Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1 Cor 4:6

Expand Messages
  • joshinmich
    Also, pastor, do you mind sending me any references that shows Luther to be a Sola Scriptura-ist as opposed to a nuda Scriptura-ist? Or something that speaks
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Also, pastor, do you mind sending me any references that shows Luther to be a Sola Scriptura-ist as opposed to a nuda Scriptura-ist? Or something that speaks to when this innovation came about? I am quite sure my friend will say that he is completely in line with Luther on this.

      Thanks

      my email is joshuajames78@...

      --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Richard K. Futrell" <PastorFutrell@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Josh:
      >
      > WARNING: Lutheran Response!
      >
      > Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
      > to lurk on this board.
      >
      > 1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
      > consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
      > “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
      > context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
      > “not to go beyond what is written.”
      >
      > Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
      > state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
      > of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
      > least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
      > wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.
      >
      > This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
      > writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
      > time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
      > based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
      > “sola scriptura.”
      >
      > Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
      > scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
      > very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
      > is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
      > a confession, which also includes the creeds.
      >
      > So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
      > “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
      > verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
      > others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
      > alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).
      >
      > The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
      > contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
      > firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
      > word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
      > Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
      > to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
      > 11:2).
      >
      > So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
      > we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
      > “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
      > me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
      > deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
      >
      > The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
      > only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
      > faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
      > continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
      > statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”
      >
      > Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
      > then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
      > dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
      > Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
      > rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
      > matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
      > and the Church”).
      >
      > So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
      > Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
      > understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
      > Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
      > does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.
      >
      > You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
      > Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
      > other is not.
      >
      > --Rich Futrell, Pastor
      > Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
      > http://sothl.com
      >
      > Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
      > Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
      > of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
      > His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
      > of life for body, soul, and spirit.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • randall hay
      Blessed Theodoret and St John Chrysostom likewise see do not go beyond what is written as a reference to what the Bible says about not being proud.
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Blessed Theodoret and St John Chrysostom likewise see "do not go beyond what is
        written" as a reference to what the Bible says about not being proud. Theodoret
        tosses out Mk 9:35 and 10:44 as examples; Chrysostom Mt 7:3.


        Neither would quibble with any other examples (which, as the OSB suggests, can
        be found in every nook and corner of Scripture).

        For the purposes of the question at hand, neither sees "do not go beyond what is
        written" to imply that one can interpret Scripture individually, without the
        teaching handed down by the apostles and preserved in the Church, "tradition."

        By the way, the NIV always translates paradosis as "tradition" when it is used
        in a negative sense; when Scripture speaks of paradosis in a postive sense ,the
        NIV translates it "teaching" or something.

        So much for faithfulness to Scripture.





        ________________________________
        From: Richard K. Futrell <PastorFutrell@...>
        To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, October 10, 2011 4:59:52 PM
        Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] 1 Cor 4:6




        Josh:

        WARNING: Lutheran Response!

        Josh, I’ll share with you my understanding as a Lutheran who likes
        to lurk on this board.

        1 Corinthians 4:1 says that the Corinthians Christians should
        consider Paul and Sosthenes, the authors of 1st Corinthians, as
        “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” In that
        context, Paul and Sosthenes say as an Apostle and elder or bishop
        “not to go beyond what is written.”

        Normally, "what is written" refers to Scripture. But we can’t
        state what is specifically what is being referenced? Is it the gospels
        of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (certainly not John!). If not, it would, at
        least, refer to Christian scriptures existing when Paul and Sosthenes
        wrote 1 Corinthians--around the mid-fifties of the first century A.D.

        This implies that the earliest form of an official body of
        writings--a canon of the New Testament--may have begun to form by the
        time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Your Lutheran friend has stated,
        based on this verse in the New Testament itself, that Scripture itself
        “sola scriptura.”

        Josh, remember that “sola Scriptura” originally meant that
        scripture alone is the final authority. And Paul and Sosthenes could
        very well mean that. However, sola Scriptura does not mean scripture
        is the only authority. That’s why the Lutheran Church subscribes to
        a confession, which also includes the creeds.

        So, based on 1 Corinthians 4:6, a case very well could be made for
        “sola Scriptura” as it is meant to be understood. However, this
        verse does not--and cannot support--sola scriptura as Protestants (and
        others against Sola Scriptura) often understand the term: Scripture
        alone is the only authority (really “nuda Scriptura”).

        The Bible doesn’t teach that idea. If it did, the Bible would be
        contradictory. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, “So then, brothers, stand
        firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken
        word or by our letter.” The Apostle Paul wrote to the Church in
        Corinth, “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold
        to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians
        11:2).

        So the Bible itself rejects the idea of only the Bible! So how are
        we to make sense of this? The Apostle Paul wrote to Pastor Timothy,
        “Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from
        me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
        deposit that was entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

        The Church is to “guard the good deposit.” This deposit isn’t
        only the Bible, for the Bible isn’t the only authority in our
        faith-life. That’s why the Protestant Reformers (especially Luther)
        continued to use the ancient creeds of the Church. For those ancient
        statements of faith were also part of the “good deposit.”

        Later, Gregory of Nyssa would write, “Let the inspired Scriptures
        then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose
        dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (“On the Holy
        Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327). John Chrysostom would write, “I will not
        rely on my own opinions, but instead, prove them with Scripture, so the
        matter will remain certain and steadfast” (Homily 8 “On Repentance
        and the Church”).

        So the issue is much more nuanced than most appreciate today.
        Sadly, most Lutherans have bought into the current-day Protestant
        understanding of “sola Scriptura,” which is really “nuda
        Scriptura.” Scripture does not teach “nuda Scriptura,” but it
        does allow for “sola Scriptura” properly understood.

        You need to find out if you friend is talking about “nuda
        Scriptura” or the real “sola Scriptura.” One is biblical, the
        other is not.

        --Rich Futrell, Pastor
        Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Kimberling City, MO
        http://sothl.com

        Where we receive and confess the faith of the Church (in and with the
        Augsburg Confession): The faith once delivered to the saints, the faith
        of Christ Jesus, His Word of the Gospel, His full forgiveness of sins,
        His flesh and blood given and poured out for us, and His gracious gift
        of life for body, soul, and spirit.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.