It means, as has been explained, that nothing but Scripture can claim to be the ultimate authority in the Church. This is not to reject other authorities. As you point out, Luther clearly though he had some authority of his own.
I don’t either. That is to say, I don’t know how Topper can read that text and think that it isn’t referring to the office of the Papacy. I still don’t know what he thinks it is talking about–Paul II personally, perhaps? I’m baffled precisely because the meaning seems to clear to me. Possibly I’m misinterpreting Topper, or Topper is misinterpreting what the Lutherans mean when they say “the office of the papacy.” Misinterpretations abound, clearly.
If Scripture alone remains the only judge, rule and standard why are certain Lutheran synods preaching/practicing things contrary to the Bible, i.e., it seems that there is more than just the Bible setting the standard?
Some Lutheran Synods have jettisoned scripture as the final norming norm. That’s why they have bought into female priestesses and bishops, openly homosexual ministers, blessing same sex marriages and baby murder etc. They won’t let the bible stand in their way. That’s the problem, lack of identifying scriptural authority. Not having too much scriptural authority.
You are assuming that they think these things are contrary to the Bible. Why do you assume this?
I IMHO think you are very much misinformed to think that “the Pope is the antichrist… the Pope continuing to teach false doctrines and persecute Christians… sine the Pope has stopped persecuting Christians, but still teachings false doctrines (IMO) confessional Lutheran’s continue to see him as the antichrist… If he stopped and returned to correct doctrine, we would presumably cease believing that he is the antichrist.”
It is actually the other way around. The Lutheran World Federation represent Lutheran theology with Rome. That means all the European, African, Asia and majority of the Americas.You are assuming that they think these things are contrary to the Bible. Why do you assume this?
As a Catholic, you know that Scripture isn’t self-interpreting, right?
More liberal Lutherans certainly do have a somewhat “looser” view of Scriptural inspiration and authority than conservative Lutherans. But there is even more difference in their view of the Confessions. In that sense, the liberals arguably have a stricter view of sola scriptura than the conservatives!
Edwin
Roman Catholic histories may claim that, others disagree. Choosing between them will take a bit more than an assertion.
Oh I understand what you are saying and that is true, However, which histories disagree?
Protestant histories of Trent might do so. Or Orthodox histories dealing with Honorius I.
Quite true and all that, however as for Honorius I he did not teach false doctrine but was held accountable for a little he wrote to a Patriarch I think, or Bishop? It was read at a council and so he was claimed a heretic, although he never taught any heresy or false doctrine.
This seems to answer a question that I’ve had, to what or whom does Scripture belong? Here you refer to Scripture as a possession of the church. And if it is a possession of the church, it makes sense that it is the job of the church to interpret Scripture, not the individual. After all, the individual goes to the church to have scripture read to him; it is through the church that the individual accesses scripture.
Cajun
I can’t speak for Cajun, but I thought it might be helpful if I posted the Church of England’s authoritative formularies which deal with the issue (without using the term sola scriptura). Cajun’s own Church is likely to have a similar, though not necessarily identical, formulation.
Hi mackbrislawn: Sacred Scripture properly belongs to the CC since it was her that determined what and which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit and taught what Jesus taught the Apostles. it is to the CC that we come to know and to understand Scripture. While Scripture can and is encouraged to be read by all it is to the CC to tell us what it says and means.
Of course I agree. I was hoping to make people think about it. If scripture belongs to the church, to what church does it belong? For Lutherans, they let the Lutheran church intepret for them. But why the Lutheran church? It’s confessions are not infallible. Why the Anglican church? Methodist, etc? Their’s are admittably not infallible either. Is it a matter of personal preference, of how the individual thinks the confessions correspond to his own interpretation of scripture?
Doesn’t every individual Catholic have fallibly to interpret the Scripture in assessing its testimony to the authority of the Church, the petrine primacy, etc.? Or fallibly to asses the Church’s teaching in the act of giving assent to it? Catholics are, after all, both fallible and responsible for their own beliefs.
Hi mackbrislawn: I agree you said a mouth full to say the least. it is worth thinking about if not the CC then what church? and what denomination? In the end it seems that it all boils down to personal interpretations of individuals and not really a church. But that’s MHO