Sola Scriptura...

[Nicea325]

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.

Let me be more precise, the “practice” or “belief” that SS is the final norm or “the” authority in matters of faith and morality for Christianity is simply false.

Does that help?

To compare SS to the Real Presence conveys a sign of desperation to justify SS.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

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

I understand what you are saying and where Lutherans position.

My argument is this:

The belief that SS (Scipture-alone) is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals is simply not true. As I have said, if it were indeed an ancient practice and the only authority to define and determine doctrines, I find it so odd SS not one early church bothers even to hint it as vital to our faith?

 

[Per_Crucem]

So SS is relative?

It is not relative. If by that you mean that we, as Lutherans, believe our understanding of SS is relative to a Baptist’s understanding of it. It goes without saying that we believe that how we define it is true.

However, if by relative you mean there are different church bodies that define it differently, then yes.

This isn’t any different than how different church bodies define the real presence differently, or define ecclesiology differently. It’s not saying they are all true. It’s only saying that they are out there. To say that ANY view of SS, or the real presence, or infallibility is false, BECAUSE it’s defined differently by different groups is where there is a logical error.

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.

It is consistent within the church body that defines it. Lutherans expect SS to be consistent with how the Lutheran church defines it. How Presbyterians want to define it is their business.

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.

No one ever said that. We believe it is certain as we define it. Again, how Baptists or Presbyterians define it is not our concern, since we are not part of those communities.

To reiterate the point…it is like saying that because Orthodoxy’s understanding of infallibility is different than the Catholic Church’s understanding…that means the entire doctrine of infallibility is false and meaningless and is all relative.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To reiterate the point…it is like saying that because Orthodoxy’s understanding of infallibility is different than the Catholic Church’s understanding…that means the entire doctrine of infallibility is false and meaningless and is all relative.

No, wrong reasoning here.

It would be similar to what SS is to Protestantism - if - the Orthodox held a different meaning/practice of infallibility in the same manner that Protestantism holds to SS.

And by you holding that your definition of SS only matters to you as a Lutheran, and that the Presbyterians and Baptists are not your concern and it is up to them ---- then it is relative to the Church you belong to. Which is my exact point.

 

[Nicea325]

It is not relative. If by that you mean that we, as Lutherans, believe our understanding of SS is relative to a Baptist’s understanding of it. It goes without saying that we believe that how we define it is true.

However, if by relative you mean there are different church bodies that define it differently, then yes.

This isn’t any different than how different church bodies define the real presence differently, or define ecclesiology differently. It’s not saying they are all true. It’s only saying that they are out there. To say that ANY view of SS, or the real presence, or infallibility is false, BECAUSE it’s defined differently by different groups is where there is a logical error.

It is consistent within the church body that defines it. Lutherans expect SS to be consistent with how the Lutheran church defines it. How Presbyterians want to define it is their business.

No one ever said that. We believe it is certain as we define it. Again, how Baptists or Presbyterians define it is not our concern, since we are not part of those communities.

To reiterate the point…it is like saying that because Orthodoxy’s understanding of infallibility is different than the Catholic Church’s understanding…that means the entire doctrine of infallibility is false and meaningless and is all relative.

Okay,but using such an argument really holds no premise compared to infallibility. Infallibility evidently existed before the Christian church because all the OT authors produced infallible writings. Infallibility has existed since the inception of the church, because it has been with the church and its bishops. On the other hand,SS has not. Again, by using your argument is really a means of trying to justify it as though SS has been in practice since day one and history says otherwise.

 

[Nicea325]

No, wrong reasoning here.

It would be similar to what SS is to Protestantism - if - the Orthodox held a different meaning/practice of infallibility in the same manner that Protestantism holds to SS.

And by you holding that your definition of SS only matters to you as a Lutheran, and that the Presbyterians and Baptists are not your concern and it is up to them ---- then it is relative to the Church you belong to. Which is my exact point.

Exactly! Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Novocastrian]

No, wrong reasoning here.

It would be similar to what SS is to Protestantism - if - the Orthodox held a different meaning/practice of infallibility in the same manner that Protestantism holds to SS.

And by you holding that your definition of SS only matters to you as a Lutheran, and that the Presbyterians and Baptists are not your concern and it is up to them ---- then it is relative to the Church you belong to. Which is my exact point.

That’s not the point at all. He’s saying - and correct me if I’m wrong - that it’s not his responsibility what the Presbyterians and Baptists believe, not that it doesn’t matter. That is definitely not relativistic.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, wrong reasoning here.

It would be similar to what SS is to Protestantism - if - the Orthodox held a different meaning/practice of infallibility in the same manner that Protestantism holds to SS.

Are you saying the Orthodox do not have a different practice of infallibility?

And by you holding that your definition of SS only matters to you as a Lutheran, and that the Presbyterians and Baptists are not your concern and it is up to them ---- then it is relative to the Church you belong to. Which is my exact point.

It’s not my concern because I am not one of them. I am not one of them because I believe them to be in error. Clearly, then, it isn’t relative.

 

[PRmerger]

Right. So what’s the problem with my reply being something along the lines of: the bishops of the Church of England sitting in Convocation or Synod exercise a magisterial authority, proper to their legitimate episcopate in the provinces of Canterbury and York, and have consistently taught in their own words, and those of the Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles, that Scripture is materially sufficient, “so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or thought to be requisite or necessary to salvation” whilst still condemning any who “through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority”?

