Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

Jon,
as we have discussed many times before, you can not claim that Scripture is the final norm when it is so clear that our Traditions define how we understand scripture. You look at scripture through Lutheran Tradition to come to conclusions on what scripture means, just as Catholic use our Traditions as the basis for our understanding of scripture. James 2 is a perfect example. Your tradition tells you that James means that faith that doesn’t result in works is dead faith, yet Faith is still the primary driver of salvation. Catholic tradition tells us that James meant what he said, that Faith is meaningless without works and that as Paul says in 1Corinthians 13: Love is the primary driver of salvation (since if you had Faith enough to move mountains, but did not have love, you are nothing). So you see, scripture is not the final norm. Tradition is. Otherwise, we would all understand scripture in the same way. (Besides, the New Testament didn’t even exist at the start of the Church, so how could it be the norm)

Hi Paul,
In a sense, from a Lutheran position, there is some truth here. What we would say, however, is that Tradition is in support of scripture, not equal to it. I’ve posted it here before, the Formula of Concord’s description, essentially, of what is meant by sola scriptura, without using the term.
Sure, a Lutheran should read scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds, and gaining insight from the ECF’s, but those things conform to scripture (even if they weren’t compiledat the time of Nicea). What must be remembered is that in Lutheranism, sola scriptura, when it comes to doctrine, is the practice of the Church (again, from a Lutheran view so there is no further confusion), not the practice of individuals.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul,
In a sense, from a Lutheran position, there is some truth here. What we would say, however, is that Tradition is in support of scripture, not equal to it. I’ve posted it here before, the Formula of Concord’s description, essentially, of what is meant by sola scriptura, without using the term.
Sure, a Lutheran should read scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds, and gaining insight from the ECF’s, but those things conform to scripture (even if they weren’t compiledat the time of Nicea). What must be remembered is that in Lutheranism, sola scriptura, when it comes to doctrine, is the practice of the Church (again, from a Lutheran view so there is no further confusion), not the practice of individuals.

Jon

Jon,
Isn’t it obvious that for you (and also for me), Tradition defines how we understand scripture and thus has priority over it? This would have been awkward for Luther to describe of course, because the Tradition that he was using was basically his own opinions and those of his Lutheran peers, hence the claim of sola scriptura.

 

[bzkoss236]

Hi Paul,
In a sense, from a Lutheran position, there is some truth here. What we would say, however, is that Tradition is in support of scripture, not equal to it. I’ve posted it here before, the Formula of Concord’s description, essentially, of what is meant by sola scriptura, without using the term.
Sure, a Lutheran should read scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds, and gaining insight from the ECF’s, but those things conform to scripture (even if they weren’t compiledat the time of Nicea). What must be remembered is that in Lutheranism, sola scriptura, when it comes to doctrine, is the practice of the Church (again, from a Lutheran view so there is no further confusion), not the practice of individuals.

Jon

Again, your views are really called ‘prima scriptura’, not ‘sola scriptura’. And considering that the Bible was written through Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, I would say that Scripture and Tradition are on equal terms. Remember, before Scripture (even Old Testament Scripture) there was Tradition. What is recorded in Scripture is what was taught by Tradition, hence they hold equal weight.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
Isn’t it obvious that for you (and also for me), Tradition defines how we understand scripture and thus has priority over it? This would have been awkward for Luther to describe of course, because the Tradition that he was using was basically his own opinions and those of his Lutheran peers, hence the claim of sola scriptura.

Yes. tradition does define how we understand scripture. But Tradition is obliged to rightly reflect the truth of scripture. And Luther, too, looked to Tradition, including that of the early Church. To say it was simply that of his opinion and the others of the Evangelical churches misreads the confessions.

Jon

 

[johnnyjones]

Hi Paul,
In a sense, from a Lutheran position, there is some truth here. What we would say, however, is that Tradition is in support of scripture, not equal to it. I’ve posted it here before, the Formula of Concord’s description, essentially, of what is meant by sola scriptura, without using the term.
Sure, a Lutheran should read scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds, and gaining insight from the ECF’s, but those things conform to scripture (even if they weren’t compiledat the time of Nicea). What must be remembered is that in Lutheranism, sola scriptura, when it comes to doctrine, is the practice of the Church (again, from a Lutheran view so there is no further confusion), not the practice of individuals.

Jon

Scripture is most certainly equal to tradition. It has to be if one can not conflict the other. Bottom line, a Protestants usage of the term sola scriptura is different than a Catholics usage. Those words have evolved for Protestants to mean only the bible, wheras catholics have used it to mean the usage of scripture only to support a doctrine without tradition.

 

[JonNC]

Again, your views are really called ‘prima scriptura’, not ‘sola scriptura’. And considering that the Bible was written through Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, I would say that Scripture and Tradition are on equal terms. Remember, before Scripture (even Old Testament Scripture) there was Tradition. What is recorded in Scripture is what was taught by Tradition, hence they hold equal weight.

