Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

A couple of things. You said:

Lutherans are not held to Luther. Luther himself falls under sola scriptura. But confessional Lutherans today practice SS in essentially the same way it was practiced in the Reformation era, and frankly, I am not convinced that Luther would have seen it done much differently.

Jon, as a matter of fact, you know, for a fact, that in the initial stage of Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, he did NOT practice SS in AT ALL the same way as do current Lutherans, but MUCH more like the most independent of those who today practice Private Interpretation. As you know, we have covered this very well (with more to come) over on the “Belief” thread in the Apologetics forum.

I would also like to comment on your response to Annie. She said:

In other words you don’t really know if your (Lutheran) interpretation is correct.

Oh, no. We are certain it is correct. Being correct does not necessarily require infallibility or inerrancy.

Jon, this makes absolutely no sense to me. You claim to be ‘certain’, and somehow your ‘certainty’ does not ‘require infallibility or inerrancy’? If there is no infallibility or inerrancy, then what, specifically and exactly of course, is that ‘certainty’ based on? It seems to me that you have a completely unrealistic level of confidence in those late 16th century theologians (and politicians) who formulated the Lutheran Confessions, a confidence that you would not place in many of the historic Councils. Why the clear difference in your confidence in those Lutheran Theologians, without appealing to Private Interpretation of course?

On the other hand, was it possibly “inaccurate” of you to describe your Lutheran interpretation as being correct ‘with certainty’? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways, that is unless you ‘redefine’ at least one or two of the terms “certain”, “infallible”, and/or “inerrancy”.

I would suggest that there is a pretty glaring Achilles’s Heel in your position. As you know, it is in the specifics and the exacts that false beliefs become obvious for what they are. Could you please explain how you can pronounce your ‘certainty’ without appealing to some kind of ‘infallibility or inerrancy’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Hi Jon,

A couple of things. You said:

Jon, as a matter of fact, you know, for a fact, that in the initial stage of Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, he did NOT practice SS in AT ALL the same way as do current Lutherans, but MUCH more like the most independent of those who today practice Private Interpretation. As you know, we have covered this very well (with more to come) over on the “Belief” thread in the Apologetics forum.

I would also like to comment on your response to Annie. She said:

Jon, this makes absolutely no sense to me. You claim to be ‘certain’, and somehow your ‘certainty’ does not ‘require infallibility or inerrancy’? If there is no infallibility or inerrancy, then what, specifically and exactly of course, is that ‘certainty’ based on? It seems to me that you have a completely unrealistic level of confidence in those late 16th century theologians (and politicians) who formulated the Lutheran Confessions, a confidence that you would not place in many of the historic Councils. Why the clear difference in your confidence in those Lutheran Theologians, without appealing to Private Interpretation of course?

On the other hand, was it possibly “inaccurate” of you to describe your Lutheran interpretation as being correct ‘with certainty’? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways, that is unless you ‘redefine’ at least one or two of the terms “certain”, “infallible”, and/or “inerrancy”.

I would suggest that there is a pretty glaring Achilles’s Heel in your position. As you know, it is in the specifics and the exacts that false beliefs become obvious for what they are. Could you please explain how you can pronounce your ‘certainty’ without appealing to some kind of ‘infallibility or inerrancy’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hmmm me thinks I’ll take a look at the “belief” forum. Also Jon I would like to take this oportunity to invite you to come home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks to both of you

Jon you write: “that indicates to me a misunderstanding of sola scriptura, at least the way Lutherans define it”

I started a longer post and hope to finish it today but I have just one question for you. Since Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, whence comes the Lutheran definition?

Annie

With all due respect, that’s a rather superficial way of arguing. Terms mean what they are used to mean. You don’t get the right to dictate to Lutherans what they mean by the term.

I may say “this piece will use the piano alone” meaning that only the piano is being used to accompany a singer (not piano and violin). I’m not being dishonest or inconsistent. You just have to know the context (that I’m talking about which instruments will be used for accompaniment).

In other words, you have to ask “Scripture alone does what or is what?” You can’t say “ha! you said ‘Scripture alone’ so you can’t introduce anything else.” That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a cheap shot.

Edwin

 

[EvangelCatholic]

With all due respect, that’s a rather superficial way of arguing. Terms mean what they are used to mean. You don’t get the right to dictate to Lutherans what they mean by the term.

I may say “this piece will use the piano alone” meaning that only the piano is being used to accompany a singer (not piano and violin). I’m not being dishonest or inconsistent. You just have to know the context (that I’m talking about which instruments will be used for accompaniment).

