Why sola Scriptura?

[Randy_Carson]

Despite the progress, there are still issues:

From the Lutheran perspective, you’ve added dogma in the last 500 years that isn’t from the Gospel: Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, turning pious beliefs about the Theotokos into dogma necessary for salvation, turning the Eucharistic Mystery into a kind of recipe (good though it is), Purgatory, and making Communion with the Pope a requirement for salvation.

Let’s set aside papal infallibility for a moment since that doctrine was defined after the Reformation.

Would you be able to agree with the idea that the Catholic Church (not the pope individually) is infallible?

 

[steido01]

Jon-

My problem with Lutheranism (not individual Lutherans) is this: the issues that Luther raised were addressed long ago.

So, why haven’t y’all come back to the Church that needed reform and underwent it?

The fact of the matter is that in addition to raising some questions about matters that needed reform, Luther also added his own personal ideas into the mix (most notably sola scriptura and sola fide).

Now, based on some articles I have read, I think that if the terms are properly defined, we can probably bridge the sola fide divide. But Catholics can never concede to anything remotely resembling sola scriptura because that doctrine was never taught by the Church throughout its history.

So, although Luther would probably be pleased to see that much of what he objected to has been addressed by the Catholic Church, you Lutherans can’t come home again because of the theological novelty that he introduced.

One other point: having lived out on your own for so long, I think you are now unwilling to submit to Papa’s authority should you ever seek shelter under our roof.

You bring some good thoughts, Randy. But I’m not sure it’s as simple as you’ve put it - and not because we are far apart, but because we are closer than we realize.

This may sound odd, but I think the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura is not so out-of-line with Roman Catholic teachings - our recent discussions with the Orthodox may be leading the way to unity on that front (anyone still have that link?). Catholics often accuse Luther of inventing Sola Scriptura; to what degree the practice of SS was brought to its fullest expression under Luther is debatable (and I’m not intending to rekindle the debate now…), but it is undeniable that at least the foundations for that practice existed in the early church - Luther didn’t pull it out of the air. ISTM that both the issues of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura may be addressed through more “properly defined” terms.

The big issues, from the Lutheran perspective, are exactly what Ben noted in his last post (and as our Confessions state).

 

[benjohnson]

Would you be able to agree with the idea that the Catholic Church (not the pope individually) is infallible?

Lutherans would say God is infallible, and the church is infallible in as much as it reflect’s God’s will.

I’m afraid that this is where Lutherans and Catholics almost come to the same ‘place’ but from different angles - but there is a slight difference here.

 

[JonNC]

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! It is not a shared fault, the doctrine the Church teaches which is infallible has never been wrong it cannot be in the areas of faith or morals, the people of the Church who are fallible have done things wrong and have not lived up to their obligations and have caused scandal but the doctrine has never been wrong, it simply cannot be.

Leaving the obvious debate regarding the infallible teaching of the Church aside, this:

Catholic Catechism

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

A shared blame, a shared fault, a shared responsibility to heal the rift.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Charlemagne II;11256426]Jon

I guess I did not ask the question correctly.

“In what way is it** still** a shared fault?”

In short, because the division still exists.

What I meant was, since the Reformation period has passed, and the Church is no longer in the saddle of power and corruption it once rode, (as the Catechism admits, yes I have read the Catechism) why is it STILL a shared fault that Lutherans have broken from the Church?

So I ask again, in what way is it STILL a shared fault that the Lutherans cannot come home because we certainly do not have the same Catholic Church Luther railed against?

There remain doctrinal issues between us that are yet to be resolved.

Again, the Catholics cannot come home to the Lutherans. They were never at home with the Lutherans to begin with. It is the choice of the Lutherans never to return home to the Church they left behind. That seems to me not a shared fault, unless the Lutherans want to argue that the Catholics are still corrupt in morals and teachings as ever.

When the issues are resolved, and reconciliation takes place, at that point the Reformation is ended, and unity between us is once again restored.

Jon

 

[pablope]

**pablope

But I still say that an impartial study of history cannot but discredit Luther as a religious reformer. **

All the more so true in the light of Christ’s own words:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

I would recommend the book discussed in this article:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
MARK BRUMLEY
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

 

[pablope]

Despite the progress, there are still issues:

From the Lutheran perspective, you’ve added dogma in the last 500 years that isn’t from the Gospel: Papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, turning pious beliefs about the Theotokos into dogma necessary for salvation, turning the Eucharistic Mystery into a kind of recipe (good though it is), Purgatory, and making Communion with the Pope a requirement for salvation.

Ben…do you believe a bishop has the authority to bind and loose…what is needed for the shepherd for his sheep…to tend his sheep as he sees fit?

Secondly…do you see anything wrong, with say, definitely defining the Theotokos, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption…so that everyone in the pew has the same beliefs…and not a hodge podge of beliefs?

Is it necessarily wrong to define these beliefs so as to have one belief, one faith?

And who defines what is necessary for the faith-the laity or the bishop?

 

[benjohnson]

Ben…do you believe a bishop has the authority to bind and loose…what is needed for the shepherd for his sheep…to tend his sheep as he sees fit?

