Why Sola Scriptura fails

[pablope]

So, which objective authority? The one patriarch who stands by himself? Or the other patriarchates that stand in unity?

Jon

What? I do not even think the other patriarchates are unified in one body. They do have one thing in common…they are not in union with the Bishop of Rome…and I think they are not in union with each other either (but I stand corrected on this last statement).

 

[chero23]

really? The Catholic Church has remained steadfast. Cafeteria Catholics are the issue, not the Church.

Its like Tim Staples says in his DVD Jimmy Swaggert made me Catholic, “Don’t look to humans to strengthen your faith, bc their sinners, look at the Church who is being guided by the Holy Spirit to teach you”.

He’s right unfortunately, were all sinners, the Church is a Church of sinners and saints, unfrtunately we have nore sinners than saints but that does not mean the Church is wrong. If I look at the way all of us Catholics act, behave their faith I would be like Oh my! But what my neighbor does, does not affect me, I believe in the Catholic Church and have faith in it. Which at the end of the day that’s what God wants us to have, FAITH

 

[JonNC]

=KEP1983;10711439]The Pastor who disagreed with your definition of Sola Scriptura was a Lutheran.

If the pastor wishes to come on to CAF and correct me, I will, of course receive pastoral correction. He will have to explain why I am wrong about the Rule and Norm set out by the Formula of Concord, which I posted above.

But why should I accept Luther over Calvin? (Or Zwingli or whoever for that matter). Perhaps Luther was only half right, and God had to send Calvin to really fix what Luther didn’t quite get right?

You shouldn’t accept anything that Luther said, unless it agrees with Catholic teaching. Why would you? By the same token, why should I accept anything Calvin (Or Zwingli or whoever for that matter)? They are not Lutheran.

Calvin believed in SS, too. I’ve heard Calvinists and Lutherans have different definitions of SS. I’ve also heard individual Lutherans and Calvinists have different interpretations of Luther and Calvins definition. So how do we know whos interpretation of sola scriptura is correct?

We have different understandings of a number of things, or we’d be in communion with each other. Just like, if Rome and Orthodoxy didn’t have differing views on a number of things, they’d be in communion, too.

And if Luther came along and had to correct everything, how do we know he wasn’t originally off on his definition of Sola Scriptura? Perhaps someone today can correct Luthers correction? Or do you think that Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura was infallible? And is your interpretation of Luther’s definition of SS also infallible?

Perhaps the PNCC rightly corrected Rome, too. We’re not the ones who claim infallibility for human writings. That doesn’t mean we’re not right.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes. This is something that I have noted of late, since coming to the CAFs: there are numerous definitions of SS.

And with no Protestant magisterium, there is no way to authoritatively declare one def the actual one.

Who has the authoritative definition any of a number of teachings, including the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc. There are numerous definitions of this, as well, all using Tradition to support their view.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=CatholicKnight3;10711365]Yes, this is pretty much true. However, I am pretty sure, that when they claim sola scriptura, they are pretty much saying the bible is their authority and not a man made church with man made traditions. Therefore, the notion of one magisterium setting doctrine would not be a part of the thinking whether it be protestant or ROMAN Catholic.

Not necessarily. The man-made Traditions of the creeds, while secondary to scripture, are authoritative, and we accept them as such.

They do not recognize, and refuse to accept church authority. So, anyone claiming sola scriptura is essentially saying this.

I just said I would accept pastoral correction, if my understanding of the confessions, as a life-long Lutheran, are wrong.

Of course, that leads to a variety of problems. Cause the way I see it in regards to that is they do not actually go by scripture. They actually go by their PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scripture. That, ties into “personal Lord and Savior.” One thing to have a personal intimate relationship with Christ. In order to have that (as we believe it) is the culmination with Holy Communion. It does not get any more personal than that. In accordance with SCRIPTURE, and with in the embrace of the Church. When this Holy Communion is done in faith, it does not get more personal.

Personal interpretation is not sola scriptura.

