Sola Scriptura

[OzSpen]

Lutheran approaches to the BoC, at least in North America (afaik), tend to be described as either quia or quatenus. A quia approach to the BoC says that the BoC is believed because (Latin: quia) it agrees with Scripture. A quatenus approach to the BoC says the BoC is believed insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with Scripture. Confessional Lutheranism is marked by its quia approach.

Inter-Lutheran slug matches seem to be fought on such things.

The ELCA is "liberal" generally depending on perspective and as a generality; in the same way that the LCMS is "conservative" generally depending on perspective and as a generality. Where things stand at the synod-wide level changes a lot once you get down to how things work at the congregation level.

I'm ELCA, but it seems to me that there's enough criticism to go around to everyone, ELCA, LCMS, WELS (and that's only the big three bodies in the US).

I've only been a Lutheran for several years now, but I've noticed things can get pretty rough and tumble. I've seen the "not a real Lutheran" charge come from LCMS folk to ELCA folk, and from ELCA folk to LCMS folk.

-CryptoLutheran

Crypto,

I must be a dumbo. I don't have a clue what you mean by 'generally depending on perspective' when it comes to understanding the authority of Scripture and whether the Book of Concord agrees with it. Are you meaning, 'generally depending on the interpretation you accept and promote'?

I watched at a distance the debate in the 1970s and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and its support and defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. Is that what you mean by 'generally depending on perspective'? I'm trying to get some clarity from you.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I would suggest that, with a little work, one can find Scripture to support almost any position.

Does that include theological liberalism, both modernism and postmodernism?

 

[Erose]

I would say so. I've had people on this very forum try to justify to me that premarital sex is perfectly acceptable through Scripture. So yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mark46]

Does that include theological liberalism, both modernism and postmodernism?

My comment was meant to be sarcastic.

Saying that everything we do and say should be supported by Scripture is to say nothing at all. Any position taken is said by their proponent to be Scripturally based. or at very least supported by Scripture.

This is certainly seen when folks debate economic and social issues. It is certainly seen when folks discuss sexuality.

While Scripture may indeed be True in all it says about faith and morals, the interpretations of individuals of their favorite translations are not always true.
Yes, everything should measured against Scripture, which is our primary source, but our personal interpretations cannot be our primary source of interpretation.

 

[mark46]

I would say so. I've had people on this very forum try to justify to me that premarital sex is perfectly acceptable through Scripture. So yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some believe that those who have pledged themselves to one another are married. Others believe that the witness of the congregation or the sacrament is critical to being married.

I have had a conservative Baptist pastor indicate to be that those who are engaged are considered married by God.

 

[Hank77]

Some believe that those who have pledged themselves to one another are married. Others believe that the witness of the congregation or the sacrament is critical to being married.

Wouldn't that mean then that God does not recognize non-Christian marriages? Just something to think about, not looking for answer.
OP- Sola Scriptura

 

[mark46]

Wouldn't that mean then that God does not recognize non-Christian marriages? Just something to think about, not looking for answer.
OP- Sola Scriptura

I suspect that there are those who believe that to be true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Crypto,

I must be a dumbo. I don't have a clue what you mean by 'generally depending on perspective' when it comes to understanding the authority of Scripture and whether the Book of Concord agrees with it. Are you meaning, 'generally depending on the interpretation you accept and promote'?

I watched at a distance the debate in the 1970s and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and its support and defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. Is that what you mean by 'generally depending on perspective'? I'm trying to get some clarity from you.

Oz

Meaning that one's own position forming a basis for calling another thing liberal or conservative. The ELCA can be said to be more liberal in relation to the LCMS, but by the same token the LCMS can be said to be more liberal in relation to the WELS.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

My comment was meant to be sarcastic.

Saying that everything we do and say should be supported by Scripture is to say nothing at all. Any position taken is said by their proponent to be Scripturally based. or at very least supported by Scripture.

This is certainly seen when folks debate economic and social issues. It is certainly seen when folks discuss sexuality.

