Sola Scriptura...

[PRmerger]

When did Lutheran theologians do this? And even if they did, why would they expect anyone to listen?

Well, you are doing this.

(Yes, I know you don’t claim to be a Lutheran theologian. But the fact remains that you are reserving for yourself the right to correct anyone who has a different opinion regarding the definition of SS).

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by solarguy17 View Post
Every mention of the “Eurcharist” being taken after Christ’s resurrection is on a first day of the week.
Thus Sola Scriptura would require to only partake on the first day.
Agree with the principal or not, that what would be needed.

I think the argument that has merit is this: if one goes by the Bible alone, then one ought to have the Last Supper worship services on Thursdays only. For that is what the example given in the Bible depicts.

And one ought not worship on Sunday because there is no command in the Bible to worship on Sunday.

If one is a Bible Alone advocate.

So, what’s a sola scripturist to do?
The first thing is we should not set scripture up in conflict with itself. Both first statements are correct that, the Sacrament was instituted by Christ on Maundy Thursday, and later practiced on the Lord’s Day, including by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24: 13 ***That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. ***

Christ Himself seems to have no specific day in mind, and since scripture makes no specific designation so, we rely on the Church to determine the practice involved. And that practice is, historically, that the mass is regularly celebrated on the first day of the week, Sunday, but can and should be offered to the believer often, as St. Paul says,
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. What Christian would not want to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes as often as possible?

The practice of sola scriptura is intended to hold doctrine accountable. It doesn’t exclude Tradition or doctrine, and it does recognize the teaching authority of the Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well, you are doing this.

(Yes, I know you don’t claim to be a Lutheran theologian. But the fact remains that you are reserving for yourself the right to correct anyone who has a different opinion regarding the definition of SS).

PR, if I were to claim a new definition for Transubstantiation, for example, stating something along the lines of it really means that the substance of the bread and wine are turned into a representation of the body and blood of Christ, not the real body and blood of Christ. Would you not challenge me on that point, and claim that the Catholic definition, as found in Catholic teaching, is the correct one? Would you not bring to my attention the Catholic Catechism:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

as the only true definition of Transubstantiation?

You wouldn’t be able to make me agree with you, but you certainly would dispute my claim. And rightly so. Nothing different here. I cannot, nor do I pretend that I can demand or by some authority invoke our definition of sola scriptura on some communion that practices something else and calls it sola scriptura. OTOH, I am not obliged to stand by and not dispute it, either.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11658455]Hi Jon,

I would suggest that the issue of papal infallibility is of supreme importance. To go for 50 years without addressing it formally is absolutely ridiculous. I fault both groups equally. There can be no real union of our two communions without resolving this issue. What in the world could they possibly be waiting for? Possibly the next generation of negotiators? This is not exactly ‘brave’ on their part. What will be the right period of time to remain separated? 550 years? 600 years? 1000 years. Seriously, they ought to dial it up a tad.

Ok. I actually have more trust in the leadership than you do, but be that as it may…

Protestantism, and more specifically Lutheranism may take offense at the posting of negative opinions about the developer of their core doctrines. Yet these same people seem to be surprised when Catholics are offended by comments about the pope (either the person or the office) being the anti-Christ. Those comments are directed at the whole Roman Catholic Church, and if anything are MUCH more offensive than criticism of the man Martin Luther. When it is stated, that the pope is the anti-Christ, which is the official teaching of Lutheranism, or that it is ‘only’ the Office of the papacy which is the anti-Christ - either way - that statement portrays the 1,100,000,000 member RCC as being led by the anti-Christ. People who see this as being inoffensive probably need to take some intensive sensitivity training.

The last statement is factually wrong. We are quite certain that, 1) Catholic Christians are led by Christ, and 2) that the term “anti-Christ” has to do with specific claims of the papacy. These have been listed before, and I do not wish to pursue them further here. I would remind you, again, as I did in another thread, that you have attacked specifically Martin Luther more in your brief stay here, than Lutherans as a group here have the papacy as antichrist.
I might remind you again, however, that you, sir, are not the first to bring these attacks against Luther up. It is not news. You are not exposing some hidden for 500 years information. I’ve heard it all before you came along, as most Lutherans who participate in these kinds of forums and others have. There’s no surprise here, as your style of apologetics comes up once in a while. What is surprising is you seem to think that this will build bridges instead of driving wedges.

