Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[MaryT777]

Guys,

Let me clarify a few things.

No one, at least me, thinks the orthodox Lutheran churches undermine the sanctity of its sacraments. If anything, I applaud those churches who value the proper way to believe in and administer them, according to Scriptural rite I suppose. I admire, at least for the most part, Luther and his current orthodox followers for wanting to keep the Real Presence in Holy Communion; along with keeping Communion closed to non-communicants.

However, when Luther (at least to my knowledge) and the Reformers removed Jesus Christ (in the Blessed Sacrament) from the tabernacles, it seems as though the focus of Lutheranism and its divine services inadvertently shifted to the pulpit. For example, I would contend that Luther spent the majority of his time commentating on the books of Romans and Galatians, and how it related to justification, than he did on the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism and how they related to salvation. He initially did not have any problem with the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. But when you coin new thoughts and doctrines such as extrinsic justification, total depravity, sinner-saint, non-regenerative baptism, sacramental union, soul sleep etc. etc…He had no choice but to magnify and elevate the vitality of Sacred Scripture, and it gradually and slowly outweighed the significance of the Lutheran Sacraments. For instance, most if not all orthodox Lutheran churches do not have daily mass where Holy Communion is offered. Further, most if not all Lutheran churches do not have Holy Communion every Lords Day (Sunday).

The “Liturgy of the Word”, in my 25 years of being Lutheran, could take anywhere from 20-45 minutes of the divine service, whereas the “Liturgy of the Sacrament” would take anywhere from 10-20 minutes (depending on size of communicants). Yes, I know this is anecdotal evidence and there are probably how many orthodox Lutheran churches that do it differently, however that doesn’t change my attitude of what seemed of more importance.

The two Lutheran churches that I was a part of, ELS and WELS had Holy Communion twice a month, that’s 24 time a year! But, taking into account Advent and Lent where there were Wednesday services, there were about 62 homilies (give or take a few). Not only that, but there were daily bible studies, vacation bible school, sunday bible school - all of which are wonderful things!!! But when you look back on the focus, its hard to say there was an even balance between Word and Sacrament.

To my knowledge, the one thing that Our Blessed Lord explicitly commanded his Apostles to do, as it is recorded in Scripture, is to celebrate and partake in the mysteries of the Most Holy Eucharist, and “to do it OFTEN” (caps only for emphasis, not shouting . Oh, and also make disciples of all nations via Holy Baptism. Two sacraments, two explicit commands.

God love you!

Eric

Eric,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. The Sacramental Life of the Church draws many people to learn more and inquire further. I’m happy you have found your home in the Catholic Church and enjoy reading your posts.

I never got to welcome you to the forums, so here it is. Pleased to meet you and welcome.

:tiphat:

God love you, as well.

Peace in Christ,
Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Well, it seems the topic has been changed to Topper now again.

How would that be possible Mary? After all, that would be breaking the rules here on CA, where we are advised to discuss the topic and not the poster – right?

Plus, if what you are saying were to be true, that would mean that people are trying to change the topic from Luther to me, and as you know, there are a lot of people who are very insistent that we all remain on topic, (at least when it suits their purposes).

Right?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, I haven’t been able to follow the thread in its entirety, so if you answered and I missed it, I apologize.

Could you please answer the above?

Sure. God has provided for us in scripture the message of Messiah, the Christ. We are saved by grace. We may not know all there is to know, but what we do know is sufficient in His grace.
Is there more? Probably. Can not knowing cost us our salvation? Not if grace is true.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mary,

How would that be possible Mary? After all, that would be breaking the rules here on CA, where we are advised to discuss the topic and not the poster – right?

Plus, if what you are saying were to be true, that would mean that people are trying to change the topic from Luther to me, and as you know, there are a lot of people who are very insistent that we all remain on topic, (at least when it suits their purposes).

Right?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

The topic never was Luther. And it still isn’t you.

