Sola Scriptura?

[Qoheleth]

so whatever does the interpreting is actually a higher authority than what is interpreted . . .

I understand your perspective yet this begs the question.

An example, the Constitution of the USA. Is the Constitution the Authority or those that interpret the Law of the land (aka--Constitution)?

 

[Qoheleth]

Such as Marian doctrine, if you want to believe it’s fine, if you don’t want to fine also? Is that how it works?

Tradition recognizes and does not prohibit the belief, In fact supports it. Yet, it is not binding on the conscience of the believer as absolutley necessary to salvation.

 

[ps139]

An example, the Constitution of the USA. Is the Constitution the Authority or those that interpret the Law of the land (aka--Constitution)?

I think in theory, the Constitution is the ultimate authority.
In practice, unfortunately, it is the Supreme Court. A small group of unelected human beings

 

[Benedicta00]

Tradition recognizes and does not prohibit the belief, In fact supports it. Yet, it is not binding on the conscience of the believer as absolutley necessary to salvation.

So it can be true but not binding?? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Only the bible is binding? But where does the bible say that?
Never mind- don't answer, I don't want to spark a debate.

 

[Qoheleth]

Only the bible is binding? But where does the bible say that?
Never mind- don't answer, I don't want to spark a debate.

Im ok with your question.

Your putting words into my statement. It is not necessary to salvation, in effect, the specific tradition does not save you yet gives the "fullness" of the faith and greater expression to the very specific doctrines that do save.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I'm not sola Scriptura by any means but assuming one is Sola Scriptura, what Qoheleth says makes sense. Obviously you and I know that there are many fundamental flaws in SS (such as the fact that the Scriptures were born out of tradition, the NT didn't exist in the first century (not even in a developing way) etc...). But, if you are going to be SS and overlook the fallacies that lie behind it, what she is saying about Marian doctrine is very logical. The Orthodox and Catholics alike take this point of view on in certain contexts. In the East we call it theologumen... I'm not sure what the term is in the West. There are certain traditions which have simply not been defined by the Church officially and while the Church may have a strong leaning according to her tradition, the faithful are free to believe what they want on the issue. I believe for the VCC an example is the issue of the dormition of the Theotokos (dying on earth before being assumed into heaven) vs her being assumed into heaven physically alive. The Fatima revelation is another one, you don't have to believe it despite the Vatican's assertion that it is a factual occurance. Same thing happens, although to a larger degree, in the Lutheran Church. Does that make sense? I don't agree at all with Sola Scriptura, and I think it is illogical (even though I can see very clearly that Qoheleth is a very logical person - so that wasn't meant to be a cut on you Qoheleth) but what she said seems very logical to me: Whatever is explicitly in the Bible (understood through tradition) is necessary to believe. If it is not explicitly shown in the Bible (and especially if it is not at all in the Bible) then it not necessary to believe it. If said belief does not contradict the Bible (even though it isnt in there) and is supported by tradition, that's fine. If it does go against the Bible then that's not fine.

The problem obviously is that you get an incomplete picture of everything if you treat tradition as secondary to the Scriptures since the Scriptures are only on part of the Tradition.

Hope that wasn't toooo confusing

John

 

[Qoheleth]

(even though I can see very clearly that Qoheleth is a very logical person - so that wasn't meant to be a cut on you Qoheleth)

No band-aid needed here :>)

Whatever is explicitly in the Bible (understood through tradition) is necessary to believe. If it is not explicitly shown in the Bible (and especially if it is not at all in the Bible) then it not necessary to believe it. If said belief does not contradict the Bible (even though it isnt in there) and is supported by tradition, that's fine. If it does go against the Bible then that's not fine.

This is exactly the Confessional Lutheran belief!! Scripture can be self-authenticating (ex. Prophesies fullfilled), yet tradition also brings authentic interpretation to the specific beliefs through Holy mother church


Q

 

[Benedicta00]

Im ok with your question.

Your putting words into my statement. It is not necessary to salvation, in effect, the specific tradition does not save you yet gives the "fullness" of the faith and greater expression to the very specific doctrines that do save.

But what authority tells you this understanding of tradition is okay?

 

[ps139]

John that was an excellent post, in all ways, thank you for that!

 

[BBAS 64]

I just don't undestand the whole belief in solo scriptura. I mean, if you read the Gospel, you never see Jesus discussing writing Scripture. He never gave a sermon and asked John "are you getting this all down?" He never said "Alright Peter, after I die, I want you to write down this." However, we do see Jesus establishing a Church (which He says the gates of Hell shall not prevail over.)

Just think about this: if Scripture is supposed to be the only thing we take to heart, why didn't Jesus write anything down? What guided Christianity from 33 AD to 394 AD if there was no Bible?

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Good Day, DreamTheater

The term is "sola" as apposed to "solo". To get a fair representation of wht that is and what it means here is a link with a audio interview around this subject from a perspective of those whom hold to it.

http://kfuo.org/ie_archive_Nov04.htm

On Sunday Nov,21.. #2 - 1 hour broadcasts.