Futhermore, I will tell you that I am a couple of dozen times more charitable towards Luther than he was towards his opponents, including his Catholic opponents. That being said - it kind of ‘is what it is’.

The rhetoric of that time went both ways, as you know. But the fact is we don’t live in that era. The leadership of our communions do not speak to each other in those terms anymore, so I’m not sure why you would justify your style of apologetics based on 500 year old, and long abandoned polemics.

You are correct about one thing, however, the term “anti-Christ” is now so changed that the message of the Reformers in it is missed. Your claim that the issue of the papacy has not been addressed in incorrect.

Nevertheless, the pope’s claims to primacy and his exercise of it have occasioned violent disagreements. Lutherans and others have even gone so far as to call the papacy “antichrist.” The disputes have centered, first, on the question whether the papacy is biblically warranted. Roman Catholics have read the New Testament as indicating that Jesus conferred on Peter a unique role of leadership in the whole church for all times and in this sense provided for successors in the Petrine function, the bishops of Rome. In this view, the papacy has remained substantially the same through succeeding centuries, all changes being accidental. Lutherans, in contrast, have minimized Peter’s role in the early church and denied that this role continued in the church in later periods or that the Roman bishops could be considered his successors in any theologically significant sense.

(7) Closely linked to this historical question regarding the institution of the papacy by Christ is the theological issue whether the papacy is a matter-of divine law (ius divinum).7 Roman Catholics have affirmed that it is and consequently have viewed it as an essential part of the permanent structure of the church. Lutherans have held, in opposition to this, that the papacy was established by human law, the will of men, and that its claims to divine right are nothing short of blasphemous.

(8) A third area of controversy centers on the practical consequences drawn from these prior disagreements. Roman Catholics have tended to think of most major aspects of papal structure and function as divinely authorized. The need or possibility of significant change, renewal, or reform has generally been ignored. Most important, it has been argued that all ministry concerned with fostering unity among the churches is subject—at least in crisis situations—to the supervision of the bishop of Rome. His jurisdiction over the universal church is in the words of Vatican I, “supreme,” “full,” “ordinary,” and "immediate."8 This authority is not subject to any higher human jurisdiction, and no pope is absolutely bound by disciplinary decisions of his predecessors.9 This view of the exercise of papal power has been vehemently repudiated by Lutherans and viewed by them as leading to intolerable ecclesiastical tyranny.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

God Bless You Jon, Topper

His blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[spina1953]

I maybe wrong or incorrect in this, but, I think that doctrine is the outgrowth of what Scripture says. IOW’s, it defines a belief of what a particular passage or verse says and how one is to understand it. For example, Christ dies for all sins of man since the beginning till He returns. ( my words ) So the doctrine of salvation stems from that, though there are other passages that say that but I just use the thought as an example of what I am trying to say concerning doctrine. as I understand it. To my way of thinking, it seems to me that there are some passages or verses that are hard to understand yet, there are those ho have some interpretation that in no way give anything but a distorted meaning of it. I think that when the Church defines a passage or verse it is because they have thought long and hard about it. For the most part, however, the Church is mostly silent concerning a large part of Scripture, and generally does not say anything unless to say that some particular passage or verse, or verses that have been interpreted wrongly is not acceptable.

Sola scriptura it seems to me to be confusing because one says that it means this or that. Other’s say that whatever the meaning is it is wrong. That being said because the catholic Church has tradition that is what was passed on but not been written down, sola scriptura in that sense could not work as Scripture is not the sum total of everything the Apostles taught having been taught by Christ Himself.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11658466]Hi Jon,

Furthermore, Protestants cannot claim that Trent could not have been an Ecumenical Council because ‘the EO didn’t attend’. This kind of ‘logic’ would require that the Arians (who are still around) would need to be represented at a Council in order for it to be ‘Ecumenical’.

Tim, you’re the first one here I’ve seen equate Holy Orthodoxy to Arians. The Arians were heretics, and according the Catholicism, Orthodoxy is simply schismatic.

