Who's on First?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Judas_Thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Speaking for me, it isn’t my opinion what SS means that matters. Our confessional documents provide a rather clear understanding of the practice:

Jon
Click to expand...
I have no problem saying that there is a Lutheran definition of SS.

However, I would never demand that all of these denominations submit to your church’s definition:

philvaz.com/DENOMS.php

Nor, I respectfully say, should you demand that I submit to the Lutheran definition.
 
PRmerger said:
I have no problem saying that there is a Lutheran definition of SS.

However, I would never demand that all of these denominations submit to your church’s definition:

philvaz.com/DENOMS.php

Nor, I respectfully say, should you demand that I submit to the Lutheran definition.
Click to expand...
Agreed. How one views sola scriptura, even if they reject it, has no bearing on their salvation.
One extra thought: ISTM that Luther and his colleagues typically receive the blame/credit for developing the practice (I would say it is older than that, but for now…).
If that is the case, it also seems to me that Lutheranism holds the default understanding of how it works.

Jon
 
PRmerger said:
But the difference is, Kliska, that once the Church spoke, defined and declared, we understood that to mean: it has been decided and we have the assurance that what has been decided is without error.
Click to expand...
And I get that; however, there are plenty of RC’s who completely disagree. Obviously Orthodox and Protestants don’t see that your church decided things without error. So, when I talk with you, how would you feel if I defined terms you use the way I wanted to, and when you clarified for me, I just keep restating my perspective and rewording what you are trying to communicate? The discussion literally cannot go forward when one person does something like that.
In the Protestant world, when there is disagreement, one simply finds another church, or, worse, starts his own church. And when someone does this, he ought to be congratulated, if one is being consistent with the “I don’t need any authority save for the Bible” paradigm, for he has done exactly what the advocates advocate: read the Bible and decide what it means without any infallible interpreter to tell you what it means. :eek:
Click to expand...
Again, you present a straw man argument of what the reformation was ever supposed to be about, and a straw man of sola scriptura. You have made it clear that this is your perspective and are unwilling to change it even when a protestant is sitting right here telling you that you are not presenting their protestant position correctly.

It would behoove everyone to remember that when we discuss things we are discussing things with another person with a particular perspective, not a perspective all on its own.
 
40.png
JonNC:
Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

But Kliska, Tradition came first. You can only know what Scripture is because it is that which conformed to the Sacred Tradition.

The Tradition of the early, undivided Church.

Jon
Click to expand...
which continues in the RCC

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
40.png
Kliska:
Quote:

Originally Posted by PRmerger

That’s what makes you NOT Sola Scriptura advocates, despite your protestations to the contrary.

You defer to the Church, not to Scripture, as it applies to this matter.

No, but it is an honest mistake that I believe Jon and I have tried to correct elsewhere, and that mistake is on what sola scriptura actually means.
Click to expand...
no, it is not an honest mistake…it is reality as proved out on previous threads.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
JonNC said:
Agreed. How one views sola scriptura, even if they reject it, has no bearing on their salvation.
One extra thought: ISTM that Luther and his colleagues typically receive the blame/credit for developing the practice (I would say it is older than that, but for now…).
If that is the case, it also seems to me that Lutheranism holds the default understanding of how it works.

Jon
Click to expand...
How would you compel (and here “compel” is used lightly) your non-Lutheran, non-Catholic brethren to submit to this definition? IOW: what authority tells them that your def is the correct one?
 
PRmerger said:
Did you know that the letters of Clement, which talk about a mythical creature called a phoenix, were in circulation and often considered part of the NT?

So it’s incorrect to say that there was a NT. There were books that were considered theopneustos.…but they were incorrectly identified as such.

