Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[AugustTherese]

First, we wouldn’t make the claim that everything He said was written down. In fact, John tells us quite the contrary. What I would say is that it seems rather unlikely that critical articles of faith would have been excluded. IOW, what was very important that was spoken, ended up being written down.
e teaching does no harm to the Gospel, so many Lutherans such as myself believe it.

I hope that helps, Eric.

Jon

Hey Jon,

You are absolutely correct in remarking ¨that everything He said was [not] written down¨. When you say that ¨it seems rather unlikely that critical articles of faith would have been excluded¨ I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I was just wondering what sort of Scripture you could reference which states that or alludes to it. Also, you say ¨what was very important that was spoken, ended up being written down¨, can you again provide Scripture backing that up? Because when St. John wrote ¨Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written¨ John 21:25 NIV*

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that the important doctrines that needed to be written, were in fact written down, however, where in the Bible does it state, imply, or allude to which substantiates the claim that the ¨critical articles of faith [aren’t] excluded¨ as it relates to that passage? For example, this passage clearly states that Jesus said and did more things that those things which were written down. Were those things not ¨important¨ and/or critical?

With charity,

Eric

 

[benjohnson]

For example, this passage clearly states that Jesus said and did more things that those things which were written down. Were those things not ¨important¨ and/or critical?

With charity,

Eric

Not to speak for Jon at all (because he’s much wiser than me) - but Jesus didn’t just leave us the written Bible - he left us with the Apostles that formed the church as well. From a Lutheran standpoint, your question implies a split that we just don’t observe.

We Lutherans don’t discount the church, tradition, or other authorities, only that they must conform to God’s Word.

The necessity of this realization came about when (from the Lutheran standpoint) that one of those Authorities went a little too far in promulgating paid-for-inulgances contrary (again in our opinion) to scripture.

 

[4most4christ]

Hello All,

I have an honest, non-inflammatory sola scriptura question for Lutherans and traditional Reformed individuals. I’m trying to figure out if the tradition of the church plays ANY role at all in determining how scripture should be interpreted. Obviously one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.

I really appreciate how lovingly and gently you began your question.
From the Reformed perspective, yes, tradition definitely plays a part in how we view Scriptural interpretations. It seems that anyone who says “No” to that either isn’t taking into account the actual culture in which we live and practice our faith in Christ, and may be speaking only from a theoretical viewpoint, or they are of a Reformed-only mindset and are vehemently anti-Roman Catholic, so as to say anything that smacks of “tradition” is RC and shouldn’t be practiced. I wish we had kept the church traditions like candles in church, wearing crosses as symbols of our faith, and had more liturgical items like incense and stained glass to appeal to our senses, like how the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist appeal via material substance.

Regarding your example of infant or believer baptism, there are often local church traditions that are involved with a church’s baptismal beliefs and process. This goes to show that we can’t be pure in our actions, even in worship. Whether we accept or reject infant baptism, we should accept that believers’ children are in the same covenant with God, and are not treated like the children of unbelievers. God has a special place in His covenant for the special gifts that children are. They are also the expected heirs of the covenant of grace in Christ, but too often we miss how Scripture (which we as Reformed folk in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) view as being primarily accountable to, and above tradition) shows us how children were in the same mode of baptism, via circumcision, as adults in the OT (Exodus 20:5-6, Deut. 29:1-5,Jeremiah 31:31-34 and others I can’t recall that quickly) and how there’s not 1 actual example of infant baptism in the NT because it was already a previously set expectation from the practices of God’s followers in OT that carried over into the NT Church.

There is a Reformed inclination to follow what we see as the clear pattern of Scripture to baptize infants. The phrase “Semper Reformanda” or “always reforming” shows us that we always need to adhere to the Scriptural principles, because we will always have traditional patterns, and yet they need to be checked against God’s given direction in Scripture.

