Bible Alone?

[JonNC]

Your tone is uncalled for.

I was protestant for almost 10 years. I studied the Westminster confessional - the most in depth treatment of Sola Scriptura - under two Masters of Reformed Theology. I’ve also spent the last 5 years talking to Protestants, asking them what their definition of Sola - or Solo - Scriptura is.

As an aside, I’ve identified at least 4 different “groupings” of definitions of Sola Scriptura (one includes ‘Solo’).

All four are based on the two sub-pillars that 1) Scripture is perspicuous and 2) Scripture is completely self-interpreting (both as stated in the Westminster Confessional, again, the most in depth written treatment of Sola Scriptura). It is also based on the notion of what Martin Luther said was the unlimited right of private interpretation.

None of this is found in Scripture. Scripture does not say it is either the “final” or “only” authority. Scripture says that the Scriptures are HARD to understand, not perspicuous (2 Pet 3:16). Scripture shows that it is not COMPLETELY Self-Interpreting (chapter and verse for the two different genealogies of Christ please?) Scripture shows that it is the Church which is the Final Arbitrator, not the Bible (Mt 18:15-18). Scripture also shows that there is NOT an unlimited right to private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20).

Logic also shows that neither Sola or Solo Scriptura is possible. The Bible cannot be either the final or only authority in determining what makes up Scripture. At least in the compellation of Scripture there had to be another infallible authority to say what the content of that Scripture would be. The Law of Cause and Effect says you cannot have more in the effect than the cause.

If you cannot believe that, then you are stuck saying what Protestant Theologian R.C. Sproul says which is “at best” Scripture is made up of “a FALLIBLE list of Infallible books.” [emphasis added]. Why does he say this? Because he’s studied enough to realize that it was the Catholic Church who determined the content of Scripture and there’s no Scriptural reason for the publishing company in the 19th Century to edit out 7 books and parts of two others.

So to cling to his man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura, he has to eliminate the Church, which, he knows, eliminates his basis for claiming an Infallible list of Infallible books. Bottom line is he followed the logic of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura to it’s conclusion: without another infallible authority, WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT MAKES UP SOLA (or Solo) SCRIPTURA. Which is another death knell to Sola - or Solo - Scriptura.

“Solo” Scriptura is a phrase most Protestants of one flavor call the belief of Protestants of another flavor. It was created after the Reformation to try to show the “error” in one group’s interpretation of the Bible over the other.

Both are self-refuting. They are, in the end, a distinction without a difference.

In the Protestant world the attempt to show the unity clearly called for by Christ and His Apostles is done by arbitrarily creating two lists: “Essentials” and “non-Essentials”. When something is disagreed upon - no matter how serious the ramifications, like the necessity of Baptism - it is considered a non-Essential.

But the definition of Sola (or Solo) is a disagreement. The mere fact that some Protestants here try to distinguish between the two proves my point - maybe I should have pointed that out as well. So, by everything I was taught as a Protestant, and supported by what I continuously hear from many flavors of Protestantism, this would then make Sola (or Solo) Scriptura a “non-Essential.”

So I want to know if the Protestants in this discussion think Sola (or Solo) Scriptura is a Non-Essential.

I hope that shows you that I do understand the difference, and why, to the bigger question, it doesn’t make a difference.

Does that help you better understand why I posted my question?

Essentials for Lutherans are found in the creeds and the Augsburg Confession. Essentials include but are not limit to, baptismal regeneration, the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, Holy Absolution. I suspect these do not add to a false unity. In short, doctrinal unity is an essential. Non-essentials are identified as adiaphora, things indifferent.
As for sola scriptura, the Lutheran POV, it is a principle, a practice of the Church, not an article of faith.
Jon

 

[DeusExMachina]

Thank you

Jon

Youre welcome. I might admire you even more if you could articulate what makes the Lutheran version of SS different from both the Calvinist/Evangelical position and the Catholic position.

 

[JonNC]

Youre welcome. I might admire you even more if you could articulate what makes the Lutheran version of SS different from both the Calvinist/Evangelical position and the Catholic position.

