Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[thegreypiper]

***With this in mind, I would appreciate it if you amended your article on ‘Scripture and Tradition’ so that it no longer misrepresents Protestant beliefs.

---

PS – considering the wild variety of beliefs betwixt Protestant denominations, I think it is very bold, even arrogant, of you to state that this one doctrine is common to all, when there is no unity of belief even with regard to essential ideas such as baptism and even the doctrine of the Trinity.

PPS – Do you believe in the Trinity? Why? How? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t, and they read the same Bible. They think Jesus is not quite God, but something like God. Some Pentecostals don’t, either, and believe in something called Modalism. They read the same Bible. (BTW those are both ancient heresies debated, refuted, and refuted in the early days of the Church). Most Protestants accept the formulation of the Trinity as defined in the Nicene Creed, whether they know it or not.

 

[thegreypiper]

*If you won’t listen to the ones that practice sola scriptura on what it is, then I guess the conversation is over.
*

Sorry, tell me exactly what the two words “sola scriptura” mean?

 

[guanophore]

We don’t have much else to go on, considering that nobody spoke with universal authority on this matter until the controversy brought about by the Reformation.

Of course there was Covenanter. The fact that you refuse to accept that the authority existed does not nullify it.

 

[guanophore]

Further the question is does God use men in a church succession to teach infallibly something that is not contained in scripture in full

Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith Of course those who succeeded the Apostles taught infallibly, before a word of the NT was ever written. The authorative apostolic faith was not confined to those scriptures after they were written.

and what precisely does that “church succession” look like? Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Overseers, Elders, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Magisterium, Councils, etc…

It has been preserved in all of those churches founded by Apostles, so this is quite easy to see.

Somewhere along the way things have been changed or interpreted and applied in a way that makes unity amongst all of us to be almost impossible, and I do think that is the Devil weaseling his way in. What I mean is the more dogma, the more definitions, the more outside philosophy we let in, the more opportunity to split us up.

This is true. The doctrines introduced at the Reformation are causing irreconcilable divisions.

The way we see it is that teaching must align with scripture and if we hear a teaching and turn to scripture and find contradiction, we reject the teaching.

The principle sounds good but it is not practical, because there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.

 

[Kliska]

Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith Of course those who succeeded the Apostles taught infallibly, before a word of the NT was ever written. The authorative apostolic faith was not confined to those scriptures after they were written.

You and I differ on what we see contained in scripture. I believe “…that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” sums it up quite nicely. If you pair Old Testament writings with New Testament writings, we have what is necessary and sufficient to lead us to Jesus and saving faith. God is a God of the written word, that doesn’t negate the use of oral proclamation, but that oral proclamation was also written at the behest of God Himself, just as in the OT. Hence, there will not be contradiction between oral teaching and written.

The RCC and the Catholics that follow her believe the Magisterium and Popes when they say there is no contradiction. Most protestants deny that. And here we are.

It has been preserved in all of those churches founded by Apostles, so this is quite easy to see.

There is and has been fighting amongst those churches founded by Apostles, there are differing ideas on scripture, canon, practices, beliefs, etc… We can also see the changes in those churches over time by looking back into our earliest writings, even those outside of scripture, such as the Didache, and the scriptures themselves.

This is true. The doctrines introduced at the Reformation are causing irreconcilable divisions.

The RCC has made it clear in recent years that there is plenty of fault to go around. God has His ways of correction for individuals and churches alike, we can especially see that in the litany of the churches in Revelation, each separate church had its own issues, and the Lord did threaten chastisement. Do I think the Lord could use a German monk to correct some issues? Absolutely. The divisions are only irreconcilable if everyone (and I do mean everyone in Christendom) keeps insisting on straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The RCC has made it clear in recent years that there is plenty of fault to go around.

True. But the Catholic Church has not said that it was at fault due to its bad doctrines.

So, the burning question that I think most Protestants ultimately have to face is: Does it make sense to remain separated from the Church founded by Jesus Christ simply because some folks in the Middle Ages behaved badly or should I return to that Church because it teaches truth?

There is not a single uniquely Protestant doctrine that cannot be either disproven completely or seriously undermined FROM SCRIPTURE. Conversely, there is not a single uniquely Catholic doctrine that cannot be proven or substantively supported from scripture.

