Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[benjohnson]

You miss the point completely. The primary reason
Sola Scriptura cannot be considered valid by those
who find their own souls valuable is that the interpretation
by each man individually beginning

What you’re describing may certainly be the modern definition of Sola Scriptura used by many, but it’s not the Lutheran definition.

Lutherans hold that Sola Scriptura is a practice of the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

The Bible Clearly state that Scripture is good for correction.
It corrects the mistakes people inevitable make when trying to interpret the Bible rather than simply follow it.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The New Testament is Christian Orthodoxy!

We might develop other traditions and practices which is fine as long as it doesn’t violate the doctrines of the New Testament.

Nope! 2 Tim 3:16 has been interpretated poorly by so many. St. Paul no where says in that verse ONLY Scripture is the final authority. Secondly, how can you add the NT to such a false belief called Sola Scriptura when the NT was not even complete when Paul wrote 2 Timothy.

You have it backwards. Teachings came first via oral Traditions,not the other way around.

 

[Nicea325]

What you’re describing may certainly be the modern definition of Sola Scriptura used by many, but it’s not the Lutheran definition.

Lutherans hold that Sola Scriptura is a practice of the Church.

Which confirms the fact SS is a late belief.

 

[marywarfield]

What you’re describing may certainly be the modern definition of Sola Scriptura used by many, but it’s not the Lutheran definition.

Lutherans hold that Sola Scriptura is a practice of the Church.

Which Church? The Catholic Church, East or West?
Orthodoxy?
Anglicans and their sub groups?
Lutherans Wittenburg? Augsburg? Evangelical?
Baptists and their hundreds of offshoots?
Presbyterians and their factions?
Quakers?
Mormons?
Mormon Fundamentalist?
Fundamentalist?
Jehovah Witness?

Which Church exactly? And
which translation exactly should be held as authoritative and dependable? The Good News? , the KJV, the Jerusalem, the Gideon, etc?
which
books, which interpretation?

Please clarify your meaning.

 

[benjohnson]

Which confirms the fact SS is a late belief.

It’s indeed later practice - only becoming necessary when one of the other authorities went off the rails (from a Lutheran standpoint.)

 

[benjohnson]

Which Church?

Only speaking about ourselves, we would say the one Holy catholic and apostolic church where the gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments are administered.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s indeed later practice - only becoming necessary when one of the other authorities went off the rails (from a Lutheran standpoint.)

I admire your honesty! You’ve got great Christian integrity my friend!

 

[JonNC]

Ll there again you run into a conundrum. If we agree
that the Church needed to codify the Scripture in 397ad
since there were so many spurious writings at the time
how can we then defend Luther’s alteration of said
codification 1000 years after the fact by throwing out
Maccabees 1 and 2 which are clear supports of a “purgatory”?
And even without that we would have to throw out the
Creed of the Lutherans which professes that Christ
descended into Hell? If a person can be in a state
of purgation after death why are you professing Christ
did just that with the souls in Hell?
Lol. Basically Luther threw out Scripture as either prima
or sola and you have continued that tradition. No?

Luther’s preface, in part, regarding 1 Macc:
“This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel.”
…

These are not the words of someone who disagreed with the book. He goes on to say that 1 Macc is important for Christians to read and know.

Next, from the document The Hope For Eternal Life, a jopint Lutheran (including the LCMS) Catholic document.

1. Thus, we agree that prayer for the dead, considered within the framework of the communion of saints, need not be a church-dividing or communion-hindering issue for
   Lutherans and Catholics.
   378 This conclusion is shared by the German Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue.

and

1. When misconceptions are stripped away and the continuing reflections of our churches are
   taken into account, the difference between our churches on the doctrine of purgatory is seen in a new light.

Agreements
207. Catholics and Lutherans agree:

1. During this life, the justified “are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the
   contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (see Gal. 5:16;
   Rom. 7:7-10).”285
2. This struggle is rightly described by a variety of categories: e.g., penitence, healing,
   daily dying and rising with Christ.
3. Borne in Christ, the painful aspects of this struggle are a participation in Christ’s
   suffering and death. Catholic teachings call these pains temporal punishments;
   the Lutheran Confessions grant they, “in a formal sense,” can be called
   punishments.286
4. This ongoing struggle does not indicate an insufficiency in Christ’s saving work, but
   is an aspect of our being conformed to Christ and his saving work.287
5. The effects of sin in the justified are fully removed only as they die, undergo
   judgment, and encounter the purifying love of Christ. The justified are
   transformed from their condition at death to the condition with which they will
   be blessed in eternal glory. All, even martyrs and saints of the highest order,
   will find the encounter with the Risen Christ transformative in ways beyond
   human comprehension.
6. **Christ transforms those who enter into eternal life. This change is a work of God’s
   grace. It can be rightly understood as our final and perfect conformation to
   Christ (Phil 3:21). The fire of Christ’s love burns away all that is incompatible
   with living in the direct presence of God. It is the complete death of the old
   person, leaving only the new person in Christ.
7. Scripture tells us little about the process of the transformation from this life to
   entrance into eternal life. Categories of space and time can be applied only
   analogously**

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

The document goes into Luther’s view of Purgatory. Luther did not consider 2 Macc to be sufficient evidence of the doctrine of Purgatory, because he did not consider it among the undisputed books, not the other way around.