In other words, you have to ask “Scripture alone does what or is what?” You can’t say “ha! you said ‘Scripture alone’ so you can’t introduce anything else.” That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a cheap shot.

Edwin

 

[Annie39]

With all due respect, that’s a rather superficial way of arguing. Terms mean what they are used to mean. You don’t get the right to dictate to Lutherans what they mean by the term.

I may say “this piece will use the piano alone” meaning that only the piano is being used to accompany a singer (not piano and violin). I’m not being dishonest or inconsistent. You just have to know the context (that I’m talking about which instruments will be used for accompaniment).

In other words, you have to ask “Scripture alone does what or is what?” You can’t say “ha! you said ‘Scripture alone’ so you can’t introduce anything else.” That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a cheap shot.

Edwin

I have been aware of dog shows for many a moon but have never attended one. What if I decided to do something new and different and bought a ticket to attend one. When the day arrives I put on my new spiffy outfit and go to the venue. But lo and behold every animal looks suspiciously like a cat. To be sure I would seek out the management and tell the person that I bought a ticket to a dog show but these animals are all cats. Well suppose he tells me that I have no right to dictate to the participants what they mean by that term after all I’m not a dog/cat aficionado? Not only does Sola Scriptura mean scripture alone, Luther believed that he could take up the scriptures and privately interpret them. He did not believe in Tradition. I’m perfectly within my rights to actually read “sola scriptura” and decide for myself that it means scripture alone.

Also if you bring in a violin it is no longer piano alone.

Annie

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have been aware of dog shows for many a moon but have never attended one. What if I decided to do something new and different and bought a ticket to attend one. When the day arrives I put on my new spiffy outfit and go to the venue. But lo and behold every animal looks suspiciously like a cat. To be sure I would seek out the management and tell the person that I bought a ticket to a dog show but these animals are all cats. Well suppose he tells me that I have no right to dictate to the participants what they mean by that term after all I’m not a dog/cat aficionado? Not only does Sola Scriptura mean scripture alone, Luther believed that he could take up the scriptures and privately interpret them. He did not believe in Tradition. I’m perfectly within my rights to actually read “sola scriptura” and decide for myself that it means scripture alone.

Also if you bring in a violin it is no longer piano alone.

Annie

As someone has already pointed out, “sola scriptura” does not mean “scripture alone”; it means “by scripture alone.” You’re certainly free to believe whatever you like, but it’s a mistake to imagine that your imagination of someone else’s ideas necessarily meshes with their actual way of thinking.

Also, the slogan is not really Luther’s—I think he may have used the term only a few times during quite a prolific writing career. So it’s perhaps easier to look at examples to see how the principle comes into play and one fairly straightforward example is infant baptism.

When Luther was challenged that infant baptism wasn’t “In the Bible” by those of the radical Reformation–an assertion closer to what most Americans THINK sola scriptura might mean–Luther used the following logic to defend the practice: 1) Baptism is essential for salvation, a means of grace and thus beneficial for those who receive it, as noted in the Bible; 2) The Church has always practiced infant baptism (Tradition) and; 3) importantly!! there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the practice of infant baptism; it’s not contrary to Scripture. This approach is what Luther means by holding a practice of the church accountable to Scripture–testing the practice using Scripture as the ultimate authority, but also not ignoring Tradition. For Luther, sola scriptura isn’t about biblical sufficiency or “show me where that is in the Bible,” it’s about using the Bible as an authoritative testing ground (to borrow an Anglican term) or tool, or as a way of proceeding when questions and controversies arise.

And Lutherans still practice infant Baptism today–not because it’s “in the Bible,” but I think most would say that the practice continues for the exact same reasons that Luther gave centuries ago. So I’m not sure how you can assert that Luther (or Lutherans) did/do not believe in Tradition. That’s really a mischaracterization of Luther’s theology. You’re free to do that of course–it’s just that it’s not correct and it’s misleading for others.

I think Catholic apologists do a wonderful job of explaining Catholic beliefs and practices, but they often mischaracterize when trying to explain the theology and understanding of non-Catholic groups. And of course that works the other way as well.

 

[Annie39]

As someone has already pointed out, “sola scriptura” does not mean “scripture alone”; it means “by scripture alone.” You’re certainly free to believe whatever you like, but it’s a mistake to imagine that your imagination of someone else’s ideas necessarily meshes with their actual way of thinking.

