Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[GaryTaylor]

This thread might be inspired, proceed carefully.

 

[Tomster]

Speaking for myself, I do not want a “necessary” or even a “sufficient” faith life. I want life in “abundance” as our Lord promised. For years, even in the Catholic faith, I did not have it. An encounter with the Holy Spirit changed all that.

Christ left us a living authority, a good part of which is written. I will not live long enough to plumb the depths of Catholic spirituality, but what a quest!

Amen bro!

 

[Tomster]

I would never say that - I don’t deny other authorities at all. If those authorities teach something contrary to scripture, I tend to ignore that specific teaching.

And therein lies the point, Ben. You (singular), by your own words, tend to ignore a specific teaching, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to Scriptures. That is called private judgment, Ben. You have set yourself up as another authority.

Sola Scriptura is really a blueprint for anarchy.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And therein lies the point, Ben. You (singular), by your own words, tend to ignore a specific teaching, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to Scriptures. That is called private judgment, Ben. You have set yourself up as another authority.

Sola Scriptura is really a blueprint for anarchy.

And therein lies the point, Tom. You (singular), by your own words, tend to ignore Scripture, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to the Roman Magisterium. That is called private judgment, Tom. You have set yourself up as another authority.

Sola Ecclesia is really a blueprint for rebellion against the authority of God’s word.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Ecclesia is really a blueprint for rebellion against the authority of God’s word.

As the Church is the Christ’s Body, what would be wrong with Sola Ecclesia?

In fact, you give tacit submission to Sola Ecclesia each and every time you quote from the NT.

If the Church got it wrong in discerning for you the canon, then you cannot trust any word of the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[benjohnson]

And therein lies the point, Ben. You (singular), by your own words, tend to ignore a specific teaching, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to Scriptures. That is called private judgment, Ben. You have set yourself up as another authority.

I’ve always been leery of speaking for others. I’m often wrong so I often speak in the singular. In addition have no teaching authority. But my beliefs are my beliefs because of the church, and as I understand, substantially correct church practice.

So this isn’t private judgment. It’s my personal reflection of church practice.

 

[benjohnson]

I find that when lutherans say this (and I mean no offence) they quickly fall back to scripture as being the only thing that they take absolutely.

No offense taken!

Here’s some things Lutherans take absolutely that are not entirely scripture based ( Off the top of my admittedly dim-witted head) :

Trinity
Liturgy
Theotokos
Baptism for the remission of sins.
Three early creeds.
Sacrement of Communion

There’s more, but I’m a rather poor Lutheran.

 

[SaintFrancis333]

What you posted perhaps isn’t the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura. We simply say that God doesn’t contradict himself, so any other true authoritative teaching or tradition would never contradict scripture.

500 years ago, we used this idea to combat abusive practices in the church. Those abuses that seemed to be tolerated by the teaching authority of the time - so we were able to show that those abuses were contrary to the bible and hence not to be followed. Those abuses ended quickly in both our church and in the remaining Catholic church, so there may be some merit to our evaluation.

We should also say that Sola Scriptura is also a practice of the church, not of individuals. We would reject the concept that one could reject tradition, practices, and then page through the bible to make a separate form of christianity.

The “abuses” ended in the Catholic Church due to Christ being physically present within the Catholic Church and promising her to prevail against the gates of hell. It was “not” and I say that emphatically, “not” the doing of the protestant “reformers” who were (at that time anyways) heretics in every sense of the word. Obviously that does not apply to protestants today who have nothing to do with the heresy of the reformation. Keep in mind, there were many Saints who raised the same objections to the behaviors of some clergy as Luther did. The difference being, they trusted in the Lord to keep His Biblical promise to always be with His Church, and they remained obedient to the Lord and His Church. They were the “true” reformers. Luther, on the other hand, did “not” trust the Lord to keep His Biblical promise, and so arrogantly took it upon himself to “restore” the Church to what “he” personally believed it was meant to be. Protestantisms merits (or lack thereof) are in its own history. If Luther was right for breaking away from the Catholic Church, then why did thousands and then tens of thousands of groups break off from Luther and all the others? If protestantism was God’s will, there should only be “one” protestant “church” and “one” protestant understanding. Instead there is a near unlimited multitude of groups, all interpreting Scriptures individually, all applying their personal understanding of theology. It is a nightmare. Protestantism is not of God. It does not have God’s support whatsoever. That being said, that is not to say people who are blinded by these heretical systems of belief, are not protected by God. When we Catholics say that everyone who is in Heaven is Catholic, we mean it. That does not necessarily mean they were Catholic in this lifetime. Should any protestants find themselves in Heaven it will mean God saved them “in spite” of their heretical man made religion, not “because” of it. Very important distinction to be made there.

