Sola Scriptura?

[Erose]

Truly, I would like to see that laid out in graph form or some other way that showed, with evidence, the position of each denomination involved.

I would as well. I'm just going off my experience, which I did point out this is my opinion. I've seen here and elsewhere a range of views on this from (as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture and is in the spirit of Scripture) to (if it ain't in Scripture it isn't true).

 

[HighCherub]

That is pretty much the least accurate thing that anyone could say about Dzheremi. He is a brilliant man, and goes on and on about stuff I have no idea what he's saying. He can quote the contents of the Council of Chalcedon. He's got an excellent grasp of the major and minor differences among various Orthodox Churches, and a good command of history. He's probably multi-lingual.

Saying he's in over his head when talking to you or I is like saying that Captain Sully couldn't fly a kite in a wind storm. Just saying.

Hey, if you have something to say regarding the topic, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your deep opinion of another poster simply because they follow your notions. Let him speak for himself.

 

[ripple the car]

Hey, if you have something to say regarding the topic, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your deep opinion of another poster simply because they follow your notions. Let him speak for himself.

For my thoughts on the notion, please see the original post on this thread.

 

[HighCherub]

For my thoughts on the notion, please see the original post on this thread.

You like to venerate people, from popes to CF posters.
That's all I see

 

[ripple the car]

You like to venerate people, from popes to CF posters.
That's all I see

God bless you. I hope someday that you can get to see some of what I've seen and found admirable in the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church is pretty cool, too. And many have found incredible wisdom and richness in Her.

It could be said that some Protestants *honor* certain people above others, and assume that these people were wholly justified and more or less correct in what they taught and believed. Luther would be one such person. I get that honoring and venerating are not the same thing, though.

I do love to venerate people. John Paul II, Saint Rita, and Mary are my most loved people. Sister Maria Consolata is pretty amazing, too.

 

[HighCherub]

God bless you. I hope someday that you can get to see some of what I've seen and found admirable in the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church is pretty cool, too. And many have found incredible wisdom and richness in Her.

It could be said that some Protestants *honor* certain people above others, and assume that these people were wholly justified and more or less correct in what they taught and believed. Luther would be one such person. I get that honoring and venerating are not the same thing, though.

I do love to venerate people. John Paul II, Saint Rita, and Mary are my most loved people. Sister Maria Consolata is pretty amazing, too.

Well Luther and Calvin are the key figures of the Reformation- it's hard not to venerate them when nearly the entirety of Protestant doctrine was born from their wisdom.

 

[ripple the car]

Well Luther and Calvin are the key figures of the Reformation- it's hard not to venerate them when nearly the entirety of Protestant doctrine is directly from their own inspiration.

I think we're finally getting somewhere. Luther and Calvin, in your reckoning, founded the Reformation with ideas of their own inspiration. Ok.

As an fyi, "venerate" means something specific for Catholic and Orthodox Christians. It means we give them a great deal of respect, even bowing respectfully in front of images of them, seeking their prayers and blessings, and help as we follow Christ. We believe that especially Holy, Godly men and women can and do help and intercede for us from Heaven in Christ. They "pull for us", if you will.

Most Protestants, on the other hand, might say that they *respect* Martin Luther a good deal. I have never known a Lutheran to ask Martin Luther to pray for them from Heaven, though. Or venerate / kiss an image of his.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We believe that especially Holy, Godly men and women can and do help and intercede for us from Heaven in Christ.

Who ? / What group/ believes this ?

 

[ripple the car]

Who ? / What group/ believes this ?

Catholic and Orthodox Christians

Father William Saunders (on relics, specifically)

Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: Venerating Icons and Saints (Orthodox)

Veneration - OrthodoxWiki (Orthodox)

 

[HighCherub]

I think we're finally getting somewhere. Luther and Calvin, in your reckoning, founded the Reformation with ideas of their own inspiration. Ok.

As an fyi, "venerate" means something specific for Catholic and Orthodox Christians. It means we give them a great deal of respect, even bowing respectfully in front of images of them, seeking their prayers and blessings, and help as we follow Christ. We believe that especially Holy, Godly men and women can and do help and intercede for us from Heaven in Christ. They "pull for us", if you will.

Most Protestants, on the other hand, might say that they *respect* Martin Luther a good deal. I have never known a Lutheran to ask Martin Luther to pray for them from Heaven, though. Or venerate / kiss an image of his.

We respect them in our heads- they are mentors, to be sure, especially with Calvinists and John. We just never made an open practice of it, having prefer the Bible over such things.

Perhaps that will help one better understand Sola Scriptura for what it is. If you go into any Lutheran Church, the only statue they will bow to is one of Jesus.
Calvin, however, did away with even that. You might see a crucifix given the church, but you won't see anyone bowing to it.

The nature of Protestant belief doesn't omit prayer to the deceased, despite certain prejudices of some within. However, because Protestantism is centered on predestination (God having an immutable will) such things are largely neglected.