Frankly I’m not capable of answering that. But my hunch is that the shepherd would never need to do so as far dogma as the Gospel is complete.

Secondly…do you see anything wrong, with say, definitely defining the Theotokos, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption…so that everyone in the pew has the same beliefs…and not a hodge podge of beliefs?

I’m a big fan of these pious beliefs, but to make salvation contingent on them is too far.

 

[Contarini]

I would recommend the book discussed in this article:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
MARK BRUMLEY
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

Yes, it’s a very good book. It basically convinced me something like 14 years ago–it’s just taken me a long while to work out all my hesitations and act on it.

Edwin

 

[KP3243]

Luther could have been one of the greatest saints like Francis who took Jesus’s church and rebuilt it.

 

[pablope]

Frankly I’m not capable of answering that. But my hunch is that the shepherd would never need to do so as far dogma as the Gospel is complete.

Which goes to the heart of what I am asking…who decides…you (the laity) or the bishop?

Who decides as far as the shepherd would go? you or the bishop?

I’m a big fan of these pious beliefs, but to make salvation contingent on them is too far

 

[JonNC]

I’m a big fan of these pious beliefs, but to make salvation contingent on them is too far.

Posted by Pablope
Secondly…do you see anything wrong, with say, definitely defining the Theotokos, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption…so that everyone in the pew has the same beliefs…and not a hodge podge of beliefs?

Just to clarify an oversight, Theotokos is a doctrine in Lutheranism.

In some areas, Pablope, it seems no danger to allow pious beliefs. It is my understanding that, on the Assumption, Catholics can freely believe that the Blessed died before her assumption, or not. And, as I understand it, belief in Marian apparitions is also up to the believer.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Just to clarify an oversight, Theotokos is a doctrine in Lutheranism.

You’re quite correct! - feel free to correct me - But we don’t make the Immaculate Conception a belief necessary for salvation for example do we?

 

[pocohombre]

Could it be that there is scriptural evidence that Jesus did intend to build an infallible Church?

I like how you put it, that there could scriptural evidence for this, because there is scriptural evidence for the opposite of CC meaning of “church” and “infallibility”.

And could it be that there is scriptural evidence that salvation can be lost?

And there is no scriptural evidence of the surety of His salvation ?

 

[pocohombre]

**pablope

But I still say that an impartial study of history cannot but discredit Luther as a religious reformer. **

All the more so true in the light of Christ’s own words:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

Beauty or ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, as is crediting or discrediting.

 

[pocohombre]

St. Augustine also wrote:

CHAPTER 4.—PROOFS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

1. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental. (R. Stothert, Tran.)A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists (p. 130). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

And

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all.

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental. (R. Stothert, Tran.)A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists (p. 131). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

That is right . I admitted up front his mention of "Church "and it’s role .He did contradict himself by saying Holy Writ was “surpassing” authority. SS does not put aside “church” and it’s role, just that scripture has surpassing authority. Anything, even Augustine’s words, is bendable or moldable to one’s view,

 

[Randy_Carson]

You bring some good thoughts, Randy. But I’m not sure it’s as simple as you’ve put it - and not because we are far apart, but because we are closer than we realize.

This may sound odd, but I think the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura is not so out-of-line with Roman Catholic teachings - our recent discussions with the Orthodox may be leading the way to unity on that front (anyone still have that link?). Catholics often accuse Luther of inventing Sola Scriptura; to what degree the practice of SS was brought to its fullest expression under Luther is debatable (and I’m not intending to rekindle the debate now…), but it is undeniable that at least the foundations for that practice existed in the early church - Luther didn’t pull it out of the air. ISTM that both the issues of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura may be addressed through more “properly defined” terms.

The big issues, from the Lutheran perspective, are exactly what Ben noted in his last post (and as our Confessions state).

Well, I’m hoping to spend some time reading the joint document produced in preparation for the 2017 commemoration.

I would love to see a reunion…it is long overdue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lutherans would say God is infallible, and the church is infallible in as much as it reflect’s God’s will.

I’m afraid that this is where Lutherans and Catholics almost come to the same ‘place’ but from different angles - but there is a slight difference here.

I guess what I’m getting at is this: was it understood by all in 1516 that the Church was infallible?

If so, what changed in 1517 so that by 1518 (or today) that is no longer acceptable?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I like how you put it, that there could scriptural evidence for this, because there is scriptural evidence for the opposite of CC meaning of “church” and “infallibility”.

Naturally, I’m eager to see what you want to present.

And there is no scriptural evidence of the surety of His salvation ?

Not if you consider the scriptures as a whole, no.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is right . I admitted up front his mention of "Church "and it’s role .He did contradict himself by saying Holy Writ was “surpassing” authority. SS does not put aside “church” and it’s role, just that scripture has surpassing authority. Anything, even Augustine’s words, is bendable or moldable to one’s view,

Which is precisely why Christ established a teaching authority for His Church. Not bendable opinions that only fracture the Body of Christ.