Well, here’s what the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says, as the “Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm according to which all dogmas should be judged”:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
The sole in the first sentence is the “sola” of sola scriptura. It is the only final standard by which doctrine is held accountable.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
There is no rejection of Tradition, but tradition, no matter its source, is subject to the norming of scripture, the norm that norms but is not normed.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

The clear and historic link to the One True Church, and it’s apostolicity. We are bound to them and confess them. These creeds are the first and most important symbols of the Lutheran Tradition within the Church Catholic, only after which does one find the distinctively Lutheran confessions of the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

Now, while I have a general idea how that separates our understanding from the other communions, ISTM that it might be better coming from them what they believe. For example, some protestant groups claim "no creed but Christ (though that itself is a creed). Obviously our perspective on sola scriptura is radically different.
Catholicism, AFAIK, maintain a three-legged stool, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as the full deposit of faith. ISTM that our claim that Tradition is a witness to scripture, not equal to it, would set us apoart for Catholicism.

I may have either or both of these wrong, so again, members of those traditions can speak to it. Either way, I hope that helps.

Jon

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well, here’s what the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says, as the “Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm according to which all dogmas should be judged”:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
The sole in the first sentence is the “sola” of sola scriptura. It is the only final standard by which doctrine is held accountable.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
There is no rejection of Tradition, but tradition, no matter its source, is subject to the norming of scripture, the norm that norms but is not normed.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

The clear and historic link to the One True Church, and it’s apostolicity. We are bound to them and confess them. These creeds are the first and most important symbols of the Lutheran Tradition within the Church Catholic, only after which does one find the distinctively Lutheran confessions of the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

Now, while I have a general idea how that separates our understanding from the other communions, ISTM that it might be better coming from them what they believe. For example, some protestant groups claim "no creed but Christ (though that itself is a creed). Obviously our perspective on sola scriptura is radically different.
Catholicism, AFAIK, maintain a three-legged stool, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as the full deposit of faith. ISTM that our claim that Tradition is a witness to scripture, not equal to it, would set us apoart for Catholicism.

I may have either or both of these wrong, so again, members of those traditions can speak to it. Either way, I hope that helps.

Jon

The catholic teaching maintains that scripture and tradition are complimentary; you must use both to justify an argument whenever possible. Where scripture states something, any potential “tradition” that contradicts it is usually stopped by authentic, apostolic tradition

 

[JonNC]

The catholic teaching maintains that scripture and tradition are complimentary; you must use both to justify an argument whenever possible. Where scripture states something, any potential “tradition” that contradicts it is usually stopped by authentic, apostolic tradition

Sounds to me like the difference, somewhat nuanced, is there. While both Catholicism and Lutheranism place a high value on Tradition, Catholicism sees it as complimentary to scripture, and Lutheranism sees it as “a witness” to scripture.
I suspect that some of our protestant friends might say we are both wrong, and only scripture matters.

Jon

 

[DeusExMachina]

Sounds to me like the difference, somewhat nuanced, is there. While both Catholicism and Lutheranism place a high value on Tradition, Catholicism sees it as complimentary to scripture, and Lutheranism sees it as “a witness” to scripture.
I suspect that some of our protestant friends might say we are both wrong, and only scripture matters.

Jon

Amen to that:thumbsup:

 

[adf417]

I wouldn’t. Trinitarian Christians were around long before nicea, just as scripture was around before the official canon was recognized.

This response constitutes a similar response…
Of course God was not invented at Nicaea why would you think that?

And I’m sorry you missed the point of the Trinitarian formula and doctrine being defended and formed with words not found in scripture. The fact that there needed to be councils to resolve the issue is profound and the fact that Christianity was so close, very close, to becoming Arian because of the lack of scriptural support should show all how indebted to Tradition we are.

Peace!!!

 

[FractalFire]

This response constitutes a similar response…
Of course God was not invented at Nicaea why would you think that?

And I’m sorry you missed the point of the Trinitarian formula and doctrine being defended and formed with words not found in scripture. The fact that there needed to be councils to resolve the issue is profound and the fact that Christianity was so close, very close, to becoming Arian because of the lack of scriptural support should show all how indebted to Tradition we are.

Peace!!!

