Why can't protestants see that Sola Scriptora is broken?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Adamski;11473740]SPX doesn’t have any historical roots so I would automatically cross them off.
Click to expand...
Catholics tell me that I can’t simply cross off other protestant communions. ISTM you don’t have that convenience, either. SSPX claims Sacred Tradition.
Regarding Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox I researched both in great depth before I returned to the Catholic Church and would also say I considered Lutheran Missouri synod.
Click to expand...
Why I’m not Lutheran is very clear not balanced in history and very unbiblical when it comes to sola Fieda and sola scriptoria
Click to expand...
Apparently you haven’t read the JDDJ regarding sola fide. I thought that, soteriologically, we were seeing greater agreement. No?
Sola scriptura isn’t unbiblical. If you want to claim it is “extra-biblical” you might be able to make that claim. We as Lutherans recognize it as a practice of the Church, a tradition if you will. We don’t maintain that belief in sola scriptura is necessary for salvation, so in that way it is not a doctrine.
Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox and I tried, it is to mono cultural and jesus is for all people at all times
Click to expand...
The second I went into our lady of sorrows in north bend washington I knew it was the church for all people at all times that jesus founded. We must have 7 different languages spoken and people from all over the world all worshipping jesus in the same way.
Click to expand...
I would think the folks at OCA would quibble with the charge of "mono-cultural. Of course that Catholic Church those in communion with the Bishop of Rome is a part of, perhaps the central part of Christ’s Church. It is not, however, only and exclusively so.

Jon
 
concretecamper said:
Who decides what teachings, doctrines, and dogmas are in the bible. More importantly, who decides what all these mean. You are back to private interpretation…you cannot get away from it.
Click to expand...
The Church does. I have no say in the establishment of doctrine within Lutheranism. If I want to claim, for example, that the Eucharist is symbolic, that doesn’t make it doctrine. It simply makes me not Lutheran. If my pastors tries it, he loses his privilege for parish ministry in the synod.

Jon
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Indeed.

Is it you, the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Catholic SSPX, or the Assyrian Church of the East that have failed to think, study and be led by the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
The bible, Sacred Tradition, and history proves your statement partially correct. But I would say Protestants should be lumped into your grouping and not the RCC…then you statement would be correct.
 
concretecamper said:
The bible, Sacred Tradition, and history proves your statement partially correct. But I would say Protestants should be lumped into your grouping and not the RCC…then you statement would be correct.
Click to expand...
Why? The communions House mentions all claim Sacred Tradition as equal to Sacred Scripture. They all claim, essentially, the same Tradition. The Bishop of Rome is one patriarch among a number of them.

Jon
 
House_Harkonnen said:
If you walked into my church you would see a liturgy being led by a presbyter. That means my church is doing pretty well right?
Click to expand...
well I clarified in that these presbyters revere the sacred the tradition and consider it an authority by which we must judge. The Catholic, the ORthodox and the Oriental all consider the authority of the creed absolute, whereas you would say its only to be recited because it agrees with scripture.

Herein lies the difference. But I am saying the fruit of sola scripture is more damaging than the Orthodox faith. Even when teh apostles were the leaders of the church, there were those who had already entered therein trying to deceive and tear apart the church. This will always exist, but it was never on the level which the reformation produced.
 
concretecamper said:
But what was the point you where making with Sola Scriptura…which Church
Click to expand...
The point I was making about sola scriptura is the same that House made: that divisions within the Church Militant are not the result of the method of hermeneutics - sola scriptura, Tradition/Scripture. The divisions in His Church are the result of the human condition.

Jon
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
well I clarified in that these presbyters revere the sacred the tradition and consider it an authority by which we must judge. The Catholic, the ORthodox and the Oriental all consider the authority of the creed absolute, whereas you would say its only to be recited because it agrees with scripture.

Herein lies the difference. But I am saying the fruit of sola scripture is more damaging than the Orthodox faith. Even when teh apostles were the leaders of the church, there were those who had already entered therein trying to deceive and tear apart the church. This will always exist, but it was never on the level which the reformation produced.
Click to expand...
Really? The Schism has been in place for a thousand years. I often hear here that there isn’t much difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but the division is in place for a thousand years - half the life of the Church since Pentecost. Further, some of the most vitriolic threads here are Catholic v. Orthodox threads.

Please. Luther was a rank amateur compared to some of those involved in the Schism when it comes to division.

Jon
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
well I clarified in that these presbyters revere the sacred the tradition and consider it an authority by which we must judge. The Catholic, the ORthodox and the Oriental all consider the authority of the creed absolute, whereas you would say its only to be recited because it agrees with scripture.
Click to expand...
BTW, here is why we -]recite/-] confess the ancient creeds.
  1. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, **which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. **
Click to expand...
We confess them because we pledge ourselves to them, for the reasons shown.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The point I was making about sola scriptura is the same that House made: that divisions within the Church Militant are not the result of the method of hermeneutics - sola scriptura, Tradition/Scripture. The divisions in His Church are the result of the human condition.

Jon
Click to expand...
Are you saying all denominations of protestants got it wrong when it comes to scripture interpretation?
 
concretecamper said:
Are you saying all denominations of protestants got it wrong when it comes to scripture interpretation?
Click to expand...
I am saying that, as a Lutheran, I believe the Confessions are a true, catholic reflection of the truth of scripture and the faith.
If I don’t say that, I’m not a Lutheran.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
EO, OO, PNCC, CC.

Which Church?

I think that was the point House was making.

Jon
Click to expand...
Can you name any more?

Lets see, orthodox, Catholic, Oriental and Assyrian/

Vs

Lutheran, Anglican/Episcopalian, Baptist, presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical, Various non demoninational churches which cannot possibly be listed here and which would account for a unique theology in of itself. Theres undoubtably alot more with regards to protestatntism. What is teh cause?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top