Acts 2:38-39 gives us the best Scripture reason to maintain the tradition of infant baptism:
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

As for the method of baptism, Reformed Christians (other than Anabaptists) almost all have the traditional belief that immersion, sprinkling and pouring are all valid methods of baptism. Baptism washed away past corrupt associations to join the righteous dedicated to God and joining in covenant with God, like the Jewish ritual washing of converts to Judaism, men & women were water baptized to cleanse them from their pagan/Gentile ways. In these and other Scriptural and liturgical examples we can see that tradition is a great mix of belief, trust, culture and ritual, whose foundation is faith in Jesus Christ.

Hope this all helps you with your goal of figuring our how tradition effects Scriptural interpretation.

 

[AugustTherese]

Not to speak for Jon at all (because he’s much wiser than me) - but Jesus didn’t just leave us the written Bible - he left us with the Apostles that formed the church as well. From a Lutheran standpoint, your question implies a split that we just don’t observe.

We Lutherans don’t discount the church, tradition, or other authorities, only that they must conform to God’s Word.

The necessity of this realization came about when (from the Lutheran standpoint) that one of those Authorities went a little too far in promulgating paid-for-inulgances contrary (again in our opinion) to scripture.

Thanks for your response! I would respectfully disagree with Jesus leaving us the written Bible. He never wrote a single word, and never commanded his Apostles to write anything. The Holy Bible, canonically, was not in its final form until almost four centuries after He ascended. He did leave us a Church, and deposited the full revelation of faith to the disciples by what he said: “and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” Matthew 28:20 NIV*.

Yes, “church and tradition must conform to God’s Word”! Amen! Wouldn’t you say that God’s Word isn’t limited to what was written and/or spoken, but it is actually God himself enfleshed in the person of Jesus Christ? In other words, God’s Word is the Eternal Word incarnate, Jesus Christ. So, to limit the authority that Jesus Christ gave to his Apostles to what was only written, seems to undercut and reduce Christ’s authority itself as what spoken and not recorded (Apostolic/Sacred Tradition), and as Confessional Lutherans confess everything and anything should ultimately conform to that what was written alone. Notice I said conform, and not complement or supplement. Does not Sola Scriptura imply the written Word is the final and absolute authority in determining faith and morals, thus is not only pits the authority of the Church, given by Christ Himself, against the written Word, given by the inspired writers, but also places that which was not written down and passed on as subject to the written Word? In other words, only the things that were written trump anything that was not written and said by Our Blessed Lord, to be safeguarded by the Church (apostles and their successors)?

For example, the contents of the Holy Bible are not inspired. Not one book in the Holy Bible says it’s inspired. The Bible is not self-authoritative in that it put itself together in the final form that we see it. Apostolic Tradition and the authority that is contained in it decided which books (of the New Testament especially) were in fact inspired and which ones were not. So to go back to the original question and passage in John 21:25. Those things that were not recorded but rather said by Christ; were they not Sacred, authoritative, and conforming to Jesus Christ Himself? If not, could you provide Scripture that refutes it?

P.S. This does not mean that the written Word is not authoritative, errant, uninspired, and/or supplementing and complementing to everything that was fully and divinely revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. It’s just that alone, only, or ‘sola’ part that makes us itch.

Eric

 

[KjetilK]

As I think I’ve said before, this comes down to what you think Sola Scriptura means. One problem lies in terminology. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Tradition is bad or irrelevant. If it was, then almost all of the content of Confessio Augustana is irrelevant. In the Lutheran tradition, Sola Scripturameans that Scripture is the highest authority. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it is easy to understand, or that no one can, or must, be charged with its interpretation. Again, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean, in the Lutheran tradition, that we do not need an interpretive office. It simply means that this office doesn’t stand above Scripture, but is its servant, as a supreme court judge doesn’t stand above the constitution but serves and upholds it.

In many ways, Scripture is the equivalent of a constitution. A constitution has primacy, but you can have other, binding, laws, as long as those do not contradict the constitution. To use modern terminology, the Lutheran position known historically as Sola Scriptura would better be described as Prima Scriptura.