Jon

 

[marywarfield]

Luther’s preface, in part, regarding 1 Macc:
“This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel.”
…

These are not the words of someone who disagreed with the book. He goes on to say that 1 Macc is important for Christians to read and know.

Next, from the document The Hope For Eternal Life, a jopint Lutheran (including the LCMS) Catholic document.

and

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

The document goes into Luther’s view of Purgatory. Luther did not consider 2 Macc to be sufficient evidence of the doctrine of Purgatory, because he did not consider it among the undisputed books, not the other way around.

Jon

And again you say Luther this and he that. Just as
the Mormons say Joseph thus and he that. Or the
Christian Science say Mary this and she that.

You have 1599 years of tradition determined through
the studies of hundreds of learned men and one
guy comes along and on his own hook decides
differently. Then others decide differently from him
as well.

Many people call that a reformer or brave. I call
it the sin of arrogance and pride and not to be trusted.
Which is why I reject Sola Scriptura as valid the same way
I reject private revelations as well. If Scripture itself said trust only Scripture
I could make a case. And I’m amazed that the enthusiasm for
promoting ones own views as divine reality and rearranging and
vandalizing the Bible has not caused one of these thousands of reformers
to add a line or two supporting Sola but it is only a matter of time
before someone inserts an extra pronouns or drops an adverb in their
own favor and presto! Sola!
Even if the private revelations are from Catholics I reject them.
And the fact that Luther was Catholic means he knew better than
to do what he did.

 

[benjohnson]

You have 1599 years of traidition determined through
the studies of hundreds log learned men and one
guy comes along and on his own hook decides
differently.

Our view would be that we had ~1500 years of legitimate authority promulgating the Gospel - but sadly also promulgating abuses on a local level.

When confronted with these abuses, some aspects of the church held and some aspects of the church reformed.

Those abuses were upheld by the greater magisterium and for those in the smaller magisterium their only appeal was the Word of God.

…

In my opinion:

The more important question for Catholics and Lutherans is how to reconcile now that those abuses are long in the past - and even if we can’t worship around the same altar just yet - we should strive as individuals to at least understand each other and build each other up in Christ while gently defending our own viewpoint.

 

[benjohnson]

I admire your honesty! You’ve got great Christian integrity my friend!

Thant’s kind of you to say - but I have to admit that my nature is to be quite acerbic. Any virtue that you may see is just me following the good examples I see here on CAF.

 

[GraceofGod31]

Ll there again you run into a conundrum. If we agree
that the Church needed to codify the Scripture in 397ad
since there were so many spurious writings at the time
how can we then defend Luther’s alteration of said
codification 1000 years after the fact by throwing out
Maccabees 1 and 2 which are clear supports of a “purgatory”?
And even without that we would have to throw out the
Creed of the Lutherans which professes that Christ
descended into Hell? If a person can be in a state
of purgation after death why are you professing Christ
did just that with the souls in Hell?
Lol. Basically Luther threw out Scripture as either prima
or sola and you have continued that tradition. No?

First I’m not sure how 1and 2 Maccabees support(probably one of the many stretches of a verse taken out of context).

Second what does Hell have to with purgation? Hell is the place prepared for the devil and his angels. The place none of us are supposed to go, but if we remain in unbelief will go with no second chances. Christ’s descent into Hell was to declare victory over sin, death, and the devil. Where does it say he freed them that was an actual reminder that sin has no power over God.

 

[Convert2013]

It (Sola Scriptura) is a doctrine that defeats itself! If it never says it in the Scriptures, then how can one believe in it if they subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

Please read this entire article…
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

“All of that sounds fine at first glance, but upon inspection, this
framework collapses. First, if “the whole counsel of God . . . is
either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then
must itself appear somewhere in Scripture, but it does not. And
thus, under the terms set forth in all the classical Protestant
creeds, it is a self-refuting proposition.”

 

[marywarfield]

First I’m not sure how 1and 2 Maccabees support(probably one of the many stretches of a verse taken out of context).

Second what does Hell have to with purgation? Hell is the place prepared for the devil and his angels. The place none of us are supposed to go, but if we remain in unbelief will go with no second chances. Christ’s descent into Hell was to declare victory over sin, death, and the devil. Where does it say he freed them that was an actual reminder that sin has no power over God.

