Sola Scriptura and Marriage

[Bergon]

Not a “direct democracy” of the laity of course, but when an ecumenical council is held, like Vatican II, the world’s bishops get together and hash these things out with debate, don’t they? Eventually they reach a consensus, and that’s what ends up proclaimed as the doctrine emerging from that council. Not much different than the what the Anglicans do at Lambeth.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Actually I think there’s two differences between an ecumenical council and a Lambeth Conference. The first difference is that I believe Lambeth Conferences have to take place once a decade. There’s no similar requirement to hold an ecumecial council. In fact there need never be another one.

The second difference is that once the decisions of an ecumenical council have been approved by the Pope and implemented they’re binding on the Church, assuming, of course, the council issued anything doctrinal. On the other hand the decisions made by a Lambeth Conference are the considered opinions of the attendees but have no binding authority on any part of the Anglican Communion.

 

[bzkoss236]

The difference is they will proof text, and we will look at the entirety of scripture. That is what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture”. Further, we will also consider the teachings of the historic Church, the ECFs, etc., something they are less willing to do. So not only can I look at scripture and understand Baptism as regenerative, I can also consider what the early Church thought about the same thing.
So, while that OSAS communion can determine its own doctrine, they are not going to be right, whereas, we are. But the question, “who has the right to decide” a question that is at least a thousand years old.

I guess I’m getting tired, but I sure cant find this Protestant church and their theology and dogmas I keep hearing about.
We don’t claim infallibility because, in part, we have seen it claimed by a number of others, and they don’t agree with each other. How is one to know which is right? I would contend that the claim of infallibility of the early Church is now called into question by division. The patriarchs and bishops who were once able to hold councils are no longer in communion with each other.
But let me talk about my “private interpretation”. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to doctrine. As a Lutheran, I look to the Lutheran Church and its confessional documents for that. Since I’m not infallible, I trust the Church, and if the confessions got something wrong, I trust grace.

Jon

Then what about scripture like Matt 16:18-19. There is Scripture to help understand the references made, and yet Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans had different understandings of it. Scripture doesn’t interpret itself on this enough to make it absolutely clear what it means. Then who has the authority to say what it actually means? Who gives them that authority?

 

[Bergon]

Then who has the authority to say what it actually means? Who gives them that authority?

The answer to that question is going to depend on who you are. If you’re a Catholic the simple answer is Rome. If your Eastern Orthodox it’s going to be, I believe, your church’s Holy Synod. In the Anglican Communion I think it’s each church and province’s synod. I’m afraid I don’t know the answer for Lutherans but my educated guess would be it’s similar to the Anglicans. With other Protestants it can vary from the highest authority in that community or it can be down to individual pastors. I don’t know if any Protestant community allows each and every individual to make their own decisions on interpreting scripture.

 

[Erich]

I would contend that the claim of infallibility of the early Church is now called into question by division. The patriarchs and bishops who were once able to hold councils are no longer in communion with each other.

Actually, to date the Orthodox have been unable to hold an “eighth” ecumenical council even among just themselves.

From this link:

The Councils

The Orthodox believe that for an ecumenical council to be infallible it has to be “accepted by the Church”. This isn’t a workable test of a true council. This is what happened at Constantinople IV when Photius, the false Patriarch of Constantinople was condemned. The eastern Church simply refused to accept the council because they didn’t like what was said. A similar problem arose at the councils of Lyons and Florence in the 13th and 15th centuries, respectively. Both councils tried to reconcile east and west and during both the delegates from the east (including the Patriarch of Constantinople in the case of Florence) conceded Papal authority and the filioque, but both times the Church in the east as a whole did not accept the councils and no real reunion happened. I seems then, that the Church is only infallible when those in the east agree with it.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Lets’ assume for the moment that the Orthodox are correct about what constitutes a valid council and let’s say that the Church in the west is in schism. How would this situation be rectified? A council would have to be called which included the bishops from the east and the west and, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church as a whole would have to side with the east. But would this happen? It seems highly likely that at such a council neither the west nor the east would budge an inch on any point of schism. Again, I argue that any council that says something they don’t like is simply declared invalid.
**
Satan’s Victory Over the Church?**

Finally I ask, what infallible authority has declared the western Church to be wrong? None of the first seven councils denied the authority of the Pope or the dual procession of the Holy Spirit. Also consider the fact that if the Orthodox are right, Satan has won an incalculable victory over the Church. It means the Magisterium is hamstrung and has been unable to properly respond to any heresy that has appeared in the last thousand years – Protestantism included.