While Scripture may indeed be True in all it says about faith and morals, the interpretations of individuals of their favorite translations are not always true.
Yes, everything should measured against Scripture, which is our primary source, but our personal interpretations cannot be our primary source of interpretation.

I agree that 'our personal interpretations cannot be our primary source of interpretation'. How do we determine if personal interpretations are correct or not? That's why the Scriptures exhort us to be those who,

• 'Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision' (2 Tim 2:15 ISV). To 'rightly handle the word of truth' or 'handling the word of truth with precision' takes a body of believers who, (a) have some who have knowledge of the original languages, (b) are people of discernment, and (c) who will challenge particular interpretations that seem to be out of kilter with grammatical, historical and cultural hermeneutics.
• are people who engage in this process: 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another' (Prov 27:17 NIV).

Oz

 

[BABerean2]

I agree that 'our personal interpretations cannot be our primary source of interpretation'. How do we determine if personal interpretations are correct or not? That's why the Scriptures exhort us to be those who,

• 'Do your best to present yourself to God as an approved worker who has nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth with precision' (2 Tim 2:15 ISV). To 'rightly handle the word of truth' or 'handling the word of truth with precision' takes a body of believers who, (a) have some who have knowledge of the original languages, (b) are people of discernment, and (c) who will challenge particular interpretations that seem to be out of kilter with grammatical, historical and cultural hermeneutics.
• are people who engage in this process: 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another' (Prov 27:17 NIV).

Oz

As someone who is a fellow Baptist and in the interest of iron sharpening iron, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the Rough Draft of a book I am trying to write on the New Covenant.

I would like to have the final version ready in a few weeks and I am having it reviewed by several people at the present time. Most of them are conservative Baptists.

Feel free to provide criticism. It do not consider myself an author and have thick skin.

Chapter 1 is found in the link below.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69498552


There are 10 chapters.
.

 

[mark46]

As someone who is a fellow Baptist and in the interest of iron sharpening iron, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the Rough Draft of a book I am trying to write on the New Covenant.

I would like to have the final version ready in a few weeks and I am having it reviewed by several people at the present time. Most of them are conservative Baptists.

Feel free to provide criticism. It do not consider myself an author and have thick skin.

Chapter 1 is found in the link below.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69498552


There are 10 chapters.
.

You might also considering asking at our Baptist fellowship board.
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/baptists.364/

 

[OzSpen]

As someone who is a fellow Baptist and in the interest of iron sharpening iron, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the Rough Draft of a book I am trying to write on the New Covenant.

I would like to have the final version ready in a few weeks and I am having it reviewed by several people at the present time. Most of them are conservative Baptists.

Feel free to provide criticism. It do not consider myself an author and have thick skin.

Chapter 1 is found in the link below.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69498552


There are 10 chapters.
.

BABerean2,

Time constraints prevent my doing this. However, thank you for the kind offer.

Oz

 

[hedrick]

The problem with the quoted definition of sola scriptura is that when you look at actual practice it isn’t complete. In actual practice Lutherans are confessional. That means that Scripture is interpreted within community. To understand how SS really works you have to understand the interplay between individuals and the community in interpreting Scripture. That isn’t defined in the definitions as they’ve been quoted here. Those definitions would be consistent with “me and my Bible” Protestantism, even though no Lutheran would actually practice that kind of Protestantism.

But as you may know, I think SS is nearly a red herring. I believe that every Christian tradition considers Scripture authoritative, and that differences are really in how the interpretive tradition works. How willing is the community to change interpretations? How tolerant is it of dissent? How much attention to individual members and teachers actually pay to the current interpretation of the tradition?

But there are also differences that can’t be attributed to methodology. There are communities that are equally committed to Scriptural authority, with similar nominal approaches, that simply have reached different conclusions. I don’t believe those differences can always be explained by methodology. Among Protestants, each community often accuses the other of not paying attention to Scripture. But I think an objective assessment would often say that everyone is paying equal attention to Scripture, but that there are simply divergent traditions.