And this is, incidentally, also the position of Dei Verbum, and of Joseph Ratzinger/pope (em.) Benedict XVI. In Dei Verbum, this is pointed out in paragraph 10:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

In Dogma and Preaching, which is available on Google Books, Ratzinger presents his case, on pp.26-39. What Ratzinger says there is that Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful depend on each other, but that primacy belongs first to Scripture, then to Tradition (focusing on the Creeds and Dogmas), then to the Magisterium (the servant of Scripture and Tradition), and then to the concrete faith as it is lived out in the dioceses and parishes. One key passage comes on page 38: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.”

We find the same pattern in Lutheranism: Scripture is the norm which norms other norms (norma normans non normata); Tradition (with emphasis on Creeds and Dogmas, and on liturgy and Canon Law) are norms that are normed by Scripture (norma normata); the ordained priesthood, with the bishops as leaders, has the task to preach and interpret that which has been handed over (Confessio Augustana 4, 28); and this has to be lived out in the context of the faithful’s own lives.

And as to infant baptism, it should be noted that Luther explicitly used Tradition in its defence. If, as Scripture teaches, God keeps the Church from error, then it follows, according to Luther, that infant baptism is valid, since that he been a constant teaching of the entire Church throughout history.

 

[AugustTherese]

As I think I’ve said before, this comes down to what you think Sola Scriptura means. One problem lies in terminology. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Tradition is bad or irrelevant. If it was, then almost all of the content of Confessio Augustana is irrelevant. In the Lutheran tradition, Sola Scripturameans that Scripture is the highest authority. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it is easy to understand, or that no one can, or must, be charged with its interpretation. Again, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean, in the Lutheran tradition, that we do not need an interpretive office. It simply means that this office doesn’t stand above Scripture, but is its servant, as a supreme court judge doesn’t stand above the constitution but serves and upholds it.

In many ways, Scripture is the equivalent of a constitution. A constitution has primacy, but you can have other, binding, laws, as long as those do not contradict the constitution. To use modern terminology, the Lutheran position known historically as Sola Scriptura would better be described as Prima Scriptura.

And this is, incidentally, also the position of Dei Verbum, and of Joseph Ratzinger/pope (em.) Benedict XVI. In Dei Verbum, this is pointed out in paragraph 10:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

In Dogma and Preaching, which is available on Google Books, Ratzinger presents his case, on pp.26-39. What Ratzinger says there is that Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful depend on each other, but that primacy belongs first to Scripture, then to Tradition (focusing on the Creeds and Dogmas), then to the Magisterium (the servant of Scripture and Tradition), and then to the concrete faith as it is lived out in the dioceses and parishes. One key passage comes on page 38: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.”

We find the same pattern in Lutheranism: Scripture is the norm which norms other norms (norma normans non normata); Tradition (with emphasis on Creeds and Dogmas, and on liturgy and Canon Law) are norms that are normed by Scripture (norma normata); the ordained priesthood, with the bishops as leaders, has the task to preach and interpret that which has been handed over (Confessio Augustana 4, 28); and this has to be lived out in the context of the faithful’s own lives.

And as to infant baptism, it should be noted that Luther explicitly used Tradition in its defence. If, as Scripture teaches, God keeps the Church from error, then it follows, according to Luther, that infant baptism is valid, since that he been a constant teaching of the entire Church throughout history.

Who is your church’s interpretive office? Is it Apostolic, if so, how?

“Scripture is the highest authority”? Wouldn’t you say that Jesus Christ is the highest authority? Is God’s Word Scripture only, or as mentioned previously, is it also those things which Jesus said and did that were not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25)?..those things that do not contradict Scripture, but in perfect and perpetual harmony, supplement it.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks for your response! I would respectfully disagree with Jesus leaving us the written Bible. He never wrote a single word, and never commanded his Apostles to write anything. The Holy Bible, canonically, was not in its final form until almost four centuries after He ascended.

Agreed - Lutherans understand the early church and are a valid continuation of it (our claim).

Yes, “church and tradition must conform to God’s Word”! Amen! Wouldn’t you say that God’s Word isn’t limited to what was written and/or spoken, but it is actually God himself enfleshed in the person of Jesus Christ?