Jon
EDIT: by the way, there is that little red and white triangle if you feel forum rules have been violated. Eric Hilbert is quite fair.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eric,

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s just back up a minute…

However, that does not mean I or you cannot criticize the nature of his works and how it relates to his theology. I have been attacked, since my conversion, for the sinful actions of popes, the inquisitions, the crusades, etc. etc. and that is just fine! Because those are just that, sinful actions (insofar as it relates to the abuse or sinfulness within those periods). However, when one man, outside of a Church Council, introduces doctrines that were not revealed by Our Blessed Lord and/or practice by Him and His Apostles, and then substantiated by the crudeness and vulgarity within those works of that one man… anything that someone will say about his works will automatically come off as non-cordial or uncharitable to those who hold to his teachings. Because it seems almost paradoxical to mix charity with crudeness when having a discourse about his works, outside of who he actually was and inclined to acting such as.

In refuting/rejecting/challenging 50 important doctrines (even before his excommunication) Luther painted a huge target on his back, one that remains there today, especially given the impact that his teachings on Church unity and Christian piety. The fact that he was also so vulgar and hateful in the process reveals what was in his heart during his Revolt. As you note, it might seem ‘non-cordial’ to bring these issues up, but then it was his writings and actions which divided Western Christendom. Personally, I believe that we stand a much better chance of reunification if we understand why, specifically and exactly, that division occurred in the first place. If that involves a more complete and un-whitewashed understanding of Martin Luther, then so be it.

My personal contention was that I found it revealing that all Luther teachers and pastors for my 25 years being a Lutheran, did not disclose any of this! Sure I can understand not wanting to even have a need to focus on the crude side of Luther.

We all know that modern day Lutherans do not ‘worship’ Martin Luther, and in fact, find much of what he wrote and taught and did to be repugnant, as they should. They ‘pick and choose’ what to buy into and what to pass on, using of course the ‘right of private judgment’ that Luther had ‘gained’ for them.

The Lutheran ‘concept’ of Martin Luther has undergone a huge transformation over the centuries. In the earliest days of Lutheranism, Luther was considered by many to be a Prophet, as in an Old Testament type Prophet, literally with a teaching authority from God as found in no other man on the planet. Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb wrote an amazing book which documents the ‘evolution’ of the Lutheran ‘view’ of Luther:

“Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”

The fact is that Luther made some astonishing claims regarding his personal authority, claims that are not at all ‘well known’ by the vast majority of modern lay Lutherans. He acted as if he believed that he had the authority to teach and correct everybody, so it cannot be said that all of those outlandish claims were simple rhetoric. That being said, what is more disturbing is the fact that a lot of early Lutherans bought into Luther’s claims, at least to a significant degree. As Kolb documents, right from the very beginning, Lutherans constructed a “Martin Luther” which accentuated the ‘positive’ and shoved the more damning evidence under the carpet. Your personal 25 year experience is evidence of Lutherans ‘staying positive’ with regards to Luther.

Needless to say, I would doubt that Kolb’s book can be found in the lending libraries of very many Lutheran parishes, whereas I would bet that the very popular (and ultra ‘positive’) biography by Roland Bainton is.

The Luther who was once hailed as, and treated like an Old Testament Prophet, is now considered by many of those who bear his name to be only one of the better known Reformers. But the fact is that Luther has had a HUGE influence on modern day Lutheran doctrine.

I don’t think that Luther’s ‘crude side’ (as you put it), is much more than an indication of a poorly formed Christin character. What is more important are all of the things that he taught which we all know today to be anti-Christian. His teachings on the Jews are only one issue among many.

God Bless You Eric, Topper

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. God has provided for us in scripture the message of Messiah, the Christ. We are saved by grace. We may not know all there is to know, but what we do know is sufficient in His grace.
Is there more? Probably. Can not knowing cost us our salvation? Not if grace is true.

Jon

I don’t want to belabor the point, but I do think my question is an important one, and I want to connect the dots.

You stated, “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture”.

You also stated that this statement does not have to be found in Scripture.

I asked where this statement comes from then.

