- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
Bottom line Jon, It seems your 2nd point contradicts your first point of “final norm”.Agathon77:
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.
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.
For clarity,
I’d just add,
Ye have been taught by us
Point being, It’s NOT just any teaching that comes to THEM from whatever source. It has to come from Jesus or an apostle to make the point about tradition, oral or written, … authoritative…
JonNC:
True. We see this effect, clearly in all the 40,000 + different divisions and sects within Protestantism since their revolt in the 16th century, using Luther’s SS belief to justify their particular belief system(s).
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Jon,Agathon77:
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.
How then do you explain all the massive divisions, the innumerable sects created within Protestantism, with more happening every day? Where’s your source for justifying this?
Last edited:
A
Agathon77
Guest
I have to agree with you, @steve-b. Each believer using personal interpretation to “ back check “ everybody else’s fidelity to Scripture simply sets the stage for endemic schism and division as each individual interpretation, without a common authority as a reference point that ensures stability; will be different from every other individual.
Under conditions like that, unless the Protestant community tries to enforce orthodoxy and authority and that would run counter to SS; its impossible to maintain any sort of unity.
The other problem with SS is that the major Protestant doctrines that “ reform bad Catholic doctrines “ aren’t found in Scripture itself.
I mean, look at Sola Fide’s basis in the mistaken comprehension of Romans 3:28 and then the mind bending Protestant reading of Saint James 2 that forms the foundation of Protestant soteriology.
Under conditions like that, unless the Protestant community tries to enforce orthodoxy and authority and that would run counter to SS; its impossible to maintain any sort of unity.
The other problem with SS is that the major Protestant doctrines that “ reform bad Catholic doctrines “ aren’t found in Scripture itself.
I mean, look at Sola Fide’s basis in the mistaken comprehension of Romans 3:28 and then the mind bending Protestant reading of Saint James 2 that forms the foundation of Protestant soteriology.
Last edited:
B
BohemianBrother
Guest
How do you explain divisions and heresies before Sola Scriptura? I mean, arguably, the west and the east is still split because of different interpretation of tradition. And even submission to the Pope and the Magisterium isn’t division proof (the Papal Schisms). In the end, man will always find ways to corrupt what God has instituted. No earthly authority can keep us from sinning and destroying the unity of the Church, we desperately need grace and the help of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, Lutheran Sola Scriptura is a meaningful “anchor” for orthodoxy. The scriptures don’t ever change. If a “tradition” emerged that would be explicitly contrary to scriptures, I think you’d agree that scripture has the primacy of authority. You however mistake personal interpretation for the primacy of Sacred Scripture within the Church.
Anything can be personally interpreted, not just scripture. Schism isn’t endemic just to Protestantism, it is endemic to Christianity as a whole.
On the other hand, Lutheran Sola Scriptura is a meaningful “anchor” for orthodoxy. The scriptures don’t ever change. If a “tradition” emerged that would be explicitly contrary to scriptures, I think you’d agree that scripture has the primacy of authority. You however mistake personal interpretation for the primacy of Sacred Scripture within the Church.
Anything can be personally interpreted, not just scripture. Schism isn’t endemic just to Protestantism, it is endemic to Christianity as a whole.
A
Agathon77
Guest
@BohemianBrother,
How in the world can Lutheran SS be a reliable anchor for orthodoxy? The Eastern Orthodox have a saying: “ Anything can be proven from Scripture. “
As for the Church’s continues unity after 2,000 years’ worth of problems: That’s God’s Will at work that Jesus promises to Saint Peter in Saint Matthew.
How in the world can Lutheran SS be a reliable anchor for orthodoxy? The Eastern Orthodox have a saying: “ Anything can be proven from Scripture. “
As for the Church’s continues unity after 2,000 years’ worth of problems: That’s God’s Will at work that Jesus promises to Saint Peter in Saint Matthew.
Fslse in many levels. Honestly, Steve, if you wish to criticize, as well as informed as you are, why would you use the completely debunked 40,000 argument?
Further, you yourself admitted earlier that many in American evangelical evangelical circles do not follow Luther regarding sola scriptura. I think you can make better arguments than these.
A
Agathon77
Guest
Tell you what, @JonNC:
Can you please explain to us your position regarding the proper SS doctrine and it’s application?
