J
jinc1019
Guest
Wow. That’s definitely not something I have ever heard before (the article you linked to!)
Really great stuff.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Really great stuff.
P
pablope
Guest
Well…it does not matter what i read…my question is how would Scripture accomplish the norming?How does it read to you?
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Well…is your supposed textbook example…how would norming with Scripture determine, which is the correct view of the Real Presence…Trasnsubtation or Sact Union?
P
pablope
Guest
So are you saying, the Lutherans made an error in disputing the sacrifical view of the Mass?Rev. William Weedon, LCMS pastor and current director of Worship at the Synod wrote an article that may help understand:Revisiting the Sacrifice of the Mass
TLDR version:
"With these thoughts it might be possible to rethink what I cannot but feel is an area that Lutherans are in desperate need of revisiting: namely, our reaction to the language of the sacrifice of the Mass. There is indeed a very profound sense in which the whole Church gathers to constantly offer before the Father, to hold up before Him, to commemorate the One Oblation which was once offered, and which Oblation is precisely made present by Christ Himself for us in the gift of His Body and Blood in order to BE our life, our justification, our redemption. When we point to it and beg the manifold mercies of the Father we are not elbowing our way into Christ’s sacrifice (for we couldn’t be any more “in” it than we already are!), but using Christ’s sacrifice as the great gift it is: the reconciliation of God and humanity. Is not this what all Lutherans sing:
May Thy Body, Lord,
Born of Mary,
That our sins and sorrows did carry,
and Thy Blood
For us plead
In all trial, fear and need!
O Lord, have mercy!”
M
Micosil
Guest
1 Corinthians 1:16 is also very telling:
(I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) — Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
In the context of the times, I think this may be a fair assumption - reading Pastor Weedon’s thoughts seem to indicate that we may be closer than we thought. When I heard the language of the Mass referring to the sacrifice at a Catholic church, I was disturbed and confused – until here, on CAF, it was explained as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. That changed my thinking. Perhaps the Catholic church has come now to articulating the nature of the sacrifice in a way that we understand it. One person’s sacrifice is another’s offering.So are you saying, the Lutherans made an error in disputing the sacrifical view of the Mass?
Or, perhaps the abuses of the mass clouded its nature in those times.So are you saying, the Lutherans made an error in disputing the sacrifical view of the Mass?
Jon
Of course it matters how you read it, for us to have a positive dialogue about it.=pablope;12981681]Well…it does not matter what i read…my question is how would Scripture accomplish the norming?
SU is based on Christ’s words: “This [bread] is my body”. That’s what SU teaches, the receive His true body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, meaning, as Hermann Sasse said, *"… the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say." *Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Well…is your supposed textbook example…how would norming with Scripture determine, which is the correct view of the Real Presence…Trasnsubtation or Sact Union?
As for Transubstantiation, that’s not for me to say, but my suspicion is that Catholics would point to exactly the same words of Christ, and identify exactly the same underlying principle, that Christ makes clear “this is my body.”
Jon
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
Sure. Scripture says infants have faith, therefore they get baptized like everyone else.In the case of infant baptism, Luther relied on church tradition, not on Scripture (Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, page 241):
“Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments.”
I think that this quote is from Luther’s treatise, “Concerning Rebaptism,” which appears in volume 40 of Luther’s Works.
J
jinc1019
Guest
But I think the other point being made here is that Luther holds up scripture but also confirms his understanding of scripture by looking at tradition. In other words, scripture remains the only authority, but the way to interpret the authority relies on the practice and tradition of the church. It’s not ONLY because of what scripture says, because if it’s only because of what scripture says and nothing else matters, various interpretations can exist.Sure. Scripture says infants have faith, therefore they get baptized like everyone else.
