Sola Scriptura and knowing the whole Bible

[rcwitness]

Rome teaches the doctrine of fides implicita to cover this. This doctrine indirectly led to the pseudo-universalist statement at Vatican II that those who “through no fault of their own” fail to be properly joined to the RCC (including non-Christians) can be saved. This contradicts the Scriptures, which teach that salvation can be found in Christ alone.

It is Christ who saves all. There are levels of Christ being known to people. Some do not have any awareness of the Gospel. Each is held responsible to what he knows. This is Scriptural. Some are only able to know God through the natural law, whereas others are given large measures of Grace, whether it be by instruction, Baptism, Confirmation, miracles, etc.

Those raised in communities which are not Christian have elements of the natural law within them. Those who recognize a creator whom shows love and suffering towards us are aware of the Christian God, Jesus in a diminished way. They can do God`s will.

 

[Indifferently]

It is Christ who saves all. There are levels of Christ being known to people. Some do not have any awareness of the Gospel. Each is held responsible to what he knows. This is Scriptural. Some are only able to know God through the natural law, whereas others are given large measures of Grace, whether it be by instruction, Baptism, Confirmation, miracles, etc.

Those raised in communities which are not Christian have elements of the natural law within them. Those who recognize a creator whom shows love and suffering towards us are aware of the Christian God, Jesus in a diminished way. They can do God`s will.

That’s not Scriptural. That’s universalism under a cloak. Rom. 1-3 teaches that all men are accountable to what they know, and what they know (even for the Gentiles who have not the law) is enough to accuse and condemn them to wrath and indignation on the day of judgement.

You are describing a heresy called “inclusivism”.

…men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested [Westminster Confession of Faith, 10.4]

 

[rogergosselin]

Rome teaches the doctrine of fides implicita to cover this. This doctrine indirectly led to the pseudo-universalist statement at Vatican II that those who “through no fault of their own” fail to be properly joined to the RCC (including non-Christians) can be saved. This contradicts the Scriptures, which teach that salvation can be found in Christ alone.

I agree that it contradicts the scriptures.

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

 

[rcwitness]

I agree that it contradicts the scriptures.

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

How can someone NOT believe in Jesus, if they have never heard of Him? You cannot reject something that you have not been offered.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree that it contradicts the scriptures.

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

You agree that it contradicts the Scriptures?

Do you imagine that the Church would make this statement knowing that it contradicts Scripture or do you believe the Church is just ignorant of the contradiction and therefore ignorant of the very Scripture it canonized?

There is no contradiction. Anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, whether or not they ever heard his name. What is to happen to the poor tribe in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who has never heard of Jesus? Does their salvation depend upon a man to find them and inform them? Or does their salvation depend upon Christ and his mercy. Or does it depend upon how they respond to the laws of God written on their hearts?

 

[Indifferently]

How can someone NOT believe in Jesus, if they have never heard of Him? You cannot reject something that you have not been offered.

If you haven’t heard and don’t believe, you aren’t saved. This is the whole basis of Paul’s missionary imperative in Romans 10:
*For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. **For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?**[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

• vv. 12-15*

 

[Stilldreamn]

I did not realize that Lutherans recognized some sort of Tradition. Are some theologians to be considered authoritative? What place does Martin Luther hold in this hierarchy, if it is a hierarchy?

I don’t wish to throw the thread off topic, but I am particularly curious about how Lutherans view Martin Luther’s expressions of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Lutheran Book of Concord states that Mary is the Mother of God, the Theotokos. Lutheran doctrine confesses the Virgin birth and that she prays for us, as do the saints and angels. Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and you would find many, if not most Lutherans in agreement. We love the Blessed Mother of our Lord!

Luther was a pastor and theologian, and that is how we regard him. He, along with other early Lutheran theologians produced a volume of work that is distilled into the Book of Concord - which Lutherans regard as correctly interpretive of Scripture.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I did not realize that Lutherans recognized some sort of Tradition. Are some theologians to be considered authoritative? What place does Martin Luther hold in this hierarchy, if it is a hierarchy?

Individuals are considered authoritative inasmuch as their teachings reflect a consensus of doctrine down through the ages. Luther is subject to this same standard. It would be fruitless to try and demonstrate a hierarchy, of course. Luther is considered very important, but ultimately, he would be held to the same standard as Augustine or Martin Chemnitz, or Aquinas.

I don’t wish to throw the thread off topic, but I am particularly curious about how Lutherans view Martin Luther’s expressions of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We tend to be across the board on this one. We would consider some CC devotions abuse, but not all.

 

[Lucy107]

Right, but im looking at it from their own perspective. And that seems to me to lead to the problem that those who believe in Scripture alone ought first to have read and come to a sound knowledge of the whole of Scripture before determining which Church to commune with, or which doctrines to accept or reject.

Usually, people are born into a religion; that is, they are born into a religious family and then take on the religion of their parents. So first, they are members of a religion, and then they figure out what their (!) religion is about.
You can see this at this forum when some cradle Catholics come here saying “I’m here to learn about what we actually believe” or something like that.
It’s similar in other religions: one first becomes a member, and then one figures out what it is that one is a member of.