Because it seems to me that we can say that sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of tradition, and (like you have argued) that whether the children of the English Reformation submit to this authority is irrelevant.

YOU can say that. Sure.

But you have no authority, nor does your bishop, to tell other Protestants what their def of SS is.

Rather, when other Protestants reject your definition of SS they are merely utilizing the same, er, hermeneutic, that your church used to reject the Catholic Church.

As such you can only tell them, “Go for it, little brother! You are doing the exact thing that we advocate people should do from Rome!”

 

[Novocastrian]

YOU can say that. Sure.

But you have no authority, nor does your bishop,** to tell other Protestants what their def of SS is.**
Rather, when other Protestants reject your definition of SS they are merely utilizing the same, er, hermeneutic, that your church used to reject the Catholic Church.

As such you can only tell them, “Go for it, little brother! You are doing the exact thing that we advocate people should do from Rome!”

You’re right. But I and they can tell them what a better definition would be!

I should note, as well, that the Church of England rejected the authority of Rome long before any adoption of sola scriptura as the yardstick of orthodoxy.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Hmmm … Acts 15 comes to mind.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hmmm … Acts 15 comes to mind.

Fair enough, I’ll grant you - as I imagine all Protestants will - that general revelation will always trump Scripture. Peter is quite right to appeal to the obvious manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles; but I’d also note that James then immediately appeals to Scripture to validate what Peter has said.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Fair enough, I’ll grant you - as I imagine all Protestants will - that general revelation will always trump Scripture. Peter is quite right to appeal to the obvious manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles; but I’d also note that James then immediately appeals to Scripture to validate what Peter has said.

Since we believe that Truth can’t contradict Truth, this comes as no surprise.

I don’t think saying that revelation will “trump” scripture since they can’t be in conflict.

However, general revelation tells us that Jesus will protect the Church from teaching error, so the Church always has been, and always will be, in a situation similar to Acts 15.

Each and every time the Fathers explain how scriptures should be interpreted because that is what the Church has always believed, they are using Tradition to illuminate scripture.

 

[Novocastrian]

Each and every time the Fathers explain how scriptures should be interpreted because that is what the Church has always believed, they are using Tradition to illuminate scripture.

Protestants don’t have a problem with this. This is what Heiko Oberman called Tradition-I. We have a problem with the Tridentine doctrine which teaches not only that the Scriptures are to be interpreted traditionally, but that tradition contains some revealed truths which are not available in the Scriptures, and that these too must all be held by faithful Christians. This is Tradition - II. We cannot accept this; it is tantamount to the Jewish idea of an oral law which conveniently legitimates historical developments within a religion, rendering them immune to evaluation in the light of the written record.

 

[Nicea325]

Protestants don’t have a problem with this. This is what Heiko Oberman called Tradition-I. We have a problem with the Tridentine doctrine which teaches not only that the Scriptures are to be interpreted traditionally, but that tradition contains some revealed truths which are not available in the Scriptures, and that these too must all be held by faithful Christians. **This is Tradition - II. **

We cannot accept this; it is tantamount to the Jewish idea of an oral law which conveniently legitimates historical developments within a religion, rendering them immune to evaluation in the light of the written record./QUOTE]

Tradition II…? Sounds like another innovation. Tell me what written record Abraham used in order not to be immune in light of written record?

 

[Novocastrian]

Tradition II…? Sounds like another innovation. Tell me what written record Abraham used in order not to be immune in light of written record?

 

[JonNC]

I understand what you are saying and where Lutherans position.

My argument is this:

The belief that SS (Scipture-alone) is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals is simply not true. As I have said, if it were indeed an ancient practice and the only authority to define and determine doctrines, I find it so odd SS not one early church bothers even to hint it as vital to our faith?

I wouldn’t even say vital. I think, in light of the fracturing of Tradition by schism, it serves as a reasonable practice of holding doctrine accountable.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

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

Steid, always Pork but Pie can be a bit chattie. She is a wonderful artist and painted my avatar. Quite a story there for her. Imagine a Wisconsin LCMS girl, raised in a house with two German speaking parents becoming Catholic, falling in love with the Blessed Mother, loves to paint her and looks forward to her weekly hour at Eucharist Adoration. But like I said that is a long story.

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.

Not scholarly but very clear on it’s wording.

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):

Do you believe then that the doctrinal position above on the LCMS website then conflicts with the confessions?

I do find the LCMS leadership a bit confusing at times. I referenced to Jon in the past that both the current LCMS President and a previous one referred to the Written Word of God having 66 books. This conflicts with the confessions too. It also confuses my LCMS relatives.

All that said, I did take a “what religion are you test” some time ago and I was 100% Catholic and 98% LCMS, then Orthodox. SO close, only 2% away. If you could straighten out this how many books are scripture thing someday, I may inch up to 99%.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

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?

There is only one definition of the Real Presence, Novo, so I am not sure what you are asking here.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Incorrect.

The kerygma is the initial and essential proclamation of the Gospel and the heart of the Good News. As evangelizers, we must know the kerygma if we are going to effectively communicate it to others.
catholic.com/speakers/talks/the-kerygma-enigma-what-is-the-good-news

The kerygma is the initial and essential proclamation of the Gospel and the heart of the Good News. As evangelizers, we must know the kerygma if we are going to effectively communicate it to others.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/kerygma