If Lutherans believe in the ‘authority’ of the first 7 Councils, that would include Councils which did not include the Arians, and as such, according to this paradigm, were not ‘Ecumenical’. In addition, the “EO wasn’t there” is all too convenient an excuse, and all too obvious as part of the unstated justification for not following any of the councils from the third 500 years of Christendom.

The EO claims Trent is not ecumenical, as well. SO, this isn’t specifically a Lutheran claim.

Not sure I understand the point of all this, relating to sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[AbideWithMe]

So do you believe that Lutheran theologians get to tell all the rest of Christendom what to believe re: SS?

PR–I don’t think there’s anything to add to what Jon has already written.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

PR–I don’t think there’s anything to add to what Jon has already written.

So, SS is adaptable to each denomination? That’s a tad convenient… It sounds like you can “mold” Scriptures to fit your theology.

 

[deebee1009]

To me, “Sola Scriptura” would mean that the Bible is a collection of books and scriptures came out of nowhere.

In reality, the books in the New Testament were not written by any of the apostles. The first known New Testament scripture was written (by St. Peter?) around 60 or 70 AD. Many were written from oral tradition that was passed down from the Apostles. The Books of the Bible were scriptures that were agreed as to by the Bible and put together from the 1st Council of Nicea about 325 AD.

I think that someone felt that things should be written for future Christians as they were persecuted and there was a chance of not being able to personally witness the scriptures and wanted others to receive the word. The scriptures were not written in real time. Adam and Eve did not write Genesis, I think that Moses wrote some of it (or someone with him) and some of it was done by others (Joshua or those with him?).

Catholics consider the Book of Genesis as a Myth. A Myth is a story with “Truth” created to explain events with the “Truth” that everything was created by God, He blessed everything and rested on the 7th day. A day may not have been a literal day, but as a period of time as a stage of events. The sun and moon were created on the 3rd day. There are two versions of creation in the Book of Genesis.

The Bible was not meant to be historically or chronologically accurate. Some things are historical events, but they are not necessarily chronological or historical events. Some of the events written in the Gospel in sequence may have been chronologically before the way they were written in the Gospels.

I believe that the Gospel of Saint John was not the Apostle of Jesus, but a convert who was with Saint Paul.

The Bible came mostly from Oral Traditions passed down by the Apostles. The Old Testament scriptures were also not written at the time of when these events were happening. The Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by men.

Because the Bible was not written in real time, they were written from what was orally passed down. This is why the Catholic (means “universal”) believes on both the written scriptures and oral tradition equally. To only follow what is written in the Bible only can not be done as it is mainly based from oral tradition. The “Truth” was passed down from generation to generation and these were inspired and inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of “Truth”.

 

[JonNC]

Hi deebee, and welcome to CAF.

=deebee1009;11660035]To me, “Sola Scriptura” would mean that the Bible is a collection of books and scriptures came out of nowhere.

You’re welcome to think that, but it certainly isn’t the belief that Lutherans hold. We recognize the role of the Church, historically, in compiling what we call scripture. Lutheranism, in particular, recognizes and takes into account the various opinions of the Fathers and the early Church when we consider these books. Further, God’s inspiration of the writers is important to us.

In reality, the books in the New Testament were not written by any of the apostles. The first known New Testament scripture was written (by St. Peter?) around 60 or 70 AD. Many were written from oral tradition that was passed down from the Apostles. The Books of the Bible were scriptures that were agreed as to by the Bible and put together from the 1st Council of Nicea about 325 AD.

Hmm. I was told by a Catholic here recently that Luther was wrong in his assessment that James was not written by, well, James. Beyond that, I don’t believe the Council of Nicea in 325 issued a canon regarding the scriptures.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

On first turning the pages of the Bible, todays readers may be misled by what he or she sees. At first glance, First of all the Bible is a collection of books which tell the story of the world from Creation right through to the Second Coming of Jesus. More careful reading, however, shows that the Bible writers told their story to make certain important points about God and mankind. therefore, they often emphasized certain events which historians might mention, and sometimes they barely mentioned some events about which other historians would have written pages. The Bible is not just history as it happened, it is the story of God in action.

