Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Doctrine Matters
>
Sola Scriptura
date
newest »
newest »
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place ..."You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
I used to be Pr..."
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Protestants rejected the Church and elevated the Bible in its place ..."
You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
I used to be Pr..."
Um, you seem to think only Protestants use or refer to Scripture for some reason....
Susan wrote: "I have to say, as an outsider, it does seem all jumbled and confusing how things are defined and what things are believed in and how everything ties into everything else.... I am a questioner (I think you can appreciate.... ) and I need things all tucked in and cohesive and sensical historically, religiously, philosophically...."It is all jumbled and confusing. When I grew up in Germany there were Catholics and Lutherans, and not much else. I happen to have grown up in a largely Catholic area, so as a Lutheran I was the odd duck. Imagine my utter astonishment when I saw the proliferation of churches here in the States. A town of 50,000 people can have 100 different denominations and all claim they read the Bible correctly. And then there were those who claimed Catholics weren't Christian. I didn't know if I should laugh or cry at such an absurd statement. But the dear lady was dead serious.
Susan wrote: "you seem to think only Protestants use or refer to Scripture for some reason....."No, that's not what I said. A lot of people quote the Scripture, including those who deny the divine authority of the Scripture and yet use the Scripture to justify their view points, such as the folks I mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
When I engage in discussions with Protestants, we have a common frame of reference, the Scripture, and we're obligated to back up our arguments with Scripture, whereas with Catholics in this group, there is no common frame of reference, and consequently, we seldom reach any understanding, let alone consensus, on things. After many discussions, I don't think I know why Catholics believe what they believe any better than I did ten months ago.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "you seem to think only Protestants use or refer to Scripture for some reason....."No, that's not what I said. A lot of people quote the Scripture, including those who deny the divin..."
I'm sorry, I honestly don't quite get it, I know it is frustrating for you, sorry....but my whole frame of reference is different...we seem to be saying similar things, but yet aren't....or we seem to use the same words and they mean something different to both of us...I really do want to fully understand...
You say, "a lot of people quote Scripture, including those who deny the divine authority of Scripture" (I'm assuming they may be us?) but what do you mean exactly by "the divine authority of Scripture" -
1) do you mean Divine inspiration? because I think we believe that too....
2) do you mean that it is 'the Word of God'? because I think we believe that too...
So, in those senses, we do not seem to deny anything....you sometimes act like we think the Bible is as important or to be revered as much as The Enquirer or The Globe....(scandal mags in the check out aisle in the grocery store if anyone is not aware what they are)...
Why would we not use Scripture to justify our view for goodness sakes? It is the Word of God....it is God speaking to us....do you have the only ticket to be able to use/quote Scripture? That is what it seems like....
3) do you mean that Scripture is it's own authority meaning it is all true, meaning we can believe and trust all that is in there? ... I think we believe that too....
4) do you mean that Scripture will explain itself inerrantly (that apparently is not a word as it has a red line, but I think it explains what I mean)? ...then we may differ on that one....
So I await your clarification...
but I again would submit, that the many, many, many heresies through the many, many, many years would discount that on it's face, but apparently you do not....
I would also submit that there would not have needed to be any teaching by Jesus about anything, that he would not have taken the time to teach the apostles if that were the case....He could have just waited for the release of the book (He knew it was coming), and say "read it!"....
I would also submit that we would not have all this early Church history of how important it was to have the original or the closest to the originals come and explain things, and discuss controversies, and bring individual churches back into line as they seemed to tend to stray so often... why?? apparently to you it is all cut and dry with the letters...all there.....no need for anything else, they fully explain themselves....
So, see my confusion...yes, I suppose that could be the way it truly is, but it seems like one needs to bend their minds in a bit of a pretzel to get there...it seems much more clear and logical, that humans would tend to think all kinds of things, let pride or laziness get in the way, and switch His message, His Word in all kinds of ways, and would need some kind of solid foundation to ground it, "bring us back in to line" like the apostles did as they walked around to all those original churches, to protect it.....