?? I was under the impression that Arianism was always a minority position., even then. The real question was whether or not it should be accepted as a potentially correct position (something not of consequence to the faith).

I think that the doctrine of the Trinity, while not stated outright, is implied by scripture and a logical outflow of it. See here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html

 

[DeusExMachina]

This response constitutes a similar response…
Of course God was not invented at Nicaea why would you think that?

And I’m sorry you missed the point of the Trinitarian formula and doctrine being defended and formed with words not found in scripture. The fact that there needed to be councils to resolve the issue is profound and the fact that Christianity was so close, very close, to becoming Arian because of the lack of scriptural support should show all how indebted to Tradition we are.

Peace!!!

This ^

 

[PoorKnight]

I stopped reading after that last sentence. It doesn’t sound like the two Masters of Reformed Theology knew much about Luther or what he believed. Not surprised. Reformed theologians tend to make him (and Scripture) say what they want it to say.

Sola Scriptura, to Lutherans, does not mean what it does to Reformed folks.

Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I was aiming at. The fact that there is no set definition of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura - the fact that there is an argument between Sola and Solo Scriptura - and the fact that it is up to the Individual to decide which of the various definitions is right, places the authority of the Individual above that of Scripture.

This causes serious damage to, if not refutes entirely, the notion of either Sola or Solo Scriptura.

Adherents of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura need to come up with an authoritative and Universal - pun heavily intended - definition of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura that all practitioners can unite under… but that alone would defeat the notion of Sola (and Solo) Scriptura…

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[PoorKnight]

Essentials for Lutherans are found in the creeds and the Augsburg Confession. Essentials include but are not limit to, baptismal regeneration, the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, Holy Absolution. I suspect these do not add to a false unity. In short, doctrinal unity is an essential. Non-essentials are identified as adiaphora, things indifferent.
As for sola scriptura, the Lutheran POV, it is a principle, a practice of the Church, not an article of faith.
Jon

So… considering Southern Baptists would disagree with Confessional Lutherans on all three of the “essentials” you list, then they would not be Christian, in your opinion. As you know, you agree with Catholicism (mostly) on those issues.

But Southern Baptists, and EPC Presbyterians would say those things are “non-Essential”.
They would also say that “Sola Scriptura” (you might say Solo) is an Essential. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Westminster Confessional.

Is there a list of “essentials” and “non-Essentials” found in Scripture or chapters and verses that I can see which list of Essentials is correct? Wouldn’t one of them “disagree” with Scripture then? Even if Scripture is just your “final” authority, we would still have to see plainly which list is correct and which list is not.

The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;13481140]So… considering Southern Baptists would disagree with Confessional Lutherans on all three of the “essentials” you list, then they would not be Christian, in your opinion. As you know, you agree with Catholicism (mostly) on those issues.

No. They would not be Lutheran. I would say they are Christian, but in error, not unlike what the Catholic church says about me.

But Southern Baptists, and EPC Presbyterians would say those things are “non-Essential”.
They would also say that “Sola Scriptura” (you might say Solo) is an Essential. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Westminster Confessional.

I would disagree with them on all of these. So much for false unity.
If they believe sola scriptura is an article of faith, they must believe that the conscience of the believer is bound to it. Lutherans do not.

Is there a list of “essentials” and “non-Essentials” found in Scripture or chapters and verses that I can see which list of Essentials is correct? Wouldn’t one of them “disagree” with Scripture then? Even if Scripture is just your “final” authority, we would still have to see plainly which list is correct and which list is not.

As a Lutheran, we consider what is doctrine to be essentials. As a Catholic, you make look to the Catholic Catechism. We Look to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism.

The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

His blessing also with you.

Jon

 

[PoorKnight]

Well, here’s what the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says, as the “Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm according to which all dogmas should be judged”:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
The sole in the first sentence is the “sola” of sola scriptura. It is the only final standard by which doctrine is held accountable.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
There is no rejection of Tradition, but tradition, no matter its source, is subject to the norming of scripture, the norm that norms but is not normed.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

The clear and historic link to the One True Church, and it’s apostolicity. We are bound to them and confess them. These creeds are the first and most important symbols of the Lutheran Tradition within the Church Catholic, only after which does one find the distinctively Lutheran confessions of the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.