We needed the Church, the Catholic Church, to tell us what was* theopneustos* truly.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the letters of Clement, which talk about a mythical creature called a phoenix, were in circulation and often considered part of the NT?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that the book mentions a mythical creature is not a criteria for canon or not, as Job mentions a mythical creature as well, yet I consider it canon.
So it’s incorrect to say that there was a NT. There were books that were considered theopneustos.…but they were incorrectly identified as such.
Click to expand...
We needed the Church, the Catholic Church, to tell us what was* theopneustos* truly.
Click to expand...
Fine by me. The church catholic, of which I am a part, decided the NT books. As a lutheran I have no problem with consensus on these matters.

Our practice of sola Scriptura has no bearing on WHAT we consider scripture. But rather how we norm doctrine.
 
PRmerger said:
How would you compel (and here “compel” is used lightly) your non-Lutheran, non-Catholic brethren to submit to this definition? IOW: what authority tells them that your def is the correct one?
Click to expand...
I, personally, have no authority to compel any non-Lutheran to even agree with our POV, except to say that choosing to morph it into something it is not means it isn’t sola scriptura anymore. 🤷

As I said, SS is not an article of faith. Catholics are not condemned because the CC rejects the practice. The issue is doctrine, not how it is arrived at, IMHO.

Jon
 
Kliska said:
And I get that; however, there are plenty of RC’s who completely disagree.
Click to expand...
Tu quoque, eh?

Firstly, when a RC is disagreeing with Church teaching, she is being a bad RC. (“Bad”, of course, needs to be understood with nuance).

When a Protestant disagrees with her church, she is being a good Protestant, isn’t she?
Obviously Orthodox and Protestants don’t see that your church decided things without error.
Click to expand...
You do, too. At least on one issue. Namely, the 27 book canon of the NT.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Fine by me. The church catholic, of which I am a part, decided the NT books. As a lutheran I have no problem with consensus on these matters.

Our practice of sola Scriptura has no bearing on WHAT we consider scripture. But rather how we norm doctrine.
Click to expand...
So, since there was no 27 book canon in the first 400 years (that’s analogous to the time from when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to modern day times–imagine that length of time without a Bible to refer to!), the early Christians could NOT have been Sola Scriptura.
 
JonNC said:
I, personally, have no authority to compel any non-Lutheran to even agree with our POV, except to say that choosing to morph it into something it is not means it isn’t sola scriptura anymore. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’d like to see a discussion here where you tell a 4 Square Gospel Church member that she is actually not a Sola Scriptura advocate.

🍿
As I said, SS is not an article of faith. Catholics are not condemned because the CC rejects the practice. The issue is doctrine, not how it is arrived at, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
Yes. And the Catholic position is that Scripture reflects our doctrines, not that our doctrines are distilled from the Scriptures.
 
PRmerger said:
So, since there was no 27 book canon in the first 400 years (that’s analogous to the time from when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to modern day times–imagine that length of time without a Bible to refer to!), the early Christians could NOT have been Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Double post. Sorry.
 
PRmerger said:
So, since there was no 27 book canon in the first 400 years (that’s analogous to the time from when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock to modern day times–imagine that length of time without a Bible to refer to!), the early Christians could NOT have been Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Sola Scriptura refers to the practice of norming doctrine, not what IS scripture. And I read about many Christians prior to 400 who saw scripture as the norming norm of doctrine. That is nothing less than sola Scriptura.

Even people who disagree about what IS scripture can both practice sola Scriptura.
 
=PRmerger;11476534]Tu quoque, eh?
Click to expand...
Firstly, when a RC is disagreeing with Church teaching, she is being a bad RC. (“Bad”, of course, needs to be understood with nuance).
Click to expand...
When a Protestant disagrees with her church, she is being a good Protestant, isn’t she?
Click to expand...
Not in Lutheranism. Where doctrine is established, to be Lutheran means you hold that doctrine.

Jon
 
=PRmerger;11476553]I’d like to see a discussion here where you tell a 4 Square Gospel Church member that she is actually not a Sola Scriptura advocate.
Click to expand...
🍿
Click to expand...
Start a thread. 😃
Yes. And the Catholic position is that Scripture reflects our doctrines, not that our doctrines are distilled from the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
And we see Tradition as reflecting scripture.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top