Where the Bible is silent....

[JonNC]

It’s funny how scripture can be used.

Some take Paul’s statement “If we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed,” to be a support for the idea of sola scriptura. But perhaps it can be taken to mean just the opposite. Because Paul specifically says that the gold standard gospel to which all others must be compared, was the preached gospel. This was an oral gospel by which subsequently delivered, even written gospels (ie, scripture) must be judged. Paul included himself, “we,” along with angels from heaven in this. Paul preached the pure gospel first, before anything was written down. The only way to know what that initial gold standard spoken gospel was, is by remembering it. In other words, Tradition. Therefore it is Tradition that judges scripture, not the other way around.

The psalmist said, “Thy word” but of course God spoke his word audibly in addition to scripture, so that isn’t convincing as a support for SS either. God’s word is not identical to scripture.

Where does it say we should ignore the spoken word? Why are assuming something that is not written in the document?

Do you have a Catholic source that says, specifically, that scripture is judged by Tradition, and since you mention Paul, oral Tradition?

Why are you under the false impression that Lutherans think oral Tradition is to be ignored? Or that we believe the written word doesn’t have a close relationship to the spoken word?

All we expect of oral Tradition is that it confirm and witness, and not stand outside of, the teachings found in the written word.

Is it your belief that oral Tradition is allowed to contradict scripture, or that oral tradition can judge scripture in such a way as to exclude certain teachings in the written word that doesn’t match the written word?

Is that what you mean when you say that the written word is judged by oral Tradition?

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Where does it say we should ignore the spoken word? Why are assuming something that is not written in the document?

Do you have a Catholic source that says, specifically, that scripture is judged by Tradition, and since you mention Paul, oral Tradition?

Why are you under the false impression that Lutherans think oral Tradition is to be ignored? Or that we believe the written word doesn’t have a close relationship to the spoken word?

All we expect of oral Tradition is that it confirm and witness, and not stand outside of, the teachings found in the written word.

Is it your belief that oral Tradition is allowed to contradict scripture, or that oral tradition can judge scripture in such a way as to exclude certain teachings in the written word that doesn’t match the written word?

Is that what you mean when you say that the written word is judged by oral Tradition?

Jon

How things can be misunderstood. Why not just respond to what was said? And in what way is what I said erroneous?

The point of my post was that scriptures used to support the idea of sola scriptura in the book of Concord, in fact do not, but instead can be used to support the opposite, that oral Tradition judges scripture! Certainly that is what Paul told the Galatians. Oral Tradition is what was to be used to judge any later gospels, including written gospels and teaching, that he or anyone else delivered later.

A Catholic source? Yes, me. Or, even better, I have a scriptural source. The apostle Paul, in Galatians. The pure gospel by which all other gospels are to be compared was the preached gospel that Paul delivered before he wrote anything. Any gospels delivered after that, spoken or written, had to be compared to that first, non-written gospel. Tradition is simply another way of describing that preached gospel.

I never said nor implied Lutherans think oral Tradition is to be ignored. Why should you infer that? Yes, there is a close relationship between the written word and the spoken word. After all, they both come from God. (Of course, not you, but there are some other groups that tend to ignore the spoken word, and mistakenly focus on the written word.)

As far as oral Tradition standing outside the written word, it is my personal opinion that the apostles more clearly taught by mouth various doctrines than what we have by written means. The divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, for example. For those of us who already know of the doctrine, the Bible clearly teaches it. However, for someone else who comes to scripture for the first time, untaught, or ignorant as Peter puts it, they may not at all understand the Trinity as we do.

So the Lutheran Church wisely consults tradition.

Do I believe can oral tradition be allowed to contradict scripture? No, it is the other way around. Scripture cannot be allowed to contradict the preached word. That is the point I’m making from Paul’s comments in Galatians. The spoken word, Tradition, and the written word, Scripture, have to match; they cannot contradict one another.

So, if a piece of writing contradicted what the Church already believed, it had to be rejected as scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

One ought not depart from the doctrines of the Church. Note how the sectiob starts:

Except for one man who was given permission to do this 500 years ago?

’

SS is the way doctrines is judged. It is not a doctrine in and of itself.

Jon

That is your position.

But others feel differently.

 

[JonNC]

Except for one man who was given permission to do this 500 years ago?

That is your position.

But others feel differently.

That one man, are you speaking of Pope Leo X?

That’s certainly sarcastic, but recognize that they (Luther was only one man involved) believed sincerely that the corruption and false teaching they saw in central Europe was the CC. Why would question that, living in those days. They truly believed that they were returning the Church to the teaching of the early Church. Read what CA says, following article XXI

This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. 6] There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; 7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. 9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

It was called a reformation because they believed that there actions were of reform within the Church. It is at best a polemic to claim that Luther thought himself a special authority. The claim sells short the man and the circumstances that surrounded his actions. It takes Luther out of history and judges him with an apologia that most Catholic theologians and scholars have abandoned in the last 80 year.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;13913734]How things can be misunderstood. Why not just respond to what was said? And in what way is what I said erroneous?