Now, while I have a general idea how that separates our understanding from the other communions, ISTM that it might be better coming from them what they believe. For example, some protestant groups claim "no creed but Christ (though that itself is a creed). Obviously our perspective on sola scriptura is radically different.
Catholicism, AFAIK, maintain a three-legged stool, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as the full deposit of faith. ISTM that our claim that Tradition is a witness to scripture, not equal to it, would set us apoart for Catholicism.

I may have either or both of these wrong, so again, members of those traditions can speak to it. Either way, I hope that helps.

Jon

I really appreciate this - I have not yet dug into Luther’s Confessional as I should have - but reading this I cannot logically see how this accounts for: 1) the compilation of Scripture, 2) Knowing whether or not your translation is correct 3) Whether or not interpretation is correct

1. If Scripture is the final authority, even if Tradition is “ok” it still must be subjected to Scripture. So how can we start with no books and determine if the 1st book belongs in Scripture using Tradition or Church authority, but subject that to Scripture… which is non-existent or unrecognized? Or, another way to put it, what Scripture did Martin Luther submit several books to, to show that 7 books and parts of two others should be read (and are “good” to read) but no doctrine should come from them?
2. 2 examples: Ancient Hebrew has no vowels. How do we submit translating Ancient Hebrew into English to the Scriptures we’re trying to translate? “RP” could be “rope”, “rap” or “rape”… it would make a difference. 2nd example epiousios is used twice in history. Both in Scripture, both in the Lord’s Prayer. Most people translate it “Daily” but we really don’t know what it means. Where can I submit that translation to Scripture?
3. Scripture cannot tell us when we’re over-emphasizing a verse, idea or book. For example Eph 2:8-9 while excluding vs 10. Or using only the “Romans Road” to show how to be “saved” while ignoring everything else. Or the idea of the “Perseverance of the Saints” - I know many Lutherans don’t believe that - however, some concepts seem to be in Scripture. How does Scripture say when I’m misusing Scripture?

There are plenty of others. Do I submit my understanding of English to Scripture? For example: if I only know the word “Word” as a greeting, as in “Word-up!” (ok I’m dating myself), does Scripture, as my final authority, tell me that my knowledge of the meaning of that word is wrong when I read “The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.” That would make a HUGE difference.

In all these, the only conclusion I can reach is that there must be at least another authority that works hand-in-hand with the authority of Scripture, that supports the truth of Scripture, can decide between us Christians when we’re both arguing opposing views while both using Scripture, that can say when I’m emphasizing one idea too much or not emphasizing another enough, or when I have misunderstood a term etc, etc, etc. BUT can be a final authority as well in matters where Scripture cannot.

Sorry if this was a ramble… I don’t have time to proof read…

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;13481117]Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I was aiming at. The fact that there is no set definition of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura - the fact that there is an argument between Sola and Solo Scriptura - and the fact that it is up to the Individual to decide which of the various definitions is right, places the authority of the Individual above that of Scripture.

Not so, at least for the practice of the Church - in Lutheranism. But even if individual Lutherans do come up with their own definition, it isn’t a doctrine, and therefore of no consequence. Doctrine is not determined by the individual, and that is the only purpose of sola scriptura, to hold doctrine accountable.

This causes serious damage to, if not refutes entirely, the notion of either Sola or Solo Scriptura.

How so?

Adherents of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura need to come up with an authoritative and Universal - pun heavily intended - definition of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura that all practitioners can unite under… but that alone would defeat the notion of Sola (and Solo) Scriptura…

Why? Lutherans have one. I suspect other communions have their definition. Doesn’t it make sense to ask specific communions about their practices?

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

His blessing also with you.

Jon

 

[PoorKnight]

No. They would not be Lutheran. I would say they are Christian, but in error, not unlike what the Catholic church says about me.

Ok, but then why a list of essentials then? Is it just what is essential to be Lutheran in your opinion?

I would disagree with them on all of these. So much for false unity.

