Sola Scriptura and knowing the whole Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stilldreamn said:
Sounds rather catholic, does it not? The difference between we and thee is that on some things our interpreters do not agree.
Click to expand...
👍

About the part I bolded, are you refering to Cats and Lutherans, or SS Christians among themselves???
 
rcwitness said:
👍

About the part I bolded, are you refering to Cats and Lutherans, or Protestants among themselves???
Click to expand...
Catholics disagree with Lutherans, who disagree with Protestants, and of course Lutherans cannot agree amongst themselves. I would have to say that at least the Catholic church has some notion of how to deal with heretics. Lutherans, sadly including the LCMS, can’t seem to get them to recant nor leave.
 
Stilldreamn said:
Catholics disagree with Lutherans, who disagree with Protestants, and of course Lutherans cannot agree amongst themselves. I would have to say that at least the Catholic church has some notion of how to deal with heretics. Lutherans, sadly including the LCMS, can’t seem to get them to recant nor leave.
Click to expand...
But ive been trying to express how the Catholic Church has so many closet heretics!

This is the wheat and weeds parable! No church can be free from them, but the one who admonishes them in the Spirit of God best, will prosper. Its funny, the passage from St Paul seems to contradict the parable of the Wheat and Tares. But thats Paul for ya :rolleyes:

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

Doing this in the Spirit of God, and without being a hypocrate is the duty and challenge of our leaders which I have so much honor for!
 
Per_Crucem said:
Right… but it’s not really what I was addressing by the question. Your statement said that the Pope is infallible because what is true of Peter (i.e., that Christ prays his faith will not fail) is also true of his successors in Rome (interpreting the above to mean that the Pope’s faith will not fail in questions of dogma/doctrine). However, why does only that apply to the Pope, and not all of the negative statements made about Peter? If Christ saying that He has prayed Peter’s faith will not fail is imputed to the Pontiff, why not Peter’s denial of Christ? It seems to be picking and choosing otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think I see how this can appear to be “picking and choosing”. But, in that case, it is Christ who is doing the choosing, and I how am accepting that choice. Jesus is praying to His Father that Peter’s faith not fail. He obviously is not praying for Peter to deny Him or to withold his acceptance of the Christ’s Passion.

Also, in my mind, Peter’s sin should not be interpreted as the Pontiff proclaiming a false doctrine, the non-necessity of the Passion, because Christ’s prayer had not yet been answered. The office of the Papacy had not yet been established.
“…thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church;” [Matt 16:18]
So Jesus is indicating a future event, the institution of His church and also, I believe, the primacy of Peter. That event occurred 50 days after the Resurrection [Acts 2], when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles in the form of flaming tongues. On that day Peter took his preeminent role, predominant among the apostles, and explained the significance of what the crowd had witnessed. The first 3000 souls entered into the flock immediately after.
 
agnes_therese said:
Hmmm . . . if they’re in the closet, how do you know there are “so many?”
Click to expand...
Are you questioning my amazing powers of observation?!!! 😃

Maybe ‘closet’ isnt the best term to use. I think of them as ‘closet protestants’ who continue to profess the Catholic faith and participate in the Mass and use the service of the priests and tout devotions to Mary and the saints, but flat out reject the hard issues and Teachings of the Church. The personal example I keep using is my mother and father in law and my brother in law and his wife who violate the teachings against contraception, drink excessively, avoid Reconciliation for many years and flat out lie about what a homily was about because it addresses issues too close to home.

Im not talking about people who confess their faults and show an effort to change and live according to the faith of the Church whom they receive Eucharist, but those who excuse themselves and consider their religious devotions, such as fasting a fruit for a yr for some saint, kissing an image of Mary, spraying blessed water around the house with a spray bottle, etc to be pure.

Now, can you tell me in all honestly that this is very rare and probably the worst of situations out there among Catholics who are in our Communion and representing our faith to the world?
 
rogergosselin said:
I think I see how this can appear to be “picking and choosing”. But, in that case, it is Christ who is doing the choosing, and I how am accepting that choice.
Click to expand...
Christ is praying for Peter’s faith to not fail, yes. But you are the one (well, not you personally, but Catholics in general) who are then taking his words and imputing them to all of Peter’s successors (and only those in Rome, as opposed to, say, Antioch). That doesn’t answer why a Protestant could not take Christ’s words to Peter to “get behind me Satan” and impute them to all of Peter’s successors. That, I think, is where the special pleading comes in.
 
JonNC said:
That’s not the way I have ever understood sola scriptura to be put into practice, but I’m sure there are numerous non-Catholic western groups that do.