I think it is pretty safe to say we all have Scripture as a common reference....God gave all of us the Bible....again, by "common frame of reference" you seem to be saying "common interpretation" - and if that is the case, we have a "common frame of reference" (interpretation) too, that would be older than your interpretation, and we see it discussed in what these early Church writers have left us....I think we knew we have different interpretations, but the goal to me is to clearly understand the differences...so I can really read the Church fathers with varying "sets of eyes" and see where they seem to align and where they seem to be contrary....if I don't know the differences, I just keep seeing the writings through my own Faith understanding (which seems to align quite consistently again) and I know Jesus wants one Church....
You say when you "discuss things with Protestants, you are obligated to back the arguments up with Scripture..." when we back up our arguments with Scripture, you intimate in the first paragraph that we don't seem to have a right to back up our views with Scripture! Who is speaking in circles?
You are not even sure if Sola Scriptura includes Tradition or not.....
Even with Protestants' common frame of reference, there is minimal commonality on many, many things, some very crucial! Does that fill you with confidence in your "common frame of reference"?
I don't believe you ever answered about whether you think there is such a think as heresy, and whether it matters...
Lots and lots to discuss and consider.....
Susan wrote: "..You are not even sure if Sola Scriptura includes Tradition or not....."I thought I made it very clear in msg.135, msg.140 and msg.142, that the Scripture, not "Tradition", is the ultimate authority, by way of closely examining 2 Tim. 3. I do not know what Catholics mean by "Tradition", so obviously I cannot acknowledge its authority, if it has any. That is the difference between Protestants and Catholics, as I understand it.
It seems to me that you've stopped paying attention to my comments, for otherwise you wouldn't have misrepresented me repeatedly in your responses since then. That is also why I suggested earlier that we agree to disagree and move on, for I suspect this is turning into another exercise in futility.
Nemo, may I suggest to you you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will give you the requisite foundation on Catholicism you are currently missing.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo, may I suggest to you you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will give you the requisite foundation on Catholicism you are currently missing."Thanks for the recommendation. But I think the time and effort required to study and understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be much better spent studying the Scripture itself, for that is the true foundation of the Christian faith. I believe the Scripture is inpired by God, but I can't say the same thing about any catechism.
It seems to me that you've stopped paying attention to my commentsI don't not pay attention to your comments Nemo, honest. If I'm honest, I don't see them saying or explaining anything except repeating almost a seemingly memorized mantra of "Scripture is the ultimate authority"...you couple that with your other oft-repeated statement that "Scripture is inspired by God", but that doesn't explain anything; we all believe that for goodness sakes. I feel like I have brought up so many things the answers of which I am eager to understand, but I just get that Scripture is the ultimate authority for you and Scripture is Divinely inspired... I don't know how that intellectually and 'soul-fully' satisfies you with the dizzying array of contradictions and competing denominations of Protestantism, but we will leave it at that. Thank you for the effort.
Susan wrote: "..I have brought up so many things the answers of which I am eager to understand..."Yes, I've sensed that you're seeking a deeper understanding of your faith. I'm not qualified to be a catechizer, and definitely not of Catholics. Kerstin's recommendation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church might actually help you instead.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..I have brought up so many things the answers of which I am eager to understand..."Yes, I've sensed that you're seeking a deeper understanding of your faith. I'm not qualified to b..."
I have read the entire thing twice, thanks though :) ; two different editions, as well as the entire Bible from beginning to end like a regular book. I was actually trying to understand other Protestant views also. I need to add Orthodox in there though. I don't really know much about that at all so find Clark's info very interesting.
When I read the Bible the first time around, I was an atheist, and very curious why otherwise intelligent people believed in such superstition. I told you the story about my experiment with prayer before, in fact, both reading the Bible and praying were part of my experiment, because I wanted to imitate the acts of an average Christian, and see what would follow.I read the whole Bible through in two weeks, and before the end of two weeks, I was no longer an atheist. That's why I repeat the "mantra", as you put it, the Scripture is inspired by God. :)
A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere – ‘Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,’ as Herbert says, ‘fine nets and stratagems.’ God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.