Other than that, the sola scriptura principle is sometimes a kind of religious version of rugged individualism - an effort to “be one’s own person” and not have to depend on anyone and have noone depend on oneself. “Every man on his own” being the operative motto.
It can function as an abnegation of any responsibility for others, and of course as a boost of one’s self-confidence.

 

[OuiSeigneur]

If you haven’t heard and don’t believe, you aren’t saved. This is the whole basis of Paul’s missionary imperative in Romans 10:
*For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. **For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?***[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

• vv. 12-15

By that logic, you must believe that babies who die are not saved.

 

[benjohnson]

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?

From the Lutherans perspective, it’s the church’s role to arrive at doctrine by applying the practice of sola scripture to the various authorities.

The are also innumerable Lutherans who are unable to read the written word - but no matter! The church proclaims the Gospel and administers the Sacraments.

 

[Novocastrian]

That’s not Scriptural. That’s universalism under a cloak. Rom. 1-3 teaches that all men are accountable to what they know, and what they know (even for the Gentiles who have not the law) is enough to accuse and condemn them to wrath and indignation on the day of judgement.

You are describing a heresy called “inclusivism”.

…men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested [Westminster Confession of Faith, 10.4]

Intrigued that you quote Westminster and not Article XVIII. Do you read the former as taking a stronger line?

 

[rogergosselin]

You agree that it contradicts the Scriptures?

Do you imagine that the Church would make this statement knowing that it contradicts Scripture or do you believe the Church is just ignorant of the contradiction and therefore ignorant of the very Scripture it canonized? ?

I believe the Church elucidates Scripture:

Pope Gregory XVI, *Mirari Vos *(# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.

There is no contradiction. Anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, whether or not they ever heard his name. What is to happen to the poor tribe in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who has never heard of Jesus? Does their salvation depend upon a man to find them and inform them?

Yes, or even an angel, if need be, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you believe this is impossible for God, or that the Creator does not know the heart and will not protect His elect?

Or does their salvation depend upon Christ and his mercy. Or does it depend upon how they respond to the laws of God written on their hearts?

Again, yes, as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, and as explained by Indifferently when when quoting Romans: 10

 

[rcwitness]

From the Lutherans perspective, it’s the church’s role to arrive at doctrine by applying the practice of sola scripture to the various authorities.

The are also innumerable Lutherans who are unable to read the written word - but no matter! The church proclaims the Gospel and administers the Sacraments.

Thanks for the clear answer. Too bad Sola Scriptura has such various outcomes.

 

[Novocastrian]

Too bad Sola Scriptura has such various outcomes.

This line of argument seems weak.

The Roman Catholic position is that all Christians were originally part of one institutional church under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. Are we to look at all the divisions in the Church, turn our noses up, and say, “too bad Papal primacy has such various outcomes!”?

I don’t understand what’s wrong with saying that disunity is a problem to do with human nature, rather than papal primacy/sola scriptura.

 

[rcwitness]

This line of argument seems weak.

The Roman Catholic position is that all Christians were originally part of one institutional church under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. Are we to look at all the divisions in the Church, turn our noses up, and say, “too bad Papal primacy has such various outcomes!”?

I don’t understand what’s wrong with saying that disunity is a problem to do with human nature, rather than papal primacy/sola scriptura.

Just expressing a fact.

How`s this fact… Its too bad there are so many Catholics who dont follow the Church. I think its better to be in the denominations and hold to what you profess than to be in the Catholic communion and reject her Teachings.

 

[Indifferently]

By that logic, you must believe that babies who die are not saved.

You’ve actually dodged the whole issue by introducing something else. Babies are included in the covenant of grace by virtue of their parents’ faith. I’m simply saying what the Bible says.

 

[rogergosselin]

This line of argument seems weak.

The Roman Catholic position is that all Christians were originally part of one institutional church under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. Are we to look at all the divisions in the Church, turn our noses up, and say, “too bad Papal primacy has such various outcomes!”?

I don’t understand what’s wrong with saying that disunity is a problem to do with human nature, rather than papal primacy/sola scriptura.

Disunity may be a problem with human nature, but the Catholic Church professes One Faith. Therefore, it does not admit to divisions in the Church. A heretic would simply lose membership in the one Body of Christ.

The reason we rely on Papal infallibility (when it is clear that the Pope is speaking from the Chair of Peter) is the following:

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you (plural), that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,** confirm thy brethren**.”

Papal primacy is an additional, though, of course, related doctrine that we find in Scripture.

.

 

[rogergosselin]

Just expressing a fact.

How`s this fact… Its too bad there are so many Catholics who dont follow the Church. I think its better to be in the denominations and hold to what you profess than to be in the Catholic communion and reject her Teachings.

Of course, you cannot be in Catholic communion if you reject Her teachings.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks for the clear answer. Too bad Sola Scriptura has such various outcomes.

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.

Sadly, a similar problem is in evidence in your communion - even though the Magisterium rightly proclaims the Gospel some Catholics don’t respond.

I’m not sure thee’s a solution by our hands, only to pray to the God for an indwelling of the Holy Spirit for all of us.