S
steve-b
Guest
They represent however, the, bigger circle of those believers, that are out there.steve-b:
He narrow circle is your contacts. You even said so.
Last edited:
- Status
Significant in the United States, certainly
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I have asked this time and time again. As a person not living in the US, do some people realise the world is much larger “out there” and things are a “bit” different?
Even American Lutherans seem to miss this. AFAIK, German Lutherans still use Luther’s 74 book Bible, and liturgically read from the DC books. In my brief time as a continuing Anglican, I was so blessed by readings from Ecclesiasticus and other books.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
To your point,steve-b:
Significant in the United States, certainly
The link I provided from the PewForum, HERE giving those stats, as you’ll see, was taken in the U.S. only.
A
Agathon77
Guest
Guys,
I definitely sympathize with the OP’s question. But the problem is that Sola Scriptura, whether it’s a doctrine or a hermeneutical principle; isn’t anywhere found in Scripture.
2 Thess 2:15
As Scripture itself says: Scripture and Tradition is both equally authoritative as the Apostles taught in both writing and by word of mouth. Both were inspired by God. Both are the Word of God.
In my time as a Protestant, the basic problem was that each believer interprets for themselves and everything boils down to individual interpretation without any authority to resolve controversies.
In a situation like that, where no authority is sacred and everything is up for interpretation; it’s basically theological and ecclesiological chaos in which schism and division are endemic and the only solution is either:
A: I and my denom are correct and everyone else is wrong and we’re the only true Church with the truth.
B: Giving up and saying something along the lines of “ Each interpretation is one way to live the Gospel “ and recourse to an invisible church of the true believers.
To say no one interpretation is infallible, not found in Scripture btw; and fallible humans cannot arrive at truth with natural reason denies that there is an objective truth that can be arrived at.
Another thing I see in Protestant hermeneutics is reading everything with an eye toward interpretation using various human tools to forensically take apart Scripture in order to the fallible human mind to arrive at the truth. Yet this hermeneutical quest still ends up in schism and division.
This approach, with all due charity to my separated brethren in Christ; is like in 2 Cor 10:5. Obstacles in the way of knowing God by accepting God on faith seeking understanding.
In this thread, I’ve read the Protestants criticizing the Church for not defining more than a few verses or forsaking Scripture for Sola Traditionis.
I would invite these posters to read Church documents. Like the Catechism for instance. Our documents are rich and thick in Scripture references.
I definitely sympathize with the OP’s question. But the problem is that Sola Scriptura, whether it’s a doctrine or a hermeneutical principle; isn’t anywhere found in Scripture.
2 Thess 2:15
As Scripture itself says: Scripture and Tradition is both equally authoritative as the Apostles taught in both writing and by word of mouth. Both were inspired by God. Both are the Word of God.
In my time as a Protestant, the basic problem was that each believer interprets for themselves and everything boils down to individual interpretation without any authority to resolve controversies.
In a situation like that, where no authority is sacred and everything is up for interpretation; it’s basically theological and ecclesiological chaos in which schism and division are endemic and the only solution is either:
A: I and my denom are correct and everyone else is wrong and we’re the only true Church with the truth.
B: Giving up and saying something along the lines of “ Each interpretation is one way to live the Gospel “ and recourse to an invisible church of the true believers.
To say no one interpretation is infallible, not found in Scripture btw; and fallible humans cannot arrive at truth with natural reason denies that there is an objective truth that can be arrived at.
Another thing I see in Protestant hermeneutics is reading everything with an eye toward interpretation using various human tools to forensically take apart Scripture in order to the fallible human mind to arrive at the truth. Yet this hermeneutical quest still ends up in schism and division.
This approach, with all due charity to my separated brethren in Christ; is like in 2 Cor 10:5. Obstacles in the way of knowing God by accepting God on faith seeking understanding.
In this thread, I’ve read the Protestants criticizing the Church for not defining more than a few verses or forsaking Scripture for Sola Traditionis.
I would invite these posters to read Church documents. Like the Catechism for instance. Our documents are rich and thick in Scripture references.
