Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[stewstew03]

What I’m saying is there is no reason to believe that today an individual Bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible, ex cathedra or otherwise. It is not in keeping with the early Church that required ecumenical councils, of which there has not been one since the 7th.

Jon

I know that there are plenty of poorly catechized Catholics, but has any Catholic said that an individual Bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible??

.

 

[JonNC]

If I understand you correctly then Jon, the Scripture writings themselves are inerrant, but we can never know for sure what they mean because no human can infallibly tell us what they mean (when understandings of those inerrant Scriptures differ).

Who says we can’t know what they mean? The early councils certainly knew. Christians through the centuries have known.

Jon

 

[Nita]

Who says we can’t know what they mean? The early councils certainly knew.

Why only the early councils?
Who had the authority to determine when the councils no longer needed to be heeded?
Heresies didn’t cease arising after the early councils.

Christians through the centuries have known.

Christians through the centuries have differed in their personal understandings of what the Scriptures mean. It was happening already in apostolic times. (eg. 2 Peter 3:16)

Being “Christian” is not enough to ensure that one correctly knows what the Scriptures mean. You and I are both very committed, believing Christians; yet we understand some passages differently - in ways that contradict each other.

 

[PRmerger]

What I’m saying is there is no reason to believe that today an individual Bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible, ex cathedra or otherwise. It is not in keeping with the early Church that required ecumenical councils, of which there has not been one since the 7th.

Jon

What about the Magisterium as a whole, not individual bishops (who cannot ever claim to have the charism of infallibility apart from the college of bishops)?

 

[Tomster]

What about the Magisterium as a whole, not individual bishops (who cannot ever claim to have the charism of infallibility apart from the college of bishops)?

 

[benjohnson]

But not the traditional view of Luther, correct, who originally espoused private judgement rather than obedience to a church?

You made me fall out of my chair!

I’m sure one could find some poorly-translated out of context quoted from dubious sources that make Luther say this, but ‘private judgment’ of doctrine has nothing to do with the Evangelisch Kirche.

 

[Tomster]

Ok. Definitions: Infallibility, as I understand it, refers to people - the pope, and the Magisterium. Inerrancy to writings - scripture. We would hold that scripture is inerrant, but no human is infallible. That is why we hold nothing equal to scripture, even our own confessions.

Jon

Thanks for clearing one point up for us Jon. That point being Lutheran confessional statements are fallible (translated: subject to error).

That being said, is it no wonder, then, that there are so many differing interpretations of belief within Lutheranism itself?

Sounds like world-wide Lutheranism should gather together in some sort of “Lutheran Ecumenical Council” and sort things out. But, then again, that process would still be a fallible exercise. Just forget that I brought that point up.

 

[Tomster]

You made me fall out of my chair!

I’m sure one could find some poorly-translated out of context quoted from dubious sources that make Luther say this, but ‘private judgment’ of doctrine has nothing to do with the Evangelisch Kirche.

Well Ben, Luther did in fact promote private judgment of Scriptures in his writings.

It is quite ironic, to say the least, that on the one hand he promoted private judgment of Scriptures and on the other taught how totally corrupt we are all as individuals. If one is totally corrupt how can one correctly interpret Scriptures?

Confusing? Yes.

Contradictory? I believe so.

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know, Luther was not very sympathetic to the Anabaptists, or Zwingli. He was very much supportive of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, etc. He supported his unwavering belief in the real presence on historic Church teaching, ditto for Baptism and confession. I think your perception is overstated.

Jon

“I don’t know.” - Jon

C’mon Jon. You should know this one.

 

[benjohnson]

That being said, is it no wonder, then, that there are so many differing interpretations of belief within Lutheranism itself?
.

The Lutheran confessions are known for their straightforwardness. Those Lutherans that hold to them are remarkably consistent and agreeable. That some who claim to be in the Lutheran church rebel against them and scripture only speaks to the will of man.

If I’m not mistaken, there are plenty of people who claim to be Catholic, but rebel against the teaching of the Catholic magisterium. I would also say their rebellion is not reflective teachings of the Catholic church.

 

[Tomster]

The Lutheran confessions are known for their straightforwardness. Those Lutherans that hold to them are remarkably consistent and agreeable. That some who claim to be in the Lutheran church rebel against them and scripture only speaks to the will of man.

If I’m not mistaken, there are plenty of people who claim to be Catholic, but rebel against the teaching of the Catholic magisterium. I would also say their rebellion is not reflective teachings of the Catholic church.

The difference is our rebels are known and can be told that they are. They can “rebel” themselves right out of the Church. Whereas in your communion all rebelling groups pronounce mutual anathemas and go their own way all claiming to be good Lutherans and the divisions continue.

BTW - Straightforwardness does translate into truth. One can be straightforwardly wrong.

 

[benjohnson]

Well Ben, Luther did in fact promote private judgment of Scriptures in his writings.

And if so, we are free to say (and must say) that Luther was completely wrong in this. Remember, Lutherans are not a cult of Father Martin - we are simply the the church with the confessions of faith.