 

[po18guy]

And therein lies the point, Tom. You (singular), by your own words, tend to ignore Scripture, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to the Roman Magisterium. That is called private judgment, Tom. You have set yourself up as another authority.

Sola Ecclesia is really a blueprint for rebellion against the authority of God’s word.

Wait! There is nothing - zip, zero, nada, in scripture that conflicts with the teaching of the Church. Impossible!

There is, however, a universe of misunderstanding of Church teaching, lead by a worldly spirit, that makes it appear to conflict. We err when we dismiss the effect of divisive worldly spirits upon our unity.

One must look beyond the summations, beyond the public proclamations on teaching and delve into the reasoning used in arriving at those teachings. It is only then that the perceived conflict melts away.

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;10617295]Wait! There is nothing - zip, zero, nada, in scripture that conflicts with the teaching of the Church. Impossible!

Hi Po,
This is a remarkable statement, given the thread, because it illustrates the difference between the Catholic model of hermeneutics, and that of, say, Lutherans.
You said there is nothing in scripture that conflicts with the teaching of the Church. A Lutheran would say there is nothing in our teaching that conflicts with scripture.

There is, however, a universe of misunderstanding of Church teaching, lead by a worldly spirit, that makes it appear to conflict. We err when we dismiss the effect of divisive worldly spirits upon our unity.

Agreed.

One must look beyond the summations, beyond the public proclamations on teaching and delve into the reasoning used in arriving at those teachings. It is only then that the perceived conflict melts away.

Well, and seek the Spirit’s guidance as well.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Hi Po,
This is a remarkable statement, given the thread, because it illustrates the difference between the Catholic model of hermeneutics, and that of, say, Lutherans.
You said there is nothing in scripture that conflicts with the teaching of the Church. A Lutheran would say there is nothing in our teaching that conflicts with scripture.

Relax! Of the three crucial components of the faith, time and human language dictate that one has to be mentioned first, right? Since the Body of Christ is One, it is congruous, homogenous, of one accord. The Eastern Orthodox faith (let’s leave Catholicism out for now) consists of three aspects, and human language necessitates that one must be mentioned first - which does not mean that it takes precedence. However, chronologically, the faith came first, then the authority. Scripture followed, and so, before it was accepted, it has to be tested against the preexisting faith - tested by that authority which Christ gave the Church - the authority exercised in Acts 15. The scripture we have today passed muster and so it is the third leg of the three-legged stool of Apostolic Tradition, Written Tradition and Magisterium.

Is it as easy to question the foundation of the Eastern Orthodox faith? Point to ponder.

Bible Christianity has a certain aspect of the faith completely backward - in that they base their faith on the bible, while Christ did not present it to us that way. I see this as a form of reverse-engineering in the hopes of arriving at the truth faith. But, two of the three crucial (from “cross”) parts are missing if you do this.

Should I say that the Confessions are suspect solely because they came 1,400-1,500 years post-scripture? I don’t think so.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Wait! There is nothing - zip, zero, nada, in scripture that conflicts with the teaching of the Church. Impossible!

There is, however, a universe of misunderstanding of Church teaching, lead by a worldly spirit, that makes it appear to conflict. We err when we dismiss the effect of divisive worldly spirits upon our unity.

One must look beyond the summations, beyond the public proclamations on teaching and delve into the reasoning used in arriving at those teachings. It is only then that the perceived conflict melts away.

That wasn’t my point, though, po. The reason I posted that is to demonstrate that he’s in no better epistemological position than what he was accusing Jon of.

 

[MaryT777]

Jon,
There are things in the Lutheran Concord Boook that do indeed conflict with scripture. We’ve already talked about the Office of the Papacy.

In this LCMS they say, :in with and under " during Holy Communion. That conflicts also
with Scripture.

Sola Scriptura has been a dismal failure in the Lutheran Church given it is divided today
with the LWF which I understant includes the ELCA, the LCMS and the Wels primarily that I know of.

