Bible Alone?

[JonNC]

I got it. I understand you have a position. I’m not going to tell you “so what?”

I wasn’t saying so what to your position. I apologize. Let me restate. Why do you believe it important that there be a specific scripture reference to SS?

Jon

 

[DeusExMachina]

I wasn’t saying so what to your position. I apologize. Let me restate. Why do you believe it important that there be a specific scripture reference to SS?

Jon

Because Martin Luther believed that doctrine must be based in scripture

 

[JonNC]

If in scripture we find what we see in the pre reformation churches, a reliance not only on the written word but also the spoken word, ie tradition and as you admit your principle of Sola scriptura as a practice is not scriptural, what method should we go by?

Of course there is a reliance on the spoken word. It is where the written word comes from.
Further, other sources such as the three ancient creeds are central to Lutheran faith.

What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture. And even that doesn’t restrict pious beliefs, such as some Marian beliefs not extant in scripture.
Finally, we are. not willing to cede that our practice has roots only in the Reformation era.

Jon

 

[FractalFire]

Because Martin Luther believed that doctrine must be based in scripture

Based in Scripture isn’t really the same thing as “supported by scripture without anything else needed”. Trinitarian doctrine is “based in scripture,” although its not explicitly laid out as any church understands it.

But yes, I think the general objection, Jon, is that there is an inconsistency in the belief – that Sola Scriptura holds to Scripture, but denies outside of Scripture influence, thereby undercutting itself. Ultimately, I don’t think this objection cuts very well against the viewpoint articulated by Luther, however, since Sola Scripture does allow for tradition and reason to interpret our understanding, and does not require that all viewpoints argued for be spelled out in red ink in the Bible.

 

[Michael68]

I wasn’t saying so what to your position. I apologize. Let me restate. Why do you believe it important that there be a specific scripture reference to SS?

Jon

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura people insist if it isn’t in the bible then they don’t follow it. Yet, they follow Sola Scriptura and that is nowhere in the bible. They like to use the scripture about reproof and correction as a claim but that is easily disputed. I just wanted to know since these Protestants are adamant about bible only.

 

[FractalFire]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura people insist if it isn’t in the bible then they don’t follow it. Yet, they follow Sola Scriptura and that is nowhere in the bible. They like to use the scripture about reproof and correction as a claim but that is easily disputed. I just wanted to know since these Protestants are adamant about bible only.

Read the article I posted. It explains why these people are not in line with consistent, well-thought out Protestant teaching. Your criticism is appropriate, I think, but it is aimed at a misunderstanding, not the thing itself.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura people insist if it isn’t in the bible then they don’t follow it. Yet, they follow Sola Scriptura and that is nowhere in the bible. They like to use the scripture about reproof and correction as a claim but that is easily disputed. I just wanted to know since these Protestants are adamant about bible only.

I would disagree but anyway , sola scriptura is more like Scripture finally ,tradition is a secondary source of doctrine , not banning pious beliefs , but making tradition ultimately subject to scripture

 

[Michael68]

I would disagree but anyway , it’s more like Scripture finally ,tradition is a secondary source of doctrine , not banning pious beliefs , but making tradition ultimately subject to scripture

I see it the other way around in that Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Of course there is a reliance on the spoken word. It is where the written word comes from.
Further, other sources such as the three ancient creeds are central to Lutheran faith.

What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture. And even that doesn’t restrict pious beliefs, such as some Marian beliefs not extant in scripture.
Finally, we are. not willing to cede that our practice has roots only in the Reformation era.

Jon

Don’t you as Lutherans bind to anyone who wants to become Lutheran (the highest and fullest expression of Christianity) to the formula of concord and some others Lutheran texts like the small and large catechism? As A Lutheran you are not free to deny the trinity correct? As a Christian in general you are not free to deny Trinitarian language correct, the creeds of Nicene, Constantinople and Chalcedon? Or would you say we do not have to embrace those definitions?

