Sola Scriptura...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone ever made the comparison of Scripture and the Church to the Constitution and the United States government?

One is the “Law of the Land”, so to speak; and the other is the interpreter and enforcer of the law?

The only real difference is that the Church CAN NOT change (or amend) the “law of the land”… Otherwise would this be a reasonable comparison? Just wondering…
 
PRmerger said:
As I told steido, go for it!

That would put you in the same position as the CC in attempting to bring you back home.
Click to expand...
Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on us stubborn Lutherans 🙂

(The diagnosis of Catholic rhetoric isn’t powerful enough, or that Lutherans have already lost their minds to beer and there’s no material to work with I’ll leave to the reader)

Our stubborn reply is that we are (part) of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We’re already home in Christ.
 
benjohnson said:
Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on us stubborn Lutherans 🙂
Click to expand...
😉
(The diagnosis of Catholic rhetoric isn’t powerful enough, or that Lutherans have already lost their minds to beer and there’s no material to work with I’ll leave to the reader)
Click to expand...
Our stubborn reply is that we are (part) of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We’re already home in Christ.
Click to expand...
How would you respond to the CoC member who says to you, 'My definition of SS is the same as yours. We just say it a bit differently"?
 
=PRmerger;11672632]Can you tell me what some other defs of “papal primacy” are?
Click to expand...
A primacy of honor, that doesn’t include or imply supremacy.
What is authority except invoking “author’s rights”, no?
Click to expand...
And somehow enforcing them, perhaps even on those who disagree.
Except when the NT did not exist and the Church had to use Tradition as the norm to discern what was theopneustos and what was not.
Click to expand...
There was the OT, there were the Apostles themselves speaking.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
And somehow enforcing them, perhaps even on those who disagree.
Click to expand...
Well, you are invoking the first part of authority, which is telling someone that he can’t believe something that you guys have already declared.

But, yes, you are not offering any type of coercion or enforcement.
 
JonNC said:
There was the OT, there were the Apostles themselves speaking.

Jon
Click to expand...
So…NOT using Scripture as the norm. But rather the Tradition of Apostolic teaching.

Doesn’t sound like the Lutheran idea of SS was around in the beginning.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, you are invoking the first part of authority, which is telling someone that he can’t believe something that you guys have already declared.

But, yes, you are not offering any type of coercion or enforcement.
Click to expand...
They can believe anything they want. All we’re saying is that historically, theirs is not the definition. I see no reason for us to cede ground on the point.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The EO, certainly. Lutherans. There may be others.

Jon
Click to expand...
I am not sure how our dialogue got to this place, Jon, but it seems to me that your example of differing defs of papal primacy only serves to illustrate my point. You need to have a magisterium–an entity which has authority, or even simply claims authority–in order to avoid multiple defs of a particular concept.

Otherwise, all you can do when a CofC member says, “Sola Scriptura means A, B, and C” when Lutherans proclaim, “No, SS means D, E and F” is say:

 
JonNC said:
They can believe anything they want. All we’re saying is that historically, theirs is not the definition. I see no reason for us to cede ground on the point.

Jon
Click to expand...
Because they will only tell you that which you tell* us* regarding papal primacy: “That’s not how we see it.”
 
PRmerger said:
So…NOT using Scripture as the norm. But rather the Tradition of Apostolic teaching.

Doesn’t sound like the Lutheran idea of SS was around in the beginning.
Click to expand...
That is why I said,
** in a manner of speaking** the historic Church has always used scripture as the norm
Obviously, the practice since the divisions inTradition is different.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
That is why I said,
** in a manner of speaking** the historic Church has always used scripture as the norm
Obviously, the practice since the divisions inTradition is different.

Jon
Click to expand...
Wow.

I once saw a tv show that “in a manner of speaking” the people were speaking English. However, they needed to have subtitles anyways…

In a manner of speaking can be crazy :doh2:

Really bro, to claim SS in the historic Church is… just… not… a… manner… of… speaking… It’s gutterspeak (Ask your DC super hero buddy to translate this for you :D)
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Wow.

I once saw a tv show that “in a manner of speaking” the people were speaking English. However, they needed to have subtitles anyways…

In a manner of speaking can be crazy :doh2:

Really bro, to claim SS in the historic Church is… just… not… a… manner… of… speaking… It’s gutterspeak (Ask your DC super hero buddy to translate this for you :D)
Click to expand...
Nah. Remember that I said the use of scripture as the norm. That’s what I meant by a manner of speaking. Tradition has always been there, too.

Jon
 
PRmerger said:
I am not sure how our dialogue got to this place, Jon, but it seems to me that your example of differing defs of papal primacy only serves to illustrate my point. You need to have a magisterium–an entity which has authority, or even simply claims authority–in order to avoid multiple defs of a particular concept.
Click to expand...
But even those differing definitions developed despite (some might say because of) the Magisterium.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
But even those differing definitions developed despite (some might say because of) the Magisterium.

Jon
Click to expand...
Sure.

So are you saying that it is permissible for you to have a definition that is different than the Catholic one regarding papal primacy?

Or do you believe you must conform to the CC’s def?
 
PRmerger said:
Sure.

So are you saying that it is permissible for you to have a definition that is different than the Catholic one regarding papal primacy?

Or do you believe you must conform to the CC’s def?
Click to expand...
Or the EO def. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, regardless of how it is defined comes out of the early Church, and the bishops and patriarchs of both the east and west were there. So it seems they have the claim on how to define it, which, incidentally, has not yet been resolved between the two.
And this is my point regarding SS. It was the Lutheran Reformers that applied the practice in the early part of the Reformation.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Or the EO def. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome, regardless of how it is defined comes out of the early Church, and the bishops and patriarchs of both the east and west were there. So it seems they have the claim on how to define it, which, incidentally, has not yet been resolved between the two.
And this is my point regarding SS. It was the Lutheran Reformers that applied the practice in the early part of the Reformation.

Jon
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

So you agree with both the EO and the CC position that the pope is the divinely appointed head of Christendom?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top