sola scriptura

[benjohnson]

Sorry for the rant, and my attempted comparison.

…

PS: I am not familiar with the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, so this likely isn’t directed at you. If any offense is taken by anyone, it is out of ignorance, not malice. I am only interested in understanding. Thank you, brothers.

That wan’t a rant! That was very well thought out, and very astute, and very charitable.

In my opinion, Lutheran Sola Scriptura is more like what you described - we don’t deny other authorities.

Lutherans rely on our creeds, confessions, and church. Only when one of the other authorities goes astray dos the Lutheran Church rely on the Bible to correct.

What baffles me is that those who fanatically cling to the absolute litteral definition of Sola Scriptura have no craving for more than what’s just in the Bible

Amen! It baffles me too!

 

[SteveVH]

That wan’t a rant! That was very well thought out, and very astute, and very charitable.

In my opinion, Lutheran Sola Scriptura is more like what you described - we don’t deny other authorities.

Lutherans rely on our creeds, confessions, and church. Only when one of the other authorities goes astray dos the Lutheran Church rely on the Bible to correct.

Amen!

Ben, since you have basically said the same thing as Jon would you mind giving your two cents on the questions I asked above?

Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;10259878]Jon, with all due respect, when the Lutheran Church uses sola scriptura as the final norm, does not the inspired word of God also need an interpreter (hopefully an infallible one at that)? It certainly cannot interpret itself. In the Lutheran Church who is the final arbiter of truth?

Well, the Christian Book of Concord is our confessional document. We rely on the Church to make the interpretations, hence the existence of the BofC. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, we look to the synod when a doctrinal issue arises.

This is something that has always struck me as odd; that scripture is used to test those who interpret scripture, as if the interpretation of the one questioning the other is, without a doubt, the correct interpretation. In the end, is it not one interpretation against another, rather than one interpretation against scripture?

It isn’t done in a vacuum. Martin Chemnitz comments:
***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. ***

Does this not show the absolute necessity of an infallible interpreter of inerrant scripture?

Perhaps so. The question is do we have one? And if so, where? I accept the interpretations of the first 7 councils of the undivided Church.

And does it not show the absolute necessity of Sacred Tradition as the measuring stick since it was Sacred Tradition that was used in determining the canon?

I think Sacred Tradition is important in this way, and sola scriptura doesn’t dispute this. The practice of SS relies on a canon of scripture, it doesn’t present or determine it, so the Church is necessary.

The writings could not contradict what the Church had always believed, rather than the other way around. That the Bible came from the Church and not the Church from the Bible has become a cliche, but this truth is very important. If the Church from which the Bible was born is not an authentic interpreter of its contents then who can make such a claim in its place?

Its a cliche because, ISTM, it is somewhat simplistic. The fact is that both come from God. And I don’t believe a Lutheran would deny the role of the Church to interpret, but the institutional Church of which you speak is currently in schism. So, again, who is the the institutional Church that still can make that claim?

And, ISTM, this is part of the reason for the development of SS in the first place. Luther spoke of councils and popes contradicting themselves. If we look from 1054 to 1517, it is obvious that there were, and continue to be contradictions.

Thanks and God bless.

His blessings also with you, my friend.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Which lighthouse, PR? Yours, or Mickey’s?

Jon

Either one, friend. Either one. I’d be looking like this, if you were to announce you had come ashore to either one.

For they both are directing light in the same way. Both say they same thing. Except one Lighthouse says that the lightkeeper (or whatever it is he’s called who swings the lantern) is the leader. The other Lighthouse says that the lightkeeper is a leader. Whatever. They’re both swinging the lamp in the very same way.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, the Christian Book of Concord is our confessional document. We rely on the Church to make the interpretations, hence the existence of the BofC. As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, we look to the synod when a doctrinal issue arises.

Okay. When a doctrine is defined in Catholicism it is considered infallible. In what regard do Lutherans hold a definitive statement from the BofC?

It isn’t done in a vacuum. Martin Chemnitz comments:
***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. ***

Would it be fair to say that Sacred Tradition is also used in interpreting scripture within the Lutheran Church?

Perhaps so. The question is do we have one? And if so, where? I accept the interpretations of the first 7 councils of the undivided Church.

Well, you know what my answer would be.

I think Sacred Tradition is important in this way, and sola scriptura doesn’t dispute this. The practice of SS relies on a canon of scripture, it doesn’t present or determine it, so the Church is necessary.

Its a cliche because, ISTM, it is somewhat simplistic. The fact is that both come from God. And I don’t believe a Lutheran would deny the role of the Church to interpret, but the institutional Church of which you speak is currently in schism. So, again, who is the the institutional Church that still can make that claim?

Well it would seem that either no Church on the face of the earth can make that claim or only one. Obviously the Catholic Church would make this claim and if I had to measure the evidence of the others that make this claim, I don’t think they really come close. But, that is the opinion of a Catholic.

And, ISTM, this is part of the reason for the development of SS in the first place. Luther spoke of councils and popes contradicting themselves. If we look from 1054 to 1517, it is obvious that there were, and continue to be contradictions.

