Where the Bible is silent....

[PRmerger]

You should do that if you want to have a dialogue, assuming it’s the topic or related to it.

I always enjoy dialogue with charitable folks.

And I don’t see why I’d be required to submit to that person’s definition of SS.

Why couldn’t I say, “Well, you say that SS means A, but I’ve also heard that SS means B. I’m not sure that I have to go by your definition, esp since the Bible, which seems to be the authority for all SS advocates, doesn’t define it”?

I’ve never read that he didn’t want authority.

Do you think the saying, “When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit really is me” would apply here?

I’m perfectly willing to reject Obama’s claim of authority with his pen and phone. Are you?

I’m not exactly sure what you mean here.

He is my President, despite the fact that my vote did not put him there.

So as such, I do submit to his authority to act as President of my country.

What kind of authority are we speaking of?

The authority of the CC, which Fr. Luther rejected.

 

[PRmerger]

The authority of the CC, which Fr. Luther rejected.

What I am objecting to here, Jon, is the fact that other non-Lutherans are following the exact same paradigm with your claims which Martin Luther did with the CC’s claims.

You seem to be endorsing his right to do so with the CC, but denying these folks who depart from your view the right to have their claims.

 

[JonNC]

What I am objecting to here, Jon, is the fact that other non-Lutherans are following the exact same paradigm with your claims which Martin Luther did with the CC’s claims.

You seem to be endorsing his right to do so with the CC, but denying these folks who depart from your view the right to have their claims.

I’m no more endorsing division than I am endorsing abuses that often lead to it. I agree with the Catholic Catechism when it says men are on both sides were to blame. I’m also not denying people their free will.
But i also don’t see how dialogue is served if we aren’t first willing to accept the position of our dialogue partners as to what they believe. It’s a waste of time to ask someone to defend a position they don’t hold. The Lutheran view of the practice of sola exists irrespective of what other communions believe or do. But when a thread starts with the premise that something is a “Protestant” belief, one can usually figure it’s a flawed premise because there is no such church as The Protestant Church.
It is also a flawed premise to say that Lutherans, for example, can’t criticize or condemn the teachings of another communion.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I understand what you’re saying, but I also think it’s important to note that one cannot, with one hand, declare that they do not need to conform to authority, while on the other hand, announce that there is an authority to which they are appealing.

But this assumes that a dialogue partner actually claims there is no need to conform to authority. That certainly is not my position, but authority has an obligation to maintain orthodoxy. If it does not, then loyalty to true authority demands that one takes a stand against heterodoxy, a position that is changing my life even as we chat.
This the point of my comment about Obama. Loyalty to authority does not mean submitting to abuse of and by authority .

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I’m no more endorsing division than I am endorsing abuses that often lead to it.

Understood.

I agree with the Catholic Catechism when it says men are on both sides were to blame. I’m also not denying people their free will.

Indeed.

But i also don’t see how dialogue is served if we aren’t first willing to accept the position of our dialogue partners as to what they believe.

Do you see the double standard here though, Jon? It’s MY position that there is no single definition of SS.

If we follow your paradigm, you should accept my position, too, right?

Now, of course, I accept that you believe that SS means “A”. But that doesn’t mean that I must concede that this is what SS actually, truly is.

Just like if there was a man who believed that women were intellectually inferior, were we to dialogue with him I would have to accept that this is what he believes, but I wouldn’t be compelled to declare it to be true.

In fact, it would be my obligation (used loosely here) to disabuse him of that erroneous belief.

NB: I am making no suggestion, at all, that the Lutheran def of SS is the same as a belief that women are inferior.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a waste of time to ask someone to defend a position they don’t hold.

Yes, I agree of course.

The Lutheran view of the practice of sola exists irrespective of what other communions believe or do

You are correct. I don’t believe you need to provide apologia for what other communions believe.

But I do think that you (here, again, a rhetorical Lutheran “you”) cannot object to other communions departing from, or…* reforming* (an implied reference to the Protestant Reformation)… your Lutheran definition.

For, again, they are simply doing to your communion what Luther did to the Catholic Church.

But when a thread starts with the premise that something is a “Protestant” belief, one can usually figure it’s a flawed premise because there is no such church as The Protestant Church.

Let me clarify: whenever I say “Protestants” here, please substitute “Non-Catholics Christians”.

You are correct that Protestantism is indeed a behemoth, with tens of thousands of differing views.