And I’m still not sure of your answer.

It comes from…something you heard your pastor say? It comes from Martin Luther?

Where did you get the idea that all truths necessary to salvation are stated in the Bible?

 

[Topper17]

Hi LS,

Thanks for your response.

The Lord be with you, Topper. I prefer the Lutheran Confessions to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty- Nine Articles, the Baptist Faith and Message and the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply because they are the most logical extrapolation of Holy Scriptures coupled with Western Christian tradition that I have read thus far. They retain those doctrines that can be proved by Scripture and early Church tradition and explain them in intricate detail and even defend them, citing not only Scripture, but writings from the Early Church Fathers.

I understand what you are saying, and I am well aware that Lutherans believe that their Confessions are ‘superior’ to those of the other communions. What I don’t know is specifically and exactly why, and not for the lack of asking over the years.

You use the word ‘prefer’ and it seems to me that what I have discovered over the years is that the choice of ‘Confession’ is simply a matter of individual preference, or possibly family history, or even personality.

Do you believe that Christ left his Church with a ‘system’ in which we all get to decide for ourselves, based on our own personal preferences, what His Absolute Truth is? Or, conversely, do you believe that Christ could not have left us with something that is so clearly flawed, and that He must have left us with a way to know that Absolute Truth with a greater degree of certainty?

You say that the doctrines in your Confessions ‘can be proven’ from Scripture and Early Church Tradition. First of all, all of the people who believe in their own particular Confessions also make the same claim. Could you please explain what those ‘proofs’ are, specifically and exactly?

God Bless You LS, Topper

 

[Topper17]

How about “exactly and specifically”, Topper. Who, and in what way on the forum has “discouraged” anything being said about Martin Luther, within the rules of the forum?

Here Jon, I will allow your own words to answer your question:

This is factually untrue. You yourself have quoted often from numerous Lutheran writers who criticize Luther’s flaws. For you, having spent a year and a half here bashing Luther, using numerous Lutheran writers in the process is, frankly, laughable.

Would you represent your comment about my supposed “bashing” of Luther and your comment that my posts are “laughable” as ‘encouragement’ with regard to the information that I post about Luther? What is the intent of your comments if not to discourage?

You are quite correct in one limited respect though about the recent honesty of Lutheran Scholars. They have, over the last few decades have become MUCH more honest about the Real Martin Luther. As you point out, I have quoted them here on CA extensively. However, the honesty of recent Lutheran Scholars on the matter only points to the lack thereof of their predecessors and is in contrast to non-professional, non-clerical Lutheran commenters. What I find refreshing about these professional Lutheran Scholars is that they have found a way to honestly represent Luther and his numerous crazy teachings, and STILL remain within the Lutheran fold. I do have to tell you though that it seems to me that, overall, I get the impression that these modern honest Lutheran Scholars are not as concerned about matters of doctrine as have been their predecessors.

Furthermore, as has been evidenced by many posters here, with Eric being only the latest, Lutheran laypeople tend to know almost NONE of the more embarrassing details and teachings of the man whose name they bear. And again, with Eric as an example, when they learn those details, they are likely to begin questioning the teachings of the man in general, and become more likely ‘swimmers’.

How many Catholics know about Eck’s book, Ains Juden-büechlins Verlegung?

A better question: why should they know about it? What value in modern Christian society do either of these books hold? How can either of these books help us to understand “exactly and specifically” the causes of the division between Lutherans and Catholics?

I have an idea, though: use the two books side by side, representative of the vile anti-Jewish sentiments widely held in central Europe at that time, as tools to teach both Catholics and Lutherans how hideous this sentiment is.

If you would like Jon, when I get back home I can do a quick search through the indexes of all of the books I have on the Holocaust, noting especially the ones written by Lutheran Scholars. I can report back on the number of references to Eck and the number of references to Luther. I would be happy to do this for you since I think it would demonstrate, for you, the modern IMPACT of Luther’s actions and recommendations, as opposed to those of Eck, at least in the minds of modern Scholars, including especially the Lutherans.

