Who's on First?

[Isaiah45_9]

Our practice of sola Scriptura has no bearing on WHAT we consider scripture. But rather how we norm doctrine.

This kind of reminds me of what Christ said in John 4:38:

"I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

I like to think of it how we (Catholics - and I include the other Apostolic Churches here) reap what the Jews worked for. And how Protestantism reaps what the Catholics worked for. Difference is that Catholics were established by Christ and His Apostles. Protestantism was established by division 1,500 years later.

It is just baffling how easily is dismissed the great responsibility and gift the Scriptures are for the Church. And how ignorant it can be to not be aware of the history of how Scriptures were gathered.

It also sounds like the Prodigal Son parable - give me my inheritance (Scriptures) while you are alive (Church), so I can do with it (Scriptures) whatever I want.

I pray the parable has the same ending.

This is of course my personal opinion. This does not represent official Church teaching or any Phd thesis. It is fallible and I like to see it that way. You are free to disagree, just as I am free to ignore your disagreement.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Hi JT,
Some thoughts if I might.

#As soon as someone says “According to Protestantism” to begin their point, misunderstanding, misconception, and misapplication will inevitably follow.
#When you say “the Catholic Church is wrong”, I ask, wrong about what? It isn’t a matter of either right or wrong. I would be willing to estimate that on 85% to 90% of teachings, we are either in agreement or at least not opposed to each other. So, if I say, “the Catholic Church is wrong”, I am also saying most of my teaching is wrong.

A rather humble statement, but not entirely correct. Mathematically speaking, to reach the
conclusion of a certain number using a certain formula, all numbers & symbols must be cor-
rect, otherwise the solution is wrong. If a Church has 99.99% Truth and 00.01% error, it can-
not be the correct Church. Either the Catholic Church is right or Protestantism is right (OR
rather one of the Protestant churches is right). If your religion is correct, despite everything
the Catholic Church’s agreement on 85-90% of your beliefs, would have to be wrong on ac-
count of the 10-15% She’s off on.

Even though there are things I disagree with regarding the Catholic Church, I, too, see the Holy Spirit guiding her. I also know the Spirit guides Lutherans, and many others. Pray that He guide us to unity.

I’ll definitely pray for unity.
(Come, Oh Holy Spirit…)

 

[Kliska]

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]

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.

I understand what you are saying. If you kept saying, “But when you pray to saints you are actually worshipping them!” and I kept saying, “No, we aren’t worshipping them!” it would be frustrating.

Oh, wait. I think that’s exactly what you have done?

But, seriously, if there were not a dozen other posters here telling me what they believe SS to mean, then I would concede your point.

I will use your def of SS when talking with you, but reserve the right to use another def of SS at my discretion in other dialogues.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I note that you used the word “personally” here, and wonder if you believe that* another* entity (such as, perhaps your synod/communion?) may have such authority?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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?

Tie them to a lawn chair and whip them with extension cords until they confess Lord Luther, the Authority of the Lutheran High Council, and agree to bring one casserole of their choice to church next week.

 

[PRmerger]

Tie them to a lawn chair and whip them with extension cords until they confess Lord Luther, the Authority of the Lutheran High Council, and agree to bring one casserole of their choice to church next week.

Yeah. I heard you Lutherans are pretty big on your 3 bean salads.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11476571]A rather humble statement, but not entirely correct. Mathematically speaking, to reach the conclusion of a certain number using a certain formula, all numbers & symbols must be cor-rect, otherwise the solution is wrong. If a Church has 99.99% Truth and 00.01% error, it can-not be the correct Church. Either the Catholic Church is right or Protestantism is right (OR rather one of the Protestant churches is right). If your religion is correct, despite everything the Catholic Church’s agreement on 85-90% of your beliefs, would have to be wrong on ac-count of the 10-15% She’s off on.

I think you missed the word “estimate” in my post. As for your assessment that the true Church cannot have 0.01% error, I would agree. However, here we are not talking about the Church in the purity that, say, the Church Triumphant knows it, but instead the Church Militant, populated by fallible humans (including all bishops, regardless of which chair they occupy), where misconceptions and errors can and are present. Hence, since even though the Catholic Church has perhaps 10-15% error () mixed with truth, it is still part of the true Church, because there the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

I understand what you are saying. If you kept saying, “But when you pray to saints you are actually worshipping them!” and I kept saying, “No, we aren’t worshipping them!” it would be frustrating.

Oh, wait. I think that’s exactly what you have done?

Ummm… no. I readily agreed to your perspective that you are not offering worship, but rather asking then to pray for you.

This is one example as to why these conversations never seem to get anywhere.

 

[Kliska]

Tie them to a lawn chair and whip them with extension cords until they confess Lord Luther, the Authority of the Lutheran High Council, and agree to bring one casserole of their choice to church next week.

Yay?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yeah. I heard you Lutherans are pretty big on your 3 bean salads.

Yes, and if you can find a way to use marshmallows in a casserole, that would be the bees knees.

 

[PRmerger]

Ummm… no. I readily agreed to your perspective that you are not offering worship, but rather asking then to pray for you.