With all that said, NCC still need to tell us what the believe we are to believe “where the Bible is silent” on a particular practice or belief.

And from whence this idea comes, for, of course, the Bible is…

silent on what to do when the Bible is silent.

It is also a flawed premise to say that Lutherans, for example, can’t criticize or condemn the teachings of another communion.

Jon

Well, that would be a little bit of a double standard, wouldn’t it? They are simply reforming another communion’s theology. And if they can’t do that, then Luther couldn’t have done what he did to Catholic theology.

NB: no one is objecting to our “free will” to depart from a body of theology. We are, however, declaring that if one sanctions the departure for his own church, then he should not object to others’ departures from another church, on the basis that he is simply reforming what has been corrupted.

 

[JonNC]

Do you see the double standard here though, Jon? It’s MY position that there is no single definition of SS.

If we follow your paradigm, you should accept my position, too, right?

Now, of course, I accept that you believe that SS means “A”. But that doesn’t mean that I must concede that this is what SS actually, truly is.

Just like if there was a man who believed that women were intellectually inferior, were we to dialogue with him I would have to accept that this is what he believes, but I wouldn’t be compelled to declare it to be true.

In fact, it would be my obligation (used loosely here) to disabuse him of that erroneous belief.

NB: I am making no suggestion, at all, that the Lutheran def of SS is the same as a belief that women are inferior.

Ah, now we can discuss. If we want to discuss the differing views on how SS should be practiced, or not practiced at all, that’s cool. I would only suggest that I not be required to defend a view I don’t subscribe to. For example, I don’t subscribe to the notice that Christian worship can’t reflect a particular tradition within the Church. Or that a Christian can’t believe something that’s not explicit in scripture, or that SS requires me to say anything goes and I can’t condemn other beliefs, or I can’t have a confession or creeds.
You don’t have to cede to a particular view of SS, just let me I don’t have to cede a particular view of primacy, but it does no good to challenge each other to defend views we reject.
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, now we can discuss. If we want to discuss the differing views on how SS should be practiced, or not practiced at all, that’s cool. I would only suggest that I not be required to defend a view I don’t subscribe to. For example, I don’t subscribe to the notice that Christian worship can’t reflect a particular tradition within the Church. Or that a Christian can’t believe something that’s not explicit in scripture, or that SS requires me to say anything goes and I can’t condemn other beliefs, or I can’t have a confession or creeds.
You don’t have to cede to a particular view of SS, just let me I don’t have to cede a particular view of primacy, but it does no good to challenge each other to defend views we reject.
Jon

Fair enough.

Although I have heard you say in the past that others ought not define SS as they define it, since the Lutheran view is the “original” view.

And if that is indeed a correct articulation of your POV, you can see how it would cause others to question why you believe that others cannot “reform” your “original” definition of SS…since, of course, Luther felt he must “reform” the “original” teachings of the CC.

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough.

Although I have heard you say in the past that others ought not define SS as they define it, since the Lutheran view is the “original” view.

And if that is indeed a correct articulation of your POV, you can see how it would cause others to question why you believe that others cannot “reform” your “original” definition of SS…since, of course, Luther felt he must “reform” the “original” teachings of the CC.

And I stand by that view, as it is the classical understanding of the practice.

There’s nothing wrong with reform. We would probably mutually agree that the others reforms are innovations, while our own reforms return us to the early Church . The goal then us a dialogue that brings us closer together

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

And I stand by that view, as it is the classical understanding of the practice.

And you should also stand by all these other folks who have, in their estimation, reformed the “classical” understanding of the practice.

But it seems that you don’t.

Rather than embrace their “reformed” definitions, you seem to be taking the “Catholic” view that: to depart from the original way ought not be sanctioned.

There’s nothing wrong with reform.

Then it is permissible to have multiple definitions of SS?

 

[JonNC]

And you should also stand by all these other folks who have, in their estimation, reformed the “classical” understanding of the practice.

But it seems that you don’t.

Rather than embrace their “reformed” definitions, you seem to be taking the “Catholic” view that: to depart from the original way ought not be sanctioned.

Then it is permissible to have multiple definitions of SS?

No. I see no need to stand with someone who is wrong. Remember also that SS is not a doctrine. The key issue is not whether or not one’s definition of SS is wrong, but whether or not doctrine is wrong.

Lutherans often take a lot of Catholic positions.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No. I see no need to stand with someone who is wrong. Remember also that SS is not a doctrine. The key issue is not whether or not one’s definition of SS is wrong, but whether or not doctrine is wrong.