The first Hour covers much of what Sola Scriptura is and what it is not.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Maximus]

I don't think I have ever known anyone who really believed in Sola Scriptura.

Everyone follows someone's tradition, whether he realizes it or not.

Merely accepting the Protestant abridged version of the Bible involves the assumption of a tradition. Accepting the present New Testament canon means the acceptance of at least a part of the Catholic (and Apostolic) Tradition.

If you believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel named for him, you've bought into tradition, because tradition is our only source for that information.

Sola Scriptura is one of the weakest links in the chain of Protestant beliefs.

It won't hold up under honest scrutiny.

 

[BornCath]

It doesn't really matter . .

there is no significant difference between solo and sola except in degree . . .




Peace in Him!

There's another difference tho' may not be significant. Solo is masculine & Sola is feminine. Not that there is a masculine and feminine scripture.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

This is exactly the Confessional Lutheran belief!! Scripture can be self-authenticating (ex. Prophesies fullfilled), yet tradition also brings authentic interpretation to the specific beliefs through Holy mother church

Thanks I was once LCMS. You?

John

PS139: Thanks for the compliment!

 

[Skripper]

I don't think I have ever known anyone who really believed in Sola Scriptura.

Everyone follows someone's tradition, whether he realizes it or not.

Merely accepting the Protestant abridged version of the Bible involves the assumption of a tradition. Accepting the present New Testament canon means the acceptance of at least a part of the Catholic (and Apostolic) Tradition.

If you believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel named for him, you've bought into tradition, because tradition is our only source for that information.

Sola Scriptura is one of the weakest links in the chain of Protestant beliefs.

It won't hold up under honest scrutiny.

Scroll down and read my entire signature line.

 

[Qoheleth]

Thanks I was once LCMS. You?

Well, yes. But Im Confessional before Im LCMS. If you know what I mean. Lutherans (many) have fallen so far from their Confessional, orthodox doctrines that many seem to just be Protestants of another flavor


Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, yes. But Im Confessional before Im LCMS. If you know what I mean. Lutherans (many) have fallen so far from their Confessional, orthodox doctrines that many seem to just be Protestants of another flavor


Q

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Qoheleth again.*​

​

​

Very well put. Protestant Lutheranism.... -----R​

 

[thereselittleflower]

I understand your perspective yet this begs the question.

An example, the Constitution of the USA. Is the Constitution the Authority or those that interpret the Law of the land (aka--Constitution)?

Those who interpret.

Authority is invested in a person or persons . . not a thing.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

No band-aid needed here :>)



This is exactly the Confessional Lutheran belief!! Scripture can be self-authenticating (ex. Prophesies fullfilled), yet tradition also brings authentic interpretation to the specific beliefs through Holy mother church


Q

The Trinity is not explicity in the bible . . it is implicit, but not explicitly stated . .


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I don't think I have ever known anyone who really believed in Sola Scriptura.

Everyone follows someone's tradition, whether he realizes it or not.

That's it exactly.

Merely accepting the Protestant abridged version of the Bible involves the assumption of a tradition.

Absolutely.

Accepting the present New Testament canon means the acceptance of at least a part of the Catholic (and Apostolic) Tradition.

Absolutely.

If you believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel named for him, you've bought into tradition, because tradition is our only source for that information.

Sola Scriptura is one of the weakest links in the chain of Protestant beliefs.

It won't hold up under honest scrutiny.

I completely agree . .

But not only is it one of the weakest links in the chain of Protestant beleifs . .

all the other solas are dependent on it . . . without sola scriptura, there is no protestantism . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, yes. But Im Confessional before Im LCMS. If you know what I mean. Lutherans (many) have fallen so far from their Confessional, orthodox doctrines that many seem to just be Protestants of another flavor


Q

Very true. I was once told (when I was Lutheran) that if you fail to wake upin the morning and ask yourself why you are not Catholic, then you have ceased to be a Lutheran. This is to remind oneself that the goal of a Lutheran (ecumenically speaking) is to seek reunification with the Catholic Church once it comes out of what a LUTHERAN would see as heresy (although I would seriously differ with the Lutheran POV on this... Im just stating how some Lutherans see themselves, "as Catholics in Exile" waiting for Rome to reform.)

But, in the end, I think many of these Lutherans end up going to Rome or Eastward... like myself. In the meantime, I hope you are able to bring some light into Lutheranism and show people that is wonderful about theTradition. By the way, I went to a BEAUTIFUL monastery in Oxford, Michigan that is Lutheran. It is sooooo wonderful. Its ironic because there is a Catholic monastery next door with very loving a Christian-like monks, but that is much "in the spirit of Vatican II". These monks joke around that their Lutheran neighbors are more Catholic than they are! lol Funny... but kinda not.

Anyway, God bless you for being confessional Lutheran.. it can often be a lonely and somewhat persecuted road depending on the Churches around you.

John