That’s not to say that there are no significant methodological differences. There clearly are. One can distinguish several different approaches that way:

* The Catholic / Orthodox approach, which identifies the community whose interpretation we should pick as (one of the) communiti(es) with organizational continuity with early Christianity

* confessional vs individualistic interpretation

* the mainline / liberal tradition, which is more willing to accept changes of interpretation. I think this is a methodological difference, because mainline Christianity tends to see confessions as reflecting the current conclusions of the community, which conservative confessional Christianity tends to see confessions as permanent standards.

 

[OzSpen]

hedrick,

You stated: 'I believe that every Christian tradition considers Scripture authoritative, and that differences are really in how the interpretive tradition works. How willing is the community to change interpretations? How tolerant is it of dissent? How much attention to individual members and teachers actually pay to the current interpretation of the tradition?'

I think you could be pulling my leg when I consider the USA Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), Uniting Church of Australia, much of the Anglican Church in Australia, United Church of Canada, and heterodox Presbyterian promoter such as emeritus NZ Presbyterian professor, Lloyd Geering, now aged 98.

Oz

 

[BABerean2]

hedrick,

You stated: 'I believe that every Christian tradition considers Scripture authoritative, and that differences are really in how the interpretive tradition works. How willing is the community to change interpretations? How tolerant is it of dissent? How much attention to individual members and teachers actually pay to the current interpretation of the tradition?'

I think you could be pulling my leg when I consider the USA Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), Uniting Church of Australia, much of the Anglican Church in Australia, United Church of Canada, and heterodox Presbyterian promoter such as emeritus NZ Presbyterian professor, Lloyd Geering, now aged 98.

Oz

Those who must ignore some passages of scripture to get their doctrine to work are not really holding to Sola Scriptura.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69512599

.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those who must ignore some passages of scripture to get their doctrine to work are not really holding to Sola Scriptura.
.

The problem is, every denomination out there can and will be accused of this by some other denomination's interpretation.

While Hedrick and I no doubt disagree on a number of points of interpretation, he is exactly right, IMO. It all goes back to the framework within which one interprets.

I'm not interested in a witch hunt, so I prefer not to participate in such exercises, but as I said, EVERY denomination out there can be accused of "ignoring" some passages of Scripture by those who hold a different interpretation of those passages.

 

[OzSpen]

Those who must ignore some passages of scripture to get their doctrine to work are not really holding to Sola Scriptura.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69512599

.

BABerean,

That's a red herring because it does not address the issues I raised in my post to which you are referring. Your spin off, including this link, is not related to dealing with the matters I brought up.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The problem is, every denomination out there can and will be accused of this by some other denomination's interpretation.

While Hedrick and I no doubt disagree on a number of points of interpretation, he is exactly right, IMO. It all goes back to the framework within which one interprets.

I'm not interested in a witch hunt, so I prefer not to participate in such exercises, but as I said, EVERY denomination out there can be accused of "ignoring" some passages of Scripture by those who hold a different interpretation of those passages.

Anastasia,

So does that mean that you do not engage in any discussion of particular interpretations of Scripture on this forum?

Oz

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anastasia,

So does that mean that you do not engage in any discussion of particular interpretations of Scripture on this forum?

Oz

No, that is not what that means.

But it does mean that I value my personal spiritual condition (and that of others) more so than I value (often unfruitful) efforts to argue someone into changing their minds around to my position.

 

[BABerean2]

BABerean,

That's a red herring because it does not address the issues I raised in my post to which you are referring. Your spin off, including this link, is not related to dealing with the matters I brought up.

Oz

The original teachings of the first century Church would have to be included in this discussion as well as man-made systems of interpretation, which may have deviated from these teachings.

Otherwise, there is no foundation upon which Sola Scriptura can stand.

What is New Covenant Theology?
Pastor Douglas Goodin

The New Covenant is the foundation of the New Testament (Covenant).