Call it what you will, the Formula of Concord explains it this way:

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.

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.

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.

Lutherans have traditionally called it sola scriptura, though I don’t think the early reformers used that term.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Yes. tradition does define how we understand scripture. But Tradition is obliged to rightly reflect the truth of scripture. And Luther, too, looked to Tradition, including that of the early Church. To say it was simply that of his opinion and the others of the Evangelical churches misreads the confessions.

Jon

I’m afraid you have this backward. Scripture is a subset of Tradition. You of course know that the Bible was compiled by the church as a tool for teaching and liturgical use. Tradition came first. the books of the new testament were written to document the traditions and can only be understood correctly when placed in the context of the tradition from which they were written. Because the three criteria used to qualify books for the new testament canon were: apostolic authorship, recognition by the church and agreement with Catholic Tradition, it is obvious that scripture and Catholic Tradition must be consistent.

Luther thought he could understand scripture better than the Pope. In fact, he was so sure of this that he eliminated 7 books from the Old Testament Canon, books that are referenced repeatedly in the New testament. And yes, the Lutheran tradition was an innovation in theology. Luther readily admits this. Where it departs from Catholic Tradition, it departs from the Truth that was taught for 1500 years before he appeared on the scene. Fortunately, for the most part, the Traditions are in agreement - we have far more in common than not and more so than most Christians with the exception of the Orthodox and the High Church Anglicans, many of course who are now returning to communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Trebor135]

Sure, a Lutheran should read scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds, and gaining insight from the ECF’s, but those things conform to scripture (even if they weren’t compiledat the time of Nicea). What must be remembered is that in Lutheranism, sola scriptura, when it comes to doctrine, is the practice of the Church (again, from a Lutheran view so there is no further confusion), not the practice of individuals.

You’re equivocating here on the meaning of the word “Church”, however, in terms of the distinction between visible and invisible ecclesiology. For unlike the Catholic and Orthodox communions, none among the Lutheran synods will claim to constitute in itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which traces a direct line of descent back to the Church of the creeds and councils.

In light of the foregoing, it is puzzling why Lutherans would wish to have anything to do with products of the early Church when the latter did not resemble the former in an area on which the two would disagree strongly.

 

[JonNC]

=Trebor135;9680902]You’re equivocating here on the meaning of the word “Church”, however, in terms of the distinction between visible and invisible ecclesiology. For unlike the Catholic and Orthodox communions, none among the Lutheran synods will claim to constitute in itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which traces a direct line of descent back to the Church of the creeds and councils.

Certainly not equivocating. The confessions are clear in their desire to maintain AS, and regardless of the recognition or lack thereof from Rome, some Lutheran synods did and do, and some have taken steps to reinstitute it.

In light of the foregoing, it is puzzling why Lutherans would wish to have anything to do with products of the early Church when the latter did not resemble the former in an area on which the two would disagree strongly.

Because they are the solid early teachings of the Church. Which area are you speaking of?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;9678767]I’m afraid you have this backward. Scripture is a subset of Tradition. You of course know that the Bible was compiled by the church as a tool for teaching and liturgical use. Tradition came first. the books of the new testament were written to document the traditions and can only be understood correctly when placed in the context of the tradition from which they were written. Because the three criteria used to qualify books for the new testament canon were: apostolic authorship, recognition by the church and agreement with Catholic Tradition, it is obvious that scripture and Catholic Tradition must be consistent.

And, of course, you must mean Catholic Tradition as defined in the undivided Church. The problem today, and for the last 1000 years, is that there is disagreement on what Tradition says, particularly, but not limited to, ecclesiology.

Luther thought he could understand scripture better than the Pope. In fact, he was so sure of this that he eliminated 7 books from the Old Testament Canon, books that are referenced repeatedly in the New testament.

No one man can eliminate any books from the canon. What Luther did respond to was the centuries long dispute, dated back to St. Jerome and perhaps earlier, regarding the 7 books you reference. There have always been varying books considered canon, long before the Reformation. And Lutherans do consider the DC’s scripture. They are at times used liturgically, in our hymnody, etc.

And yes, the Lutheran tradition was an innovation in theology. Luther readily admits this. Where it departs from Catholic Tradition, it departs from the Truth that was taught for 1500 years before he appeared on the scene

An example, please, of a departure from the early Tradition of the Church. One note, sola fide, at least the Lutheran version, seems to no longer be a innovation, in light of the JDDJ.
The same can be said, that of innovations from the early Church, by Rome in ecclesiology, and most any other dogmatic statements outside of a truly general council.

Fortunately, for the most part, the Traditions are in agreement - we have far more in common than not and more so than most Christians with the exception of the Orthodox and the High Church Anglicans, many of course who are now returning to communion with the Catholic Church.