Please go back and read what Hell was considered to
be in the first place. It was not to the Jews of Jesus’ time
a place “for Satan and his Angels.” if it was you
are then inferring somehow that Jesus took Satan
into Heaven. That is more Mormon in theology than
Christian.

 

[benjohnson]

It (Sola Scriptura) is a doctrine that defeats itself! If it never says it in the Scriptures, then how can one believe in it if they subscribe to Sola Scriptura?

From a Logical stand-point, this argument isn’t that compelling. There’s no general condition that says that any Authority must declare itself an Authority in order to be valid.

The quick logical defense to your argument would me - “God holds ultimate authority. . God reveals himself to us in Scripture. Therefore Scripture holds the same authority of God.”

In my opinion the traditional apologetics of saying “SS is wrong!” is probably not effective, but a gentler nudge of “You’ve done so well with the Bible, imagine what you could gain from a Church filled with people such as you who draw from thousands of years of history and study” would be much more effective.

 

[marywarfield]

Our view would be that we had ~1500 years of legitimate authority promulgating the Gospel - but sadly also promulgating abuses on a local level.

When confronted with these abuses, some aspects of the church held and some aspects of the church reformed.

Those abuses were upheld by the greater magisterium and for those in the smaller magisterium their only appeal was the Word of God.

…

In my opinion:

The more important question for Catholics and Lutherans is how to reconcile now that those abuses are long in the past - and even if we can’t worship around the same altar just yet - we should strive as individuals to at least understand each other and build each other up in Christ while gently defending our own viewpoint.

You make a good point in your first paragraph. However
treating abuses on a local level and most definitely
those abuses existed, should never have included
throwing out whole articles of faith with it which is
in fact what Luther ultimately did. It should also not
inspire anyone to molest the Sacred Scriptures which again
Luther ultimately did.
He threw the baby out with the bath water and in so
doing as become the Superhero for every Tom, Dick
and Harry with a grievance- something Luther never
intended to happen for he was so convinced
of his own righteousness it never occurred to him
that others would follow suit and rebel both against
the Catholics AND the Lutherans to the point of
even the whackos in Waco. This is the danger we face
when we work not toward unity but toward seperation
instead. It is not of God- this chaos of Christian religions.
And make no mistake it is chaos a literal Babel.
What will happen with Fred Phelps biblical sola Scriptura
for he most certainly was going sola and was well on his
way to founding another baptist group completely
divided from the others. And all of them are sola.
Will that continue now he’s gone? Probably.

But if one steps back and objectively views the RC/EC
with all the good and all the abuses one must concede
that the answer never was seperation- those who
work to seperation work against God.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Our view would be that we had ~1500 years of legitimate authority promulgating the Gospel - but sadly also promulgating abuses on a local level.

So, Christ was able to keep His promise to guide His Church for 1500 years, but finally failed?
Well, it was a good run.

Look, if the Church ever had Authority (and you seem to admit that it had) it was of Divine origin. The only way it could lose that Authority is from a Divine command.

Even the Pharisees held authority in Jesus’ day despite their need of reform.

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

It took the coming of the Son of God to remove that Authority and give it to another.

Unless you’re claiming that Luther was divine (I know you’re not), then your claims are theologically incorrect.

 

[benjohnson]

So, Christ was able to keep His promise to guide His Church for 1500 years, but finally failed?
Well, it was a good run.

The Lutheran viewpoint would be that the church continued uninterrupted as we hold that our church is a valid continuation of the western church.

Of course, Catholics would teach otherwise.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Lutheran viewpoint would be that the church continued uninterrupted as we hold that our church is a valid continuation of the western church.

That would be fine, were a divine command given to transfer that Authority.

Otherwise, it’s just an arrogation of Authority. Kohah’s rebellion (See Jude 1:11 refering to Numbers 16).

Anyone can claim someone else’s authority. I can claim your authority to control your car. We call that grand theft auto.

 

[GraceofGod31]

You miss the point completely. The primary reason
Sola Scriptura cannot be considered valid by those
who find their own souls valuable is that the interpretation
by each man individually beginning with the one man
Luther and continuing on with thousands more such
as Joseph Smith of the Mormons, Mary Baker Eddy
of Christian Science, Amy Semple MacPherson of
Scientology and Ellen White of the Baptists and John
Knox, the Calvinists, Ron Hubbard, and Jack Chick
PROVES it is exceedingly dangerous and chaotic. More
to the point it is not what Christ ever intended.

Funny you list Joseph Smith as an example of self interpretation when in fact he based his authority on receiving divine revelation, “Vicar of Christ” if you will. Shouldn’t be part of what you are attempting to refute.

Amy McPherson and L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology is not even close to comparable. They did not try to interpret Christian Scripture nor are they claiming to be Christian.

How bout we stick to comparing fruit in the same bowl. That list does not come close to doing even the Catholic view of Protestantism justice.