Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Isaiah45_9]

Nor did I say that he did. What I did say was that many of the spurious writings were considered spurious long before any provincial council (Carthage, Rome, et al.) made any declarations about the canon. Ireneaus is one example of a father who, very early on, indicated the falsehood of apocryphal writings.

I was not referring to Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. as these writings, while not Scriptural, are not spurious.

Please keep on topic to what I was addressing

I had to narrow the broad brush you used . The New Testament canon is nowhere as easy as some people make it to be. (And I’m not saying you are specifically saying this)

 

[Per_Crucem]

And perhaps this from EWTN will help you understand
that Luther did indeed remove seven books from
the Catholic Bible.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438095

Only if you define the meaning of the word “remove” in an entirely different way than what “remove” actually means.

 

[marywarfield]

At the time that Luther disputed the inspiration of 2 Maccabees, Luther still believed in purgatory.

The Creed states He descended to hell, not purgatory.

And again perhaps this from the Vatican will help
you to understand. Luther did in fact object to Purgatiry
from the beginning. In fact it was one of his chief
complaints. And he claimed Maccabees did not
reference Purgatory either.
Reality is Jesus never abolished Hell. he never
eradicated eternal damnation. However He did
make a case for doing what the Jews had always done/
Praying for the dead. Why? Because those who die
in perfect holiness have no need of your prayer.
Those who don’t merit either eternal damnation or
by Jesus’ example purgation.
Hell of the OT (Schoel) is not the hell of eternal
damnation- Jews simply considered it a place of the
dead.
But we know that yes while there is a place for the
dead that is not the place of eternal damnation- otherwise
their damnation would have remained eternal before
And after Christ descended and rose.
One does not earn that which is eternal and suddenly
find it finite.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Only if you define the meaning of the word “remove” in an entirely different way than what “remove” actually means.

Kinda like “sola” in Sola Scriptura?



I had to go through that door

 

[Per_Crucem]

I had to narrow the broad brush you used . The New Testament canon is nowhere as easy as some people make it to be. (And I’m not saying you are specifically saying this)

It wasn’t, not at all. However, we can’t make it out to be more difficult than it actually was. The number of books that could have been serious contenders is relatively small…the Didache, the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Clement are, as far as I know, the only books that were seriously considered Scriptural by any of the fathers. As for the apocryphal writings that are the staple of the Dan Brown/History Channel canon…none were ever considered anything more than forgeries.

 

[marywarfield]

At the time that Luther disputed the inspiration of 2 Maccabees, Luther still believed in purgatory.

The Creed states He descended to hell, not purgatory.

Only if you define the meaning of the word “remove” in an entirely different way than what “remove” actually means.

Look I’m not going to argue the point. It is historical fact.
If you want s fine point- he removed the Apocrypha
as divinely inspired- claimed it carried not the weight
of actual scripture. Therefore he removed
it for all practical purposes as part of HOLY Scripture.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And again perhaps this from the Vatican will help
you to understand. Luther did in fact object to Purgatiry
from the beginning.

Source, please.

In fact it was one of his chief
complaints. Snd he claimed Maccabees did not
reference Purgatiry either.
Reality is Jesus never abolished Hell. he never
eradicated eternal damnation. However He did
make a case for doing what the Jews had always done/
Praying for the dead. Why? Because those who die
in perfect holiness have no need of your prayer.
Those who don’t merit either eternal damnation or
by Jesus’ example purgation.

Then explain why praying for the dead is also a Lutheran and Orthodox practice and neither believes in purgatory?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Look I’m not going to argue the point. It is historical fact.
If you want s fine point- he removed the Apocrypha
as divinely inspired- claimed it carried not the weight
of actual scripture. Therefore he removed
it for all practical purposes as part of HOLY Scripture.

No, he did not. The Lutheran Confessions (writer after Luther’s translation of the Bible), affirm the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Cardinal Xavier of Spain included the DC books in an appendix in his Complutensian Polyglot. Did he, therefore, “remove” them? Of course not.

 

[benjohnson]

And perhaps this from EWTN will help you understand
that Luther did indeed remove seven books from
the Catholic Bible.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=438095

Sadly, this isn’t one of EWTN’s better written articles.

Modern Lutherans missing books of the bilbe is an English speaking Lutheran problem having more to do with cheap English bible publishers following the Westminster Confession.

German Lutherans have no such issues - as Luther’s bible has one more book than the Catholic Trent bibles.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Kinda like “sola” in Sola Scriptura?



I had to go through that door

No, because the Scriptures are the sola infallible revelation possessed by the Church.

Pfft

 

[marywarfield]

No, he did not. The Lutheran Confessions (writer after Luther’s translation of the Bible), affirm the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. Cardinal Xavier of Spain included the DC books in an appendix in his Complutensian Polyglot. Did he, therefore, “remove” them? Of course not.

Well most interesting that you say that for you see
I have right before me on the table my father in law’s Bible
a Lutheran he was- and this Bible was published in 1867 in Philadelphia,
a massive leather bound Bible complete with lock, key,
1800 color pictures, a bible dictionary and textbook,
Maps- everything you could possibly want in a Bible
except for the seven books removed by Luther.
Now I don’t know what YOU mean by remove but the
Lutherans in 1867 meant NOT PHYSICALLY THERE.
Lol

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well most interesting that you say that for you see
I have right before me on the table my father in law’s Bible
a Lutheran he was- and this Bible was published in 1867 in Philadelphia,
a massive leather bound Bible complete with lock, key,
1800 color pictures, a bible dictionary and textbook,
Maps- everything you could possibly want in a Bible
except for the seven books removed by Luther.
Now I don’t know what YOU mean by remove but the
Lutherans in 1867 meant NOT PHYSICALLY THERE.
Lol

I am fairly certain that the 1867 Bible published in Philadelphia was not Luther’s German translation.