Anyway, the notion of sola scriptura means the Church is not the authority and the bible is.That is the way I understand it anyway.

example: If I were to claim that Baptism was not regenerative, that would be outside the teachings of the Church, and I would be in need of correction. Now maybe, as cafeteria Catholics, I could still claim to be Lutheran, but in reality I would not be, as I would be teaching contrary to our Church teaching.
I can interpret all I want on non-doctrinal matters, but not on doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Clement of Rome

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1A.D. 95]).”

St Irenaeus

"Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give **to you **the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, **not what they shall have bound or they **shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 A.D. 220]).

Cyprian

“With a* false bishop appointed for themselves *by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

I could go on and on. But I have to get to work.

None of these respond to the need for all patriarchates for there to be an ecumenical council. that’s the way the early Church worked.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=CatholicKnight3;10711300]I guess no one wants to acknowledge the evidence in SCRIPTURE that the Church was given authority.

I will accept the scriptural evidence of the authority of the Church. I will even accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome, in the way Rome portrays it, when the other patriarchs do. And I will accept their understanding when Rome does.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What? I do not even think the other patriarchates are unified in one body. They do have one thing in common…they are not in union with the Bishop of Rome…and I think they are not in union with each other either (but I stand corrected on this last statement).

I will stand corrected with you, if need be.

Jon

 

[KEP1983]

If the pastor wishes to come on to CAF and correct me, I will, of course receive pastoral correction. He will have to explain why I am wrong about the Rule and Norm set out by the Formula of Concord, which I posted above.

Who says we have to follow the Formula of Concord? Is it infallible? Who gets to determine that the Formula of Concord is correct? Why should I even accept Lutheranism over Calvinism, Arminianism, Methodism, Presybeterianism, Anglicanism, Unitarianism, or any other version of Protestantismismism? Why should your Formula of Concord be authoritative and not a different Protestant Confession? And if another Lutheran disagrees with you on your interpretation of the Formula of Concord, who is correct?

You shouldn’t accept anything that Luther said, unless it agrees with Catholic teaching. Why would you? By the same token, why should I accept anything Calvin (Or Zwingli or whoever for that matter)? They are not Lutheran.

You don’t accept Calvin because they aren’t Lutheran? You’re begging the question. Why should I accept your brand of Lutheranism as objectively true? There are many many other Lutheran confessions who disagree with your views.

We have different understandings of a number of things, or we’d be in communion with each other. Just like, if Rome and Orthodoxy didn’t have differing views on a number of things, they’d be in communion, too.

The difference between Rome and Orthodoxy is completely different than the differences between the 20,000 different Protestant sects. The EO Schism was mostly a political one, and our theology is practically the same. The same can’t be said of Protestantism.

Perhaps the PNCC rightly corrected Rome, too. We’re not the ones who claim infallibility for human writings. That doesn’t mean we’re not right.

Jon

First off, we don’t claim human beings are infallible. We claim that God protects the Church from falling into heresy, so lay people like you and me don’t have to wander around in confusion trying to figure out if the Belgic Confession or the Formula of Concord are correct-- let alone the myriad of other Protestant confessions.

But as you admitted, you have no way of knowing who is right. Maybe it’s Mormonism or Jehovahs Witnesses? Maybe it’s Presbyterians? Or Evangelicals? Or Episcopalians? Or Unitarians? We can’t be sure, because humans are fallible, and we can’t be sure who’s interpretation is the correct one revealed by the Holy Spirit and whos is not.

Which is exactly why Christ founded One Church and gave it His Holy Spirit and protected it from error.

There remains one Catholic Church, and every other Church that has broken off from it has further broken off into hundreds or thousands of other denominations.

If Protestantism is true, you ultimately end up with a weak God who is unable to protect His Church from falling into widespread error; with people walking through life unable to discover what’s objectively true and what’s not, whos interpretation of scripture is from the Holy Spirit and whos is not.

 

[KEP1983]

None of these respond to the need for all patriarchates for there to be an ecumenical council. that’s the way the early Church worked.

Jon

The quotes I posted from the early Church clearly showed that the Bishop of Rome had primacy. Ignore it or fight it all you like, but it remains true.

And I specifically picked out quotes from BEFORE Constantine, since you claimed that’s when the “Imperial Church” ruined everything and gave us the “Catholic” church.