But that’s the main problem. Unity of belief. The nature of Protestantism - the BIRTH of Protestantism - is to splinter and not to unite. As you well know, Protestants splinter over the 5 Solas, and certainly over Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

If they believe sola scriptura is an article of faith, they must believe that the conscience of the believer is bound to it. Lutherans do not.

But what does Scripture say? Isn’t that the whole argument? They would say Scripture says the conscience is bound to believe is. You would say it is not.

They would say it’s necessary for salvation. You would not. Who / what decides? Souls could be on the line?

As a Lutheran, we consider what is doctrine to be essentials. As a Catholic, you make look to the Catholic Catechism. We Look to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism./

We’ve got a lot more in common than differences, that’s for sure. I’m merely pointing out what, intellectually, made me return to Catholicism…

Thank you

[/QUOTE]

 

[PoorKnight]

Doctrine is not determined by the individual, and that is the only purpose of sola scriptura, to hold doctrine accountable.

But Lutheran doctrine was determined by the individual. Martin Luther. That’s what it’s called “Lutheranism”.

How so?

If the belief is that Doctrine “X” is a unifying doctrine, but the definition of Doctrine “X” is not universally accepted… let alone that the practice of Doctrine “X” causes divisions… it kinda puts in doubt the whole idea of Doctrine “X”

Why? Lutherans have one. I suspect other communions have their definition. Doesn’t it make sense to ask specific communions about their practices?

It kinda throws out the whole idea that adherents to “Bible Alone” theology would have anything like the unity that Christ’s Church - not necessarily meaning the Catholic Church here - is supposed to have. So the idea of “One” in the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic” is gone.

I cannot, then, adhere to ANY group that espouses Sola Scriptura.

His blessing also with you.

Jon

Thank you again

 

[steido01]

Adherents of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura need to come up with an authoritative and Universal - pun heavily intended - definition of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura that all practitioners can unite under… but that alone would defeat the notion of Sola (and Solo) Scriptura…

But that’s the main problem. Unity of belief. The nature of Protestantism - the BIRTH of Protestantism - is to splinter and not to unite. As you well know, Protestants splinter over the 5 Solas, and certainly over Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

This is like sticking all “Religious” people in a room and telling them that they need to have unity of belief and come up with a definition of God. Why would you expect a Muslim, a Christian and a Buddhist to have the same answer? The label of “Protestant” is a made up catch-all for anything that’s not Roman Catholic or Orthodox. It has no real meaning, except in relation to Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

But Lutheran doctrine was determined by the individual. Martin Luther. That’s what it’s called “Lutheranism”.

No. Luther didn’t exist in a vacuum and make up new doctrines; he worked from the fathers and Scripture to return to what he understood as the catholic faith. He didn’t even write most of the Lutheran Confessions. They were ‘group projects’ by many Reformers, who subsequently signed their names to them. As for the name “Lutheranism,” it’s significantly easier to quell a rebellious movement if you can blame it on one man. So that’s what the Roman Catholic Church did. Luther himself was against people using his name.

It kinda throws out the whole idea that adherents to “Bible Alone” theology would have anything like the unity that Christ’s Church - not necessarily meaning the Catholic Church here - is supposed to have. So the idea of “One” in the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic” is gone.

Just because people are sinful creatures who struggle to hold to Truth doesn’t mean that Truth is nonexistent.

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;13481204]Ok, but then why a list of essentials then? Is it just what is essential to be Lutheran in your opinion?

Does not the Catholic church have a list of essentials? Are you not bound to believe certain things in order to be a Catholic? Dogmatic declarations?

But that’s the main problem. Unity of belief. The nature of Protestantism - the BIRTH of Protestantism - is to splinter and not to unite. As you well know, Protestants splinter over the 5 Solas, and certainly over Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

I would start by saying that to speak of protestantism as a unity of belief that has since splintered is an inaccuracy. Lutheranism and Zwinglian belief were never one in the same. The splintering, the breaking in unity in all of the cases of Reformation era communions has to do, in every circumstance, with the Catholic Church. Catholics and Lutherans broke unity. Catholics and Calvinists broke unity. None of this forgives the lack of unity between Lutherans and Calvinists. It just speaks to the reality of the Reformation era in the western Church.