 

[marywarfield]

I am fairly certain that the 1867 Bible published in Philadelphia was not Luther’s German translation.

Fact- the books are not IN the Bible of the Indiana Lutherans
of 1867.
Fact- Luther disputed those seven books and felt
they should not be in divinely inspired scripture.
Fact- ever after Protestants have disputed Catholic teaching
as scripturally based because the scriptures were
vandalized by Martin Luther and many of THEIR Bible translation
do NOT physically contain the seven books.

Now these are just the facts. Facts. Not disputable.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Fact- the books are not IN the Bible of the Indiana Lutherans
of 1867.

Correct - Because they used English Bibles published by non-Lutherans because there were no Bibles translated into English (at that time) from Luther’s German Bible. If there were, they would have included the deuterocanon.

Fact- Luther disputed those seven books and felt
they should not be in divinely inspired scripture.

Correct. But he put them in there anyway, because he knew the majority of his contemporaries did accept them as Scripture.

As for purgatory…I accept the deuterocanon as Scripture (as well as many Lutherans) and I don’t accept purgatory. The Orthodox do not, either, and they also accept the deuterocanon. Now, the reason for that is neither believe the deuterocanon teaches anything about purgatory.

 

[marywarfield]

Correct - Because they used English Bibles published by non-Lutherans because there were no Bibles translated into English (at that time) from Luther’s German Bible. If there were, they would have included the deuterocanon.

Correct. But he put them in there anyway, because he knew the majority of his contemporaries did accept them as Scripture.

As for purgatory…I accept the deuterocanon as Scripture (as well as many Lutherans) and I don’t accept purgatory. The Orthodox do not, either, and they also accept the deuterocanon. Now, the reason for that is neither believe the deuterocanon teaches anything about purgatory.

So then answer this:
Why did Jesus descend into Hell?
Do you believe eternal damnation exists?
If not does everyone go straight to Heaven?
If Hell is not eternal what is it?
Ore to the point is praying for the dead a waste
of time?

 

[marywarfield]

Correct - Because they used English Bibles published by non-Lutherans because there were no Bibles translated into English (at that time) from Luther’s German Bible. If there were, they would have included the deuterocanon.

Correct. But he put them in there anyway, because he knew the majority of his contemporaries did accept them as Scripture.bb

As for purgatory…I accept the deuterocanon as Scripture (as well as many Lutherans) and I don’t accept purgatory. The Orthodox do not, either, and they also accept the deuterocanon. Now, the reason for that is neither believe the deuterocanon teaches anything about purgatory.

You are being disingenuous. For the fact is he did NOT
include them in their original state- he included them
in a subordinate state.

In any case, a person sensible would reject the
teaching of one who literally vandalized the Bible
of his own accord a thousand years after the fact.

I know I could expect Hell not Purgatory if I decided
to rip out various Scripture on my own say so and claim
they were not divine even if I put them back as an FYI appendix.
I would earn way more grief than just
Purgatory if I took a bunch of innocents with me as well.

 

[marywarfield]

Correct - Because they used English Bibles published by non-Lutherans because there were no Bibles translated into English (at that time) from Luther’s German Bible. If there were, they would have included the deuterocanon.

Correct. But he put them in there anyway, because he knew the majority of his contemporaries did accept them as Scripture.

As for purgatory…I accept the deuterocanon as Scripture (as well as many Lutherans) and I don’t accept purgatory. The Orthodox do not, either, and they also accept the deuterocanon. Now, the reason for that is neither believe the deuterocanon teaches anything about purgatory.

And this is another problem I have with
the whole sola Scriptura idea- that those who
insist on sola for the most part have NO problem
with people shredding the Bible, rearranging the Bible,
or removing whole books from the Bible on their
own say so.
How can you depend on something solely when
any person off the street is permitted to remodel it?

 

[dronald]

And this is another problem I have with
the whole sola Scriptura idea- that those who
insist on sola for the most part have NO problem
with people shredding the Bible, rearranging the Bible,
or removing whole books from the Bible on their
own say so.
How can you depend on something solely when
any person off the street is permitted to remodel it?

You don’t hang out with many non-Catholic Christians, do you?

 

[Nicea325]

So it only became Scripture when it was "officially " canonized? Can you tell me why the church needed an official cannon in the first place?

After you tell me why Jesus even bothered with His church at all, if we’re only binded to the written words?

Question at hand is related to the canon, not what constituted scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

:

I don’t see the distinction here between what you state as the Anglican approach and what we Confessional Lutherans believe when we say sola scriptura.

We follow tradition and reason as well, where we differ is from the RCC’s insistence that tradition interprets scripture( and in the case of purgatory, plenary indulgences, Marian dogmas, etc. tradition trumps scripture.) If scripture is the primary authority then traditions and reason can be followed as long as they are congruent with what scripture teaches.

Ah no! You are in error because that is NOT the RCC position. Never has been and you are in error to believe such a position.

Answer this: How can any written word precede oral communication?

Where does Scripture explicitly teach it is the "primary" authority?