You will argue that those are based on scripture and I would agree they use scripture as a base, but in the end we all go beyond scripture and have an expectation to follow doctrines of the church which may not be explicit to scripture. I think the key phrase you use is this, “What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture.” In the end while you might not do that, you still bind people to doctrine and dogma which is not explicit to the scripture but was worked out of scripture, often using non-scriptural language.

So what in the end distinguishes you from the Catholic or Orthodox if you agree that you do bind others to non scriptural statements of faith?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Don’t you as Lutherans bind to anyone who wants to become Lutheran (the highest and fullest expression of Christianity) to the formula of concord and some others Lutheran texts like the small and large catechism? As A Lutheran you are not free to deny the trinity correct? As a Christian in general you are not free to deny Trinitarian language correct, the creeds of Nicene, Constantinople and Chalcedon? Or would you say we do not have to embrace those definitions?

You will argue that those are based on scripture and I would agree they use scripture as a base, but in the end we all go beyond scripture and have an expectation to follow doctrines of the church which may not be explicit to scripture. I think the key phrase you use is this, “What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture.” In the end while you might not do that, you still bind people to doctrine and dogma which is not explicit to the scripture but was worked out of scripture, often using non-scriptural language.

So what in the end distinguishes you from the Catholic or Orthodox if you agree that you do bind others to non scriptural statements of faith?

This is where most attempts at dialogue with Protestants fail. They state clearly their position yet refuse to admit it is not in line with sola scriptura

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Don’t you as Lutherans bind to anyone who wants to become Lutheran (the highest and fullest expression of Christianity) to the formula of concord and some others Lutheran texts like the small and large catechism? As A Lutheran you are not free to deny the trinity correct? As a Christian in general you are not free to deny Trinitarian language correct, the creeds of Nicene, Constantinople and Chalcedon? Or would you say we do not have to embrace those definitions?

You will argue that those are based on scripture and I would agree they use scripture as a base, but in the end we all go beyond scripture and have an expectation to follow doctrines of the church which may not be explicit to scripture. I think the key phrase you use is this, “What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture.” In the end while you might not do that, you still bind people to doctrine and dogma which is not explicit to the scripture but was worked out of scripture, often using non-scriptural language.

So what in the end distinguishes you from the Catholic or Orthodox if you agree that you do bind others to non scriptural statements of faith?

Teaching such as the Trinity are explicitly taught in scripture , the confessions are binding and authoritative for that reason , ( we don’t accept the formula of concord ) the distinction between us is this :

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic view
Tradition and Scripture ( with scripture as part of tradition)

Lutheran view
Scripture and
Tradition ( secondary source of truth)

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Teaching such as the Trinity are explicitly taught in scripture , the confessions are binding and authoritative for that reason , ( we don’t accept the formula of concord ) the distinction between us is this :

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic view
Tradition and Scripture ( with scripture as part of tradition)

Lutheran view
Scripture and
Tradition ( secondary source of truth)

I would agree it is a scriptural teaching, in that it infers from scripture something present to the whole and clarifies it. That’s not my point, my point is to ask whether or not the definition outside of scripture, the declaration of the councils, fathers and the like on these issues are binding to the conscience of the individual.

What if for instance someone doesn’t want to confess the Nicene creed but simply quotes the bible. Are you going to insist to that person they must recite and believe in the Nicene creed? If the answer is yes, I do not see your position being any different than that of the Orthodox or Catholic understanding of things.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I would agree it is a scriptural teaching, in that it infers from scripture something present to the whole and clarifies it. That’s not my point, my point is to ask whether or not the definition outside of scripture, the declaration of the councils, fathers and the like on these issues are binding to the conscience of the individual.

What if for instance someone doesn’t want to confess the Nicene creed but simply quotes the bible. Are you going to insist to that person they must recite and believe in the Nicene creed? If the answer is yes, I do not see your position being any different than that of the Orthodox or Catholic understanding of things.