Neither Eck nor Luther’s writings about the Jews are in any way ‘admirable’ Jon, but you know for a fact that Eck’s negative satements about the Jews are not even in the same universe as the recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews. As you know, Luther made 7 astonishingly horrific recommendations as to what he wanted to happen, physically, to the Jews. Eck on the other hand, SAID some nasty things about the Jews but made NO such recommendations. Thus, in terms of INTENT, there is NO COMPARISION. Luther made it very clear that the INTENT of his recommendations was that the Jews be harmed, as a people and as individuals.

The reason that Luther’s disgraceful, and mostly unknown, teachings and recommendations on the Jews are important is because they should cause us to question the validity of his claim to teach authoritatively. How can we ‘trust’ the Christian judgement of someone who wrote what he wrote about the Jews, of course quoting Scripture constantly (and furiously of course)? How can his interpretations of Scripture on the Jews do anything other than force us to question whether he could correctly interpret Scripture on anything, this especially when he rejected SO MUCH of established Christian Teaching.

I think it is significant that so many people have come to CA and explained that they were forced to reconsider their membership in their Lutheran communions after reading about the Martin Luther that they had never known and reading the writings that they had never been exposed to.

 

[GKC]

Here Jon, I will allow your own words to answer your question:

Would you represent your comment about my supposed “bashing” of Luther and your comment that my posts are “laughable” as ‘encouragement’ with regard to the information that I post about Luther? What is the intent of your comments if not to discourage?

You are quite correct in one limited respect though about the recent honesty of Lutheran Scholars. They have, over the last few decades have become MUCH more honest about the Real Martin Luther. As you point out, I have quoted them here on CA extensively. However, the honesty of recent Lutheran Scholars on the matter only points to the lack thereof of their predecessors and is in contrast to non-professional, non-clerical Lutheran commenters. What I find refreshing about these professional Lutheran Scholars is that they have found a way to honestly represent Luther and his numerous crazy teachings, and STILL remain within the Lutheran fold. I do have to tell you though that it seems to me that, overall, I get the impression that these modern honest Lutheran Scholars are not as concerned about matters of doctrine as have been their predecessors.

Furthermore, as has been evidenced by many posters here, with Eric being only the latest, Lutheran laypeople tend to know almost NONE of the more embarrassing details and teachings of the man whose name they bear. And again, with Eric as an example, when they learn those details, they are likely to begin questioning the teachings of the man in general, and become more likely ‘swimmers’.

If you would like Jon, when I get back home I can do a quick search through the indexes of all of the books I have on the Holocaust, noting especially the ones written by Lutheran Scholars. I can report back on the number of references to Eck and the number of references to Luther. I would be happy to do this for you since I think it would demonstrate, for you, the modern IMPACT of Luther’s actions and recommendations, as opposed to those of Eck, at least in the minds of modern Scholars, including especially the Lutherans.

Neither Eck nor Luther’s writings about the Jews are in any way ‘admirable’ Jon, but you know for a fact that Eck’s negative satements about the Jews are not even in the same universe as the recommendations that Luther made as to what should physically happen to the Jews. As you know, Luther made 7 astonishingly horrific recommendations as to what he wanted to happen, physically, to the Jews. Eck on the other hand, SAID some nasty things about the Jews but made NO such recommendations. Thus, in terms of INTENT, there is NO COMPARISION. Luther made it very clear that the INTENT of his recommendations was that the Jews be harmed, as a people and as individuals.

The reason that Luther’s disgraceful, and mostly unknown, teachings and recommendations on the Jews are important is because they should cause us to question the validity of his claim to teach authoritatively. How can we ‘trust’ the Christian judgement of someone who wrote what he wrote about the Jews, of course quoting Scripture constantly (and furiously of course)? How can his interpretations of Scripture on the Jews do anything other than force us to question whether he could correctly interpret Scripture on anything, this especially when he rejected SO MUCH of established Christian Teaching.

