Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[PRmerger]

Here’s my understanding: only scripture is inerrant, but our confessions are a right reflection of scripture, as are the creeds, and the early councils. We don’t place the label inerrant on them because we believe that scripture is the final norm, and writings, doctrines, and teachings are only a witness to the truth of scripture.

Jon

Jon, I hate to argue with you, but I am getting more and more confused…and i don’t believe that the Lutheran position is a tenable one, as I understand it.

You are saying that your confessions are neither infallible, nor inerrant, but are error-free?

And that if one is a member of the Lutheran church, reads the Scriptures and comes to a private judgement that is contrary to that which the confessions proclaim, the error is in the individual?

Is this a correct distillation of the Lutheran position?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I hate to argue with you, but I am getting more and more confused…and i don’t believe that the Lutheran position is a tenable one, as I understand it.

You are saying that your confessions are neither infallible, nor inerrant, but are error-free?

And that if one is a member of the Lutheran church, reads the Scriptures and comes to a private judgement that is contrary to that which the confessions proclaim, the error is in the individual?

Is this a correct distillation of the Lutheran position?

Let’s back up to the ancient creeds, and other writings, and what the confessions say about them:

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

The first paragraph would apply to the confessions as well. We believe that our confessions, in terms of the doctrines we teach, while not equal to scripture, are received as witnesses to the pure doctrine of the church.
If one chooses to be a Lutheran, one accepts the doctrines as a true reflection of the truth of the faith, including and particularly that of the three creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism. We also accept the early 7 councils in this way. That is what it means to be Lutheran.
If one chooses, for example, to interpret the accounts of the Last Supper and St. Paul’s account of the institution as saying the Christ’s presence is symbolic, that person’s belief we would consider heterodox, and not orthodox Lutheran teaching. They are welcome to make that claim, but they are, effectively, no longer Lutheran. If a pastor were to make that claim, he would be subject to at least correction, and perhaps discipline.

As a Lutheran, I accept scripture as the final norm, and hold that the Lutheran confessions are a right reflection, the teaching of our church, and proceed to read scripture through that lens.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Because it assumes that your particular church body and only yours is the church that received the Scriptures. All based on your hierarchy, of course, rather than on the entire People of God, which is actually what the Church is. It also assumes that that church believed distinctives that your church holds to and that’s exactly what’s in dispute.

It doesn’t assume anything. It was the Catholic Church who received the Scriptures, which includes all the Churches that were formed from direct Apostolic succession. Whether you like that fact or not is irrelevant.

It is your burden to prove what we have proven to be true.

The Scriptures that your Church uses were taken from the Catholic Church, incomplete but nevertheless taken. There is no way around it. Yes, Scriptures are for the benefit of the World. But they are not to be the foundation of division. Me grabbing and swinging a Bible around and claiming to be my own authority because no other Church in the world is correct in their interpretation of Scriptures is not only arrogant but ignorant at the same time.

There is no assumption at all. The Catholic Church has been holding and defending Jesus’ teachings since he founded His Church on Peter, the Rock. And we have clearly proven it. There is no other way for my Church to still be standing after all these centuries than by the Grace of God, the guidance of His Holy Spirit and the strength of Christ Jesus. No man made institution is able to withstand the test of time and the relentless attacks through the ages. That is the biggest testimony we have. God is Faithful and He doesn’t break His promises. We do.

Here we have been, here we are, and here we will be.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s back up to the ancient creeds, and other writings, and what the confessions say about them:

The first paragraph would apply to the confessions as well. We believe that our confessions, in terms of the doctrines we teach, while not equal to scripture, are received as witnesses to the pure doctrine of the church.
If one chooses to be a Lutheran, one accepts the doctrines as a true reflection of the truth of the faith, including and particularly that of the three creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism. We also accept the early 7 councils in this way. That is what it means to be Lutheran.
If one chooses, for example, to interpret the accounts of the Last Supper and St. Paul’s account of the institution as saying the Christ’s presence is symbolic, that person’s belief we would consider heterodox, and not orthodox Lutheran teaching. They are welcome to make that claim, but they are, effectively, no longer Lutheran. If a pastor were to make that claim, he would be subject to at least correction, and perhaps discipline.

As a Lutheran, I accept scripture as the final norm, and hold that the Lutheran confessions are a right reflection, the teaching of our church, and proceed to read scripture through that lens.

Jon

I appreciate what you have to say.

But if they are a “right reflection”, then they are not incorrect.

How can you say that, have the assurance that it is a “right reflection”, if you do not believe in the charism of infallibility?

 

[pablope]

Whatever, PR. I was going to answer your question…but sorry I’m not going to do it on your terms of demanding a proof text. Have a blessed day.

But proof texting is the Protestant method of responses… Based on everthing being in the Bible?

So you are saying, in other words…there is not Bible verse? So you are going out of the Bible?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

But proof texting is the Protestant method of responses… Based on everthing being in the Bible?

So you are saying, in other words…there is not Bible verse? So you are going out of the Bible?

Err…no.

 

[pablope]

Err…no.

Okay…so where is the Bible verse that PR is requesting you provide?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard:

Because it assumes that your particular church body and only yours is the church that received the Scriptures.

I am sorry my brother, but here is where I disagree with Protestants. Many Scriptures were in circulation before any formal canon; however, history is very clear It was the Catholic Church, which included the Orthodox, who protected and defended they very orthodox Scriptures we read, hear and reflect on at our respective faith communities. Precisely why we have a 27 NT canon, the OT canon is another topic in itself. The Catholic Church did not assume or voluntarily say:

We’ll be the ones to cherish and defend the Scriptures.