Last edited:
Irrelevant, though not entirely true. . As a hermeneutical principle, it joins many other practices that armor explicit in scripture. It’s only purpose is as the use of scripture as the final norm. It states that scripture is the norm that norms but is not Normed.
Amen. That doesn’t nullify SS
This is contrary to sola scriptura. That is “sola interpreter”. Sola scriptura holds doctrine and teachers accountable to scripture. Personal interpretation holds scripture accountable to the teacher.
Again, contrary to SS.
There may be criticisms of SS, but using practices that are contrary to it is not the way to refute it.
Last edited:
A
Agathon77
Guest
Your assertion, @JonNC; that holding authority up to Scriptural fidelity means that if any believer thinks the authority’s interpretation is wrong; means inevitable conflict and disregard of that authority. It basically collapses on itself.
Holding to the theory and disregarding the practical reality of how theory plays out doesn’t prove the truth of the theory.
Your Amen to 2 Thess 2:15 is self contradictory. It says both are authoritative; yet your assertion has it say only Scripture is authoritative. This kind of thinking drove me away from Protestantism and toward Rome.
Rome’s a lot simpler and makes a lot more exegetical sense. Plus: The more I read Scripture, the more the Church was proven right. It’s the same in my apologetics with you guys. The more you try to prove us wrong; the more I know we’re right and my faith deepens.
I’m sorry if I’m hurting your feelings. It’s not my intention.
Holding to the theory and disregarding the practical reality of how theory plays out doesn’t prove the truth of the theory.
Your Amen to 2 Thess 2:15 is self contradictory. It says both are authoritative; yet your assertion has it say only Scripture is authoritative. This kind of thinking drove me away from Protestantism and toward Rome.
Rome’s a lot simpler and makes a lot more exegetical sense. Plus: The more I read Scripture, the more the Church was proven right. It’s the same in my apologetics with you guys. The more you try to prove us wrong; the more I know we’re right and my faith deepens.
I’m sorry if I’m hurting your feelings. It’s not my intention.
If holding to something other than SS, you are correct. SS, SS it only refers to doctrine, is s practice of the Church, not the individual. In my entire life, I have never been handed a Bible and told to go interpret myself. Again, that is contrary to SS.
If someone is not adhering to the practice of the communion, how is that the fault of the practice of communion?
Here you entirely misunderstand the very concept of hermeneutics. It is a practice of the Church. SS places the Church in charge because scripture places the Church in charge of teaching.
Scripture is not, repeat, is not the only authority. It is the sole final norm, not the sole norm.
For a Lutheran, the seven ecumenical councils are authoritative, the three creeds are authoritative, the confessions are authoritative. These are authoritative because they are in agreement with scripture.
This sounds like you applied personal interpretation.
Joking aside, all of us are influenced by conscience and faith. If you have been blessed in the Catholic Church in word and sacrament, I thank God.
I’ve been here for over 12 years, you haven’t hurt my feelings. Believe me.
I’m sure, but understand that this is exactly why I am where I am, too.Thank you, @JonNC for your heartfelt words of thanks and that you’re not hurt.
As for your point of personal interpretation; I simply read and accepted on faith the plain sense reading of the text. I didn’t interpret.
I arrived at Christ’s door via baptism, 32 days after I was born. I was baptized into the Lutheran tradition of the Church.
A
Agathon77
Guest
Okay, @JonNC.
I was born in a Catholic hospital run by nuns to Lutheran parents. Baptized Catholic within a few days of being born and baptized at home by my parents’ Lutheran pastor.
Received into the Church in 2016 after a colorful spiritual quest that became a nightmare of spiritual warfare and madness.
I was born in a Catholic hospital run by nuns to Lutheran parents. Baptized Catholic within a few days of being born and baptized at home by my parents’ Lutheran pastor.
Received into the Church in 2016 after a colorful spiritual quest that became a nightmare of spiritual warfare and madness.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Keep in mind, it was not the entire college of Bishops that elected those Popes. The Church was essentially in schism amongst itself.
The Church rarely speaks infallibly. And the point is, they could elect you or Joel Osteen as the next Pope and it still wouldn’t be derailed lol. The power of the Holy Spirit is the adhesive that has held the papacy and Orthodox Christianity together for 2,000 yrs.
