Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

[mcq72]

The Jews who taught from the chair didn’t have a interpretation issue. Clearly not, as Jesus is still telling them to listen to them on instruction about the scriptures. Their issue was placing their own man made tradition above the law.

Well we are halfway at meeting.
We agree Jesus said to listen to them (for they expound from Scripture). We agree they also had a problem, even partially agree on the problem, of tradition adding/detracting from original intent, and hypocrisy). What i find neglected, and what we need to agree on to fully meet, is that Jesus succintly says to his disciples, to be ware of their leaven, which is clarified to mean their doctrine, that is doctrinal error.( i would say also an interpretational error)

 

[mcq72]

Excellent, so you already knew the scriptures before reading them then?

Again, this is from perspective that I am the center of it all. Scriptures and the Truth of them exist irregardless of my perspective or place.

Reminds me of old teacher discussion of asking have you taught your kids if they haven’t learned?

Were Cain and Abel taught the same thing…did they both learn?

 

[goout]

Lenten_ashes:

The Jews who taught from the chair didn’t have a interpretation issue. Clearly not, as Jesus is still telling them to listen to them on instruction about the scriptures. Their issue was placing their own man made tradition above the law.

Well we are halfway at meeting.
We agree Jesus said to listen to them (for they expound from Scripture). We agree they also had a problem, even partially agree on the problem, of tradition adding/detracting from original intent, and hypocrisy). What i find neglected, and what we need to agree on to fully meet, is that Jesus succintly says to his disciples, to be ware of their leaven, which is clarified to mean their doctrine, that is doctrinal error.( i would say also an interpretational error)

The Jewish religious authorities were not excoriated because they held to traditions per se, they were taken to task by Jesus because they put these ahead of charity rather than as a seamless cloth with it. Their leaven served themselves rather than furthered the love of God.

This side issue is moot in the context of the larger discussion.

 

[mcq72]

This side issue is moot in the context of the larger discussion.

Well it is moot if you think they (in Moses seat) were correct in their doctrine, without error, and obedience to them was unconditional.

 

[goout]

You’re missing the point.
Did you know that Christ himself was an observant Jew?
Christ is not criticising obedience or orthodox practice or traditions, he is criticising hypocrisy.

 

[mcq72]

Christ is not criticising obedience or orthodox practice or traditions, he is criticising hypocrisy.

again , we are all half way meeting. those are not the only two choices, to which I agree with…you must answer to criticized bad doctrine or actual teaching to beware of.

 

[goout]

goout:

Christ is not criticising obedience or orthodox practice or traditions, he is criticising hypocrisy.

again , we are all half way meeting. those are not the only two choices, to which I agree with…you must answer to criticized bad doctrine or actual teaching to beware of.

I don’t have an objection, so I’m not sure what I would be liable to answer for.

How is it that God is incarnate as Jewish man, raised by a Jewish mother and foster father, going to temple etc etc etc…

and yet is not obedient in his community of God’s chosen people?
Can you explain how that is a possibility?

 

[Hodos]

I would say the explanation about scripture being superior to ‘conflicting’ sources such as tradition, etc, still requires a valid interpreter.

Yes and no. The entire point is that if you are reading something into the text (such as tradition) that causes the text to be in conflict with itself, then you aren’t a valid interpreter, you are twisting the text. The proper hermeneutic is to evaluate our traditions in light of what the text tells us, not evaluate the text in light of tradition.

 

[Hodos]

Luther seemed to have a unhealthy view of the sacrament of confession. He made remarks about it and how it seemed impossible to please God, etc. And I don’t know if it was poor catechesis or what, but a well formed Catholic Christian does not lose their sanity over sins committed as he seemed to do. We confess to God then do it perfectly in the sacrament and receive grace and sometimes very good advice in the confessional as well.

I think you are correct here. Luther’s early view of confession is that it was his effort that was required in order to obtain forgiveness. He had to confess all of his sins, and he had to be sincere in his confession, and he had to be sincere in the performance of his penance for that sin. The issue here is that he was actually extremely faithful to the popular teaching of his day. It was not until he really read and understood the book of Romans that he achieved his breakthrough and saw confession as liberating. Luther’s writings post-reformation upheld the value of confession and absolution. You can see this in his Small Catechism where confession is still maintained as a sacrament of the Lutheran faith.

 

[mcq72]

I don’t have an objection, so I’m not sure what I would be liable to answer for.

How is it that God is incarnate as Jewish man, raised by a Jewish mother and foster father, going to temple etc etc etc…

and yet is not obedient in his community of God’s chosen people?
Can you explain how that is a possibility?

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matt16:11,12

Christ obeyed all, but conditionally, that it had to correct doctrine/interpretation.

They didn’t crucify Him because He obeyed all and never rocked the boat of Jewish leadership/magisterium . He was perceived as a rebel, like a Korah, blasphemous, in league with Satan.

 

[jmgi1957]

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when He asked: “ Who do people say I am? “ After some replies, Simon says: “ You are the Messiah, Son of the living God! “ Jesus replies, famously and definitively; giving Simon the name Peter, from the Greek Petras meaning rock and thus addressing Simon DIRECTLY; upon THIS ROCK, meaning Simon now Peter; I shall build my church. THAT IS creating the office of Pope and the Catholic Church.