Also, the slogan is not really Luther’s—I think he may have used the term only a few times during quite a prolific writing career. So it’s perhaps easier to look at examples to see how the principle comes into play and one fairly straightforward example is infant baptism.

When Luther was challenged that infant baptism wasn’t “In the Bible” by those of the radical Reformation–an assertion closer to what most Americans THINK sola scriptura might mean–Luther used the following logic to defend the practice: 1) Baptism is essential for salvation, a means of grace and thus beneficial for those who receive it, as noted in the Bible; 2) The Church has always practiced infant baptism (Tradition) and; 3) importantly!! there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the practice of infant baptism; it’s not contrary to Scripture. This approach is what Luther means by holding a practice of the church accountable to Scripture–testing the practice using Scripture as the ultimate authority, but also not ignoring Tradition. For Luther, sola scriptura isn’t about biblical sufficiency or “show me where that is in the Bible,” it’s about using the Bible as an authoritative testing ground (to borrow an Anglican term) or tool, or as a way of proceeding when questions and controversies arise.

And Lutherans still practice infant Baptism today–not because it’s “in the Bible,” but I think most would say that the practice continues for the exact same reasons that Luther gave centuries ago. So I’m not sure how you can assert that Luther (or Lutherans) did/do not believe in Tradition. That’s really a mischaracterization of Luther’s theology. You’re free to do that of course–it’s just that it’s not correct and it’s misleading for others.

I think Catholic apologists do a wonderful job of explaining Catholic beliefs and practices, but they often mischaracterize when trying to explain the theology and understanding of non-Catholic groups. And of course that works the other way as well.

Thanks Dave
I plan to try to find time to reply to you more fully but I thought that I’d just ask a quick question. Since I’m no grammarian would you tell me the difference between “by Scripture alone” and “Scripture alone”. What is done “by Scripture alone”? Does one crack nuts by scripture alone or does one understand God’s will by Scripture or……?

I’m sure that you have read this before but I can’t for the life of me see any belief in anything except the Scriptures in Luther’s belief here.

Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon below is some evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I have more if you would like.

Annie

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

Hi Annie,
I would think that most Lutherans today would not reject primacy of the see of Rome. But we do see primacy and supremacy as different. These quotes refer to primacy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

A couple of things. You said:

Jon, as a matter of fact, you know, for a fact, that in the initial stage of Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, he did NOT practice SS in AT ALL the same way as do current Lutherans, but MUCH more like the most independent of those who today practice Private Interpretation. As you know, we have covered this very well (with more to come) over on the “Belief” thread in the Apologetics forum.

I would also like to comment on your response to Annie. She said:

Jon, this makes absolutely no sense to me. You claim to be ‘certain’, and somehow your ‘certainty’ does not ‘require infallibility or inerrancy’? If there is no infallibility or inerrancy, then what, specifically and exactly of course, is that ‘certainty’ based on? It seems to me that you have a completely unrealistic level of confidence in those late 16th century theologians (and politicians) who formulated the Lutheran Confessions, a confidence that you would not place in many of the historic Councils. Why the clear difference in your confidence in those Lutheran Theologians, without appealing to Private Interpretation of course?

On the other hand, was it possibly “inaccurate” of you to describe your Lutheran interpretation as being correct ‘with certainty’? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways, that is unless you ‘redefine’ at least one or two of the terms “certain”, “infallible”, and/or “inerrancy”.

I would suggest that there is a pretty glaring Achilles’s Heel in your position. As you know, it is in the specifics and the exacts that false beliefs become obvious for what they are. Could you please explain how you can pronounce your ‘certainty’ without appealing to some kind of ‘infallibility or inerrancy’?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I have been aware of dog shows for many a moon but have never attended one. What if I decided to do something new and different and bought a ticket to attend one. When the day arrives I put on my new spiffy outfit and go to the venue. But lo and behold every animal looks suspiciously like a cat. To be sure I would seek out the management and tell the person that I bought a ticket to a dog show but these animals are all cats. Well suppose he tells me that I have no right to dictate to the participants what they mean by that term after all I’m not a dog/cat aficionado? Not only does Sola Scriptura mean scripture alone, Luther believed that he could take up the scriptures and privately interpret them. He did not believe in Tradition. I’m perfectly within my rights to actually read “sola scriptura” and decide for myself that it means scripture alone.

Also if you bring in a violin it is no longer piano alone.

