage and baptism not fully participate in all seven of the sacraments? What of the other five, all of which were given to us and are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church. Also all of which are Biblical. Holy Eucharist, being sealed with the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation, the sacrament of Reconciliation through confession, the sacrament of the Anointing of the sick, and Holy orders. I will spare all of you by listing out the scriptural references unless you would like them. I keep hearing that everything I need is in the Bible, yet five of the seven sacraments are ignored.
L
LaymanX
Guest
Well, this would vary amongst the denominations. For example, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and some Reformed would prefer to abide by prima Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura. Sacred Tradition is very important to them, so I will exclude them. They would consider their Book of Discipline, their Book of Concord, their Common Prayer, and their Confessions of Faith as primary. So we are now only dealing with “low” churches.
The ones I think are “low” churches are mainly congregationalists without a bishop (some Presbyterians, most Baptists, Quakers, Brethren, et. al.). Most would say that there are three kinds of beliefs: (1) fundamental beliefs, (2) primary beliefs, and (3) secondary beliefs.
Fundamental beliefs are those beliefs which any child can understand when they listen to the Bible stories. For example, God loves them. God sent His son Jesus Christ to die for their sins, etc. etc. One would not even need a teacher for these fundamental beliefs.
Then there are primary beliefs as indicated in their Confessions of Faith (Westminster Catechism, London Baptist Confession, etc.). These beliefs usually include 66 Books of the Bible, Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, Two Sacraments, and the Return of Christ. I think most of these beliefs require the Nicene Creed which is part of Sacred Tradition, but “low” churches think they can get in from Scripture certainly. Quakers and other really liberal “low” churches would consider even these as secondary. I think they are more consistent.
The conservative “low” churches’ secondary beliefs would be the end times (premilliennial, amillennial, etc.), the manner of baptism (baptism by immersion vs. sprinkling), the order of salvation, form of church government, nature of the Eucharist (spiritual presence or symbol), the other five sacraments, and a whole lot of others I cannot recall.
Hope this helps,
Francis
L
LaymanX
Guest
The SS advocates do not think that the other five sacraments are not in the Bible. They just think that the Bible does not explicitly command them to accept those as sacraments. Baptism and the Eucharist are clearly commanded without any ambiguity whatsoever, but the other five are inferred. I doubt you will ever be able to prove the necessity of the five other sacraments to the level of satisfaction that SS advocates expect. But if you feel that God is calling you to take on this difficult task, you have my full support. Go exegete those passages!
Regards,
Francis
J
joe370
Guest
LaymanX, just a couple questions…
I’m confused. Speaking strictly from a sola scripture (scripture alone) - perspective, where is prima Scriptura, sola Scriptura, the catechism of the Catholic Church, the Book of Concord, Confessions of Faith, the terms fundamental beliefs, primary beliefs, secondary beliefs and the term low churches, found in scripture alone? I thought Sola scriptura was the belief that the bible contains the only knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and only those doctrines found in scripture, are to be embraced, which is why many non-Catholics deny Mary’s sinlessness?
Regarding those primary beliefs which you have listed, which of course have various interpretations, depending on church affiliation, how can a SS advocate know, with certainty, which SS advocate, regarding those primary beliefs, is teaching something that is in accordance with Scripture as opposed to contradicting it, and which SS advocate is teaching something that is NOT in accordance with Scripture?
- Status