On this I clearly agree, as you know. I have said here before I would much sooner be Catholic than any other protestant group, save perhaps the one you mentioned.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Certainly not equivocating. The confessions are clear in their desire to maintain AS, and regardless of the recognition or lack thereof from Rome, some Lutheran synods did and do, and some have taken steps to reinstitute it.

Jon,
How do Lutheran Synods claim apostolic succession? Didn’t Luther divorce himself from the Catholic Church and start his own church with its own Traditions. (hence the name, “Lutherans”)?

Because they are the solid early teachings of the Church. Which area are you speaking of?
Jon

Yes, the ECF are the link to the Apostles for the modern Church and you can see the same Catholic doctrines in their teaching. And while they recognized the value of scripture, they never claimed that scripture was superior to Tradition since they knew scripture sprung from Tradition. I maintain that Sola Scriptura is simply a way for Non-Catholics to try to justify their own traditions by claiming that their interpretations are scriptural.

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;9682105]Jon,
How do Lutheran Synods claim apostolic succession? Didn’t Luther divorce himself from the Catholic Church and start his own church with its own Traditions. (hence the name, “Lutherans”)?

Hi Paul,
First, the name Lutheran originated as a slur, in a similar manner that Roman Catholic did. It wasn’t the name the Reformers chose, and in fact, Luther strongly opposed it.
On AS:
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church **[old church-regulations and the government of bishops], **even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests].

Yes, the ECF are the link to the Apostles for the modern Church and you can see the same Catholic doctrines in their teaching. And while they recognized the value of scripture, they never claimed that scripture was superior to Tradition since they knew scripture sprung from Tradition.

The ECF’s could never have imagined the Great Schism, and the negative impact it had on the Church and Tradition.
Paul, how do you interpret Dei Verbum, where it says:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

I maintain that Sola Scriptura is simply a way for Non-Catholics to try to justify their own traditions by claiming that their interpretations are scriptural.

It may be so by some. Remember, the term didn’t come into play until well after the Reformation. Others smarter than me may dispute this, but it seems to me the complaint of the Lutheran reformers regarding Tradition was the contradictions they saw, what they believed were the innovations of Rome.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

And, of course, you must mean Catholic Tradition as defined in the undivided Church. The problem today, and for the last 1000 years, is that there is disagreement on what Tradition says, particularly, but not limited to, ecclesiology.

Catholic tradition as defined by those in communion with the Pope, who of course has the Keys to the kingdom as described in Matthew 16.

No one man can eliminate any books from the canon. What Luther did respond to was the centuries long dispute, dated back to St. Jerome and perhaps earlier, regarding the 7 books you reference. There have always been varying books considered canon, long before the Reformation. And Lutherans do consider the DC’s scripture. They are at times used liturgically, in our hymnody, etc.

A varying Canon would certainly make the concept of Sola Scriptura a non-starter since how can it be the norm if you can’t agree on what constitutes actual scripture. The Canon has been consistent in the Catholic church since 382AD when it was defined by Pope St. Damasus. It was this Canon that St. jerome translated into the Legate…

An example, please, of a departure from the early Tradition of the Church. One note, sola fide, at least the Lutheran version, seems to no longer be a innovation, in light of the JDDJ.
The same can be said, that of innovations from the early Church, by Rome in ecclesiology, and most any other dogmatic statements outside of a truly general council.

Let’s start with the topic of this thread: sola scriptura. That certainly would have been anathma to those who lived before the Bible canon was codified. As for Sola Fide, even in the JDDJ the Church identifies differences in the understanding of the term. It goes to great lengths to show the common understanding but does not skirt over the differences.

On this I clearly agree, as you know. I have said here before I would much sooner be Catholic than any other protestant group, save perhaps the one you mentioned.
Jon

As I’ve said before, I’m shocked you havent crossed the Tiber already and I think you eventually will. The sacraments are calling…

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;9682243]Catholic tradition as defined by those in communion with the Pope, who of course has the Keys to the kingdom as described in Matthew 16.

It has been contended by non-Protestants that this interpretation is outside the Tradition of the early Church, or, how it has been developed by the Roman see is.

A varying Canon would certainly make the concept of Sola Scriptura a non-starter since how can it be the norm if you can’t agree on what constitutes actual scripture. The Canon has been consistent in the Catholic church since 382AD when it was defined by Pope St. Damasus. It was this Canon that St. jerome translated into the Legate…

Then why have the various Orthodox communions not held to the same canon? Were the synods at Rome, Carthage, Hippo general councils binding on the whole Church?
I do not wish to be argumentative about the canon, because I believe the Lutheran approach, which does not reject the D.C.'s but instead recognizes their disputed nature, may not be the best approach to them.

