Sola Scriptura...

[Porknpie]

I think I said this a few pages back, though it might have been in a separate thread. This is why Lutherans do not “reject” tradition, as so many like to say.

Steido -

See the link here from LCMC.ORG. This is the LCMS doctrinal position on scripture. Can you see how a Catholic would read this and think differently? When one says “sole source” this excludes by definition anything else, including Tradition. When Tradition is excluded, it is rejected. Scripture itself says the opposite with Paul saying to hold fast to what has been both written and spoken.

Hence the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged.

PnP

 

[aidanbradypop]

Steido -

See the link here from LCMC.ORG. This is the LCMS doctrinal position on scripture. Can you see how a Catholic would read this and think differently? When one says “sole source” this excludes by definition anything else, including Tradition. When Tradition is excluded, it is rejected. Scripture itself says the opposite with Paul saying to hold fast to what has been both written and spoken.

Hence the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged.

PnP

P,

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not a good verse for the proof of Tradition. As a believer in Tradition and Scripture, I believe this verse is not pointing to such an argument.

 

[steido01]

Steido -

See the link here from LCMC.ORG. This is the LCMS doctrinal position on scripture. Can you see how a Catholic would read this and think differently? When one says “sole source” this excludes by definition anything else, including Tradition. When Tradition is excluded, it is rejected. Scripture itself says the opposite with Paul saying to hold fast to what has been both written and spoken.

Hence the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged.

PnP

Hey Pork or Pie (not sure which of you I’m chatting with! ),

First of all, the article you’re pulling from is titled “A Brief Statment of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod.” It’s hardly a scholarly exposition of Lutheran doctrine. For that, we need look to the Lutheran Confessions, which the article notes in the second half of the quote (you omitted that section when you copy-pasted, and it’s quite important - we need to take the entirety of what’s being said, particularly when quoting a “brief” statement):

With the Confessions of our Church we teach also that the “rule of faith” (analogia fidei) according to which the Holy Scriptures are to be understood are the clear passages of the Scriptures themselves which set forth the individual doctrines. (Apology. Triglot, p. 441, Paragraph 60; Mueller, p. 684). The rule of faith is not the man-made so-called “totality of Scripture” (“Ganzes der Schrift”).

Holy Scripture is simply our measuring stick for dogma and doctrine, as Jon and I explained earlier in the thread. I guess I could see how, at first glance, a Roman Catholic might read this and assume that Lutherans fall into the “solo Scriptura” brigade, but that’s doing a terrible disservice to Lutheran teaching. Even a cursory study of the Lutheran Confessions shows that Lutherans do not fall into that camp. I and others have posted this before, and it’s useful: internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well don’t you believe that if SS were taught from the get-go as a doctrine such as the Incarnation,Trinity,Hypostatic Union,etc would have been mentioned at least one ecumenical council? SS advocates claim it was taught in the early church,yet surprisingly it was never discussed at any council.

If it was universally adhered to, then some evidence should exist.
Specifically, we can point to its introduction in the 16th century.

 

[Novocastrian]

If it was universally adhered to, then some evidence should exist.
Specifically, we can point to its introduction in the 16th century.

Hmm. I’m interested as to when one can begin to talk about anything other than the Scriptures and the regula fidei functioning as a kind of conservative sola scriptura method in the early Church. I suppose Basil’s comments about unwritten traditions might count. I think we’d be hard pressed to find anything earlier.

 

[Nicea325]

What nonsense. What would the point of a doctrine of sola scriptura - or its alternative - be if it were not a theological method of an hermeneutical principle? It is, by definition, a theological method!

Invented way after the early church. And is that “definition” universally accepted by all SS advocates?

 

[PRmerger]

Nicea325;:

And is that “definition” universally accepted by all SS advocates?

 

[Novocastrian]

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

Oh, I get it. So because not everyone accepts the Roman Church’s definition of the Real Presence as transubstantiation, we should be wary of accepting it?

 

[nmgauss]

Indeed.

The Bible was never meant to be a full compendium of the Christian faith.

That is why we have a living, breathing entity called The Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, to provide the full compendium of how to live in the manner proclaimed by the kerygma.

The kerygma means preaching. There is no content to the kerygma.

 

[Novocastrian]

The kerygma means preaching. There is no content to the kerygma.

With the exception of particularly bad homilies, I’d suggest that preaching necessarily involves content!

 

[nmgauss]

The Bible was already in use by the early Christians. The disciples of the Disciples constantly quoted from what we now know as the New Testament, so they had already recognised certain works had more authority than others. The Catholic Church didn’t set the canon, they just recognised the canon that was already in use by the majority of Christians.

I am a Sola Scriptura person because that is following the example of Christ. Never once did Jesus ever appeal to the Jewish Traditions to make his case, but rather he only ever used Scripture when making his case.

In fact, by publically reading the scroll, Isaiah, he saw an opportunity to claim that he was the object of that prophesy. Very Effective!

 

[Nicea325]

Oh, I get it. So because not everyone accepts the Roman Church’s definition of the Real Presence as transubstantiation, we should be wary of accepting it?