J
jinc1019
Guest
At least, this is what I’m gathering from all of this.But I think the other point being made here is that Luther holds up scripture but also confirms his understanding of scripture by looking at tradition. In other words, scripture remains the only authority, but the way to interpret the authority relies on the practice and tradition of the church. It’s not ONLY because of what scripture says, because if it’s only because of what scripture says and nothing else matters, various interpretations can exist.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
Lutheran Scholar said it well. The common misconception with Sola Scriptura is that each individual person looks at scripture and interprets for themselves. We are free to read the scripture, study it, discuss it among fellow Christians, but in the end, we must understand it as the Lutheran Confessions state it.Hello All,
I have an honest, non-inflammatory sola scriptura question for Lutherans and traditional Reformed individuals. I’m trying to figure out if the tradition of the church plays ANY role at all in determining how scripture should be interpreted. Obviously one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.
So the question is, can the early church fathers play any role in that debate, or must scripture by itself be the only way to prove an interpretation is correct?
Allow me to provide an example to better explain my question:
If I’m a Lutheran and I want to know, for instance, whether or not the church should practice infant baptism, I first should go to scripture and see what is said. I read the scriptures and conclude the proper interpretation is that infants should be baptized. But then there are all these other Christians saying infants shouldn’t be baptized and that the Bible doesn’t teach it. So how do I know my interpretation is the Apostolic interpretation of scripture and not just my own faulty understanding? The Baptist says he’s got it right, I say I have it right, who settles the dispute? Whichever side can argue it the best?
OR, can the Lutheran look to the early church fathers and say, “I know my interpretation is correct because the church has always properly interpreted this teaching the correct way”? Or is that a violation of the sola scriptura principle?
There may be doctrines that I disagree with just as some Catholics disagree with some of the teachings of their church but I have to trust the theologians who understand Greek and Hebrew, as well as the context within which the scripture has been written.
I hope this makes sense, and again, fellow Lutheran apologists please correct me if I did not explain it correctly. I am in the process of learning what is taught in the Confessions as well as doctrines taught by the CC.
God bless all!
Rita
I think Martin Chemnitz says it succinctly here:But I think the other point being made here is that Luther holds up scripture but also confirms his understanding of scripture by looking at tradition. In other words, scripture remains the only authority, but the way to interpret the authority relies on the practice and tradition of the church. It’s not ONLY because of what scripture says, because if it’s only because of what scripture says and nothing else matters, various interpretations can exist.
** This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. **
Jon
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Hi Jon, what does it actually mean then, practically speaking, for Lutherans to say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians? I’m not trying to be confrontational here, it just seems like even for Lutherans it still is Scripture plus Tradition that determines what we believe as Christians.I think Martin Chemnitz says it succinctly here:
** This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church. **
Jon
I’m happy to see that the version of Sola Scriptura I’ve encountered in the past – where a Protestant literally told me he doesn’t take the early Church’s witness into account because Scripture is the sole rule of faith – isn’t the real thing. But I’m still kind of fuzzy on what the real doctrine is.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I’m glad you picked that up!And your response is quite interesting…you stated…“If you had…”…it seems like you did not have to resort to Scripture to prove infant baptism…using Scriptures here, as you imply, is optional and not required.
We certainly don’t have to rely on scripture - the traditions in that have been handed down in my church indicate infant baptism.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Sure, I can understand that position. But in the end, someone still has to interpret it, and why should I believe that interpretation is better than some other interpretation?Lutheran Scholar said it well. The common misconception with Sola Scriptura is that each individual person looks at scripture and interprets for themselves. We are free to read the scripture, study it, discuss it among fellow Christians, but in the end, we must understand it as the Lutheran Confessions state it.
There may be doctrines that I disagree with just as some Catholics disagree with some of the teachings of their church but I have to trust the theologians who understand Greek and Hebrew, as well as the context within which the scripture has been written.
I hope this makes sense, and again, fellow Lutheran apologists please correct me if I did not explain it correctly. I am in the process of learning what is taught in the Confessions as well as doctrines taught by the CC.
God bless all!
Rita
Hi Robyn,Hi Jon, what does it actually mean then, practically speaking, for Lutherans to say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians? I’m not trying to be confrontational here, it just seems like even for Lutherans it still is Scripture plus Tradition that determines what we believe as Christians.