God gave us an infallible Pope to prevent His Church on Earth from falling to pieces. A captain cannot commit mutiny on his own ship and no mutineer can publicly proclaim his intentions without denouncing the captain. God has ensured that we have a functioning Magisterium that has steered the Church through the centuries and will continue to until She reaches Her final and heavenly port of call.

 

[JonNC]

Then what about scripture like Matt 16:18-19. There is Scripture to help understand the references made, and yet Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans had different understandings of it. Scripture doesn’t interpret itself on this enough to make it absolutely clear what it means. Then who has the authority to say what it actually means? Who gives them that authority?

Well, the Lutheran confessions, in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope lists at least 4 other scripture references to support our view of this verse. But to the point, I think we agree that hermeneutics is the role of the Church. With division in the Church different communions may end up with different views.
I might add that only one of the four communions you mentioned view Matt 16 as conferring universal jurisdiction on the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[bzkoss236]

I might add that only one of the four communions you mentioned view Matt 16 as conferring universal jurisdiction on the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

Yes, I know that, but I’ve heard different explanations from each as to the interpretation of this verse.

Also, I’d be interested in your list of Scriptural support for your understanding of this verse.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I know that, but I’ve heard different explanations from each as to the interpretation of this verse.

Also, I’d be interested in your list of Scriptural support for your understanding of this verse.

It might just be easier to link the Treatise. Starting from par 7 (in blue) through 11.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Jon

 

[Erich]

I don’t know if any Protestant community allows each and every individual to make their own decisions on interpreting scripture.

Yet in practice that is exactly what is happening. When the rubber hits the road, how many Protestants will submit themselves to the authority of their respective denominations? A lot of Lutherans will, probably (never mind that they are divided among ELCA, LCMS, WELS, LCMC, and any number of “micro-synods”) but how many Baptists? How many “non-denoms”? I’ve even heard it said – especially about Baptists – that they “grow by dividing.”

An individual Protestant will claim to “need” the church for teaching and such and that the church has some authority, but what authority does it have over him, if he gets to decide, based on his own authority, whether or not that church is in accord with the teachings of Christ? He has placed himself, with his personal interpretation of the Bible, over whatever church he might attend.

For that matter, how many times have we had people (even here on CAF!) say that they don’t want us to accept their word for something, they just want us to read Scripture and see for ourselves? But, when we read Scripture and tell them what we saw for ourselves in Scripture, they then proceed to tell us we’re wrong. So, it’s not Scripture itself they want us to agree with, it’s their private, fallible interpretation of Scripture that they want us to agree with.

 

[Bergon]

Yet in practice that is exactly what is happening. When the rubber hits the road, how many Protestants will submit themselves to the authority of their respective denominations? A lot of Lutherans will, probably (never mind that they are divided among ELCA, LCMS, WELS, LCMC, and any number of “micro-synods”) but how many Baptists? How many “non-denoms”? I’ve even heard it said – especially about Baptists – that they “grow by dividing.”

An individual Protestant will claim to “need” the church for teaching and such and that the church has some authority, but what authority does it have over him, if he gets to decide, based on his own authority, whether or not that church is in accord with the teachings of Christ? He has placed himself, with his personal interpretation of the Bible, over whatever church he might attend.

For that matter, how many times have we had people (even here on CAF!) say that they don’t want us to accept their word for something, they just want us to read Scripture and see for ourselves? But, when we read Scripture and tell them what we saw for ourselves in Scripture, they then proceed to tell us we’re wrong. So, it’s not Scripture itself they want us to agree with, it’s their private, fallible interpretation of Scripture that they want us to agree with.