Yes the councils , creeds , reformers and church fathers are binding , the difference is in where tradition gets its authority, is it authoritative on its own , or is it because it is the explanation of scripture , and agrees with scripture, if the latter , than it is a secondary source .

 

[Michael68]

Yes the councils , creeds , reformers and church fathers are binding , the difference is in where tradition gets its authority, is it authoritative on its own , or is it because it is the explanation of scripture , and agrees with scripture, if the latter , than it is a secondary source .

Tradition comes to us from Jesus through his Apostles, long before there was a NT

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;13474120]Don’t you as Lutherans bind to anyone who wants to become Lutheran (the highest and fullest expression of Christianity) to the formula of concord and some others Lutheran texts like the small and large catechism? As A Lutheran you are not free to deny the trinity correct? As a Christian in general you are not free to deny Trinitarian language correct, the creeds of Nicene, Constantinople and Chalcedon? Or would you say we do not have to embrace those definitions?

Exactly. We are bound o the creeds, etc., bound to the doctrines of the Church. Those doctines are held accountable to scripture.

You will argue that those are based on scripture and I would agree they use scripture as a base, but in the end we all go beyond scripture and have an expectation to follow doctrines of the church which may not be explicit to scripture. I think the key phrase you use is this, “What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to beliefs not consistent in scripture.” In the end while you might not do that, you still bind people to doctrine and dogma which is not explicit to the scripture but was worked out of scripture, often using non-scriptural language.

Which of the above are not scriptural? Trinity? Of course it is. Real presence, found in the Augsburg Confession? Baptismal regeneration? Confession / Holy Absolution?
All there.

So what in the end distinguishes you from the Catholic or Orthodox if you agree that you do bind others to non scriptural statements of faith?

Not a whole lot.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that Sola Scriptura people insist if it isn’t in the bible then they don’t follow it. Yet, they follow Sola Scriptura and that is nowhere in the bible. They like to use the scripture about reproof and correction as a claim but that is easily disputed. I just wanted to know since these Protestants are adamant about bible only.

Perhaps this is the time to think about what Knight said, regarding how different traditions adhere to or define sola scriptura.
I can’t and won’t speak for them, as that’s their responsibility. Sola scriptura, from a Lutheran perspective, is about doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I see it the other way around in that Sacred Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition

And that’s okay. ISTM that they should not contradict. But if they do, then we as Lutherans hold Tradition accountable to scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I would agree it is a scriptural teaching, in that it infers from scripture something present to the whole and clarifies it. That’s not my point, my point is to ask whether or not the definition outside of scripture, the declaration of the councils, fathers and the like on these issues are binding to the conscience of the individual.

What if for instance someone doesn’t want to confess the Nicene creed but simply quotes the bible. Are you going to insist to that person they must recite and believe in the Nicene creed? If the answer is yes, I do not see your position being any different than that of the Orthodox or Catholic understanding of things.

What do you mean by insist? I know a Lutheran lady who will not confess the Athanasian Creed. She doesn’t like the last part:

He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
She views it as works-based salvation. Is she wrong? Clearly. Wrong in her understanding, and wrong in her unwillingness to listen to the proper understanding. Should she be kicked out of the church? I don’t think so. I guess one could blame poor catechesis.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

What do you mean by insist? I know a Lutheran lady who will not confess the Athanasian Creed. She doesn’t like the last part:

He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
She views it as works-based salvation. Is she wrong? Clearly. Wrong in her understanding, and wrong in her unwillingness to listen to the proper understanding. Should she be kicked out of the church? I don’t think so. I guess one could blame poor catechesis.

Jon

She won’t do WAT

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by SalusaSecondus
Sure.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Is teaching correct doctrine a good work? If so then I can be complete to use all scripture to teach correct doctrine.

Good post, but how far back does this interpretation go? (I meant to respond yesterday, but “late is better than never”. )