Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[JonNC]

I think it’s a mistake for Catholics or anyone else to do anything individually at all.

Indeed, much of the nonsense talked on these forums can be explained by the fact that individual Catholics are treating Church teachings the way American Protestants treat Scripture–a a manual they can go to to get right answers for them as individuals.

But surely we ought to be both reading Scripture and hearing Tradition together, as a baptized community.

Edwin

I would agree with all of this, though Lutherans do make a distinction between doctrine and adiaphora, but even in the area of adiaphora, listening to the tradition of the Church is a good thing.
For example, the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, under the Article on the Person of Christ, it says,
**On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. **

Now, I as a Lutheran do not have to believe she is ever-virgin, but I think its a good idea to, here, listen to not only our tradition, but that of the historic Church.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

We don’t believe in ‘scripture alone’ as per the modern definition of ‘me and my bible’- we have creeds, hymns, liturgy, church fathers and the other authorities. The ‘true’ definition of Sola Scriptura is that scripture norms the other norms as a practice of the church.

Frankly, we’re just about as baffled with the ‘me and my bible’ idea as Catholics are.

Ben may I ask where your church got its definiton of Sola Scriptura?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

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.

Whence comes this definition?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

“You did, in fact, receive the reply that Lutherans have been claiming catholicity since the reformation by the use of the creeds. I don’t think you can just ignore that, though I know you’re doing your best.”

And you do not understand that the Creeds are Tradition? What’s more the canon of Scripture is tradition. No where does one find the table of contents or the creeds in Scripture itself.

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Whence comes this definition?

Annie

On this thread, pretty much everyone you’ve been talking to.

In my case, from the Church of England’s liturgy and doctrinal formularies.

In the case of the Church Catholic, from the example of the Fathers.

 

[Novocastrian]

“You did, in fact, receive the reply that Lutherans have been claiming catholicity since the reformation by the use of the creeds. I don’t think you can just ignore that, though I know you’re doing your best.”

And you do not understand that the Creeds are Tradition? What’s more the canon of Scripture is tradition. No where does one find the table of contents or the creeds in Scripture itself.

Annie

Yep. Which is why you’re being told, repeatedly, that sola scriptura isn’t intended to rule out all other sources of authority. It’s to say that other sources of authority cannot overrule Scripture. Scripture, only Scripture, is the ultimate authority in the Church under God.

 

[JonNC]

Ben may I ask where your church got its definiton of Sola Scriptura?

Annie

Hi Annie,
From the Lutheran Confessions, which we’ve encouraged you to read, not to convert you, by any means, but so you are informed about what we believe, teach, and confess.

From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord

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 sola in sola scriptura means simply that scripture is the final norm, by which all doctrines and teachings are 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.

Therefore, other writings are not equal to scripture, but secondary to it. It does** not **mean we ignore them, exclude them, don’t believe or use them. In fact, quite the opposite.

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.

We pledge ourselves to the ancient creeds, and yes, that is exactly how sola scriptura works.

An excellent example of the use of sola scriptura is Melanchthon’s description of the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

In the red, he first references scripture, the final norm.
In the blue and green, he supports the teaching referencing the historic Church, and the ECF’s respectively.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Hi Topper

Two parts of your post interest me the most.

"One group (which is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther), North Americans all, pursue one version or another of the argument that in his heart of hearts Luther wanted to reform the Church of Rome and deeply regretted the division that nonetheless followed and remains characteristic to this day. Roughly speaking, this party, which calls itself ‘evangelical catholics’, divides into two groups.”

This might explain why I have never heard of “Evangelical Catholics” before. I see that book’s title is “Luther and Modern Church History” I think that modern Church History can encompass quite a few decades.

“Some of course take both avenues toward their goal, which is, quite simply, full reunion with the Church of Rome. In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” James M. Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 260

I would very much welcome Lutherans home but of course they must come clear home renouncing the Confessions and Luther’s heresies.

Pax et bonum
Annie

 

[Annie39]

Jon you write: “From the Lutheran Confessions, which we’ve encouraged you to read, not to convert you, by any means, but so you are informed about what we believe, teach, and confess.”

But do you not see that that is not SS but Scripture and Tradition?

Annie

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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

You’re skipping over the “…by plain reason” part. That’s the difference.