There are not a few NCCs who claim that it is indeed a doctrine.

google.com/search?q=%22sola+scriptura+is+the+doctrine%22&oq=%22sola+scriptura+is+the+doctrine%22&aqs=chrome…69i57j0l2.4829j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Over 6600 different sites which claim “Sola Scriptura is the doctrine…”

Lutherans am takes a lot of Catholic positions.

Jon

Yes. I love me my Lutherans and their embrace of the truth!

 

[JonNC]

There are not a few NCCs who claim that it is indeed a doctrine.

google.com/search?q=%22sola+scriptura+is+the+doctrine%22&oq=%22sola+scriptura+is+the+doctrine%22&aqs=chrome…69i57j0l2.4829j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Over 6600 different sites which claim “Sola Scriptura is the doctrine…”

Yes. I love me my Lutherans and their embrace of the truth!

Their opinions, PR.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Their opinions, PR.

Jon

So you (the Lutheran you) reserve the right to define SS, but others cannot do this?

 

[rfournier103]

So when in discussions with Protestants, we are often called to provide apologia for our Catholic practices/beliefs, such as praying the rosary, praying for the dead, papal infallibility, etc etc etc.

The discussion always turns to: the Bible doesn’t say that [insert Catholic belief A, B and C here] so you shouldn’t do it.

So that should be the Protestant mantra, right? “Where the Bible is silent on a practice, it’s forbidden.”

However, when I ask Protestants to provide Scriptural apologia for their beliefs/practices, such as bowing one’s head when praying, Tuesday evening Bible studies, church steeples, their response is: the Bible doesn’t forbid it, so it’s fine.

Does anyone else see the double standard here?

Shouldn’t it be the same paradigm for both Protestants and Catholics?

Either: where the Bible is silent, it’s permitted

Or: where the Bible is silent, it’s forbidden.

---

Incidentally, this prompts the question: where does the Bible tell us which of the 2 paradigms to follow when the Bible is silent on an issue?

GREAT topic. It also seems pretty unique. I don’t think I’ve seen this one before…

Obviously, the issue here is Biblical interpretation. Plain and simple. All Christians draw from the same New Testament and very similar Old Testaments; and it just comes down to interpretation as it always does.

How many of us have encountered either in real life or the internet:

A: “Where is (insert practice/belief) in the Bible? How can you justify that?”

B: “Well… we derive (insert practice/belief) from (insert Biblical passage here).”

A: “That’s not what they meant.” OR “That’s not what that means.”

And on and on unless either A or B caves in and accepts the interpretation of the other.

As for the “double standard”… yeah, I see it. But I think the ‘where the Bible is silent, it’s permitted / where the Bible is silent, it’s forbidden’ conundrum is simply a byproduct of differing Protestant philosophies. I honestly don’t think it’s any more complicated than that, really. And I can’t think of anyplace in the Bible that tells us which of paradigms is the correct one. That’s why I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible. (see: 1 Tim 3:15)

 

[PRmerger]

That’s why I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible. (see: 1 Tim 3:15)

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a final arbiter for Scriptural disputes is needed for Christ’s Body of Believers.

 

[PRmerger]

And I can’t think of anyplace in the Bible that tells us which of paradigms is the correct one.

I’m pretty sure that the Bible is…silent on the question: what do Believers do when the Bible is silent on an issue?

Although, perhaps there is an implicit mandate that’s found in Scripture: when the Bible is silent on an issue, we must look to…the Church.

 

[JonNC]

So you (the Lutheran you) reserve the right to define SS, but others cannot do this?

Where did I say that? Of course they can. PR, you seem to want to equate an understanding that someone can do something to approval, specifically approval of the conclusion they reach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m pretty sure that the Bible is…silent on the question: what do Believers do when the Bible is silent on an issue?

Although, perhaps there is an implicit mandate that’s found in Scripture: when the Bible is silent on an issue, we must look to…the Church.

Agreed

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

.

• Martin Chemnitz

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Where did I say that? Of course they can. PR, you seem to want to equate an understanding that someone can do something to approval, specifically approval of the conclusion they reach.

Jon

I am hoping for your approval of their freedom to depart from your Lutheran definition of SS.

And please note here, I am not talking about free will as in “[shrug], Sure, PR, everyone can do what they wish. I can’t control what they do.”