 

[hedrick]

Martin Luther. Wasn't it he who came up with the "Solas"?

There were a number of debates between Lutherans and Catholics before lay audiences. What I find interesting is that never seemed to be any question that these should be judged by Scripture.

I believe everyone agreed on the authority of Scripture. Where they disagreed, in my view, is on a specific question: was contemporary Catholic theology and practice so far from Scripture that it couldn't be plausibly explained as difference in interpretation?

What was new in the 16th Cent wasn't the authority of Scripture, but the judgement by many people that then-current practice contradicted Scripture. This is a judgement on fact, not an argument about "sola scriptura" as a principle. I doubt many people would say that if the Church had actually departed from the Apostolic views presented in Scripture, that we should go with the Church. Rather, everyone I know of that rejects sola scriptura also rejects the idea that the tradition in the 16th Cent contradicted Scripture.

This turned into a debate about sola scriptura, but I really don't think that was the actual problem.

I think the real issue was the idea that tradition is (in a certain sense) infallible. I note that there are Protestant groups with interpretative traditions that for all practical purposes they treat as infallible. In theory they disagree with Catholics about sola scriptura, but sola scriptural means nothing without a critical approach that is open to the possibility of change.

 

[hedrick]

Given this, I honestly think the protestation (heh) that you can't take "splinter" groups as representative of Protestantism is not necessarily valid.

I agree. My concern is the tendency to blame Luther and the mainline tradition for all of this.

The 16th Cent was a complex period, with lots of things going on. While there's minimal organizational continuity, many modern Protestants are closer to the 16th Cent anabaptists in their lack of a way to maintain coherency in the Church.

We also sometimes hear "Luther opened the door, and all of this came out." But the anabaptists were operating in parallel with Luther. In the German context, Luther was actually on the conservative end. He was brought out of house arrest specifically to help deal with the more radical groups. I think in an alternative history without Luther, things would have been worse.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree. My concern is the tendency to blame Luther and the mainline tradition for all of this.

I don't know if it came through in my posts (and it certainly doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but just so we're clear...), but I actually like Luther. I don't necessarily agree with everything that he said or did, or even his approach to the faith overall, but in terms of having seen problems in the Catholic Church of his time and place and trying to bring them to the attention of the leadership, I find it hard to condemn his initial drive (as far as I understand it, anyway), and I certainly don't think he ought to be faulted for whatever other people did some time later. Yes, he is credited with having started the Protestant reformation, but that is not the same as the more radical reformers who came later and denied things which Luther himself never denied. His vigorous defense of St. Mary as Theotokos, for instance, ought to give any Orthodox or Roman Catholic person reason to develop a more nuanced view of his theology.

And I would say similar things about Mainline Protestantism in general (full disclosure: I was raised Presbyterian from birth to age 14, which no doubt subconsciously colors my views regarding Mainline Protestantism), as there is a great deal affirmed in it that is likewise affirmed in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that is sadly less firmly held to in other, newer forms of Protestantism which obviously follow other reformers, or some kind of nebulous "spirit of the Reformation" or what have you. I cannot for the life of me figure how Luther can reasonably be blamed for all of these, even if one maintains that he "opened the door" for them to walk through.

I think in an alternative history without Luther, things would have been worse.

I am inclined to agree.

 

[Erose]

There were a number of debates between Lutherans and Catholics before lay audiences. What I find interesting is that never seemed to be any question that these should be judged by Scripture.

I believe everyone agreed on the authority of Scripture. Where they disagreed, in my view, is on a specific question: was contemporary Catholic theology and practice so far from Scripture that it couldn't be plausibly explained as difference in interpretation?

What was new in the 16th Cent wasn't the authority of Scripture, but the judgement by many people that then-current practice contradicted Scripture. This is a judgement on fact, not an argument about "sola scriptura" as a principle. I doubt many people would say that if the Church had actually departed from the Apostolic views presented in Scripture, that we should go with the Church. Rather, everyone I know of that rejects sola scriptura also rejects the idea that the tradition in the 16th Cent contradicted Scripture.

This turned into a debate about sola scriptura, but I really don't think that was the actual problem.

I think the real issue was the idea that tradition is (in a certain sense) infallible. I note that there are Protestant groups with interpretative traditions that for all practical purposes they treat as infallible. In theory they disagree with Catholics about sola scriptura, but sola scriptural means nothing without a critical approach that is open to the possibility of change.

Very interesting point of view, which I do think highlights how a Protestant sees SS historically.

You are right that the authority of Scripture was never in question, and that Catholics view Scripture no more lightly than do Protestants. The key difference I believe is history. The Catholic Church did not start in the 1500s. It started 1500 years earlier than that. And that the Catholic Church from the beginning knew and understood that Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith and not the sum of that faith.