The practice of the church, as reinforced by our confessions, is that private judgment of things that are necessary for salvation are not allowed. If I introduced my private judgement to the church, the pastor would correct me, then rebuke me, and if I persisted, he would drive me out like a feral dog.

 

[benjohnson]

The difference is our rebels are known and can be told that they are. They can “rebel” themselves right out of the Church.

Thus it is with us. If you were to read our confessions, you could discern those that tell the truth from those that machinate in short order.

Whereas in your communion all rebelling groups pronounce mutual anathemas and go their own way all claiming to be good Lutherans and the divisions continue.

In this world, we have no control over impostors. I am so very thankful that God will judge them, as I am more prone to wrath.

 

[benjohnson]

That point being Lutheran confessional statements are fallible (translated: subject to error).

There’s no shame in giving thanks for our acknowledged shortcomings and faults - for it is those failures that point (in my case drive) us to the perfection of the Cross.

I think this points out to the slightly different view that Lutherans have of our own Church - that as an institution, we would say that it too is subject to the decay of this world. That it preaches the Gospel is sufficient proof of God’s love and care for us.

 

[Tomster]

What I’m saying is there is no reason to believe that today an individual Bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible, ex cathedra or otherwise. It is not in keeping with the early Church that required ecumenical councils, of which there has not been one since the 7th.

Jon

Jon,

You must know that the Catholic Church teaches that no one Catholic bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible, ex cathedra or otherwise except, of course, the Bishop of Rome.

BTW - Since, in your opinion, there have only been seven ecumenical councils and, in your opinion, “it is in keeping with the early Church that required ecumenical councils”, and, in your opinion, you believe that the Lutheran Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church, why hasn’t the Lutheran Church called an Ecumenical Council all on their own? Is there anyone in authority within world-wide Lutheranism capable of calling a Council together and what would be the likelihood of all the participants of such a Council signing off as de fide (to be believed) on the matters discussed at such a Council?

To my knowledge, world-wide Lutheranism has never even attempted to call an Ecumenical Council together. Why is that Jon? Being a continuation of the Catholic Church one would think that they had the authority to so wouldn’t one?

 

[benjohnson]

What about the Magisterium as a whole, not individual bishops (who cannot ever claim to have the charism of infallibility apart from the college of bishops)?

I very well could be wrong in this - so please forgive me but I don’t think Lutherans have much problem with the teaching of the Magisterium. The teachings done Ex Cathedra are the one that seem to give us fits. We would acknowledge the love of the Holy Spirit has for the Catholic church, but we would not say that His love is exclusivity for you.

As I understand it. the standard that we see in the early Church is the one to follow - an ecumenical council of catholic, orthodox and apostolic Christendom is necessary for the introduction of new dogma. Ironic that our church would fail to meat those standards due to the slings and arrows of this world.

 

[Tomster]

And if so, we are free to say (and must say) that Luther was completely wrong in this. Remember, Lutherans are not a cult of Father Martin - we are simply the the church with the confessions of faith.

The practice of the church, as reinforced by our confessions, is that private judgment of things that are necessary for salvation are not allowed. If I introduced my private judgement to the church, the pastor would correct me, then rebuke me, and if I persisted, he would drive me out like a feral dog.

And, hence, a fallible, Lutheran magisiterium. Thank you very much

 

[Tomster]

Thus it is with us. If you were to read our confessions, you could discern those that tell the truth from those that machinate in short order.

In this world, we have no control over impostors. I am so very thankful that God will judge them, as I am more prone to wrath.

Neither do we. Doesn’t it feel good to know that when you’re right, you’re right even if only “fallibly” right.

Interested to know your discering process works. Ooops, did I say “works”? Sorry.

 

[Tomster]

I very well could be wrong in this - so please forgive me but I don’t think Lutherans have much problem with the teaching of the Magisterium. The teachings done Ex Cathedra are the one that seem to give us fits. We would acknowledge the love of the Holy Spirit has for the Catholic church, but we would not say that His love is exclusivity for you.

As I understand it. the standard that we see in the early Church is the one to follow - an ecumenical council of catholic, orthodox and apostolic Christendom is necessary for the introduction of new dogma. Ironic that our church would fail to meat those standards due to the slings and arrows of this world.

Oh, the old branch theory. I don’t think our Orthodox brothers and sisters will go for that one.

What is a new dogma btw?

 

[Tomster]

And if so, we are free to say (and must say) that Luther was completely wrong in this. Remember, Lutherans are not a cult of Father Martin - we are simply the the church with the confessions of faith.

The practice of the church, as reinforced by our confessions, is that private judgment of things that are necessary for salvation are not allowed. If I introduced my private judgement to the church, the pastor would correct me, then rebuke me, and if I persisted, he would drive me out like a feral dog.

Sounds like your immediate pastor has quite a lot of authority over you. Interesting that you have jettisoned the authority of Father Martin. You do know that he claimed an almost absolute, infallible authority for himself don’t you? How he culled that one from searching the Scriptures I’ll never figure out.