Posted on 08/15/2010 2:28:32 PM PDT by SmithL
God’s Word is jesus. Yes, that’s the final Word.
However, Sola Scriptura, or one particular person or church’s interpretation of Scripture, is a doctrine promulgated beginning around 1500 years after Christ.
It has always been so. The change 1500 years later was to return back to where God’s Word has always belonged; as the final authority over a Christian’s life.
Again, in terms of a church’s principles or theology and doctrine, Scripture, by itself, has no authority - it’s words on a page as until someone reads them and interprets them and develops doctrine.
About 500 years ago, some took Scriptures (or most of them) left the Church and created a new authority or authorities: In your case it is your church leaders and membership.
Question: Why isn’t Lutheranism the same as Calvinism?
Same Scripture, same “authority of scripture” foundational belief.
Yet two very different theologies.
Why?
Sin is sin, there is no “minor sin”.
Catholics don't believe the Scriptures are God's Word? After 'giving' the Bible to the world, after John 1:1? I am shocked, and would post the pic of Claude Raines if I had it. Well, that makes perfect sense, now. Why bother to keep them, or write them down at all if the Word of God had no authority unless it was given it by a man? THAT does explain Catholic doctrine now. I'd like to repost this answer in the other thread, if you don't mind, the one about crossing the Tiber where this conversation originated.
Calvin took too much upon himself when formulating doctrine? Reading in where the Word was silent? You’d have to ask Calvin, or a Calvinist.
I don’t think intentional misreading is an honorable or honest discussion practice.
I hope we can avoid that here.
That would be a matter for debate, and in terms of church doctrine, someone or some group would have to have the authority to decide the debate.
If the scripture is the same and the "authority of scripture" is the same in both churches, how can there be debate? That's the question for your position on this topic.
I don’t think I could misread your post, it was very explicit. I read it as I do Scripture, with a plain understanding. You speak of the written Word so blithely. The same Word that called creation into being with no humans to ‘interpret’ it. The same Word that gives faith, the Word that institutes holy communion. Does the fact that it is ‘written’ instead of spoken make a difference? Jesus referenced Scripture “It is written...” I’m sorry, but this does explains this circus we have been on regarding ‘authority’. Catholics have a different lexicon.
If you ‘read into’ Scripture things that aren’t there then there is no debate. Scripture IS authoritative. I think your previous post wasn’t mis-interpreted as you don’t get it. God’s Word comes with its own authority. If it doesn’t say, then it is silent, where it does say that is final.
Well, read again then.
I think this is the part you missed:
“…in terms of a church’s principles or theology and doctrine:”
But according to whom? Your church or the Calvinists? For both of you "scripture is authoritative."
Why do you have different theologies when scripture and the authority of scripture is identical? What is the missing piece that makes your principles and theology different from theirs?
Or, put another way:
What is the purpose and the need for the Augsburg Confession in your Church?
Back to the written Word of God. It is never read in a void, God's Word accomplishes it purpose. Humans may never know what the purpose is this side of heaven, but it has one. I'll assume as a subsciber to the Nicene creed, you're familiar with the Holy Spirit. "Lord and and Giver of life.", where does that life originate, but in God's Word?
What I'm arguing is that your church, like all the others has some human authority that decides both.
The Confessions say "what we believe' as Lutherans.
Why aren't scriptures enough? Why do you need a Confession?
Every statement is supported by Scripture
So why do you need the statement? Why isn't just the Scripture sufficient?
because that is what give the statement the 'authority' to BE doctrine.
Doctrine according to your interpretation of scripture. Others use the same scripture, the same authority of scripture and have different doctrine.
Yet they are different doctrines and confessions.
It's not the scriptures that are different, its not "the authority of scriptures" that is different. Where does the different doctrines and confessions come from? On whose authority?
What does Word refer to here?
“Sin is sin, there is no “minor sin”.
I’m sorry, that doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s no difference between being a murderer and being a thief? Just to take one example and not try to be too extreme about it.
And? no kidding. Big deal, what matters is where it comes from.
It's not the scriptures that are different, its not "the authority of scriptures" that is different.
Really, it most certainly is the difference. This thread is on an elca story, but authority of scriptures is the same? Different lexicon. We don't speak the same language.
Yes, sola scriptura is the same, the belief in the authority of scriptures is the same amongst many if not most Protestant Churches. I'm using Lutheranism and Calvinism as examples of extremes of doctrine that can result.
Different lexicon. We don't speak the same language.
You both speak English, both hold that "scripture has authority." What you're saying, in my view, is that even that phrase is subject to interpretation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.