I don’t believe there have been contradictions in matters of doctrine or morals. In other words, I know of no doctrine held by the Church that has ever been changed. Expounded upon, yes, but never changed.

Anyway, I truly appreciate your comments.

Steve

 

[JonNC]

Either one, friend. Either one. I’d be looking like this, if you were to announce you had come ashore to either one.

For they both are directing light in the same way. Both say they same thing. Except one Lighthouse says that the lightkeeper (or whatever it is he’s called who swings the lantern) is the leader. The other Lighthouse says that the lightkeeper is a leader. Whatever. They’re both swinging the lamp in the very same way.

I appreciate what you’ve said. If you’d both start swinging the same light, it sure would make things easier.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I appreciate what you’ve said. If you’d both start swinging the same light, it sure would make things easier.

Jon

Why would it make it easier? If we were teaching different doctrines, I might cede your point. But we do not. (With the exception of papal supremacy, of course).

I have said this to you before, Jon, and I hope you again will not take offense: but I sometimes wonder if you are using this schism as an excuse. “Until you guys get your act together I can’t join either one!”

Why? I don’t understand why the EO and CCs must be united for you to join either one.

 

[batman1973]

**GENERAL WARNING

This is the absolute and final warning
Posters are to observe the rules of CAF on charity.
If you have not read them yet, they are located in my signature.
If you cannot follow them, then I suggest you avoid the thread.
Thank you.**

My apologies. I put more effort into being charitable.

 

[Mickey]

Which lighthouse, PR? Yours, or Mickey’s?

During 38 years in the Latin Catholic Church, I received many blessings…too many to recount. When I was introduced to the East…I had many years of blessings in the Eastern Catholic Church…too many to recount. I was powerfully drawn to the Eastern Church…and through much prayer and discernment…with the help of monks…my journey brought me to the Holy Orthodox Church. Since then, I have received many blessings…too many to recount.

May your pilgrimage be blessed.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;10260044]Why would it make it easier? If we were teaching different doctrines, I might cede your point. But we do not. (With the exception of papal supremacy, of course).

You mentioned the biggie for me, but there are others: Purgatory, the Filioque, IC, among others.

I have said this to you before, Jon, and I hope you again will not take offense: but I sometimes wonder if you are using this schism as an excuse. “Until you guys get your act together I can’t join either one!”

I know you too well to take offense.
An excuse? No. A reason. Let me put forth two questions with the following 2 prefaces;
I am by preference, birth, and culture a western Christian, admittedly. So, all else being equal, it would be easier for me to convert to Catholicism than Orthodoxy ( the lack of a nearby Orthodox Church notwithstanding ).
OTOH, I find my perception that, by greater numbers (no, I lack a source to prove the perception), Lutheran clergy who do convert seem to move toward Orthodoxy. I have great respect for Jarislav Pelikan, and what little I’ve read by him is quite compelling.
Questions:

1. What would I be were I to convert to Catholicism if I did not believe that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and was infallible ex cathedra? Other than dishonest, that is?
2. Let’s say the OCA were to plop a parish near by backyard, and I were to join it, would I not still be in Schism?

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Eugene was NOT speaking about protestants, obviously, but Holy Orthodoxy (schismatics). How has my circumstances changed as a result?
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Why? I don’t understand why the EO and CCs must be united for you to join either one

.
So, on the one hand, I am at best a Cafeteria Catholic. On the other, a schismatic.
From the POV of Orthodoxy, if I become Catholic, I am schismatic. What’s a simple Lutheran to do?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13 KJV)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13 DRA)

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13 RSVCE)

Where does the Bible say that this Holy Spirit inspires all Christians to read and interpret the Scriptures correctly?

The verses above seem to indicate that Jesus sent the HS to his disciples 2000 years ago.

Anything that says this is on-going to all Christians?

 

[PRmerger]

You mentioned the biggie for me, but there are others: Purgatory, the Filioque, IC, among others.

All of those are questions of semantics only. The EO believe in purgatory. And in the IC. It’s just how it is professed that there is “disagreement.”

I know you too well to take offense.

An excuse? No. A reason.

I understand.

But do you think that this reason is that which the Evil One whispers in your ear in order to prevent you from coming ashore to full communion? (Note: you must take this question as coming from a Catholic POV. I know that you do not feel that you are outside of communion in the first place…but go with me here.)

I think the devil relishes that there is schism between the EO and CCs and that anyone uses it as a reason to stay away is exactly what the devil ordered.

I will address your other comment later…must vacuum now as friends are coming over tonight! I thought DD had done the vacuuming/cleaning while I was at work…but, grrrrrrr!!

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;10260365]All of those are questions of semantics only. The EO believe in purgatory. And in the IC. It’s just how it is professed that there is “disagreement.”

Not from what I’ve read here, and in other places.

But do you think that this reason is that which the Evil One whispers in your ear in order to prevent you from coming ashore to full communion? (Note: you must take this question as coming from a Catholic POV. I know that you do not feel that you are outside of communion in the first place…but go with me here.)