Jon
Click to expand...
I suppose I would ask you this, could you imagine a situation where you would ever submit to someone’s understanding of scripture or sacred truth, despite the fact you do not agree with their interpretation?
 
rcwitness said:
Doesn`t the notion of Sola Scriptura imply that a person must have read and retained a solid knowledge of all of Scripture in order to arrive at any doctrine of faith? I realize the doctrine does not exclude Church authority and Government, but it still leaves the individual responsible to first read and consider all of Scripture before accepting any given doctrine, right?
Click to expand...
As others have said, this depends greatly on how you understand Sola Scriptura. I think Luther (since people usually point to him as the author of the slogan–which is debatable) would have said that you need to understand the parts of the Bible that point very specifically to Christ and issues of Salvation, say for example the Gospels and the letters of Paul. But one should read with the understanding that the “word” of Scripture, points to the WORD of God, which is Christ. If for example, you told Luther that you didn’t understand or didn’t read the Book of Revelation, I don’t believe he would have had a problem with it.

However, if you belong to a church or group that adheres closely to the Niagara Creed that understands the entire Bible, down to the syllable, to be entirely inerrant and equally authoritative, then I suppose yes–one had better be familiar with the entire Bible.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I suppose I would ask you this, could you imagine a situation where you would ever submit to someone’s understanding of scripture or sacred truth, despite the fact you do not agree with their interpretation?
Click to expand...
Not someone’s understanding of scripture, no. My communion’s understanding of it, and its reflection in the Augsburg Confession, etc., I already do.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Not someone’s understanding of scripture, no. My communion’s understanding of it, and its reflection in the Augsburg Confession, etc., I already do.

Jon
Click to expand...
So the question is this, why doesn’t your communion submit to the understanding of more ancient communions? Rather, why didn’t the ones who organised the Lutheran movement do so? It seems me this is where my original point comes in, they were convinced by the scripture, from reading it thoroughly that they had understood it and that to submit to Rome’s, Constantinople’s, Calvin’s or whomever’s explanation was just wrong. They had to go with what the scripture was telling them above what men said, in that age or in any age.

So I do not see how the Lutheran church escapes my point.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
So the question is this, why doesn’t your communion submit to the understanding of more ancient communions? Rather, why didn’t the ones who organised the Lutheran movement do so? It seems me this is where my original point comes in, they were convinced by the scripture, from reading it thoroughly that they had understood it and that to submit to Rome’s, Constantinople’s, Calvin’s or whomever’s explanation was just wrong. They had to go with what the scripture was telling them above what men said, in that age or in any age.

So I do not see how the Lutheran church escapes my point.
Click to expand...
They would have claimed that they were responding to the early Church, rejecting the “innovations” of the western Church at the time.

That said, can the same question apply to the Orthodox Churches? The pope claimed and claims universal ordinary jurisdiction. They claim it is valid from the early Church. Why have the EO Churches rejected?

Many of the things the Lutheran reformers rejected, your bishops also reject, even though there are things we disagree on.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
They would have claimed that they were responding to the early Church, rejecting the “innovations” of the western Church at the time.

That said, can the same question apply to the Orthodox Churches? The pope claimed and claims universal ordinary jurisdiction. They claim it is valid from the early Church. Why have the EO Churches rejected?

Many of the things the Lutheran reformers rejected, your bishops also reject, even though there are things we disagree on.

Jon
Click to expand...
I suppose this leads into a discussion on who is more faithful to the early church and quite frankly I do not think Lutherans have much hope in this regard seeing as you reject Apostolic succession or the need for Bishops or episcopal government.

Granted that the orthodox church rejects the claims of Rome but I think it does do it on the basis of scripture alone, but also in adherence to tradition (which encompasses church and scripture) as the church of Rome also says it does. My main point is not so much to get into a discussion of who is more right or loyal to the past or the scriptures, rather what was the primary basis of the reformers on the Lutheran side to determine truth? Was it not scripture? Fathers might have been consulted or used but were they ever an authority to be trusted if they did not agree with the word? Only if they agreed with the Lutheran interpretation were they useful, on what they disagreed with, well that was just their particular error. The Lutherans could not submit to Apostolic succession because and still cannot because it would destroy their idea of a church as having any legitimacy.

At the very least I suspect you would agree there is a different mode of doing things, living out the faith than which exists Orthodoxy when compared to Lutheranism. Our approach is not sola scriptura, your approach is. I still do not see how I have neglected the form of how sola scriptura ultimately works, even in your communion.

If the holy scripture guides you and you believe the Lutheran communion as a whole wrong on that particular doctrine or practice, what must you do? You must go with the scripture correct?
 
So is this fair to surmize?

1.) Sola Scriptura does NOT require one to have read all of Scripture to

a.) Believe or reject Christian doctrines
b.) Accept or reject a particular Communion
c.) Teach others sound/orthodox faith

2.) Some, but not all, who profess Sola Scriptura depend on extra extra Scriptural Tradition also.

3.) Those who profess Sola Scriptura come to different conclusions regarding what is anti Scriptural traditions and what is Apostolic Traditions. (example Infant Baptism)

4.) Those who profess Sola Scriptura depend on a church (determined by individual preference) leadership that has read and considered all of Scripture to assure them of divine interpretation.
 
Just to be clear, I dont believe all of Scripture needs to be read in order to be saved. I dont believe any scripture at all strictly needs to be read in order to be saved. But receiving the Holy Spirit in whatever manner He comes to anyone, which leads to conversion of heart, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist and deeds worthy of our conversion.