I think it is significant that so many people have come to CA and explained that they were forced to reconsider their membership in their Lutheran communions after reading about the Martin Luther that they had never known and reading the writings that they had never been exposed to.

I, for one, would certainly enjoy seeing book titles and index reference by book page, for such a list of books. I have maybe 50+ titles on the Holocaust. I have not read them all, but do not recall either Luther or Eck getting much coverage, though I’d expect Luther to have a higher page count. I’d like to see (assuming we have any overlap in titles; the thrust of the bookss may be different) how such a thing works out.

 

[Topper17]

Hi LS,

Thanks for your response.

The Lord be with you, Topper. I prefer the Lutheran Confessions to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty- Nine Articles, the Baptist Faith and Message and the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply because they are the most logical extrapolation of Holy Scriptures coupled with Western Christian tradition that I have read thus far. They retain those doctrines that can be proved by Scripture and early Church tradition and explain them in intricate detail and even defend them, citing not only Scripture, but writings from the Early Church Fathers.

I have asked this question of many Lutherans over the year and don’t think I am much closer to an answer. You mention the word ‘preference’ and maybe that is what it comes down to. If it is something more specific, could you please explain it to me. After all, it seems to me that all of the Competing Confessional communions believe that theirs is the ‘best’.

YOu also claim that your Confessions can be proven from scripture and the Early Church, but LS, they ALL say that? What it is specifically and exactly in Scripture and Tradition which PROVES the Lutheran Confession to be superior?

God Bless You LS, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

The topic never was Luther. And it still isn’t you.

Jon
EDIT: by the way, there is that little red and white triangle if you feel forum rules have been violated. Eric Hilbert is quite fair.

LOL!~ We’re used to the “quick change” approach from Luther to Topper. No problemo,

Yes Eric is a great moderator God bless him!!

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13025579]I don’t want to belabor the point, but I do think my question is an important one, and I want to connect the dots.

Sure you do. But I don’t mind, coming from you.

You stated, “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture”.

You also stated that this statement does not have to be found in Scripture.

I asked where this statement comes from then.

And I’m still not sure of your answer.

It comes from…something you heard your pastor say? It comes from Martin Luther?

Neither. It comes, essentially from our confessions, but not only that. Even the ECF’s looked to scripture.
But let me come back at the question from our view point, or at least mine; what other source of truths are out there that are independent of scripture? You might say the Church, or Tradition, but they are not independent of scripture.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Sure you do. But I don’t mind, coming from you.

Awwww, that’s sweet, brother! :tiphat:

Neither. It comes, essentially from our confessions,

But where do the confessions come from?

but not only that. Even the ECF’s looked to scripture.

Well, that’s different. That’s looking to Scripture. That’s not saying that “All truths necessary to salvation are found in Scripture.”

But let me come back at the question from our view point, or at least mine; what other source of truths are out there that are independent of scripture? You might say the Church, or Tradition, but they are not independent of scripture.

Jon

I would say the Church and Sacred Tradition, yes.

And that Scripture/Tradition/Church form a seamless garment is irrelevant to the assertion that “All truths necessary to salvation are found in Scripture”.

If that truth isn’t found in Scripture, then it must be found in Tradition or the Church.

And that makes you… NOT Sola Scriptura.

 

[Pier]

Hmm…

The early Church didn’t even have the written text of the New Testament available to them, because it was not determined yet. Too, this determination came about by the Holy Spirit, through His Church.

So any notions that came along a millennium and a half later would, imo, be moot.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, that’s different. That’s looking to Scripture. That’s not saying that “All truths necessary to salvation are found in Scripture.”

If you’ll let me poke my nose in your conversation - this phrase needs to be fleshed out into “All truths necessary to salvation will never be contrary to the very Word of God”

You’ll hopefully notice that Lutherans don’t just hand out bibles and tell people to “Read this to save yourself!” - intact we’re kind of sticklers for the Sacrament of Baptism and to meeting God to receive His Gifts in the Lutheran Divine Service. We also are a community to help each other grow as decipels.