Consequently, when you add to the Catholic side of the scales the writings of the Early Church Fathers who are, on the whole,completely and thoroughly Catholic, there really isn’t much justification for remaining Protestant beyond “It’s what I’m used to.”

Cardinal Newman, a convert from the Anglican Church, wrote:

[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .

“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5, 1878)

Print that out. Tape it to the wall above your bed. Pray about it every night.

Protestantism was not established by God. :nope:

 

[JonNC]

Is my question to difficult for the Sola Scripturalist here? How is the Holy Spirit transmitted to a Sola Scriptura believer, when it is said here that Sola Scriptura cannot save anyone?

I hope to at least get a response

For this Christian whose communion practices SS, the HS was initially transmitted to me a month and a day after my birth at Baptism. Following that, by the hearing of the word and reception of the sacraments- Confession/Holy Absolution, the Eucharist - as well as catechetical training, and Confirmation. Note that these are received through the Church.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

True. But the Catholic Church has not said that it was at fault due to its bad doctrines.

You and I will always disagree about the role of action. Actions matter, deeds matter, especially as a witness to Jesus Christ, and who His disciples actually are. Teaching is done by word and by deed.

So, the burning question that I think most Protestants ultimately have to face is: Does it make sense to remain separated from the Church founded by Jesus Christ simply because some folks in the Middle Ages behaved badly or should I return to that Church because it teaches truth?

True disciples of Jesus are known by the love they have for one another. If a church is lead by people not displaying the love of God… well…

There is not a single uniquely Protestant doctrine that cannot be either disproven completely or seriously undermined FROM SCRIPTURE. Conversely, there is not a single uniquely Catholic doctrine that cannot be proven or substantively supported from scripture.

That’s your perspective, indeed.

Consequently, when you add to the Catholic side of the scales the writings of the Early Church Fathers who are, on the whole,completely and thoroughly Catholic, there really isn’t much justification for remaining Protestant beyond “It’s what I’m used to.”

So far I haven’t found what you claim in the writings of the early church, perhaps someday I will.

Print that out. Tape it to the wall above your bed. Pray about it every night.

John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Protestantism was not established by God. :nope:

Acts 5:33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 "So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

 

[Covenanter]

I think you should check again. It was established after AD382, at the council of Rome, and after Pope Damasus proclaimed it and instructed St. Jerome to translate into Latin, which became the Latin Vulgate, and was the Bible of the Church since.

taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

I have not heard of this before, I understood that only regional councils had spoken on this matter, which naturally do not speak with universal authority for the Catholic Church.

I have looked up this Council of Rome you mentioned, however it seems to me that the generally accepted opinion amongst historians is that the ‘Damasine List’ which supposedly laid out the canon is a forgery, and must have been created after the Council of Rome since it contains a quotation from Augustine.

Sorry if this is not what you are referring to or I am getting mixed up, as I had not come across this before.

Wrong again, brother. Here is what Trent actually decreed:

the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Trent did not proclaim anything new, it affirmed what had previouisly been in use-what is read in the Churches.

I am aware that the Catholic canon had been in use for some time. My point was that this was merely a practice and not something declared authoritatively by a church council. Protestants of course appeal to pratice in the same way, but try to look back further in time to the early church, and for that reason use the smaller canon which is more in line with the Hebrew Bible. My point was not here to argue which view is correct, but rather to point out that neither Catholics or Protestants authoritatively spoke on the canon prior to Trent or the Reformation, and that both appeal to tradition and appeal to the early church/Church Fathers in their arguments for their differing canons.

What is highly speculative? That there was no printing press and the romans burned everything Christian they could find?

The Gospel was spread through oral means, not writings, which could not be preserved and were destroyed by the romans.

Evidently untrue, at least in the absolute sense, as the written scriptures have been so well preserved until this day. And of course, the fact that so many were written specifically for churches spread all across the Roman Empire.

Again, including V14, and a plain reading of Scripture…14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,…is it Scripture alone which makes one wise unto salvation?

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. For me, a plain reading and observance of the rules of English language show quite clearly that Paul is speaking specifically of the Holy Scriptures when he says they are able to make us wise unto salvation.

I would be willing to reconsider my view here if you have some evidence in the original languages, but that’s the way I read it in English.

And St. Paul does not speak explicitly because he had no notion that his writings would become Scirpture.