The Church rarely speaks infallibly. And the point is, they could elect you or Joel Osteen as the next Pope and it still wouldn’t be derailed lol. The power of the Holy Spirit is the adhesive that has held the papacy and Orthodox Christianity together for 2,000 yrs.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
In Acts 15, we have the case in point of those who argued from the Scriptures written by Moses that males must be circumcised to be saved. in response, they held a church council and settled the issue. They didn’t and couldn’t apply a principle of “sola scriptura” at the time to settle the issue because the scriptures at that time required circumcision.
That’s curious. If I may ask, why baptized again at home, unless it was just some ceremonial celebration?
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
And, how would SS apply when there was no New Testament? And, does SS include the Old Testament as a basis for interpretation? And, how would SS work when there were no printing presses and Bibles were unavailable? And, how would SS apply when large segments of the population were illiterate and unable to read? And, how would SS apply in the context of a diverse membership of the Body of Christ where not everyone has the same gifts and graces?
A
Agathon77
Guest
@JonNC,
The manner of my birth left doubts of my survival. So, the Sisters pestered my Mom to baptize me until she consented. She thought to herself: Why not? I’ll just baptize him anyway when I get him home.
As for why I left Protestantism; I’ll summarize it for you.
I read what Luther wrote and it horrified and repulsed me. He doesn’t sound like a holy man of God in any way, shape or form. Then, there’s my study comparing the different Protestant theologies and histories. No unity, no consistency and every denom’s incomplete.
Meanwhile, I read Sacred Scripture for myself. Disregarding Luther’s tradition and letting the text speak for itself and lead me wherever it did. The facts led me to Rome; because everything in Sacred Scripture lines up with Church teaching and the Church has been consistent in that teaching from Day One 2,000 years ago. It’s an ancient and venerable Tradition. None of the Protestant denoms can say the same.
The more I read; the more the Church made sense and was teaching rightly. The more I read, the more I knew Luther had it gravely wrong.
Then, Luther’s Marian devotion ( Strangely ) confirmed for me, when I had doubts in praying the Rosary as I was already doing early on; that devotion to Our Lady was good and acceptable.
The nail in the coffin was that Luther altered Romans 3:28 in his 1529 Speyer translation of the Vulgate into German. If a man is willing to alter Scripture, and he claimed his conscience was held captive to Scripture; to fit his interpretation of Scripture; that did it.
I can’t trust a guy who’d do that and ruined his credibility as an exegete, teacher and translator.
So: Rome ward home, I was bound.
And that was five years ago.
The manner of my birth left doubts of my survival. So, the Sisters pestered my Mom to baptize me until she consented. She thought to herself: Why not? I’ll just baptize him anyway when I get him home.
As for why I left Protestantism; I’ll summarize it for you.
I read what Luther wrote and it horrified and repulsed me. He doesn’t sound like a holy man of God in any way, shape or form. Then, there’s my study comparing the different Protestant theologies and histories. No unity, no consistency and every denom’s incomplete.
Meanwhile, I read Sacred Scripture for myself. Disregarding Luther’s tradition and letting the text speak for itself and lead me wherever it did. The facts led me to Rome; because everything in Sacred Scripture lines up with Church teaching and the Church has been consistent in that teaching from Day One 2,000 years ago. It’s an ancient and venerable Tradition. None of the Protestant denoms can say the same.
The more I read; the more the Church made sense and was teaching rightly. The more I read, the more I knew Luther had it gravely wrong.
Then, Luther’s Marian devotion ( Strangely ) confirmed for me, when I had doubts in praying the Rosary as I was already doing early on; that devotion to Our Lady was good and acceptable.
The nail in the coffin was that Luther altered Romans 3:28 in his 1529 Speyer translation of the Vulgate into German. If a man is willing to alter Scripture, and he claimed his conscience was held captive to Scripture; to fit his interpretation of Scripture; that did it.
I can’t trust a guy who’d do that and ruined his credibility as an exegete, teacher and translator.
So: Rome ward home, I was bound.
And that was five years ago.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing. Yours is an interesting journey, to be sure. I simply found it strange that a Lutheran would carry the idea of just baptizing again.
Again, thanks.
- Status