Namely: How, if it can; prevent endemic schism and division?
Here’s the basic problem that I see:
A) It violates 2 Thess 2:15 which says that both Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative. The implication of SS would have us assume that anything the Apostles and Gospel writers verbally taught was worthless unless it lines up with what they wrote. That flies in the face of reason, IMHO.
B) SS basically holds that both tradition and authority are subordinate to Scripture and are only as good as their fidelity to Scripture.
C) The fidelity to Scripture problem reduces everything down to a matter of interpretation and may the best persuader win.
Can you please explain to us your position regarding the proper SS doctrine and it’s application?
Namely: How, if it can; prevent endemic schism and division?
Here’s the basic problem that I see:
A) It violates 2 Thess 2:15 which says that both Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative. The implication of SS would have us assume that anything the Apostles and Gospel writers verbally taught was worthless unless it lines up with what they wrote. That flies in the face of reason, IMHO.
B) SS basically holds that both tradition and authority are subordinate to Scripture and are only as good as their fidelity to Scripture.
C) The fidelity to Scripture problem reduces everything down to a matter of interpretation and may the best persuader win.
Last edited:
Human sin, broadly. Let’s remember that every single division in Christianity starts with Rome. That’s why True unity of the Church runs through Rome.
The fallacy of the question is the use of the term Protestant. There is no more a connection between Anabaptists, for example, and Lutheranism than there is between Anabaptists and Catholicism. Calvins movement was never the same as Lutheranism. Anglicanism isn’t even Protestant.
As for a source, what others teach is neither my fault nor my business. There is no justification for division in His Church. And all of us, including Rome, are responsible.
S
steve-b
Guest
Looking at history
One of the most challenging phrases written, because it challenges ANYONE reading it to prove it,
AND
Find They can’t refute it.
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant
From: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html
5.
…History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
AND
John Henry Newman wrote that while still a Protestant Anglican… and going through his own journey. As we know he ultimately became a Catholic Cardinal, and is now a Saint.
Last edited:
A
Agathon77
Guest
Amen, @steve-b.
History of the Church is one of the reasons I left Protestantism. Once you examine the historical record; Protestantism is no longer tenable.
History of the Church is one of the reasons I left Protestantism. Once you examine the historical record; Protestantism is no longer tenable.
A
adf417
Guest
Jon if i were to repent of this “human sin” you speak of and if if true unity runs through Rome as you say, then wouldn’t my only option be to return to Rome in this act of repentance? What am i missing in your post?steve-b:
Human sin, broadly. Let’s remember that every single division in Christianity starts with Rome. That’s why True unity of the Church runs through Rome.
The fallacy of the question is the use of the term Protestant. There is no more a connection between Anabaptists, for example, and Lutheranism than there is between Anabaptists and Catholicism. Calvins movement was never the same as Lutheranism. Anglicanism isn’t even Protestant.
As for a source, what others teach is neither my fault nor my business. There is no justification for division in His Church. And all of us, including Rome, are responsible.
Peace!!!
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Fslse in many levels. Honestly, Steve, if you wish to criticize, as well as informed as you are, why would you use the completely debunked 40,000 argument?
That number is rather tame. You of all people ought to know that.
Let’s pick a city in NC.
How about the capital ? Charlotte North Carolina Churchesaside from the Catholic Churches which is ONE Church ecclesiologically, under the local Catholic Bishop, count all the Protestant groups under different names, being their own individual, particular, and separate organizations.
THEN
Go city by city in NC adding up all the independent Protestant organizations
THEN
look on the left column,
Go state by state, city by city.
Add them all up for 50 states. THAT’s just for the U.S.
And note this is a growing number.
At the bottom of the list is
"Pastors and staff, Add your church to our directory"
The strict followers were estimated to be ~50% follow the sola(s) script. Meaning the others are apparently squishy on that, just not strict…
Either way, Luther still has his influence 500 yrs later in a large number of Protestants.
Last edited:
Endemic schism was part of the Church long prior to the Reformation era. So, I’m not sure how one stops it. Pope Benedict, in his homily at the Lutheran parish in Rome, said, …” a unity we negotiate ourselves would be human-made and as fragile as everything that humans make." Unity is in the hands of God.