But what does Scripture say? Isn’t that the whole argument? They would say Scripture says the conscience is bound to believe is. You would say it is not.

They would say it’s necessary for salvation. You would not. Who / what decides? Souls could be on the line?

The issue of division is a critical one, indeed. Catholics say belief in the Immaculate Conception is a binding dogma. Orthodox Christians do not. Who / what decides?

=JonNC;13481171]
As a Lutheran, we consider what is doctrine to be essentials. As a Catholic, you make look to the Catholic Catechism. We Look to the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism.

We’ve got a lot more in common than differences, that’s for sure. I’m merely pointing out what, intellectually, made me return to Catholicism…
Indeed we do, and I pray you are blessed in word and sacrament as a Catholic.

So, in essence, if there’s a disagreement about what Scripture says, you’d go to the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism and not Scripture? Then, when it’s a dispute about Scripture, the Catechism and Confession become your final authority, which would be against the quotes from them you provided above from what I understand.

Yes. And no. The sole rule and norm for all teachings and doctrine is the Holy Scripture. Our belief is that the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism are a right reflection of scripture. Therefore, the Church uses confessions to explain the truth of scripture to the people. This is also true of the creeds, and even the early councils. When Tradition is correct, the Church uses its teaching role and authority to teach the faithful the true faith.

How do we resolve dispute? We take it to the Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;13481228]But Lutheran doctrine was determined by the individual. Martin Luther. That’s what it’s called “Lutheranism”.

It was called Lutheranism by Johannes Eck, as a pejorative. It was his intent to make Lutheranism look that way, much the way the name Roman Catholic was meant to marginalize the CC.
Luther is, indeed significant as a theologian. He was not alone, however. If one looks through the Book of Concord, the first 5 writings are not Luther’s. The three ancient creeds are first, followed by the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. Only then do we find something specifically by Luther’s hand.

If the belief is that Doctrine “X” is a unifying doctrine, but the definition of Doctrine “X” is not universally accepted… let alone that the practice of Doctrine “X” causes divisions… it kinda puts in doubt the whole idea of Doctrine “X”

It is indeed the case that, even long before the Reformation, Christians (I’m not even talking about the heresies) had significant differences that caused divisions in His One True Church. That’s not unique to the Reformation.

It kinda throws out the whole idea that adherents to “Bible Alone” theology would have anything like the unity that Christ’s Church - not necessarily meaning the Catholic Church here - is supposed to have. So the idea of “One” in the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic” is gone.

Again, that assumes we think that sola scriptura is a doctrine. Practices, even in the CC, can vary. But nothing changes the fact that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism. Entry into that One True Church is via Baptism. There are institutions and Traditions that are part of the Church, but the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

I cannot, then, adhere to ANY group that espouses Sola Scriptura.

And you don’t, and that has no influence over your salvation.

Jon

 

[DeusExMachina]

Does not the Catholic church have a list of essentials? Are you not bound to believe certain things in order to be a Catholic? Dogmatic declarations?

I would start by saying that to speak of protestantism as a unity of belief that has since splintered is an inaccuracy. Lutheranism and Zwinglian belief were never one in the same. The splintering, the breaking in unity in all of the cases of Reformation era communions has to do, in every circumstance, with the Catholic Church. Catholics and Lutherans broke unity. Catholics and Calvinists broke unity. None of this forgives the lack of unity between Lutherans and Calvinists. It just speaks to the reality of the Reformation era in the western Church.

The issue of division is a critical one, indeed. Catholics say belief in the Immaculate Conception is a binding dogma. Orthodox Christians do not. Who / what decides?

Yes. And no. The sole rule and norm for all teachings and doctrine is the Holy Scripture. Our belief is that the Augsburg Confession and Small Catechism are a right reflection of scripture. Therefore, the Church uses confessions to explain the truth of scripture to the people. This is also true of the creeds, and even the early councils. When Tradition is correct, the Church uses its teaching role and authority to teach the faithful the true faith.

How do we resolve dispute? We take it to the Church.

Jon

No offense Jon, but I’d wager if our friend DR Luther were around today, he’d straight up label you as a papist