It needs to be pointed out that before these stories were put into books, they were told orally for centuries before writing was invented. Even once writing was invented, writing was only by those who were taught and not everyone knew how to write. At some point in time oral stories that were told and retold over generations stated to be written down and preserved as sacred. The writers themselves did not view history we the modern historians and readers of history view it. They wrote with the idea of making certain points they felt needed to be remembered and understood of how one was to understand God and God’s interaction with man and how one is to act. The writers themselves did not think of themselves as sacred writers, but only wanted to pass on those stories that made points they thought important to know, understand and remembered.

 

[crochet_lady]

If I may speak from a Baptistic point of view regarding Scripture being the ‘sole’ authority. A page or two back there was a poster who wanted to hear from Other groups. So a Lutheran has gotten into the conversation. The subject of Sabbath / Sunday worship has come up. And that the Lord’s Day worship came to be because that’s when the Lord was bodily resurrected. Yes.
Baptists have a communion service on a Sunday – not on a Maudy Thursday. It is presented as the particular church chooses to present it. It is a memorial service – ‘in remembrance’ of what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross for us. We have the deacons serving the congregation by passing plates of crackers through out the auditorium – like passing the offering plate – no one is required to give an offering – but the opportunity is made available to everyone. So a person part takes or not of the cracker that represents the Lord’s body and at the pastor’s direction - we eat the tiny piece of cracker. And then the tiny cup of juice is passed around the same way. It represents the blood that Jesus Christ shed for our sins.
And then one of the deacons serves the pastor and then we part take together as a congregation. And one of the deacons prays / thanking God for each item and it’s meaning.
And someone commented that there were, even within the RCC and named several men, who were considered heretics – which Could indicate that within the ‘ranks’ of the RCC there Were teachings creeping in that were Not God’s Word. And Some decided that rather than ‘stand still’ and Not address those issues, They DID address some of them but were highly criticized for their actions. Which would indicate that - what Started out as preaching God’s Word / Jesus Christ crucified and risen bodily/ / over time - This simple message got polluted – and it’s taken bold men to take a stand to get Back to the basics.
It occurred to me this morning – going Way back in the Old Testament – the world as it existed then , Much smaller than now, had One language. God had told the people to spread out and multiply – Noah and his wife, family after the flood. But instead of each son or daughter and spouse leaving Noah and their mother, they stayed put. And eventually they became a great number of people and decided they wanted to build a tower to reach heaven. And That is when God chose to give them different languages which Forced them to spread out and find those who had their same language. That is where we got the various languages and nations.
So - Way back Then - God Could have had His One ‘church’ – God Could have used the Tower being built to rule over the people – but He DIDN’T – That wasn’t His plan – that was Man’s plan.
In the New Testament – God Could have Kept His Word in Jerusalem – the Center of worship. But He sent Paul and Silas out on journeys – directed by the Holy Spirit - to reach out to other groups of people with the Gospel. And He had Peter reaching to the Jews. Those other individual groups of believers had their ‘over seers’ – and those overseers were taught the basics by Paul and Silas as they had been taught. And there have Always been ‘heretics’ getting into the congregations – sometimes they are allowed to stay and sometimes they are ‘put out’. And over time there Will be ‘false teaching’ allowed to stay and pollute the True Gospel. And over time Governments rise and fall. Some leadership follows God and some don’t. And those who Don’t , allow all sorts of ‘stuff’ to get into whatever ‘church’ they are ‘allowing’ at that time. And the Roman Empire was developed – Constantine supposedly was ‘converted’ but in order to ‘grow’ his empire – adopted the practices of other groups around him.
But – Back to the Baptist perspective – we Do have the GARBC , Independent Baptists, Northern, Southern Baptists. But no one is required to belong to Any of those groups. And Biblically – there Are spiritual gifts that believers have at least one of. One is that of being an overseer – spiritual gifts are given to a person by the Holy Spirit. Some people Do have more of an ability to give more insight to passages and there are many other gifts given. But those people are Not infallible in their understanding. And they Don’t encourage anyone to see them as Being that way. At least they Shouldn’t be.

The term ‘ecumenical’ has been used – as in an ecumenical council – such as all the area leaders get together to find out just What everyone can agree On and not to worry about other things? And to make decisions of ‘belief’ based on what everyone Can agree on? And Who is deciding on what the important beliefs Are?