His writings did not ‘become’ scripture after he wrote them. They were scripture as they were penned, as the Holy Spirit guided his hand as he wrote the very words. Peter calls Paul’s epistles scripture so we can be certain that even in the earliest days of the church that the idea of New Testament scripture was accepted.

And the new covenant meant and included the Real Presence. Do you want to start debating it on another thread?

Perhaps another time, but I’m struggling to keep up with several threads already!

Catholic Speak…when we say the Church decided, we mean the CC led and guided by the Holy Spirit, not apart from the guidance of the HS.

The Church sifted out varying opinions, to settle on the Canon…so either way you say it, it is still through the actions of the Church that we have the canon as we have it today, except for the Protestant 66 canon, which was not established by any Church authority.

The church councils purged the unscriptural writings form the canon in much the same way as they purge any heresy from the church. Scripture was scripture before the church recognized it as such. The scriptural quality of the Bible comes directly from God and is not bestowed upon it by the church.

Also, the Protestant 66 canon is recognized by numerous churches modelled on the ancient church of the scripture, and declared by their true yet subordinate authority.

 

[Covenanter]

How did the Scripture get estabished by God? Did God write down what was to be in the Canon and that which would not be?

And to whom did God commit to the establishment of the Scripture?

God committed the establishment of the scripture to those writers whose hands and hearts he guided as they wrote them. The New Testament existed fully as divinely-inspired, God-breathed scripture, the very moment John wrote that last letter in Revelation.

God appointed the church to defend and uphold the scripture and all the truths that it contains. That is the proper role of the church as the “pillar and ground of all truth”.

The Church sifted out those opinions. Revelation is considered inspired today, and the Epistle of Clement of Rome not inspired, because of the declaration of the Catholic Church…since AD 382, when Pope Damasus declared a Bible canon for a set of readings to be read in the Church for the Divine Liturgy.

It is not, the Scripture says…it is the Church says…that is why you think Revelation is inspired.

It all boils down to whether or not you think the church speaks with infallibility on such issues.

After St. Jerome came out with the Latin Vulgate after the Council of Rome, there was no controversy on the canon till the REformation.

The CC speak more authoritatively on the canon at Trent because your Reformation grandfathers started tinkering with the Bible and wanted to removed OT books and several NT books also.

No controversy from the Council of Rome until the Reformation? This is patently false. For a start, the ancient catholic church split into two branches each recognizing different scriptures. One became the Roman Catholic Church and the other the Orthodox Catholic Church. Even prior to 1054 there were many regional councils held by ordained bishops of the pre-schism church which proposed differing canons than that accepted at Trent, for example the Trullan Synod of 691.

That is why a Church council was convened for the purpose of sifting out the opinions of those varying ECFs.

The Protestant reformers did the exact same thing. They just came to different conclusions.

Does the quote below describe your understanding of protestant tradition:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

No, a clearly anti-Protestant quote obviously does not accurately reflect what I believe, just as the article here at Catholic Answers did not.

For a start, I do not reject anything the church establishes that is “extra-biblical”. Neither did Luther or Calvin or any of the major reformers.

It justification for the protestant canon relying on the Hebrew canon is a novel idea.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html

The “Council of Jamnia” Almost Certainly Didn’t Exist: This is a biggie. We know that there was a Rabbinical school at Jamnia, but there’s no evidence that any Council ever occurred there. The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon.

Remember that sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must come from the Bible. The canon of Scripture is certainly a doctrine: one of the most important doctrines, in fact. And yet Protestants advancing this view are deriving this doctrine not from Scripture, but from a Pharisaic tradition. Unless sola Scriptura now means “Scripture plus traditions of the Pharisees,” it’s a massive walking contradiction for Protestants to advance this imagined Council as a way to derive the Books of the Bible.

Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it’s Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It’s just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.

The very concept of a Council of Jamnia did not exist until hundreds of years until after the Reformers developed the Protestant canon, so it is evidently irrelevant to the arguments they used. It is also not an argument I have used here so I’m not sure why you brought it up. I appreciate that the early Christians and pre-Christian Jews used various translations of their scriptures, each including or excluding various parts of others.

 

[Covenanter]

Do you think the HS will ever cause the Church to commit error in its teachings on what was handed down by the Apostles, on faith and morals?

I certainly don’t think that the Holy Spirit will cause it to do so. But I don’t see any scriptural precedent for arguing the church is totally free from error. And any arguments to say that it is only infallible in this or that circumstances seem to me to be totally arbitrary.