The church Christ founded was the one from day one defending and protecting absolute Truth via Tradition and Sacred Scriptures.

All based on your hierarchy, of course, rather than on the entire People of God, which is actually what the Church is.

First of all my brother in Christ, the CC & Orthodox have never taught the “church” per se is strictly the hierarchy. The CC/Orthodox do teach the church is the Body of Christ (via the faithful and the Mystical Body of Christ) in union with the same doctrines. The Deposit of Faith has been handed to the Church and its bishops were and are its defenders of orthodoxy. Jesus never just handed the Scriptures to the lay folks and said: You folks decide for yourselves what church is and means and yet you are all united based on faith.

Sorry but that is a Protestant view and belief of what constitutes church.

It also assumes that that church believed distinctives that your church holds to and that’s exactly what’s in dispute.

May you please present those distinctives which are in dispute?

 

[JonNC]

I appreciate what you have to say.

But if they are a “right reflection”, then they are not incorrect.

How can you say that, have the assurance that it is a “right reflection”, if you do not believe in the charism of infallibility?

In short, grace. We strive in every way to believe rightly, then confess.
I think the phrase, " I believe. Help my unbelief" can apply.
I’m not convinced there can be a charism of infallibility.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

In short, grace. We strive in every way to believe rightly, then confess.
I think the phrase, " I believe. Help my unbelief" can apply.
I’m not convinced there can be a charism of infallibility.

Jon

Grace for the individual? Or grace for those who wrote the confessions?

And, as grace is given, how is that fallible?

 

[JonNC]

Grace for the individual? Or grace for those who wrote the confessions?

And, as grace is given, how is that fallible?

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Why would the writers of the Lutheran Confessions be any different in the need of grace.

Are you asking me if grace given is fallible?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Why would the writers of the Lutheran Confessions be any different in the need of grace.

Are you asking me if grace given is fallible?

Jon

I just don’t understand the position that the confessions are right but not inerrant or infallible. If they were written by fallible men, in their interpretations of the Scriptures, then they are going to be prone to error.

That’s what’s confusing me.

 

[JonNC]

I just don’t understand the position that the confessions are right but not inerrant or infallible. If they were written by fallible men, in their interpretations of the Scriptures, then they are going to be prone to error.

That’s what’s confusing me.

Hence the need for grace.

The same would apply to the pope and Magisterium, the claim of infallibility (ex cathedra) notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hence the need for grace.

The same would apply to the pope and Magisterium, the claim of infallibility (ex cathedra) notwithstanding.

Jon

Fair enough.

So, to summarize, the Lutheran position is “Scripture only, but as interpreted by the (Lutheran) magisterium”, yes?

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough.

So, to summarize, the Lutheran position is “Scripture only, but as interpreted by the (Lutheran) magisterium”, yes?

We wouldn’t use the term Magisterium, but in a word, yes, for doctrine. Which means that sola scriptura is the sole rule and norm by which teachings, doctrines, etc. are judged.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

We wouldn’t use the term Magisterium, but in a word, yes, for doctrine. Which means that sola scriptura is the sole rule and norm by which teachings, doctrines, etc. are judged.

Jon

So, it is dissimilar to the Catholic paradigm only in that Lutheranism rejects Sacred Tradition?

(Catholicism, of course, presents the 3-legged stool paradigm of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium).

 

[stewstew03]

We wouldn’t use the term Magisterium, but in a word, yes, for doctrine. Which means that sola scriptura is the sole rule and norm by which teachings, doctrines, etc. are judged.

Jon

In the same way, you wouldn’t necessarily use the term “infallible” but instead, “right reflection of Scripture.” Or, put another way, “without error because it reflects God’s Word.”

:bible1:

 

[JonNC]

So, it is dissimilar to the Catholic paradigm only in that Lutheranism rejects Sacred Tradition?

(Catholicism, of course, presents the 3-legged stool paradigm of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium).

No, only that we don’t view Tradition as equal to scripture, not that we reject it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In the same way, you wouldn’t necessarily use the term “infallible” but instead, “right reflection of Scripture.” Or, put another way, “without error because it reflects God’s Word.”

:bible1:

That’s an interesting way to phrase it.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

It doesn’t assume anything. It was the Catholic Church who received the Scriptures, which includes all the Churches that were formed from direct Apostolic succession. Whether you like that fact or not is irrelevant.

It is your burden to prove what we have proven to be true.

The Scriptures that your Church uses were taken from the Catholic Church, incomplete but nevertheless taken. There is no way around it. Yes, Scriptures are for the benefit of the World. But they are not to be the foundation of division. Me grabbing and swinging a Bible around and claiming to be my own authority because no other Church in the world is correct in their interpretation of Scriptures is not only arrogant but ignorant at the same time.

There is no assumption at all. The Catholic Church has been holding and defending Jesus’ teachings since he founded His Church on Peter, the Rock. And we have clearly proven it. There is no other way for my Church to still be standing after all these centuries than by the Grace of God, the guidance of His Holy Spirit and the strength of Christ Jesus. No man made institution is able to withstand the test of time and the relentless attacks through the ages. That is the biggest testimony we have. God is Faithful and He doesn’t break His promises. We do.

Here we have been, here we are, and here we will be.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

↑ This was the starting point of my conversion from the southern baptist tradition… ↑