I once talked to an ELCA pastor about this passage and he attempted to explain that away as Jesus saying faith in Him as the rock upon which the Church is founded.

I agree, but I find that there are two responses to Matt. 16:18 that I always get from those outside of Catholicism that I encounter on online forums, that 1)Jesus was the “rock” or, 2)Peter’s confession about Jesus identity was the “rock”. If either of those two were the true meaning, then how do those people account for the purpose of Jesus’ name change of Simon to Peter (the Greek Cephas which means “rock”)? When I ask them to explain why Jesus changed his name, they never respond, never.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I dont see it that way…really God reaches out to us…like a Father to his infant child in the crib. We are just grabbing his finger tip with our tiny hands.

You and I both have a high regard for the Word, we just carry different perspectives.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Is penance a thing in his small Catechism? Or in the Lutheran Church in general?

I think some people are told to do penance and don’t understand why. He was probably one of them.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

We went from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law which confused them.

Actually, the only real doctrinal error was them rejecting Messiah. But since God purposely blinded them(book of Romans), it’s tough to hold them accountable for it. They were actually interpreting it how they were supposed to interpret it, imo.

 

[Hodos]

Is penance a thing in his small Catechism? Or in the Lutheran Church in general?

I think some people are told to do penance and don’t understand why. He was probably one of them.

Depends on what you mean by penance. The Catholic Church today seems to use the term in a broader context than the Medieval Church did. So in the Medieval Church context, no, penance is not in the small catechism. Article XII of the Augsburg Confession states that absolution is obtained through faith, not through the satisfactions we perform on our own.

If you would like you may check out what the Small Catechism states about Confession and Absolution here: http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession.

 

[goout]

goout:

I don’t have an objection, so I’m not sure what I would be liable to answer for.

How is it that God is incarnate as Jewish man, raised by a Jewish mother and foster father, going to temple etc etc etc…

and yet is not obedient in his community of God’s chosen people?
Can you explain how that is a possibility?

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matt16:11,12

Christ obeyed all, but conditionally, that it had to correct doctrine/interpretation.

They didn’t crucify Him because He obeyed all and never rocked the boat of Jewish leadership/magisterium . He was perceived as a rebel, like a Korah, blasphemous, in league with Satan.

Christ was responding to the Pharisees’ request for a sign from heaven. They were testing Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Gospel personally.

And did I just read you that Christ was obedient conditionally?
You’re going to respond that Christ was obedient to the Father, not to the Pharisees.
But the unavoidable fact is that Christ was incarnate as an obedient and observant Jew, and the Jews are The chosen people.

So your attempt to distance Christ from full immersion in the human community he was born into fails.

 

[goout]

goout:

I don’t have an objection, so I’m not sure what I would be liable to answer for.

How is it that God is incarnate as Jewish man, raised by a Jewish mother and foster father, going to temple etc etc etc…

and yet is not obedient in his community of God’s chosen people?
Can you explain how that is a possibility?

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matt16:11,12

Christ obeyed all, but conditionally, that it had to correct doctrine/interpretation.

They didn’t crucify Him because He obeyed all and never rocked the boat of Jewish leadership/magisterium . He was perceived as a rebel, like a Korah, blasphemous, in league with Satan.

And the other elephant in the room is that you are applying Christ’s “leaven” address to the authority of the Catholic Church while neglecting to consider that it might more properly be applied to protestantism.

It’s like the guy said to his pastor after Church “That was a great reading and homily today, it’s just what they needed to hear!”

 

[mcq72]

And the other elephant in the room is that you are applying Christ’s “leaven” address to the authority of the Catholic Church while neglecting to consider that it might more properly be applied to protestantism.

Well an elephant to whom ever has an ear to hear, to whom is humble enough to apply to their own church.

Protestants are very aware of the elephant, to the tune of many many churches, denominations.

Only one church more than any other claims no leaven to beware off .
.

 

[mcq72]

And did I just read you that Christ was obedient conditionally?
You’re going to respond that Christ was obedient to the Father, not to the Pharisees.
But the unavoidable fact is that Christ was incarnate as an obedient and observant Jew, and the Jews are The chosen people.

Straw man you made…Christ obeyed those in seat of Moses, but not in their error, right?

Peter obeyed Sanhedrin, but not in their error, right ? ( he continued to preach against Sanhedrin wishes )…

So Christ was obedient to all, conditionally, when they were in accord with Father.

So your attempt to distance Christ from full immersion in the human community he was born into fails.

?

 

[mcq72]

Actually, the only real doctrinal error was them rejecting Messiah. But since God purposely blinded them(book of Romans), it’s tough to hold them accountable for it. They were actually interpreting it how they were supposed to interpret it, imo.

Not sure…point is their doctrine had leaven. Rejecting Messiah was symptom of bad something, be it doctrine/ practice/ teaching.

I dont see it that way…really God reaches out to us…like a Father to his infant child in the crib. We are just grabbing his finger tip with our tiny hands.

Not sure what you mean…that is not sure how our perspectives lead us differently in that we both say God is reaching out to us, like Father.