This is one example as to why these conversations never seem to get anywhere.

I wish you had been more clear about that.

What you did seem to do was summarize your position with the very nebulous:

As I said, I’m not going there, but thank you for your reply.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and if you can find a way to use marshmallows in a casserole, that would be the bees knees.

And cream of mushroom soup.

(Hopefully, not with the marshmallows. Or with the 3 bean salad.)

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yay?

Yes, it’s not to late too accept Luther.

Go ahead and swim the Elbe, the water’s freezing.

 

[JonNC]

Tie them to a lawn chair and whip them with extension cords until they confess Lord Luther, the Authority of the Lutheran High Council, and agree to bring one casserole of their choice to church next week.

Or a Jell-o mold.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I understand what you are saying. If you kept saying, “But when you pray to saints you are actually worshipping them!” and I kept saying, “No, we aren’t worshipping them!” it would be frustrating.

Oh, wait. I think that’s exactly what you have done?

But, seriously, if there were not a dozen other posters here telling me what they believe SS to mean, then I would concede your point.

I will use your def of SS when talking with you, but reserve the right to use another def of SS at my discretion in other dialogues.

Incidentally, I found this quote from apologist Jimmy Akin to be quite interesting, and supportive of my argument that there is no such thing as the correct definition of SS in the Protestant world. (And that is because there is no one who can speak for Protestant definitions authoritatively. That is, in fact, the antithesis of (much of) Protestantism whose rallying cry is “Authority? We don’t need no stinkin’ authority! I can think for myself thank you very much!”)

Protestants also disagree over sola scriptura. Aside from the fact that some Protestants (e.g., some Lutherans) are willing to concede that certain books might not belong in the canon of Scripture—thus disagreeing with fellow Protestants on what counts as Scripture—there is a wide range of exceptions and qualifications that different groups wish to be made.

Many Anglicans and some Lutherans and Calvinists give the early Church Fathers an authoritative—but not binding—role in the interpretation of Scripture. Many of the same individuals give this interpretive role to the early ecumenical councils and certain key creeds (e.g., the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).

Many Protestants from confessional traditions (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) also wish to see the confessions of their particular movements given special weight in the interpretation of Scripture.

Many Protestants honor the principle that academic study tools and techniques should be used in the interpretation of Scripture, such as linguistic, literary, archaeological, cultural, historical, and critical studies). Other Protestants reject some or all of these methods. Some even go to the extreme of limiting interpretation to a single translation (usually the King James Version) as interpreted without academic training or resources.

Pentecostals, Protestant Charismatics, and Word-Faith adherents insist that in interpreting Scripture, information provided as “revelation knowledge” by the charismatic gifts must be taken into account. Other Protestants reject any role for such alleged information. source

 

[PRmerger]

Or a Jell-o mold.

Jon

Annnnddd here’s the real reason I could never be a Lutheran:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[concretecamper]

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.

How many people could read prior to 400. Your explanation would make more sense to me if you substituted Tradition for scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;11476627]Incidentally, I found this quote from apologist Jimmy Akin to be quite interesting, and supportive of my argument that there is no such thing as the correct definition of SS in the Protestant world. (And that is because there is no one who can speak for Protestant definitions authoritatively. That is, in fact, the antithesis of (much of) Protestantism whose rallying cry is “Authority? We don’t need no stinkin’ authority! I can think for myself thank you very much!”)

Again, a viewing Protestantism as a single monolith. This has never been the case, not from the earliest time. Reformed Christians, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Anglicans, all started out as different, independent groups.

Protestants also disagree over sola scriptura. Aside from the fact that some Protestants (e.g., some Lutherans) are willing to concede that certain books might not belong in the canon of Scripture—thus disagreeing with fellow Protestants on what counts as Scripture—there is a wide range of exceptions and qualifications that different groups wish to be made.

Surprise. Different groups have different teachings.

Many Anglicans and some Lutherans and Calvinists give the early Church Fathers an authoritative—but not binding—role in the interpretation of Scripture. Many of the same individuals give this interpretive role to the early ecumenical councils and certain key creeds (e.g., the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).

Not sure any true Lutherans do not do this. The confessions are clear on the creeds.

Many Protestants from confessional traditions (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) also wish to see the confessions of their particular movements given special weight in the interpretation of Scripture.

Many Protestants honor the principle that academic study tools and techniques should be used in the interpretation of Scripture, such as linguistic, literary, archaeological, cultural, historical, and critical studies). Other Protestants reject some or all of these methods. Some even go to the extreme of limiting interpretation to a single translation (usually the King James Version) as interpreted without academic training or resources.

Again, differing groups differ.

Pentecostals, Protestant Charismatics, and Word-Faith adherents insist that in interpreting Scripture, information provided as “revelation knowledge” by the charismatic gifts must be taken into account. Other Protestants reject any role for such alleged information. source

ditto.

I like Jimmy Akin, and I don’t mean to be snarky, but the same issues apply to communions that are not typically described as protestant. PNCC, Old Catholics, OO, EO, and CC all have different viewpoints, yet claim Sacred Tradition.

The sad nature of division is that different groups have different views and beliefs.

Jon