As I said earlier, you need only read Acts, Galatians, Corinthians, Revelation, etc to see that all sorts of doctrinal and spiritual errors were rife within the church even in the days of the apostles.

 

[adf417]

I have not heard of this before, I understood that only regional councils had spoken on this matter, which naturally do not speak with universal authority for the Catholic Church.

it doesn’t seem to matter even if they did speak for the universal Catholic Church.

 

[adf417]

I am aware that the Catholic canon had been in use for some time. My point was that this was merely a practice and not something declared authoritatively by a church council. Protestants of course appeal to pratice in the same way, **but try to look back further in time to the early church, and for that reason use the smaller canon **which is more in line with the Hebrew Bible. My point was not here to argue which view is correct, but rather to point out that neither Catholics or Protestants authoritatively spoke on the canon prior to Trent or the Reformation, and that both appeal to tradition and appeal to the early church/Church Fathers in their arguments for their differing canons.

Do you have evidence of a 66 book canon dating back to the early church? May we see this evidence please?

One must remember, The Catholic Church does not, will not, has no reason to pronounce authoritatively until the need arises which is the reason it took 325 years to develop the Nicene Creed. Trent, as an ecumenical council, which you still probably do not acknowledge as an ecumenical council, only re-affirmed and officially closed the canon which had already been in use.

BTW, it is quite interesting how protestants refer to Trent as having some sort of an officially declaration for Catholics when it is not an ecumenical council in the eyes of the protestant, but when Rome, Carthage, and Hippo are brought up, they quickly jump on the “they were not ecumenical councils” bandwagon.

Peace!!!

 

[guanophore]

I This is a statement that begs the question; does RCC tradition contradict sacred scripture.  The RCC says no.  The rest of Christendom says yes, some to a greater extent than others, or else we'd all be Catholic.

No. “most of Christendom” lies in the Apostolic Churches, all of whom reject SS.

And most people are not Catholic because they have never studied the history of their faith, and have been given lies to believe about the CC.

Sola Scriptura is a label, it’s not an actual “thing.” It describes a way of norming;

When I attended Protestant Seminary, I was taught that it is a doctrine. How interesting that this has changed in such a short time. Now it is called a “practice”.

scripture, which we all recognize as the word of God, is used to norm doctrine.

Which, in itself, is perfectly Catholic. The problem is when that method is used outside of the lens of the Apostolic faith, and is done through the lens of alternative doctrines invented at the Reformation. As a result, one perceives what scripture says very differently than what was meant by those who wrote it.

It does not deny oral transmission, it undergirds it.  Further it does not deny the other ways in which God communicates to us; the Heavens declare the glory of God, for example.

I think it changes the way God’s communications with us are accepted, since those things that Christ has previously revealed are ignored and set aside during the “practice” of SS.

 Again, you seem to think that Sola Scriptura denies evangelists, it doesn't.....  If Phillip would have told him something that did not line up with scripture, the Ethiopian would have known Phillip was lying, but since it lined up with what he was reading, the Ethiopian believed.

You make a good point here Kliska. The Churches founded by the Apostles find that the Reformers invented things that were not previously known to the faithful, and that were not consistent with what the Apostles preached, such that they don’t “line up”.

 

[guanophore]

If you won’t listen to the ones that practice sola scriptura on what it is, then I guess the conversation is over. It doesn’t do anyone any good to argue over what one party perceives as a straw man, either way.

Grace and peace,
K

I think you are right, ,Kliska. Ultimately, the actions of those who espouse SS speak louder than words. You may say you don’t reject Sacred Tradition,but the interpretations of those who use SS contradict what the Apostles believed and taught.

Ultimately SS is a self refuting doctrine - primarily because it cannot be found in Scripture.

 

[spina1953]

I think that one of the problems with SS is that one does not always understand the authors intent and the meaning he wanted his readers to understand. This is where Tradition comes in. I am sure that in those days those that heard and or read these writings asked for explanations . Also we need to remember that those who wrote that now is the NT did not think themselves inspired nor did they ever thought that their writings would become Sacred Scripture. It was the oral teachings that they passed on most of which were never written down.

