sola scriptura

[JonNC]

Jon & ben,
I was hoping one or both of you would comment on the way Luther used Sola Scriptura. Luther only applied Sola Scriptura to the Books he judged to be worthy.

Actually, Anna, that’s not exactly the case. But let’s run with it a bit. What he did do was exactly what the historic Church had done long before he came along. Many questioned the antilegomena of the NT. Many of Luther’s concerns about them parallel the history disputes. Similarly, he disputed the deuterocanonical books in similar ways as that going back to St. Jerome, but also during the Reformation era by Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan, no ally of Luther.

For Luther, ISTM, and in many ways the Lutheran Church, it is a rather conservative approach; relying strongly on the universally (pre-Reformation) attested books, and viewing the disputed books with respect, but also caution because there was dispute about them in the early Church. In short, the ECF’s were not universal in their agreement regarding the dsputed books, and it isn’t until Trent that the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, infallibly defines the canon.
Meanwhile, for Lutheranism, the canon, technically, remains open, as there is no listing of the books in the Confessions.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

All blood washed saints that have been transformed by the grace of God by hearing the** “faith that was* once for all delivered ***to the saints” (Jude 1:3), i.e. apostolic teachings that are found only in Holy Writ, belong to the holy, universal, apostolic church.

Oh hey, AS. Weren’t you going to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers were sola scriptura proponents? Here’s your chance…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Answer mine first…or start a new thread.

Um which one?

 

[JonNC]

The consensus of the Fathers confirms the Real Presence.

Where do you get your interpretation that they are mistaken?

Luther seems to think it was more than consensus:

" Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? …
Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Jesus told you personally?

In a round about way He attests to the NT and grants revelation to the writers of the NT.

Okay… So is there one-holy-catholic-&-apostolic church?

Absolutely. All Christians. Not just a hierarchy.

 

[Mickey]

Luther seems to think it was more than consensus:

Bravo Jon!

 

[PRmerger]

None of these involve a communication of divine attributes, PR.

We were talking about “divine attributes”, not a communication of divine attributes (and what does that even mean: communication of divine attributes??)

Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love Him.

The human person can do even greater things than what Christ did.

That’s what the Scriptures say, Gaelic.

So to say that the human person cannot be infallible (which, peculiarly, you seem to be saying* is* possible, yet also not acknowledging its implications) is to contradict Scripture.

And it contradicts your own paradigm, which acknowledges this charism of infallibility when you claim that Hebrews is inspired…

for the ONLY way you know that Hebrews is inspired…

is because of an infallible Church.

You can’t even say it’s apostolic…based on the text. You need the Church to discern that for you.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

We were talking about “divine attributes”, not a communication of divine attributes (and what does that even mean: communication of divine attributes??)

Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love Him.

The human person can do even greater things than what Christ did.

That’s what the Scriptures say, Gaelic.

So to say that the human person cannot be infallible (which, peculiarly, you seem to be saying* is* possible, yet also not acknowledging its implications) is to contradict Scripture.

And it contradicts your own paradigm, which acknowledges this charism of infallibility when you claim that Hebrews is inspired…

for the ONLY way you know that Hebrews is inspired…

is because of an infallible Church.

You can’t even say it’s apostolic…based on the text. You need the Church to discern that for you.

Moving right along, PR. We will agree to disagree.

Blessings.

 

[PRmerger]

No, we know Scripture is sacred truth for other reasons. Namely Jesus.

The ONLY way you know a single thing that Jesus said or did, Gaelic, is because…

the Church told you he did this.

You can’t know Jesus without the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Moving right along, PR. We will agree to disagree.

Blessings.

Gaelic, I am sorry that you feel that you cannot address any of our disagreements without a thoughtful refutation.

 

[stewstew03]

In a round about way He attests to the NT and grants revelation to the writers of the NT.

Absolutely. All Christians. Not just a hierarchy.

Including… Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses…?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic, I am sorry that you feel that you cannot address any of our disagreements without a thoughtful refutation.

PR, I have. You insist on either avoiding what I’ve said, and going back to the same point over and over or asking “how do you know?” about everything I’ve said. That is not a conversation. You’re just wanting to argue no matter what is addressed to you. I was reading through the last scriptural discussion you had with Byzantine_Wolf several weeks ago and you did the exact same thing in your discussion with him.

I don’t have enough time in my day to have unfruitful conversations that go nowhere. So again…blessings.

 

[stewstew03]

Moving right along, PR. We will agree to disagree.

Blessings.

White flag already? Well, do stick around and try to learn about your Catholic roots.
As a former baptist, I know there is a lot of misinformation out there about Catholicism.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

White flag already? Well, do stick around and try to learn about your Catholic roots.
As a former baptist, I know there is a lot of misinformation out there about Catholicism.

I didn’t say I was done disagreeing with you oh fan of them who couldn’t beat the hated Patriots

I’m not misinformed about Catholicism. On this topic…it’s unscriptural and illogical.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

White flag already? Well, do stick around and try to learn about your Catholic roots.
As a former baptist, I know there is a lot of misinformation out there about Catholicism.

Perhaps you could answer the question I posed to Mickey?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, Anna, that’s not exactly the case. But let’s run with it a bit. What he did do was exactly what the historic Church had done long before he came along. Many questioned the antilegomena of the NT. Many of Luther’s concerns about them parallel the history disputes. Similarly, he disputed the deuterocanonical books in similar ways as that going back to St. Jerome, but also during the Reformation era by Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan, no ally of Luther.

For Luther, ISTM, and in many ways the Lutheran Church, it is a rather conservative approach; relying strongly on the universally (pre-Reformation) attested books, and viewing the disputed books with respect, but also caution because there was dispute about them in the early Church. In short, the ECF’s were not universal in their agreement regarding the dsputed books, and it isn’t until Trent that the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, infallibly defines the canon.
Meanwhile, for Lutheranism, the canon, technically, remains open, as there is no listing of the books in the Confessions.

Jon

Jon,
I appreciate your comments. Excellent as always.

I realize the history of Biblical Canons is complex, and I use the plural of Canon— acknowledging a lack of full agreement regarding inspired Books within Christendom, even today.

I’m trying to understand both Luther (complex character to say the least), and the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura, today.

You said, “for Lutheranism, the canon, technically, remains open, as there is no listing of the books in the Confessions.”

So, how do you, as a Lutheran, apply Sola Scriptura when your Canon remains open?

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

Gaelic, I am sorry that you feel that you cannot address any of our disagreements without a thoughtful refutation.

Edit: Gaelic, I am sorry that you feel that you cannot address any of our disagreements with a thoughtful refutation

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
I appreciate your comments. Excellent as always.

I realize the history of Biblical Canons is complex, and I use the plural of Canon— acknowledging a lack of full agreement regarding inspired Books within Christendom, even today.

I’m trying to understand both Luther (complex character to say the least), and the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura, today.

You said, “for Lutheranism, the canon, technically, remains open, as there is no listing of the books in the Confessions.”

So, how do you, as a Lutheran, apply Sola Scriptura when your Canon remains open?

Anna

Essentially, it has to do with doctrine, and doctrine is normally supported from the universally attested books, though the antilegomena can be used to support it.

Jon

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps you could answer the question I posed to Mickey?

But you requested a new thread for the questions I posed to you. You can start your own thread as you try to pit Catholics and Orthodox against eachother as you avoid everyone’s questions on this thread.

 

[Mickey]

Edit: Gaelic, I am sorry that you feel that you cannot address any of our disagreements with a thoughtful refutation

I second that.