Annie

Hi Annie,
What you say here appears to describe what we would say other communions have done to sola scriptura, that is changed and altered it while still using the same term. While I get to speak only for my communion (and even then only as a layman), it seems some others will use the Bible alone, rejecting creeds and other writings. The term coined for that is sol**o **scriptura.

As Dave Noonan pointed out, that isn’t the historic Lutheran understanding and practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I have been aware of dog shows for many a moon but have never attended one. What if I decided to do something new and different and bought a ticket to attend one. When the day arrives I put on my new spiffy outfit and go to the venue. But lo and behold every animal looks suspiciously like a cat. To be sure I would seek out the management and tell the person that I bought a ticket to a dog show but these animals are all cats. Well suppose he tells me that I have no right to dictate to the participants what they mean by that term after all I’m not a dog/cat aficionado? Not only does Sola Scriptura mean scripture alone, Luther believed that he could take up the scriptures and privately interpret them. He did not believe in Tradition. I’m perfectly within my rights to actually read “sola scriptura” and decide for myself that it means scripture alone.

No, you’re not. Luther and the Reformers, for all their faults, were trying to read Scripture in light of good scholarship and of what the original authors meant. There were huge problems with their pitting Renaissance scholarship as they practiced it against the Tradition of the Church, but they weren’t just going by the superficial meaning of words, as you are. You are trying to excuse yourself from actually paying attention to how the people who developed the concept use it.

The show analogy would be more like this: you have a pet tiger and insist that the cat show people must accept it, because after all a tiger is a kind of cat. Or you go to the zoo and rail at them for referring to tigers as “big cats,” because they don’t belong to the same species as domestic cats.

Also if you bring in a violin it is no longer piano alone.

Annie

Right. My analogy was that a voice accompanied by piano is accompanied by “piano alone.” And you would have no right to fixate on the phrase “piano alone” and say “see, there’s a voice as well, so it’s not piano alone.”

Again, the phrase doesn’t exist in isolation. You have to look at how it is used and what exactly is being said of “scripture alone.”

Edwin

 

[Annie39]

No, you’re not. Luther and the Reformers, for all their faults, were trying to read Scripture in light of good scholarship and of what the original authors meant. There were huge problems with their pitting Renaissance scholarship as they practiced it against the Tradition of the Church, but they weren’t just going by the superficial meaning of words, as you are. You are trying to excuse yourself from actually paying attention to how the people who developed the concept use it.

The show analogy would be more like this: you have a pet tiger and insist that the cat show people must accept it, because after all a tiger is a kind of cat. Or you go to the zoo and rail at them for referring to tigers as “big cats,” because they don’t belong to the same species as domestic cats.

Right. My analogy was that a voice accompanied by piano is accompanied by “piano alone.” And you would have no right to fixate on the phrase “piano alone” and say “see, there’s a voice as well, so it’s not piano alone.”

Again, the phrase doesn’t exist in isolation. You have to look at how it is used and what exactly is being said of “scripture alone.”

Edwin

No, you misunderstand. I’m going back to the original Luther. Those people to whom you refer are they some sort of magisterium that the Lutherans set up against the Catholic Church to develop their own doctrine that is not in line with the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

 

[Annie39]

Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Jon

I’d like to see a real reply rather than just brushing him off Jon. One would have a suspicion that you would have difficulty doing that.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie,
What you say here appears to describe what we would say other communions have done to sola scriptura, that is changed and altered it while still using the same term. While I get to speak only for my communion (and even then only as a layman), it seems some others will use the Bible alone, rejecting creeds and other writings. The term coined for that is sol**o **scriptura.

As Dave Noonan pointed out, that isn’t the historic Lutheran understanding and practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

You give me a headache here. As keith mathison (sp?) coined that ungrammatical little ditty. However you doctrine may have developed Luther started out believing in the Bible and himself. That is, scripture as he interpreted it.

Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

It seems that your magisterium has developed that doctrine but they developed an heresy without the true Church. You can claim that you are catholic till the cows come home but it aint right. (My ungrammatical word that has been developed through the magisterium of hillbillies some of whom I am descended from)

Annie

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12160538]You give me a headache here. As keith mathison (sp?) coined that ungrammatical little ditty. However you doctrine may have developed Luther started out believing in the Bible and himself. That is, scripture as he interpreted it.

Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

It seems that your magisterium has developed that doctrine but they developed an heresy without the true Church. You can claim that you are catholic till the cows come home but it aint right. (My ungrammatical word that has been developed through the magisterium of hillbillies some of whom I am descended from)

Annie
Hi Annie,
Sorry for your headache. Yeah, its probably grammatically incorrect, but it serves to differentiate between the approaches.
Regardless of what Luther’s practice or view was, Lutherans have a historical practice in place, that we refer to as sola scriptura. Dave Noonan gave an excellent description of how it is used. Phillip Melanchthon does similarly in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, where he talks about the doctrine of the Real Presence.

bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

In it, he references scripture, the historic Church, both east and west, and the Early Church Fathers.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Martin Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

It seems that your magisterium has developed that doctrine but they developed an heresy without the true Church. You can claim that you are catholic till the cows come home but it aint right. (My ungrammatical word that has been developed through the magisterium of hillbillies some of whom I am descended from)

Annie

Hi Annie,
Sorry for your headache. Yeah, its probably grammatically incorrect, but it serves to differentiate between the approaches.
Regardless of what Luther’s practice or view was, Lutherans have a historical practice in place, that we refer to as sola scriptura. Dave Noonan gave an excellent description of how it is used. Phillip Melanchthon does similarly in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, where he talks about the doctrine of the Real Presence.

bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

In it, he references scripture, the historic Church, both east and west, and the Early Church Fathers.

Jon

You certainly have a right to believe this but your church fathers are not Catholic Church Fathers and calling yourself catholic is disingenuous at best.

Annie

 

[JonNC]

You certainly have a right to believe this but your church fathers are not Catholic Church Fathers and calling yourself catholic is disingenuous at best.

Annie

“Evangelical Catholic” is an oft-used historical term by Lutherans. I am sorry you feel my usage of it is disingenuous.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You certainly have a right to believe this but your church fathers are not Catholic Church Fathers and calling yourself catholic is disingenuous at best.

Annie

The Pope blushes.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m starting to think that the response to when you find out that your ‘opponent’ has views that are closer to your own (than initially thought) is probably important.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Tim,
Annie had encouraged me to provide a broader reply to your post.

=Topper17;12159378]
Jon, as a matter of fact, you know, for a fact, that in the initial stage of Luther’s Revolt against the Catholic Church, he did NOT practice SS in AT ALL the same way as do current Lutherans, but MUCH more like the most independent of those who today practice Private Interpretation. As you know, we have covered this very well (with more to come) over on the “Belief” thread in the Apologetics forum.

While this may or may not be true, Tim, I was responding to how Lutheranism historically has practiced SS.

Jon, this makes absolutely no sense to me. You claim to be ‘certain’, and somehow your ‘certainty’ does not ‘require infallibility or inerrancy’? If there is no infallibility or inerrancy, then what, specifically and exactly of course, is that ‘certainty’ based on? It seems to me that you have a completely unrealistic level of confidence in those late 16th century theologians (and politicians) who formulated the Lutheran Confessions, a confidence that you would not place in many of the historic Councils. Why the clear difference in your confidence in those Lutheran Theologians, without appealing to Private Interpretation of course?

Actually, I personally have a great deal of confidence in the early councils, and having that confidence is not prohibited but in many ways encouraged in Lutheranism as I know it. And while I consider them authoritative, I do not consider them infallible/inerrant.
But my level of confidence in the confessions reflects the confidence my communion has in them, which one would hope is to be expected.
Additionally, I would never question as unrealistic the confidence a good Catholic has in the Magisterium, and in fact would treat that confidence with respect and admiration.

On the other hand, was it possibly “inaccurate” of you to describe your Lutheran interpretation as being correct ‘with certainty’? It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways, that is unless you ‘redefine’ at least one or two of the terms “certain”, “infallible”, and/or “inerrancy”.

I would suggest that there is a pretty glaring Achilles’s Heel in your position. As you know, it is in the specifics and the exacts that false beliefs become obvious for what they are. Could you please explain how you can pronounce your ‘certainty’ without appealing to some kind of ‘infallibility or inerrancy’?

Something that is right does not mean it is necessarily infallible or inerrant. You would probably agree that there are things we Lutherans get right (from a Catholic POV), but you wouldn’t say we are infallible or our writings inerrant as a result.
The second paragraph of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord tells us that “Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures…” Therefore, the confessions cannot be considered equal to scripture, even though we consider them correct. In the same way, in the third paragraph, we pledge ourselves to the ancient creeds, and they are undoubtedly correct, but we reserve the term inerrant for scripture.

You probably do not agree with this position, and that is understandable and to be expected. And I am certainly not trying to convince anyone to agree.

Jon