In a sense one can see the Protestant rebellion as an attempt to reboot Christianity. The feeling by the Rebels was that Christianity up to that point had become bloated and corrupted. Granted in many cases they did have a point, especially concerning the bureaucracy of the Church. But I think we also should understand that this was a period in the history of the Church were the wisdom of the Church wasn't effectively being transferred down to the masses, and were being reserved inside the colleges and monastic groups. There were historical reasons for this obviously that is beyond the scope of this thread, and will not be commented on here.

Anyway, when one attempts to reboot something such as Christianity, they need to have an authority for them doing so. The Rebels IMO clamped onto the only authority they could, the Bible, and thus Sola Scriptura was born.

Anyway I do find it interesting that the longer a Protestant denomination exists the greater its sacred tradition becomes important to it, and its identity.

 

[Erose]

I agree. My concern is the tendency to blame Luther and the mainline tradition for all of this.

The 16th Cent was a complex period, with lots of things going on. While there's minimal organizational continuity, many modern Protestants are closer to the 16th Cent anabaptists in their lack of a way to maintain coherency in the Church.

We also sometimes hear "Luther opened the door, and all of this came out." But the anabaptists were operating in parallel with Luther. In the German context, Luther was actually on the conservative end. He was brought out of house arrest specifically to help deal with the more radical groups. I think in an alternative history without Luther, things would have been worse.

There are a few points I want to comment on here.

1) I agree with you about who gets the blame and I agree they shouldn't. I do think the main reason for this is the combining the Protestants with the Radicals, which IMO should be seen as two breaks from Catholicism and not just one. As most Evangelical and non-denominational faith groups come from the later than the former IMO.
2) IMO if it wasn't Luther, it would have been someone else. The era was a powder keg, and rebellion was in the air. There was just no way that both political and religious rebellion wasn't going to happen. The state and Church were just tied together too tightly at that point. In all honesty the one area in which the Protestant rebellion ultimately helped Catholicism was in leading to the concept of separation of Church and state. The pope and even the bishops had to spend way too much time in political arena, and had for the most part become equally political and spiritual offices, and in some countries the political responsibilities outweighed the spiritual. Anyway I do believe that the Protestant rebellion indirectly led to a weakening of the union between church and state, and that ultimately helped the Church gets her neck out from under state.

 

[mark46]

We have had many, many threads on this topics over the years. I apologize for not having read all the posts here.

I just wanted to again note that the "argument" about sola scriptura is often a matter of different definitions. Many Protestants believe in what is often call "solo scriptura", a different concept entirely. Historically, sola scriptura was always properly used within the context of the Tradition of the Church. Those who espoused the doctrine did NOT reject the Tradition or the traditions of the Church. Calvin and Luther certainly did not.

The idea of scripture alone is in my mind rather new, and to me very radical. Obviously, scripture itself speaks of the traditions of the Church.

There are other, related, doctrines, for example, the sufficiency of scripture, and the inerrancy of scripture. It is one thing to say that every doctrine should be measured against Scripture. It is quite another to say that all doctrine and dogma is defined within Scripture.

 

[seashale76]

Who ? / What group/ believes this ?

Those that hold to traditional theology.

 

[Tigger45]

<snip> We believe that especially Holy, Godly men and women can and do help and intercede for us from Heaven in Christ. They "pull for us", if you will.

Who ? / What group/ believes this ?

Those that hold to traditional theology.

Most Christian denominations I know believes that Christians that have gone on to be with the Lord intercede on our behalf, the question as I see it is if its biblical or not to pray to them to do so.

 

[mark46]

I agree with this. Luther and Calvin (and Wesley) didn't break from Tradition. They truly wanted the One Church to reform. I like the idea of calling what happened later a second process (not really a Reformation since they wanted to get rid of Church). This later process did have some roots within the Reformation time. The Anabaptists were certainly there. We are sometimes confused because there are both "traditional" Reformation groups under the rubric of Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, as well as the solo scriptura folks.

I do agree that it is somewhat easier to identify groups in the US. We call the traditionalists "mainline churches". This is well understood by media, by politicians, by average folk, and by those within the various churches.

There are a few points I want to comment on here.

1) I agree with you about who gets the blame and I agree they shouldn't. I do think the main reason for this is the combining the Protestants with the Radicals, which IMO should be seen as two breaks from Catholicism and not just one. As most Evangelical and non-denominational faith groups come from the later than the former IMO.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I agree with this. Luther and Calvin (and Wesley) didn't break from Tradition. They truly wanted the One Church to reform.

I understand the allure of this line of thinking. But Luther's own words say he left the Church basically because it would not convert to Lutheranism. He would've been happy to stay Catholic... if by "Catholic" you actually mean Lutheran. He said that was his motive from the get-go, not just something that came along later by cruel happenstance.

I'm not excusing how the Church handled the situation. I'm sure everyone agrees a better job could've been done.

But this idea that Luther didn't have an agenda from the very beginning is a little silly.