Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerofTruth27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isaiah45_9 said:
The job is a lot harder with a positive present.

Which is what you have to go against if trying to disprove the intention and necessity of succession. You’d have no Church and no Bible without succession and an unbroken line of Christians.
Click to expand...
:yup:
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
The job is a lot harder with a positive present.

Which is what you have to go against if trying to disprove the intention and necessity of succession. You’d have no Church and no Bible without succession and an unbroken line of Christians.
Click to expand...
Non sequitor. But I will respond to your other thread when I get home from work 😛

lol love you man.
 
Per_Crucem said:
But that wasn’t my point in bringing it up. I don’t believe that the modern RCC or EO are “the church that Jesus founded.”
Click to expand...
Of course not! The original 12 all died. What is it that you are alleging? That one is therefore justified to innovate in “restoring” the original Church? As with all “bible” Christians, I think you are then forced into reverse-engineering the faith from the partial written record.

Explain how this is different from backing your car up until the odometer reads zero, then proclaiming that you must be at the factory.
 
po18guy said:
Of course not! The original 12 all died. What is it that you are alleging? That one is therefore justified to innovate in “restoring” the original Church? As with all “bible” Christians, I think you are then forced into reverse-engineering the faith from the partial written record.

Explain how this is different from backing your car up until the odometer reads zero, then proclaiming that you must be at the factory.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with restoring an original church, po18. I’m not a restorationist.
 
Per_Crucem said:
It has nothing to do with restoring an original church, po18. I’m not a restorationist.
Click to expand...
Well, that is very good - but from this Catholic’s perspective, the core concept of protestantism seems to assume that something had gone horribly wrong with the 16th century Church’s very structure and teachings - aside from the behavior of her leaders - and that it needed transformation into a substantially different form. What seems to me to have been alleged is perhaps not an apostasy, but something very close to it. The development of sola scriptura, which had in fact been rejected and condemned centuries earlier, had the effect of granting interpretive license over the scriptures.
 
po18guy said:
Well, that is very good - but the core concept of protestantism seems to assume that something had gone horribly wrong with the Church’s structure and teachings - aside from the behavior of her members - and that it needed transformation into a substantially different form.
Click to expand...
Certainly a reformation, more than a transformation, I think, though depending on the “protestant” group one speaks to, it could be a transformation.

Jon
 
po18guy said:
Well, that is very good - but the core concept of protestantism seems to assume that something had gone horribly wrong with the Church’s structure and teachings - aside from the behavior of her members - and that it needed transformation into a substantially different form.
Click to expand...
That’s where, I think, you’ll find that Luheranism and Anglicanism are rather unlike most non-Roman Catholic Christians. We don’t presuppose any ‘Great Apostasy’ in the Roman Church- simply a growing series of abuses and misinterpretation of doctrine. Obviously, the RCC would disagree. 😃

The actual structure and polity of the church has never been an issue, to Lutherans anyway.
 
JonNC said:
Certainly a reformation, more than a transformation, I think, though depending on the “protestant” group one speaks to, it could be a transformation.

Jon
Click to expand...
Rejection of the (5 of the 7) Sacraments is absolutely huge. Foundational.

The Orthodox, as many problems as they had with the Catholic Church, and after years of dialog, flatly rejected the reformation. There is a message in this.
 
steido01 said:
That’s where, I think, you’ll find that Luheranism and Anglicanism are rather unlike most non-Roman Catholic Christians. We don’t presuppose any ‘Great Apostasy’ in the Roman Church- simply a growing series of abuses and misinterpretation of doctrine. Obviously, the RCC would disagree. 😃

The actual structure and polity of the church has never been an issue, to Lutherans anyway.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox also disagree with the foundational changes of the reformation. As I mentioned to JonNC, there is a message in all of this.
 
po18guy said:
Rejection of the (5 of the 7) Sacraments is absolutely huge. Foundational.

The Orthodox, as many problems as they had with the Catholic Church, and after years of dialog, flatly rejected the reformation. There is a message in this.
Click to expand...
Sure is, and I think it is a message that Lutherans should always keep in mind, though the way I hear some Orthodox say it, much of our problem for them is we are too much like you. 😉

Never considered our view of Confirmation, marriage, unction, and ordination as a rejection. I was confirmed, and I am married, and both have been a blessing of grace for me. All of my pastors have been ordained through which I have received grace in the sacraments of Baptism, confession/Holy Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper. As for unction, I have not yet experienced it.
The confessions are clear that we do not reject the numbering the CC uses, only that our definition of the term sacrament is different, and the Church Fathers were not uniform in their numbering of the sacraments.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Sure is, and I think it is a message that Lutherans should always keep in mind, though the way I hear some Orthodox say it, much of our problem for them is we are too much like you. 😉
Click to expand...
I have never heard that! It might be because you are a western Christian. Liturgically, Lutherans are quite a distance from both Catholics and Orthodox, even though the liturgy in certain Lutheran communions may appear quite similar.

This article’s title is composed backward, as it should be “What did the Eastern Orthodox think of the Reformers?” Bottom line is that the Orthodox rejected the advances of the reformers. Conversely the reformers, prominent among them Philipp Melanchthon, essentially thought the Orthodox were “too Catholic.” christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/feb08.html
JonNC said:
Never considered our view of Confirmation, marriage, unction, and ordination as a rejection. Jon
Click to expand...
How you name or view them seems not to matter. Their substance matters. They are formulated and administered by completely different rules and authority.

Baptism and marriage are absolutely valid. The others were rejected centuries ago in their original form. The question is, are they still valid in their reformulated state?
 
=po18guy;11847281]I have never heard that! It might be because you are a western Christian. Liturgically, Lutherans are quite a distance from both Catholics and Orthodox, even though the liturgy in certain Lutheran communions may appear quite similar.
Click to expand...
Some of the more contemporary Lutheran “liturgies” sound nothing like a Lutheran liturgy, either. The reference is usually toward our mutual western views of things like original sin, the filioque, and other things.
This article’s title is composed backward, as it should be “What did the Eastern Orthodox think of the Reformers?” Bottom line is that the Orthodox rejected the advances of the reformers. Conversely the reformers, prominent among them Philipp Melanchthon, essentially thought the Orthodox were “too Catholic.” christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/feb08.html
Click to expand...
Yes. I’ve read similar before. Speaking only for myself, I believe Lutherans should be very cautious in our rhetoric, etc. about teachings shared by both the CC and EO, such as invocation.
How you name or view them seems not to matter. Their substance matters. They are formulated and administered by completely different rules and authority.
Click to expand...
Baptism and marriage are absolutely valid. The others were rejected centuries ago in their original form. The question is, are they still valid in their reformulated state?
Click to expand...
Again, if you read the confessions, they’re not rejected, at least not in Lutheran teaching.
We do have a different view of clergy, and the nature of the sacrifice, but it appears even some of these differences are closing, at least if one believes the ecumenical dialogue writings.

Jon
 
. . . so every man can be his own Church, his own High Priest, his own Doctor of the Church, etc., and if you’re lucky you can franchise it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top