I’m happy to see that the version of Sola Scriptura I’ve encountered in the past – where a Protestant literally told me he doesn’t take the early Church’s witness into account because Scripture is the sole rule of faith – isn’t the real thing. But I’m still kind of fuzzy on what the real doctrine is.
The Lutheran confessions put it this way:
The Church judges all doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. Doctrine must be confirmed, so to speak, by scripture.
- We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
We place great stock in Tradition, but we view it as second to scripture, held accountable to it.2] 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.
The Creeds are of such great importance, here it is stated that we pledge ourselves to them. The unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, of which we consider ourselves part.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.
For us, scripture is first, it is alone the final norm.
Jon
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Thanks Jon! I think I have a better understanding of it now.Hi Robyn,
The Lutheran confessions put it this way:
The Church judges all doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. Doctrine must be confirmed, so to speak, by scripture.
We place great stock in Tradition, but we view it as second to scripture, held accountable to it.
The Creeds are of such great importance, here it is stated that we pledge ourselves to them. The unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, of which we consider ourselves part.
For us, scripture is first, it is alone the final norm.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
Exactly. Why would the Lutheran Confessions be better than some other non Catholic interpretation where they claim the same thing. They have the correct interpretation.Sure, I can understand that position. But in the end, someone still has to interpret it, and why should I believe that interpretation is better than some other interpretation?
A dilemma indeed.
Mary.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Hey Jon,Hi Robyn,
The Lutheran confessions put it this way:
The Church judges all doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. Doctrine must be confirmed, so to speak, by scripture.
We place great stock in Tradition, but we view it as second to scripture, held accountable to it.
The Creeds are of such great importance, here it is stated that we pledge ourselves to them. The unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, of which we consider ourselves part.
For us, scripture is first, it is alone the final norm.
Jon
How cool is it to have Confessional Lutherans engaging in cordial and charitable discourses on theology; on a Catholic website! Good stuff. Quick question for you…
Why is the written Word of God (Sacred Scripture) the only or sole norm for confirming of all doctrine, but not also the spoken Word of God? If you were to tell me that everything that was spoken, especially by the Eternal Word made flesh Himself, was in fact all written down…could you provide me some Scripture that implicitly or explicitly suggests that?
With charity,
Eric
=AugustTherese;12986177]Hey Jon,
Hi Eric,How cool is it to have Confessional Lutherans engaging in cordial and charitable discourses on theology; on a Catholic website! Good stuff. Quick question for you…
It is great stuff!! As far as I’m concerned, Catholicism is among the three traditions closest to confessional Lutheranism. Over the years, I have come to love the dialogue here…
most of the time.
First, we wouldn’t make the claim that everything He said was written down. In fact, John tells us quite the contrary. What I would say is that it seems rather unlikely that critical articles of faith would have been excluded. IOW, what was very important that was spoken, ended up being written down.Why is the written Word of God (Sacred Scripture) the only or sole norm for confirming of all doctrine, but not also the spoken Word of God? If you were to tell me that everything that was spoken, especially by the Eternal Word made flesh Himself, was in fact all written down…could you provide me some Scripture that implicitly or explicitly suggests that?
Now, that’s not to say the the Church has taught well, and enlightened the believers down through the centuries. We recognize this role of the Church - to teach - and the special service to the Church that the Fathers have provided in their writings. But if we are to bind the conscience of the believer, it is reasonable to expect at least an implicit confirmation. Beyond that, Christians ought to have the freedom to consider what we call adiaphora for themselves.
For example: when we think of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we as Lutherans acknowledge two doctrines; the virgin birth, the Holy Theotokos. Our confessions also mention the perpetual virginity, but not necessarily as a doctrine of the faith, since it isn’t stated in scripture. It also isn’t denied, and the teaching does no harm to the Gospel, so many Lutherans such as myself believe it.
I hope that helps, Eric.
Jon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.