The cause of unity is not served triumphalism from either side, accusations of insincerity of belief or dishonesty. It is not served by false representation of another’s beliefs, or claims that another is “not really Christian”.
Unity is served by compassion, charity, and respect, and attempts at understanding.
I don’t think it does. The prioritization of scripture as final norm is much more a response to later traditions that, in the eyes of the Reformers, were no consistent with either scripture or the early Church. An example of this is universal jurisdiction.
There is little from the early Church or councils that I reject. And I am quite comfortable with this.
Would any true Tradition contradict scripture? If it does, why should we bind the conscience of the believer to it?
Is that not the same with Tradition and scripture? By development of doctrine, Catholics teach the best persuader is the one with self proclaimed infallibility ex cathedra.
A
Agathon77
Guest
@JonNC,
Point 1: The Church survived many crises over the millennia. The breaking point in the West was when Luther was excommunicated in 1521, after writing vicious polemics against the Church and inciting the German princes to rise up against the Church; and then proceeded to build his movement in opposition to the Church.
Point 2: Scripture and Tradition is indissolubly intertwined and mutually supportive. Neither can exist without the other or contradict the other. The Magisterium serves the Word of God by faithfully studying the Word and declares as needed. You raised a straw man.
As for the early Church and the councils; none of which taught Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura or denied/attacked papal authority.
Last point: The development of Catholic doctrine, from either explicit statements in Scripture or from kernel form and in Tradition; has been mainly in defense of Holy Mother Church against heresies and was carefully worked out over centuries. Papal infallibility and ex cathedra statements is rarely invoked. In fact: Only once in 1950 with the Assumption. Which, by the way; Luther celebrated the Assumption as late as 1525.
Check out Pastor Aeternus for the whole story of what governs papal infallibility and ex cathedra statements.
Point 1: The Church survived many crises over the millennia. The breaking point in the West was when Luther was excommunicated in 1521, after writing vicious polemics against the Church and inciting the German princes to rise up against the Church; and then proceeded to build his movement in opposition to the Church.
Point 2: Scripture and Tradition is indissolubly intertwined and mutually supportive. Neither can exist without the other or contradict the other. The Magisterium serves the Word of God by faithfully studying the Word and declares as needed. You raised a straw man.
As for the early Church and the councils; none of which taught Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura or denied/attacked papal authority.
Last point: The development of Catholic doctrine, from either explicit statements in Scripture or from kernel form and in Tradition; has been mainly in defense of Holy Mother Church against heresies and was carefully worked out over centuries. Papal infallibility and ex cathedra statements is rarely invoked. In fact: Only once in 1950 with the Assumption. Which, by the way; Luther celebrated the Assumption as late as 1525.
Check out Pastor Aeternus for the whole story of what governs papal infallibility and ex cathedra statements.
Last edited:
Clearly not much.
Real presence
Baptismal regeneration
Private confession
The Creeds
Theotokos
The list goes on and on.
There are then, 220 some odd Catholic Churches. Which one are you a member of.
It is a cheap argument, Steve.
S
steve-b
Guest
As far as his errors, THEY go on and on. The 41 listed, I’m sure only scratch the surface. BTW, to your points, look at errors #'s 2, 5, 15, 27, as well as the others concerning the faith he got wrongsteve-b:
Clearly not much.
Real presence
Baptismal regeneration
Private confession
The Creeds
Theotokos
The list goes on and on.
Luther was condemned for his errors as follows.
Exsurge Domine, (1520 )http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm 41 key errors listed
and in 1521 was excommunicated.
AND
The father of Protestantism, as far as we know based on what has been written about him, unless someone else knows differently, Luther died a heretic, excommunicated, and holding to his heresies,
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Those 220 Catholic parishes,steve-b:
There are then, 220 some odd Catholic Churches. Which one are you a member of.
It is a cheap argument, Steve.
ARE
The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church is truly ONE. We (Catholics) are ALL in complete union with the successor to Peter, the pope of the Church of Rome, Peter’s last see.
If one is NOT in complete union with the pope they aren’t Catholic
AND
one can argue till they’re blue in the face, i.e. argue till death, Jesus promises will happen.
His promises will all come true.
Last edited:
- Status