The Gospel of John

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Christ is praying for Peter’s faith to not fail, yes. But you are the one (well, not you personally, but Catholics in general) who are then taking his words and imputing them to all of Peter’s successors (and only those in Rome, as opposed to, say, Antioch). .
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I don’t believe that Luke 22:31-32, taken in isolation, proves Peter’s succession. Rather, given a Catholic’s recognition that Jesus instituted a visible Church with apostolic succession, Luke 22 indicates how we can rely on the papacy for dogma, and thus avoid the dilemmas which apparently proceed from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation.

I have not personally explored the theological, biblical, and historic foundation for Peter’s succession, not in many years, and accept it simply on faith at this point. However, I would be very interested if posters in this thread would help me revisit the topic.

I would also be interested to hear the Lutheran or Episcopal view on the establishment of a Church by Jesus. I’ve heard many Evangelicals outright deny the existence of such a Church, or recognize it solely as a spititual entity. I think they do this as a means for justifying a concept of communion among Christians with opposing doctrines.
Per_Crucem said:
That doesn’t answer why a Protestant could not take Christ’s words to Peter to “get behind me Satan” and impute them to all of Peter’s successors. That, I think, is where the special pleading comes in.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, if a Protestant insists that Luke 22:31-32 is all that can possibly establish papal succession, he could just as well insist there is a satanic influence involved with the Papacy.

However, when considering Matt 16:18, it just is not logical to consider Peter’s succumbing to Satan as being a condition that persists for any significant length of time, while at the same time, Jesus knowing this, nevertheless makes Peter the Rock upon which He will build His Church.

.
 
I have not personally explored the theological, biblical, and historic foundation for Peter’s succession, not in many years, and accept it simply on faith at this point. However, I would be very interested if posters in this thread would help me revisit the topic.

I think they do this as a means for justifying a concept of communion among Christians with opposing doctrines.

That doesn’t answer why a Protestant could not take Christ’s words to Peter to “get behind me Satan” and impute them to all of Peter’s successors. That, I think, is where the special pleading comes in.

Well, yes, if a Protestant insists that Luke 22:31-32 is all that can possibly establish papal succession, he could just as well insist there is a satanic influence involved with the Papacy.

However, when considering Matt 16:18, it just is not logical to consider Peter’s succumbing to Satan as being a condition that persists for any significant length of time, while at the same time,

Jesus knowing this,

nevertheless makes Peter the Rock upon which He will build His Church.
(according to current catholic dogma)

Who are the Church Fathers? and whhat did they teach??

i believe that is important–

The ancient church fathers teach the Scriptures alone,

without any tradition added to them are only authority for Christians

youtu.be/7_bQG3OUevI

do you have to know the whole bible to be born again–? no – you don’t
1 Corinthians 1:26
as saint paul said

Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you.
 
benjohnson said:
It is a shame that private interpretation can lead people to make a God of their own choosing. The traditional Lutheran explanation of this phenomena is that while “reason is a a most precious gift from God” that sin has clouded our ability to correctly follow reason to God.

In Lutheran circles some call this the ‘binding of the will’ problem - in that even if presented with a right proclamation of the Gospel, we still sometimes fail to respond…
Click to expand...
So, if private intepretation fails, that is necessarily a result of sin?

In the following, when Peter refers to “ignorant and restless minds” I can see how that ignorance may be a punishment resulting from sin. However, Peter, himself, finds Paul’s epistles “difficult to understand”. And yet, if we accept this letter as the inerrant word of God, and therefore Peter being the instrument of this word, Peter cannot be withholding “the binding of the (his) will”.

[2 Peter 3 :15-16]Our beloved brother Paul, with the wisdom God has granted him, has written you a letter, in which, as in all his letters, he talks of this. (Though indeed, there are passages in them difficult to understand, and these, like the rest of scripture, are **twisted into a wrong sense **by ignorant and restless minds, to their own undoing.)

Elsewhere, he states that some Scripture should not be interpreted at all, but reliance made specifically to those men ordained by the Holy Spirit to make the proclamation. Since surely there are prophecies that are difficult to understand (witness all the study and disagreements over the Book of Revelations), is it improbable that God would continue to provide the Church with men specifically ordained to “speak by the Holy Spirit” in preference to private interpretation, at least on some matters?

[2 Peter 1:20-21] Yet always you must remember this, that no prophecy in scripture is the subject of private interpretation. It was never man’s impulse, after all, that gave us prophecy; men gave it utterance, but they were men whom God had sanctified, carried away, as they spoke, by the Holy Spirit.
 
rogergosselin said:
So, if private intepretation fails, that is necessarily a result of sin?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. We use private interpretation when we pray, study and share passages we like/don’t like in Scriptures. The problem is when we try to make them dogma and/or doctrine without having the authority to do so. Which is different than studying and asking questions and expanding our knowledge.

I suspect the Church has only declared a handful of verses to be considered final interpretation. The rest is fine as long as we stay within the boundaries.

I’ve always thought it is a bit naive to go after private interpretation so much when the Church has such a limited amount of verses as official teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top