No, I don’t, anymore than I think he whispers in your ear about being Catholic. Here’s why. Like you, I depend on the Holy Spirit to whisper all the louder, and a Luther quote comes to my mind:

…when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God’s paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” and “for the transgression of His people was He stricken” (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure

Therefore,if I am wrong, or you are, our our friend Mickey is, or our new friend Gaelic Bard is, I remember that Christ dies for sinners, chief among them though I may be, and even if my greatest sin is a stubborn pride, “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all”.

Now, that is not an excuse to not seek out the truth.

I think the devil relishes that there is schism between the EO and CCs and that anyone uses it as a reason to stay away is exactly what the devil ordered.

I think he relishes in all of the divisions of Christ’s Church. The sin of division we all should regularly confess, and seek together to find the unity He calls us to.

I will address your other comment later…must vacuum now as friends are coming over tonight! I thought DD had done the vacuuming/cleaning while I was at work…but, grrrrrrr!!

As a former high school referree, I always marveled at the bravery of coaches, who put their livelihood in the hands and performances of high school kids.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Why? I don’t understand why the EO and CCs must be united for you to join either one.

I love your persistence - may we all learn from it.

From my perspective, I’m a valid continuation of the western church - so my communion with the Catholic church will happen in two ways: My church implodes in a wave of secularism, or our churches come to communion together.

We’ll keep practicing our hymns so that we may sing loudly and joyously if we are able to commune together.

 

[Denise1957]

Jon, with all due respect, when the Lutheran Church uses sola scriptura as the final norm, does not the inspired word of God also need an interpreter (hopefully an infallible one at that)? It certainly cannot interpret itself. In the Lutheran Church who is the final arbiter of truth?

This is something that has always struck me as odd; that scripture is used to test those who interpret scripture, as if the interpretation of the one questioning the other is, without a doubt, the correct interpretation. In the end, is it not one interpretation against another, rather than one interpretation against scripture? Does this not show the absolute necessity of an infallible interpreter of inerrant scripture? And does it not show the absolute necessity of Sacred Tradition as the measuring stick since it was Sacred Tradition that was used in determining the canon? The writings could not contradict what the Church had always believed, rather than the other way around. That the Bible came from the Church and not the Church from the Bible has become a cliche, but this truth is very important. If the Church from which the Bible was born is not an authentic interpreter of its contents then who can make such a claim in its place?

Thanks and God bless.

Steve

You raise some important issues here. Such as, that scripture is used to test those who interpret scripture. It seems to be a self-serving system, in that anyone can claim the authority to interpret. But if that’s the case, there would be no need for a Church, and yet Jesus clearly started a Church. If He gave all Christians equal authority to interpret scripture, then why didn’t He say so? It seems to me as well that if He intended all Christians equal authority in interpretation, then he would have stressed the importance of making the Bible available to all (which He never did). If indeed He had intended for all equal authority, it might have gone something like this. Instead of telling His Apostles to go out and baptize and teach all that He had taught them, he instead might have said…“make written copies of all that I have taught, hand them out to everyone, encourage them to believe in Me as their Savior, and then they’ll go to Heaven.” End of. And that would pretty much be it. But that’s not how it happened.

Some will admit that Jesus did indeed found a Church. But then in order to make a case that non-Catholics have a divine right of interpretation, they then have to somehow show that the Church apostacised, or became corrupt, or went against Jesus’ teachings, etc. There are many forms which this seems to take, depending on which denomination. I haven’t seen that any of these accusations have any merit at all, but I understand that the accusations are necessary if others are to claim right of interpretation. And after hunderds of years of non-Catholics trying to prove that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ, the Church still stands. There are many well-intentioned non-Catholics. I understand that everyone is just trying to make sense of it all, depending on thier background and inclinations. I’m not accusing anyone here of intentional wrong-doing.

 

[JonNC]

=benjohnson;10260417]I love your persistence - may we all learn from it.

Indeed, so, and a loving Christian sibling.

We’ll keep practicing our hymns so that we may sing loudly and joyously if we are able to commune together.

“O Comforter of priceless worth,
Send peace and unity on earth.
Support us in our final strife
And lead us out of death to life.” -Luther

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Not from what I’ve read here, and in other places.

No, I don’t, anymore than I think he whispers in your ear about being Catholic. Here’s why. Like you, I depend on the Holy Spirit to whisper all the louder, and a Luther quote comes to my mind:

Therefore,if I am wrong, or you are, our our friend Mickey is, or our new friend Gaelic Bard is, I remember that Christ dies for sinners, chief among them though I may be, and even if my greatest sin is a stubborn pride, “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all”.

I am ten times the sinner you are, Jon. I learn and am shamed by your humility with every post of yours that I read.

Kyrie eleison.

 

[JustaServant]

I am ten times the sinner you are, Jon. I learn and am shamed by your humility with every post of yours that I read.

Kyrie eleison.

He’s one of our best dude.
Good guy to imitate.
…but not too much, he’ll get a big head.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

He’s one of our best dude.
Good guy to imitate.
…but not too much, he’ll get a big head.

Yeah and become Lutheran. Bye bye casserole, hello jello.

 

[batman1973]

Yeah and become Lutheran. Bye bye casserole, hello jello.

That’s hot dish, not casserole, you fancy pants Baptist