Either the Truth was and is protected by God or not. Absolutle Truth must reside somewhere and it starts with the Church,I do not understand why it is so difficult to comprehend by non-Catholics. Are you wary with JW’s theology? Mormons? Gnostics? Arians? Montanists?

 

[Nicea325]

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

And that is the whole issue with SS.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Either the Truth was and is protected by God or not. Absolutle Truth must reside somewhere and it starts with the Church,I do not understand why it is so difficult to comprehend by non-Catholics. Are you wary with JW’s theology? Mormons? Gnostics? Arians? Montanists?

That wasn’t his point, though. The argument was being made that because not everyone has the same definition of sola scriptura, it means sola scriptura is not true.

Novo’s point is that, by extension, if one defines the real presence by transubstantiation as the CC does…yet others who believe in the real presence do not (i.e., Lutherans, Orthodox)…it must mean the real presence is not true, either.

 

[Nicea325]

That wasn’t his point, though. The argument was being made that because not everyone has the same definition of sola scriptura, it means sola scriptura is not true.

Novo’s point is that, by extension, if one defines the real presence by transubstantiation as the CC does…yet others who believe in the real presence do not (i.e., Lutherans, Orthodox)…it must mean the real presence is not true, either.

Because SS is not true. The SS topic has been discussed and its errors have been displayed a million times over by countless people.

The RP is true. Catholic/Orthodox communion are both legit.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because SS is not true. The SS topic has been discussed and its errors have been displayed a million times over by countless people.

The RP is true. Catholic/Orthodox communion are both legit.

You may think that SS is not true. However, because there are different definitions of it, does not prove that it is not true. That’s just bad argumentation.

Because Presbyterians and Lutherans define SS differently. SS is false.

Because Catholics and Orthodox define the RP differently, the RP is false.

Because Catholics and Orthodox define the infallibility of the Church differently, the infallibility of the Church is false.

etc. etc. What is good for one, is good for the other.

 

[Nicea325]

You may think that SS is not true. However, because there are different definitions of it, does not prove that it is not true. That’s just bad argumentation.

Because Presbyterians and Lutherans define SS differently. SS is false.

Because Catholics and Orthodox define the RP differently, the RP is false.

Because Catholics and Orthodox define the infallibility of the Church differently, the infallibility of the Church is false.

etc. etc. What is good for one, is good for the other.

Sorry,but I don’t have to think anything, SS is false. From a historical perspective, it is false. I can go and and on. If SS is not false,strange how not one ECF has ever defended it as a sound principle,doctrine,method.

What is good for one, is good for the other is a mere cop-out. Relativism will not cut it. Sorry.

SS advocates are just trying to place SS at the same level with the Real Presence and trying to justify it.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry,but I don’t have to think anything, SS is false. From a historical perspective, it is false. I can go and and on. If SS is not false,strange how not one ECF has ever defended it as a sound principle,doctrine,method.

What is good for one, is good for the other is a mere cop-out. Relativism will not cut it. Sorry.

SS advocates are just trying to place SS at the same level with the Real Presence and trying to justify it.

SS isn’t false. It exists. Lutherans have practiced it for 500 years. What SS is not is accepted by Rome and Orthodoxy.

I think the analogy Per uses, however, is valid.

And that is the whole issue with SS.

I actually don’t think it is the issue, my friend. I think the issue is, and always should be doctrine. The kind of hermeneutics used, the norming that is done, how Tradition is evaluated doesn’t matter. What matters is the doctrine that comes from it.

The difference between Lutherans and Catholics is not SS versus S/T/M. It is that on a few very important understandings of the faith, some in soteriology, more, I believe, in ecclesiology, we disagree. How we came to our views doesn’t really matter. If the practice of how doctrine is determined mattered, then Orthodoxy and Rome would never have ended in Schism from each other. Further, if Lutherans and Catholicism do come to reconciliation, neither will care how we care into agreement.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Because SS is not true. The SS topic has been discussed and its errors have been displayed a million times over by countless people.

The RP is true. Catholic/Orthodox communion are both legit.

Do you realise that you’re making the argument now that SS is false because SS is not true? That’s not even a bad argument. It’s just not an argument.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That wasn’t his point, though. The argument was being made that because not everyone has the same definition of sola scriptura, it means sola scriptura is not true.

Novo’s point is that, by extension, if one defines the real presence by transubstantiation as the CC does…yet others who believe in the real presence do not (i.e., Lutherans, Orthodox)…it must mean the real presence is not true, either.

So SS is relative?

I think it is imperative that the very thing that is defined by so many as the Final rule and norm for the Christian Faith be true and consistent. And definitely not contradictory. Because then it becomes the final rules according to (fill in the blank) Churches.

So then it’s nothing more than agnosticism. SS exists but we cannot know for certain what it is because it is different for each Church - but it is true nonetheless.

Really, to have a logical argument we must use reason. We start with the law of Identity.

If there is no single Identity on that with which we wish to engage in discussion - we can’t even leave the gate.

So in essence it’s not that it is not true - it’s that it is impossible to know which one definition is the true one. Surely not all can be true.