Let’s start with the topic of this thread: sola scriptura. That certainly would have been anathma to those who lived before the Bible canon was codified. As for Sola Fide, even in the JDDJ the Church identifies differences in the understanding of the term. It goes to great lengths to show the common understanding but does not skirt over the differences.

Agreed on the second. On the first, it would not have crossed their minds - neither would a schism between the early Patriarchates. Fix that, ISTM, and SS is not needed.

As I’ve said before, I’m shocked you havent crossed the Tiber already and I think you eventually will. The sacraments are calling…

Paul, it is always a pleasure to chat with you.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[fbl9]

what are you on about??? Who has suggested jon of being uncharitable? The reverse is true, but i’ll shed no tears over that.

Get your facts straight!

However, good advice about luther - wouldn’t happen to know his phone number, by any chance? Thought i might give him a bell, bit of a chat… Whaddja think?

1 46 86 435536 92483

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
=paul c;9682243]Catholic tradition as defined by those in communion with the Pope, who of course has the Keys to the kingdom as described in Matthew 16.

Well, I don’t know which non-Protestants you speak of, but you don’t decide what is Catholic Tradition but the views of those in dissent. Catholic Tradition is defined by the Church hierarchy and can be traced back readily though the Early Church Fathers right to the Apostles.After all, one of the earliest works of a church Father, the letter of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians is demonstrating Papal primacy during the first century.

Quote:

A varying Canon would certainly make the concept of Sola Scriptura a non-starter since how can it be the norm if you can’t agree on what constitutes actual scripture. The Canon has been consistent in the Catholic church since 382AD when it was defined by Pope St. Damasus. It was this Canon that St. Jerome translated into the Legate…

Local councils aren’t binding on the entire church but Papal proclamations are. As for the Orthodox, I can’t speak for them. The fact that there are disputes about the canon certainly detracts from the argument that they are the sole source of revelation. After all, how can they be when you need another source to define what scripture is real?

Quote:
Let’s start with the topic of this thread: sola scriptura. That certainly would have been anathma to those who lived before the Bible canon was codified. As for Sola Fide, even in the JDDJ the Church identifies differences in the understanding of the term. It goes to great lengths to show the common understanding but does not skirt over the differences.

yes, that was exactly my point. The reason that the Protestant reformers introduced the concept of sola scriptura was to support their schism. After all, if you abandon Catholic Tradition, your only link to Christ is the scripture, which can be manipulated to say anything you want by defining your own interpretation. In fact, Charles Manson used Revelation to justify Helter Skelter. And that is the danger of Sola Scriptura. Not to equate Luther to Manson, just showing how the concept can be taken to extremes.

Quote:
As I’ve said before, I’m shocked you havent crossed the Tiber already and I think you eventually will. The sacraments are calling…

Thank you Jon. You know I enjoy the charitable and stimulating discussion as well.

 

[Trebor135]

As I’ve said before, I’m shocked you havent crossed the Tiber already and I think you eventually will. The sacraments are calling…

In light of his posts elsewhere on CAF, without East-West reunion Jon is much more likely to cross the Bosphorus. (At least I’m not the only one who struggles with Vatican I… )

 

[Trebor135]

Certainly not equivocating. The confessions are clear in their desire to maintain AS, and regardless of the recognition or lack thereof from Rome, some Lutheran synods did and do, and some have taken steps to reinstitute it.

To clarify, I didn’t have the doctrine of apostolic succession in mind. Rather, I was pointing out that–unlike the Chalcedonian Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and Catholic Churches–the Lutheran communion does not consider itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is genetically and historically the very same visible society founded by Christ.

Because they are the solid early teachings of the Church. Which area are you speaking of?

I was referring to the doctrine outlined in my preceding paragraph’s second sentence.

How can the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be fully accepted when it speaks explicitly of one single, visible Church, yet Lutheranism holds that Latins, Maronites, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Russians, and Ethiopians may all belong to the true, invisible Church at the same time?

 

[paul_c]

In light of his posts elsewhere on CAF, without East-West reunion Jon is much more likely to cross the Bosphorus. (At least I’m not the only one who struggles with Vatican I… )

What is your issue with Vatican I?

Do you not believe that in the hierarchical structure of the Church that Jesus clearly defined when he put Peter in charge of the Church in Matthew 16, Luke 20 and John 21? Of do you have a hard time believing that a man can utter infallible (which means trustworthy) statements when the Lord said that St. Peter would have the keys to the kingdom, with the power to bind and to loose? Or do you have a problem with the Pope being the successor to St. Peter, even though Jesus said in Matthew 16 that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that Apostolic succession is defined as dogma in Acts 1 by Peter himself?

 

[Trebor135]

What is your issue with Vatican I?

I invite you to look at and join in this thread where conciliar and papal infallibility are being discussed. If you restate there your three specific questions, I can address them in a more suitable context while not taking the present discussion off-topic.

I hope this arrangement works for you.