Oh, I don’t think I misunderstood. I did respond to what you said, quite clearly, and my response pointed out you misunderstandings.

The point of my post was that scriptures used to support the idea of sola scriptura in the book of Concord, in fact do not, but instead can be used to support the opposite, that oral Tradition judges scripture! Certainly that is what Paul told the Galatians. Oral Tradition is what was to be used to judge any later gospels, including written gospels and teaching, that he or anyone else delivered later.

What oral tradition? Whose oral tradition? Is it the oral tradition that denies universal jurisdiction, or the one that defends it? The oral tradition that claims the Blessed Virgin was born immaculately, or the (older?) one that doesn’t.
I think Paul, and Christ (how many times does He say, “it is written”) point to the authority of the written word. Further, even by your interpretation of Paul, I don’t see how it disputes our understanding of SS, mainly because I don’t believe your assessment of SS, coming from the BoC, is accurate. The argument might work against those who exclude oral tradition, but that’s not our position.

A Catholic source? Yes, me. Or, even better, I have a scriptural source. The apostle Paul, in Galatians. The pure gospel by which all other gospels are to be compared was the preached gospel that Paul delivered before he wrote anything. Any gospels delivered after that, spoken or written, had to be compared to that first, non-written gospel. Tradition is simply another way of describing that preached gospel.

Now you sound like what Luther is accused of. I meant an official Catholic source. No one here is arguing that written came before oral. Nor am I arguing that this is relevant.

I never said nor implied Lutherans think oral Tradition is to be ignored. Why should you infer that? Yes, there is a close relationship between the written word and the spoken word. After all, they both come from God. (Of course, not you, but there are some other groups that tend to ignore the spoken word, and mistakenly focus on the written word.)

I thought that because you clearly implied it. You did it again in this post when you commented that oral came before written. Even while that’s not entirely true, it is irrelevant.

As far as oral Tradition standing outside the written word, it is my personal opinion that the apostles more clearly taught by mouth various doctrines than what we have by written means. The divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, for example. For those of us who already know of the doctrine, the Bible clearly teaches it. However, for someone else who comes to scripture for the first time, untaught, or ignorant as Peter puts it, they may not at all understand the Trinity as we do.

Again, irrelevant, because it implies that we exclude or devalue oral tradition. We don’t. We just recognize that oral tradition must not contradict the written word.

So the Lutheran Church wisely consults tradition.

Do I believe can oral tradition be allowed to contradict scripture? No, it is the other way around. Scripture cannot be allowed to contradict the preached word. That is the point I’m making from Paul’s comments in Galatians. The spoken word, Tradition, and the written word, Scripture, have to match; they cannot contradict one another.

Great. Then the only area we disagree on is that scripture is the final norm.

So, if a piece of writing contradicted what the Church already believed, it had to be rejected as scripture.

What the Church believed can be confirmed in the written word. 2,000 years out, and with all the contradictions within Oral Tradition, the use of the written word as a final norm for all doctrines is a good practice.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Oh, I don’t think I misunderstood. I did respond to what you said, quite clearly, and my response pointed out you misunderstandings.

 

[PRmerger]

That one man, are you speaking of Pope Leo X?

That’s certainly sarcastic,

Yes. But you are permitted, given your long history of charitable dialogue, and 'cause you’re just good people.

but recognize that they (Luther was only one man involved) believed sincerely that the corruption and false teaching they saw in central Europe was the CC. Why would question that, living in those days. They truly believed that they were returning the Church to the teaching of the early Church.

Then I think you should permit anyone the right to depart from the Lutheran Church should they sincerely believe there is false teaching there.

And, as it applies in this context, if someone believes that you (Lutheran You) have declared a wrong definition of SS, then he should be certainly free to form his own definition.

And remember, this is not the paradigm of the CC. The CC says that there is an authority which speaks and when one departs from her authority, one has left the body of Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. But you are permitted, given your long history of charitable dialogue, and 'cause you’re just good people.

Then I think you should permit anyone the right to depart from the Lutheran Church should they sincerely believe there is false teaching there.

And, as it applies in this context, if someone believes that you (Lutheran You) have declared a wrong definition of SS, then he should be certainly free to form his own definition.

And remember, this is not the paradigm of the CC. The CC says that there is an authority which speaks and when one departs from her authority, one has left the body of Christ.

Again, PR, it isn’t a matter of what I allow or permit, since I lack the the power to permit or deny anyone anything. It wouldn’t matter, anyway, because it is the Church which determines the way SS is practiced and employed.
There are studies out that show a significant minority of Catholics believe the Eucharist is symbolic. If I asked you if CATHOLIC YOU should allow them, permit them to have this view, you would clearly and rightly say they are wrong. But you can’t prohibit them because you lack that power. Same here.

BTW, you’re good people too

Jon

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Discussion closed due to complete breakdown in progress.

You cannot hold one individual accountable for the errors of others.***