 

[KEP1983]

example: If I were to claim that Baptism was not regenerative, that would be outside the teachings of the Church, and I would be in need of correction. Now maybe, as cafeteria Catholics, I could still claim to be Lutheran, but in reality I would not be, as I would be teaching contrary to our Church teaching.
I can interpret all I want on non-doctrinal matters, but not on doctrine.

Jon

Who gets to decide what’s an essential matter and what’s not? You just claimed that baptismal regeneration is a doctrinal matter that you can’t disagree with. Hank Hanegraaff and William Lane Craig say that baptismal regeneration is a secondary issue. I’ve heard Lutherans say the same thing towards other Protestants who deny baptismal regenation. So you claim baptismal regeneration is a doctrine you can’t interpret in a different fashion, while others say it’s a secondary issue. So who’s right?

 

[KEP1983]

Who has the authoritative definition any of a number of teachings, including the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc. There are numerous definitions of this, as well, all using Tradition to support their view.

Jon

I would look to the Church that hasn’t split into numerous denominations.

Catholic Church-- One Church

Eastern Orthodox-- 11 different Churches/denominations

Protestantism-- 20,000 denominations.

As Jesus said, “may they all be one. . .”
Not, “may they all be in different denominations trying to figure out whats true and what’s not…”

 

[benjohnson]

Yes. This is something that I have noted of late, since coming to the CAFs: there are numerous definitions of SS.

And with no Protestant magisterium, there is no way to authoritatively declare one def the actual one.

There is a “protestant magesterium” - it’s the leadership of the LC-MS. It’s not our fault that others are not listening, or not following.

 

[benjohnson]

I would look to the Church that hasn’t split into numerous denominations.

We reject denominationalism, and make a positive claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.

We see it this way: that your church split from us when it decided to maintain some practices rather than stop them. As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox don’t think of themselves as being the ones that separated.

That said, that we are close to you should be celebrated - frankly the talk of separation should be put on the back-burner in favor of understanding and reconciliation.

 

[rfournier103]

I thought sola-scriptura fails because it isn’t in scripture.

 

[benjohnson]

The quotes I posted from the early Church clearly showed that the Bishop of Rome had primacy. Ignore it or fight it all you like, but it remains true.

And I specifically picked out quotes from BEFORE Constantine, since you claimed that’s when the “Imperial Church” ruined everything and gave us the “Catholic” church.

Lutherans don’t deny the primacy of Peter - we just don’t hold that it’s as all encompassing as is claimed.

I’m not sure what to make of the ‘Constantine’ remark, as no Lutheran would say anything conspiratorial against the Church, for to do so would be to cut our own legs off.

 

[rfournier103]

We reject denominationalism, and make a positive claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.

We see it this way: that your church split from us when it decided to maintain some practices rather than stop them. As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox don’t think of themselves as being separated,

That said, that we are close to you should be celebrated - frankly the talk of separation should be put on the back-burner in favor of understanding and reconciliation.

As you would expect, I don’t agree with the above statement… However, in the interest of dialogue… I would like to invite you to expand on that in a new thread I am going to create. I would like to hear more…

 

[PRmerger]

Who has the authoritative definition any of a number of teachings, including the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, etc.

The Catholic Church, clearly.

There are numerous definitions of this, as well, all using Tradition to support their view.

Jon

What other definitions are there regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?

 

[PRmerger]

There is a “protestant magesterium” - it’s the leadership of the LC-MS. It’s not our fault that others are not listening, or not following.

Oh. I had not heard that before. Do they claim apostolic succession and the charism of infallibility?

 

[benjohnson]

Oh. I had not heard that before. Do they claim apostolic succession and the charism of infallibility?

Is should be clearer - we don’t make the same claims of infallibilty, but do claim correct teaching. We have a different understanding of Apostolic Sucuession, though our expulsion out of Prussia under the pain of death probably has infulance on this understanding.

Simply put, if someone points out incorrect dogma pr incorrect practice in Protestants, it doesn’t bother us in the slightest. Only if we get lumped in under that umbrella do we begin to get testy.