So – the point of ‘sola scripture’ is that God’s Word Is meant to be our ‘sole’ authority – Not to add man’s concept to it. That we are Not to lie, cheat, steal , commit adultery, that we are held responsible for our Own choices and that there Are consequences both good and bad To our individual choices. That we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul. And to do to others as we would have people do to us. And we are to think / meditate on those things that are pure, good, honest, of good report, etc. And 'what ever we do in thought and deed do all to the glory of God

 

[PRmerger]

ISo – the point of ‘sola scripture’ is that God’s Word Is meant to be our ‘sole’ authority – Not to add man’s concept to it.

Firstly, if this is true, then where in the Bible does it say this? (emphasis on the word “sole” or “only”)

Secondly, do you know that your definition apparently is quite different from Luther’s definition, and Lutherans seem to be claiming responsibility for this paradigm.

How is it that you have a def that differs so greatly from other Christians?

 

[AbideWithMe]

So, SS is adaptable to each denomination? That’s a tad convenient… It sounds like you can “mold” Scriptures to fit your theology.

Hmm, Jose—I don’t see how you got that out of what was said.

I’m about to give up on my end; I don’t see how to be more clear. It seems that if I say something, it gets misconstrued.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm, Jose—I don’t see how you got that out of what was said.

I’m about to give up on my end; I don’t see how to be more clear. It seems that if I say something, it gets misconstrued.

Would you mind answering the question as to how your pastor knows whether to observe the Lord’s Supper once a year on Maundy Thursday or every Thursday, and what Bible verse he/she uses to support this idea?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Would you mind answering the question as to how your pastor knows whether to observe the Lord’s Supper once a year on Maundy Thursday or every Thursday, and what Bible verse he/she uses to support this idea?

PR, I did answer this.

I was trying to be funny when I first brought up Maundy Thursday always being on a Thursday. Obviously, I failed miserably at that.

Yes, I know “the Lord’s Supper” is also “the Last Supper”, of course. You asked about “the Last Supper worship service”, and at least for me, that brings to mind pictures of the special service of Holy Communion held on Maundy Thursday in some Protestant churches. It includes not only Communion but commemorates Jesus taking up the basin and towel and washing the feet of His disciples.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hmm, Jose—I don’t see how you got that out of what was said.

I’m about to give up on my end; I don’t see how to be more clear. It seems that if I say something, it gets misconstrued.

Not at all, Abide. I’m not in the miscontrued business. But when you say that there is noting else to add to what Jon has posted. You are suggesting agreement with Jon. Now Jon has been clear in saying that he can only be responsible to how Lutherans, LCMS to be precise, apply SS. And you by your own admission as an Evangelical hold to something similar but not the same. And still you call it SS. And if I ask a Pentecostal, a Baptist, a Presbyterian to name a few, each will also agree with you and Jon in that they can only account for their own denomination or lack thereof.

So what am I left to understand but what I replied to you before?

That SS is dependent to each denomination, even if it is called the same.

The problem this presents is that, this final norm and rule to hold matters of the faith is inconsistent and in essence, represents many different faiths with various final norms and rules.

I am not misconstruing anything you have said particularly. But what all those who hold and defend this practice.

It is the conclusion I am left with.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I know “the Lord’s Supper” is also “the Last Supper”, of course. You asked about “the Last Supper worship service”, and at least for me, that brings to mind pictures of the special service of Holy Communion held on Maundy Thursday in some Protestant churches. It includes not only Communion but commemorates Jesus taking up the basin and towel and washing the feet of His disciples.

I am sorry but I am not understanding your responses, kidding or not.

So are you saying that you only celebrate the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday?

 

[Porknpie]

Catholics consider the Book of Genesis as a Myth. A Myth is a story with “Truth” created to explain events with the “Truth” that everything was created by God, He blessed everything and rested on the 7th day. A day may not have been a literal day, but as a period of time as a stage of events. The sun and moon were created on the 3rd day. There are two versions of creation in the Book of Genesis.

Deebee, welcome.

Can you provide the paragraph(s) in the catechism that show The Church believes Genesis was a myth and if so what parts? It’s true that we are not obligate to believe that God created the world in seven days.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

I believe that the Gospel of Saint John was not the Apostle of Jesus, but a convert who was with Saint Paul.

Deebee,

Are you a convert? I’m wondering where you get this belief. See the link here and read the paragraphs on authorship.

Also there is a catholic.com tract here for you to read.

PnP