Sola Scriptura is a dismal failure.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Bible Christianity has a certain aspect of the faith completely backward - in that they base their faith on the bible, while Christ did not present it to us that way. I see this as a form of reverse-engineering in the hopes of arriving at the truth faith. But, two of the three crucial (from “cross”) parts are missing if you do this.

Should I say that the Confessions are suspect solely because they came 1,400-1,500 years post-scripture? I don’t think so.

This is, at best, a caricature of the other position, po. I do not base my faith on the Bible. I base my faith on the evidence and message of the apostolic testimony. I place my faith in the Bible only insofar as the Bible is an accurate record of that message. We are not fideists.

 

[PRmerger]

That wasn’t my point, though, po. The reason I posted that is to demonstrate that he’s in no better epistemological position than what he was accusing Jon of.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could point out what Scriptures Catholics “tend to ignore”.

And therein lies the point, Tom. You (singular), by your own words,** tend to ignore Scripture**, if, in your opinion, you believe something they are saying is contrary to the Roman Magisterium. That is called private judgment, Tom. You have set yourself up as another authority.

Sola Ecclesia is really a blueprint for rebellion against the authority of God’s word.

 

[po18guy]

This is, at best, a caricature of the other position, po. I do not base my faith on the Bible. I base my faith on the evidence and message of the apostolic testimony. I place my faith in the Bible only insofar as the Bible is an accurate record of that message. We are not fideists.

But, what portion of the Apostolic Tradition have you? Anything beyond that portion recorded in scripture?

 

[po18guy]

That wasn’t my point, though, po. The reason I posted that is to demonstrate that he’s in no better epistemological position than what he was accusing Jon of.

To an Eastern Orthodox Christian (or a Catholic), it is all about continuing authority.

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;10617459]Relax! Of the three crucial components of the faith, time and human language dictate that one has to be mentioned first, right? Since the Body of Christ is One, it is congruous, homogenous, of one accord. The Eastern Orthodox faith (let’s leave Catholicism out for now) consists of three aspects, and human language necessitates that one must be mentioned first - which does not mean that it takes precedence. However, chronologically, the faith came first, then the authority. Scripture followed, and so, before it was accepted, it has to be tested against the preexisting faith - tested by that authority which Christ gave the Church - the authority exercised in Acts 15. The scripture we have today passed muster and so it is the third leg of the three-legged stool of Apostolic Tradition, Written Tradition and Magisterium.

Fear not, I understand the three legged stool approach. It was simply interesting the way you expressed it in the post.

Is it as easy to question the foundation of the Eastern Orthodox faith? Point to ponder.

It can be, if one sees that, currently, division remains.

Bible Christianity has a certain aspect of the faith completely backward - in that they base their faith on the bible, while Christ did not present it to us that way. I see this as a form of reverse-engineering in the hopes of arriving at the truth faith. But, two of the three crucial (from “cross”) parts are missing if you do this.

That is the criticism, yes.

Should I say that the Confessions are suspect solely because they came 1,400-1,500 years post-scripture? I don’t think so.

I see your point, and that’s why I referenced Lutheran, as opposed to protestant.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Sola Ecclesia is really a blueprint for rebellion against the authority of God’s word.

You do understand is that the Church consists of the Apostolic teachings, the scriptures (all of them) and the God-given authority to interpret scripture and present the entirety of the Gospel to the world?

The Church is Christ’s mystical Body on earth, with Christ as its Head, at the Father’s right hand. It is One as Christ is One. Scripture is part of it. Her authority is part of it. The Apostolic teachings are a part of it.

Trouble ensues when one or more parts is stripped away or rejected.

 

[JonNC]

=MaryT777;10617487]Jon,
There are things in the Lutheran Concord Boook that do indeed conflict with scripture. We’ve already talked about the Office of the Papacy.

In this LCMS they say, :in with and under " during Holy Communion. That conflicts also
with Scripture.

I would say clearly not, Mary. Particularly when viewed in light of St. Paul, where he interchangeably uses body/blood, bread/wine. Further, for Lutherans, the doctrine is the real presence. The expression is sacramental union.

Sola Scriptura has been a dismal failure in the Lutheran Church given it is divided today
with the LWF which I understant includes the ELCA, the LCMS and the Wels primarily that I know of.

Well, the LCMS is a member of the ILC (International Lutheran Council). But the differences in Lutheranism are not related to SS, but instead to the way the more liberal groups view scripture. We see it as inerrant.

Sola Scriptura is a dismal failure.

It seems to serve my communion well.

Jon