There were times when what was written were burned and destroyed, so the oral transmission was the more important than the written. I would also point out that say three or four people read the same passage of Scripture and they all have a different understanding of it, but each claim to be guided by the HS neither can anyone say each is wrong if each says that they are guided by the HS, In the end all it causes is chaos and confusion to what was intended and meant by the writer of the passage they read.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you won’t listen to the ones that practice sola scriptura on what it is, then I guess the conversation is over. It doesn’t do anyone any good to argue over what one party perceives as a straw man, either way.

Grace and peace,
K

Sorry, Kliska it can be difficult to hear the many different winds of SS interpreted by different men or women?, when one is covered by a Rock. Please allow me this opportunity to clarify a needed and important clarification of what is claimed by you and other SS from tradition, church, theologian teaching offices?

I don’t believe you read my whole response to draw a such a surprised reaction from you? I have you speaking correctly and incorrectly as I post my comments showing you in a positive light first, in the hopes that they do not offend you, but draw an important substance to the discussion that appears to be missed and overlooked in these boards.

Which I believe you can clarify for us about which Church, tradition SS follow?

Kliska;12421552] Sola Scriptura still acknowledges tradition, the church, the teaching offices, brilliant theologians, etc…

Your Statement is correct Kliska,

When if you are addressing the Sola Scriptura founders follow their own man made "t"raditions such as their own written confessions and credo’s for all Sola Scripturalist to follow. These same Sola Scriptura founders, became their own teaching office that derived from their own Sola Scriptura reading to measure all things against from their own invented professions, confessions and creed’s binding them to a isolated community of believers that resulted from the Sola Scriptura practices

That’s a false statement Kliska.

Let’s’ be honest here Kliska; The men who founded Sola Scriptura rejected the Apostolic Church Magisterium from Apostolic succession from their Sola Scriptura interpretation. Your reformers denied many things from Apostolic "T"radition that graced our human conscience; of penance, virginity, and the efficacy of good works including the totality of the sacramental economy. The only thing the Sola Scriptura founders did not deny, change or protest was the Catholic dogma of Hell.

Peace be with you Kliska

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For this Christian whose communion practices SS, the HS was initially transmitted to me a month and a day after my birth at Baptism. Following that, by the hearing of the word and reception of the sacraments- Confession/Holy Absolution, the Eucharist - as well as catechetical training, and Confirmation. Note that these are received through the Church.

Jon

That’s interesting Jon. It begs the question however? How did a Lutheran Sola Scriptura practice from Luther’s day, become so splintered and divided, in such a way today, that has lead many Sola Scripturalist rejecting the sacraments of baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Who make the unbiblical claim they received the Spirit by reading the bible only by a Sola Scriptura practice.

Now I am not denying that we are moved by the Holy Spirit in private prayer and reading of the Word. But that private enlightenment, never gives anyone the license to start their own Church community apart from the one Jesus founded, and declare my personal enlightenment for all others to follow? I believe it is here, were Sola Scriptura from any practice leads to a road of division and destruction of True Christian biblical and Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you, Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;12426964]That’s interesting Jon. It begs the question however? How did a Lutheran Sola Scriptura practice from Luther’s day, become so splintered and divided, in such a way today, that has lead many Sola Scripturalist rejecting the sacraments of baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Who make the unbiblical claim they received the Spirit by reading the bible only by a Sola Scriptura practice.

Hi Gabe,
I’m not aware of a Lutheran community that rejects the sacraments (of course, if they did, they wouldn’t be Lutheran. ). For the most part, communions that reject the sacraments have come out of the Reformed, or Anabaptist, or later groups.

Now I am not denying that we are moved by the Holy Spirit in private prayer and reading of the Word. But that private enlightenment, never gives anyone the license to start their own Church community apart from the one Jesus founded, and declare my personal enlightenment for all others to follow?

Generally, I would agree. Most Lutherans should agree. The Chemnitz quote in my signature speaks to the issue of private interpretation.

I believe it is here, were Sola Scriptura from any practice leads to a road of division and destruction of True Christian biblical and Apostolic faith.

Perhaps for some. Most Lutherans would contend that we maintain the Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you, Jon

And also with you, my good friend.
Jon

 

[Tomyris]

How did a Lutheran Sola Scriptura practice from Luther’s day

Just to clarify, we do not regard SS as an invention of the Reformation but a return to the ancient and holy apostolic practice. You are operating from a false understanding of how we view it.