–C. S. Lewis "Surprised by Joy"
Nemo wrote: "When I read the Bible the first time around, I was an atheist, and very curious why otherwise intelligent people believed in such superstition. I told you the story about my experiment with prayer ..."I saw the stage show of C.S. Lewis in NY with my Bible Study group. I think the second part is out soon, if I haven't missed it already. You might enjoy it if it is around you.
Nemo wrote: "When I read the Bible the first time around, I was an atheist, and very curious why otherwise intelligent people believed in such superstition. I told you the story about my experiment with prayer ..."And just to be technically correct, the "mantra" was that "Scripture is the ultimate authority", and "Scripture is inspired by God" was an "oft-repeated statement", and again, we all believe that, so I am not sure how that proves any point you made. I am certainly happy that reading the Bible converted you from atheism however!
Nemo wrote: ~ 'some feel Catholicism was the scaffolding for Protestantism...' Hey Nemo. I don't think I saw a reply about explaining the thought re: Catholicism being the scaffolding for Protestantism, but something I saw today on The Vortex helped me understand maybe...
There is an excerpt from an email by Dr. Kenyn Cureton, VP for Church Ministries (Family Research Council) : "Why take the time to address the Protestant Reformation? Because the Gospel was recovered from superstition and error. The core beliefs of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria were recovered and placed before the people biblically, replacing works-based religion, hawking of relics, selling of indulgences to advance from purgatory, praying to saints instead of to God and no access to God's word in our own language. This spiritual shift literally changed the world. Today, we need to guard the Gospel faith, "once delivered to the Saints" (Jude 1:3) and recovered by the reformers 500 years ago."
1) I take no offense!! So no worries! I just like to fully understand what people believe and where they are coming from to aid in understanding and comparison and evaluation of information.
2) but I can see sort of, if that is the mind set, how one sees their belief system as rising above, or improving upon, an earlier structure. It sort of fails the " scaffolding" analogy though it seems to me, as a scaffold is not bad or wrong in itself, making a 'better' structure, it is just through that earlier structure, the fullness of the vision comes to fruition...so I don't think we are saying anything bad about the earlier foundation that God chose to use for His overall purposes, the scaffold wasn't bad or wrong I don't think (although twisting it to serve Man was), it was meant to be what it was meant to be and then progress onward through them to the Messiah.... the foundation or scaffolding is good and true....just the fulfillment of the vision moves beyond that...in your possible use of scaffolding, if this quote sort of applies, that would make the scaffolding bad, in error, a wrong stage, vs, a neutral or good proto stage prior to full expression of the vision. If that makes sense...
3) the inaccuracy and misrepresentation of what Catholicism teaches does not go unnoticed, but it is not my intent to get into that here - just merely trying understand the scaffolding analogy and clarify where people are coming from.
I think some people on here responded that this was not accurate, but I recently saw again that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his original German translation...I see it seemingly confirmed from multiple sources online, so it seems to be true...I read he was convinced to put it back in, but if true, how would adding to the Scripture be explained by Sola Scriptura? Obviously he thought the Scripture was 'not enough', or he wouldn't have added to it, even temporarily....would that not cast doubt on the whole issue? If he could add one word, why not others? Or rescind some? Does not the whole thing break down at that point?
BLOGS | OCT. 31, 2017500 Years After Luther, a New Case for Catholicism
Through a more perfect communion with the Catholic Church, every Christian can fulfill Jesus’ prayer that all his followers “may be one.”
Trent Horn
Today marks the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, but is there anything new to say about what Catholics and Protestant have debated for five centuries? There are indeed. In fact, some modern, Protestant scholarship actually challenges Reformation-era assumptions that undergird beliefs like sola scriptura and sola fide that unnecessarily continue to divide the Body of Christ.
By faith alone?