I simply don’t know how many Protestants rely on their own interpretation of the Bible or accept the teaching of their denomination. I thought many of them accepted their denominations teaching. Even Baptists you mention I believe in nothing else follow their pastors’ teaching rather than relying on their own interpretation. I’m not sure you can say I’m [whatever Protestant denomination] if you don’t follow and accept that denomination’s teachings. As a newbie I don’t have the experience of the other threads you refer to.

 

[JonNC]

Yet in practice that is exactly what is happening. When the rubber hits the road, how many Protestants will submit themselves to the authority of their respective denominations? A lot of Lutherans will, probably (never mind that they are divided among ELCA, LCMS, WELS, LCMC, and any number of “micro-synods”) but how many Baptists? How many “non-denoms”? I’ve even heard it said – especially about Baptists – that they “grow by dividing.”

An individual Protestant will claim to “need” the church for teaching and such and that the church has some authority, but what authority does it have over him, if he gets to decide, based on his own authority, whether or not that church is in accord with the teachings of Christ? He has placed himself, with his personal interpretation of the Bible, over whatever church he might attend.

For that matter, how many times have we had people (even here on CAF!) say that they don’t want us to accept their word for something, they just want us to read Scripture and see for ourselves? But, when we read Scripture and tell them what we saw for ourselves in Scripture, they then proceed to tell us we’re wrong. So, it’s not Scripture itself they want us to agree with, it’s their private, fallible interpretation of Scripture that they want us to agree with.

Erich,
Can you honestly say that this isn’t also true for many Catholics? How many polls have been done that show that many Catholics believe in a symbolic presence, don’t believe or follow Catholic teaching on ABC? An unwillingness by laity, for whatever reason including poor catechesis, to follow their communion’s teaching is a problem in all communions.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Erich,
Can you honestly say that this isn’t also true for many Catholics? How many polls have been done that show that many Catholics believe in a symbolic presence, don’t believe or follow Catholic teaching on ABC? An unwillingness by laity, for whatever reason including poor catechesis, to follow their communion’s teaching is a problem in all communions.

Jon

To an extent. However, we do have the successor of Peter as the Senior Pastor .

Christ, of course, is the Main Pastor

 

[Alizarin]

Erich,
Can you honestly say that this isn’t also true for many Catholics? How many polls have been done that show that many Catholics believe in a symbolic presence, don’t believe or follow Catholic teaching on ABC? An unwillingness by laity, for whatever reason including poor catechesis, to follow their communion’s teaching is a problem in all communions.

Jon

When I brought that up in another thread, I was told the observation was “judgmental” and I shouldn’t judge others and I don’t know what’s in their hearts – even if they talk about it openly. A lot.

So if I were you, my friend, I’d get ready to dodge some rhetorical arrows. :crutches:

 

[steido01]

So if I were you, my friend, I’d get ready to dodge some rhetorical arrows. :crutches:

Welcome to CAF.

 

[Alizarin]

Welcome to CAF.

:blushing: gee, thanks

 

[Reuben_J]

The difference is they will proof text, and we will look at the entirety of scripture. That is what is meant by “scripture interprets scripture”. Further, we will also consider the teachings of the historic Church, the ECFs, etc., something they are less willing to do.

Yes, that’s the right thing to do and we all do that generally. This does not seem to prevent different conclusion on what the scripture meant, as reality shows.

I am sorry that the question should lead to infallibility or ‘private interpretation’ which often inevitably tied up with this subject. I just want to clarify on the definition/understanding of sola scripture, Lutheran’s version notwithstanding.

You and others have given explanation. I am still not convinced but that’s maybe because of my Catholic background. The way you say it, the understanding of the scripture is therefore derived from the traditional understanding. Catholic has a longer history, Lutheran maybe much less, but it is tradition nevertheless.

If I go by saying that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equal, then the understanding of the scripture is always derived from the Sacred Tradition and that is how we understand what the scripture says today albeit it also speaks to individuals personally when it addresses their personal situation.

So sola scriptura seems to be scripture and tradition, the latter depends on the tradition of the church respectively. Please correct me if my understanding so far is still not right.

So where does it leave us on/about sola scriptura? The OP will not be able to move on if it is not what we think it is.