 

[Annie39]

Yep. Which is why you’re being told, repeatedly, that sola scriptura isn’t intended to rule out all other sources of authority. It’s to say that other sources of authority cannot overrule Scripture. Scripture, only Scripture, is the ultimate authority in the Church under God.

Whence comes this definition? Luther certainly believed that SS means exactly that (as interpreted by himself that is)

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Jon you write: “From the Lutheran Confessions, which we’ve encouraged you to read, not to convert you, by any means, but so you are informed about what we believe, teach, and confess.”

But do you not see that that is not SS but Scripture and Tradition?

Annie

Sola scriptura uses both scripture and Tradition, but we use Tradition in a different way than the CC does, given that we view Tradition as secondary to scripture, and you view it as equal to scripture. So, again, the sola means that scripture “alone” is the final norm. That’s all the “alone” means. Only scripture is the final norm. Tradition isn’t a final norm.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Jon you write: “From the Lutheran Confessions, which we’ve encouraged you to read, not to convert you, by any means, but so you are informed about what we believe, teach, and confess.”

But do you not see that that is not SS but Scripture and Tradition?

Annie

You’re really not listening, but perhaps we’re failing to explain clearly enough. To wit:

Clearly after a fashion it is ‘scripture and tradition’, but not as Rome understands it. It is scripture and tradition, such that scripture is normatively read in the light of tradition, with the proviso that of the two only scripture can be considered the supreme and ultimate authority.

Our understanding of the lesser authority, tradition, is therefore to be kept in check by the reading of scripture.

 

[Annie39]

You’re skipping over the “…by plain reason” part. That’s the difference.

Actually not really. His plain reason is what he deduces from his reading Scripture alone. He becomes his own pope that way

 

[Annie39]

You’re really not listening, but perhaps we’re failing to explain clearly enough. To wit:

Clearly after a fashion it is ‘scripture and tradition’, but not as Rome understands it. It is scripture and tradition, such that scripture is normatively read in the light of tradition, with the proviso that of the two only scripture can be considered the supreme and ultimate authority.

Our understanding of the lesser authority, tradition, is therefore to be kept in check by the reading of scripture.

Well that is a bit better Novocastrain. Thank you. So you believe in Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by yourself, so you are your own magisterium is that correct?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Whence comes this definition? Luther certainly believed that SS means exactly that (as interpreted by himself that is)

Annie

What’s interesting about this is, of the 2 documents I quoted from moments ago, Luther wrote exactly neither of them.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Sola scriptura uses both scripture and Tradition, but we use Tradition in a different way than the CC does, given that we view Tradition as secondary to scripture, and you view it as equal to scripture. So, again, the sola means that scripture “alone” is the final norm. That’s all the “alone” means. Only scripture is the final norm. Tradition isn’t a final norm.

Jon

But you got this definition from the Confessions which is Lutheran tradition, correct?

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Whence comes this definition? Luther certainly believed that SS means exactly that (as interpreted by himself that is)

Annie

I don’t think Luther did, but I’m not willing to claim to be a Luther expert.

My definition is based on the liturgy and doctrinal formularies of the Church of England:

(The beginning of) Article VI

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church…

Question in the Ordinal posed to those ordained priest or consecrated bishop

Are you perswaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to eternal salvation) but that which you shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?

The Declaration of Assent

  *The Declaration of Assent is made by deacons, priests and bishops of the Church of England when they are ordained and on each occasion when they take up a new appointment (Canon C 15). Readers and Lay Workers make the declaration, without the words 'and administration of the sacraments', when they are admitted and when they are licensed (Canons E 5, E 6 and E 8).*
   
  ** Preface**	 
   
  The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?
   
   **Declaration of Assent**	 
   
  I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

I’d also be willing to accept the position offered here by Cyril of Jerusalem, although I fully respect that the likely Roman Catholic response will be to say that individual Fathers occasionally err, etc.

Catechetical Lecture IV.17

This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well that is a bit better Novocastrain. Thank you. So you believe in Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by yourself, so you are your own magisterium is that correct?

Annie

Of course not.

 

[JonNC]

But you got this definition from the Confessions which is Lutheran tradition, correct?

Annie

Well, of course. It is a practice of our Church, not a practice of mine. If it were a practice of mine, I wouldn’t need to use the confessions.

Jon