Protestant scholars like James Dunn and N.T. Wright have shown that Luther and Calvin’s understanding of Paul’s view of faith, works and the Mosaic Law were mistaken because they anachronistically read 16th century debates back into Paul’s first century message. They claimed Paul taught that we are justified “by faith alone” (or in Latin, sola fide) and that Catholics contradict the Bible’s teaching that works have nothing to do with our salvation. Catholics agree that there is nothing we can do to merit initial salvation, or the moment God adopts us into his new covenant family, but our works will be judged after death as part of our final salvation, which is part of the New Perspective on Paul.
N.T. Wright says, “Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led — in accordance, in other words, with works” (Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013, 281). This corresponds to James 2:24 which says “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (this is the only place in scripture where the phrase “faith alone” appears). Protestants have tried to explain away James’s testimony for centuries, but the Anglican scholar Scot McKnight admits, “No matter how hard we Protestants might try to work this out, the bottom line for James is having works” (The Letter of James, 228).
Catholics do not believe that they earn salvation through works, but they do believe that works performed in cooperation with God’s grace after baptism do increase our righteousness or justification before God. This corresponds to St. Paul’s summary of salvation in Galatians 5:6 which says that what ultimately matters is, “faith working through love.” Indeed, Protestant scholar Kent Yinger says, “[New Perspective on Paul] versions of salvation seem closer to the Roman Catholic view than to Luther’s” (The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction, 81).
By scripture alone?
Now let’s consider sola scriptura, which is a Latin phrase that means, “By scripture alone” and is the other central pillar of the Protestant Reformation. Advocates of sola scriptura claim that Christians should only believe in doctrines that are explicitly taught in scripture but the Bible does not teach sola scriptura. Protestant apologists claim that 2 Timothy 3:16’s description of scripture being “God-breathed” (Greek: theopneustos) or “inspired” means it is a Christian’s only infallible rule of faith, but this goes beyond what the text of 2 Timothy claims.
Paul does not say Scripture is necessary or sufficient for teaching, reproof, training or correction in righteousness. Instead, Paul only describes Scripture as being useful or “profitable” (Greek, ophelimos) for those tasks. The Baptist scholar Lee Martin McDonald points out that “in the early church the common word for ‘inspiration’ (theopneustos; see 2 Tim. 3:16) was used not only in reference to the Scriptures (Old Testament or New Testament) but also of individuals who spoke or wrote the truth of God” (The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 418).
This means the mere description of something being theopnuestos does not prove that source is a believer’s sole, infallible rule of faith. Sola scriptura was unknown among early Christians who did not believe every theological question could be settled by an appeal to scripture. For example, St. Augustine said, “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus 5). Church history professor Mark Ellingsen, a Protestant, agrees that Augustine, “appealed to both the Bible and tradition” and “[he] contended that the reason for believing is not found in the Scriptures alone, but is grounded in the Catholic tradition (The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual and Pastoral Theology, 27).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that through baptism all Christians are “put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church’ (UR 3)” (CCC 838). It is my sincere hope that the biblical and historical evidence in my book can help our Protestant brothers and sisters (as well as non-practicing Catholics) move closer to a perfect communion with Christ’s Church. Through this communion every Christian can fulfill Jesus’ prayer that all his followers “may be one,” just as he and the Father are one (John 17:11). They can become one by belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.
Trent Horn is the author of the new book, “The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections.”
Susan wrote: "I think some people on here responded that this was not accurate, but I recently saw again that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his original German translation...I see it seemingly ..."
Romans 3:28 (NKJV)
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
As a translator, Luther needs to express the meaning of Rom. 3:28 clearly in German. The word “allein” (alone) does that.
The following post quoting Luther himself might clear up the confusion for some people:
https://wels.net/faq/romans-328-and-m...
.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I think some people on here responded that this was not accurate, but I recently saw again that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his original German translation...I see..."Hmmm...that was interesting, thanks...I think it confirms what I was saying though.... 1) He apparently did think the Scripture was not sufficient (albeit maybe for that one language)... I would think if one's argument is that the Holy Spirit made the Bible so sufficient for everything, than it seems sort of silly to further clarify, 'except for the German language'.....I would think the Holy Spirit would have known that..... 2) if one allows for one little addition/subtraction because of reason x,y or z, then it seems one would have no standing to argue when anyone else does a similar thing, until the whole argument breaks down to me....3) his faith 'alone' argument that he feels he needs to 'emphasize or make clear' is still contrary to the Bible, James 2:24...