The whole “Sola Scriptura” thing really just a bit of propaganda and really means that all other authorities are corrected by the Word of God.

It’s a bulwark for when some individual comes up with a new idea.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’ll let me poke my nose in your conversation - this phrase needs to be fleshed out into “All truths necessary to salvation will never be contrary to the very Word of God”

That’s a novel definition of SS.

And if that’s what SS says, then no one ought to deny SS.

But I just don’t think that’s what* anyone,* even my dear Lutheran brothers and sisters, really mean when they say they subscribe to SS.

 

[PRmerger]

The whole “Sola Scriptura” thing really just a bit of propaganda and really means that all other authorities are corrected by the Word of God.

The Word of God is, however, ONLY the written word, according to your communion?

 

[benjohnson]

The Word of God is, however, ONLY the written word, according to your communion?

No, Jesus is the Word made Flesh - and we gnaw on his Body and Blood. (John 6:16-51) And we certainly don’t deny the creeds or tradition passed down.

But we take a dim view of people claiming to have the Word of God by themselves, or people coming up with new ideas - “I have a new idea” generally means “I have an old heresy”

Here’s a good definition from the LC-MS (also showing that it’s a principal). If you really want to get into the weeds - It’s really the definition of Norma normans that we should be looking at.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SOLASCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura
(Lat. “Scripture alone”). Term referring to the formal* principle of the Luth. Church. FC SD Rule and Norm 3: “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and. teachings are to be judged and evaluated.”

Norma normans
(Lat. “the ruling rule”). Term applied to Scripture because it is the absolute norm of faith (norma primaria, norma decisionis), decisive by its own right. Scripture as the decisive norm is absolutely necessary, being the norm which decides whether doctrines are true or false.

 

[AugustTherese]

If you’ll let me poke my nose in your conversation - this phrase needs to be fleshed out into “All truths necessary to salvation will never be contrary to the very Word of God”

You’ll hopefully notice that Lutherans don’t just hand out bibles and tell people to “Read this to save yourself!” - intact we’re kind of sticklers for the Sacrament of Baptism and to meeting God to receive His Gifts in the Lutheran Divine Service. We also are a community to help each other grow as decipels.

The whole “Sola Scriptura” thing really just a bit of propaganda and really means that all other authorities are corrected by the Word of God.

It’s a bulwark for when some individual comes up with a new idea.

That’s just the thing, Ben. Scripture tells us that the Church, and not the written Word alone, is the “bulwark”.

“…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15 NRSVCE

Granted the NIV and KJV translates “bulwark” to “foundation” but either way I think its pretty clear who or what ultimately determines what is heresy and what is not.

Eric

 

[AugustTherese]

No, Jesus is the Word made Flesh - and we gnaw on his Body and Blood. (John 6:16-51) And we certainly don’t deny the creeds or tradition passed down.

But we take a dim view of people claiming to have the Word of God by themselves, or people coming up with new ideas - “I have a new idea” generally means “I have an old heresy”

Here’s a good definition from the LC-MS (also showing that it’s a principal). If you really want to get into the weeds - It’s really the definition of Norma normans that we should be looking at.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SOLASCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura
(Lat. “Scripture alone”). Term referring to the formal* principle of the Luth. Church. FC SD Rule and Norm 3: “We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and. teachings are to be judged and evaluated.”

Norma normans
(Lat. “the ruling rule”). Term applied to Scripture because it is the absolute norm of faith (norma primaria, norma decisionis), decisive by its own right. Scripture as the decisive norm is absolutely necessary, being the norm which decides whether doctrines are true or false.

“the prophetic and apostolic writings…which is the only true norm”

Where can you find me, where the only true norm (Scripture) says that?

If you say Lutheran tradition, then you are going against what solely determines whether doctrines are true or false, that is, the prophetic and apostolic writings, “the ONLY true norm”. Caps for emphasis only

Eric