Overall, Luther does not seem to have a very compelling case to me...
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I think some people on here responded that this was not accurate, but I recently saw again that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his original German translation...I see..."Lets look at the linguistic nuances of Romans 3:28
from my old Protestant NRSV (official translation used by ELCA)
"For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law."
German Lutheran Bible (Luther's translation, Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart 1968)
"So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben."
...man is justified without the works of the law, through faith alone.
From Catholic NABRE (official translation of the USCCB)
"For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
German Catholic Bible (Einheitsübersetzung, Katholische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart 1980)
"Denn wir sind der Überzeugung, daß der Mensch gerecht wird durch Glauben, unabhänging von Werken des Gesetzes."
...man is justified through faith, independent of works of the law.
This says to me that Luther's interest in sola fide played a role in how he translated this verse. His justification as stated in the link is not the only way one can translate this verse into German.
Kerstin wrote: "This says to me that Luther's interest in sola fide played a role in how he translated this verse. His justification as stated in the link is not the only way one can translate this verse into German. "My point is that the word "allein" doesn't alter the meaning of Romans 3:28. Whether to use the word is a matter of translation, not of theology.
The Bible has been translated into many different languages, and many different versions in each language. Each translator has to take into consideration many factors when translating the Bible. This in no way contradicts the sufficiency of the Scripture, or the principle of sola scriptura. I think it actually magnifies the power of the Scripture.
I've heard that in Islam theology it is problematic, if not forbidden, to translate Quran from Arabic to other languages, as if the God who gave human beings the faculty of speech could only speak one language well Himself.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "This says to me that Luther's interest in sola fide played a role in how he translated this verse. His justification as stated in the link is not the only way one can translate this..."Is there a way that you fuse Luther's Romans 3:28 and James 2:24?
Susan wrote: "Is there a way that you fuse Luther's Romans 3:28 and James 2:24? .."The meaning of Roman 3:28 is the same in Luther's translation as in all other translations. I'm not an expert on Luther, but I think his understanding of faith can be perfectly reconciled with James 2:24.
If you are interested in sola fide, feel free to start a new topic. I'm neither qualified nor interested in explaining all the Protestant doctrines to Catholics, but someone else might be.
Susan wrote: "Is there a way that you fuse Luther's Romans 3:28 and James 2:24?"I don't know the answer to this, how Luther would have reconciled the two. My hunch is he didn't. Luther did say the book of James was "empty straw", and he almost chucked it from the canon. His aversion to "works" was rooted in his scrupulosity which as a monk he never overcame (don't know about later in life - it has been ages since I read Luther's biography). Some say something went wrong with his spiritual direction, or maybe it was part of his nature and he couldn't shed his overly perfectionist tendencies.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Is there a way that you fuse Luther's Romans 3:28 and James 2:24? .."The meaning of Roman 3:28 is the same in Luther's translation as in all other translations. I'm not an expert on..."
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Is there a way that you fuse Luther's Romans 3:28 and James 2:24? .."
The meaning of Roman 3:28 is the same in Luther's translation as in all other translations. I'm not an expert on..."
I don't know...I think it is really important... it is almost, if not, a direct contradiction...; it seems to be an interesting and valid point, not only in a thread on the belief in the sufficiency of Scripture, but in light of being involved in a parallel thread regarding Church unity...how can we work towards union if we don't all explain and ponder any differences there may be?
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)
In Search of the Trojan War (other topics)
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols (other topics)
The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michael Wood (other topics)Patrick Madrid (other topics)
You're making an unfounded assertion about Protestants there.
I used to be Protestant...
Tea..."
I have to say, as an outsider, it does seem all jumbled and confusing how things are defined and what things are believed in and how everything ties into everything else.... I am a questioner (I think you can appreciate.... ) and I need things all tucked in and cohesive and sensical historically, religiously, philosophically....