Word made flesh. Agreed.

Does not Sola Scriptura imply the written Word is the final and absolute authority in determining faith and morals, thus is not only pits the authority of the Church, given by Christ Himself, against the written Word, given by the inspired writers, but also places that which was not written down and passed on as subject to the written Word? In other words, only the things that were written trump anything that was not written and said by Our Blessed Lord, to be safeguarded by the Church (apostles and their successors)?

I think Jon answered this above.

For example, the contents of the Holy Bible are not inspired.

If I’m understanding correctly, agreed - Lutherans don’t have a fixed cannon.

It’s just that alone, only, or ‘sola’ part that makes us itch.

That would make us itch too as the interpretation of scripture is a function of the church.

 

[AugustTherese]

Agreed - Lutherans understand the early church and are a valid continuation of it (our claim).

That would make us itch too as the interpretation of scripture is a function of the church.

Of what church? How do you define “the church”?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Eric,

=AugustTherese;12988001]Hey Jon,

You are absolutely correct in remarking ¨that everything He said was [not] written down¨. When you say that ¨it seems rather unlikely that critical articles of faith would have been excluded¨ I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I was just wondering what sort of Scripture you could reference which states that or alludes to it. Also, you say ¨what was very important that was spoken, ended up being written down¨, can you again provide Scripture backing that up? Because when St. John wrote ¨Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written¨ John 21:25 NIV*

Well, Luke 1 starts with “*Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” * It seems to me that what is written gives us a level of certainty regarding the Gospel, and that can be extended to the law, as well.
Beyond that, I’m not sure one needs a scripture reference in this regard. Remember, we also regard tradition, the writings of the Fathers, the councils ,etc. as support and witness to the truth of scripture.

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that the important doctrines that needed to be written, were in fact written down, however, where in the Bible does it state, imply, or allude to which substantiates the claim that the ¨critical articles of faith [aren’t] excluded¨ as it relates to that passage? For example, this passage clearly states that Jesus said and did more things that those things which were written down. Were those things not ¨important¨ and/or critical?

AFAIK, the scriptures make no statement pro or con to what you’ve said you don’t necessarily disagree with, that being the important things were written down. It isn’t a matter of excluding or rejecting other things, but simply a matter of what one is certain of. Of scripture we are certain, as I know Catholics are.
The early councils and creeds we accept.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Of what church? How do you define “the church”?

Lutherans claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.

I think most simple definition that Lutherans would recognise would be that the church is where the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered.

 

[commenter]

Lutherans claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.

I think most simple definition that Lutherans would recognise would be that the church is where the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered.

I don’t know, but suspect many Lutherans would say “the church is where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed…” or “accurately” proclaimed, or “faithfully” proclaimed, and the Sacraments are administered. Even if they don’t say it, isn’t that understood?

 

[spedteacherita]

Who is your church’s interpretive office? Is it Apostolic, if so, how?

“Scripture is the highest authority”? Wouldn’t you say that Jesus Christ is the highest authority? Is God’s Word Scripture only, or as mentioned previously, is it also those things which Jesus said and did that were not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25)?..those things that do not contradict Scripture, but in perfect and perpetual harmony, supplement it.

Jesus is the Word, is He not?

Just a thought…

God bless!

Rita

 

[Robyn_p]

As I think I’ve said before, this comes down to what you think Sola Scriptura means. One problem lies in terminology. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Tradition is bad or irrelevant. If it was, then almost all of the content of Confessio Augustana is irrelevant. In the Lutheran tradition, Sola Scripturameans that Scripture is the highest authority. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it is easy to understand, or that no one can, or must, be charged with its interpretation. Again, Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean, in the Lutheran tradition, that we do not need an interpretive office. It simply means that this office doesn’t stand above Scripture, but is its servant, as a supreme court judge doesn’t stand above the constitution but serves and upholds it.

In many ways, Scripture is the equivalent of a constitution. A constitution has primacy, but you can have other, binding, laws, as long as those do not contradict the constitution. To use modern terminology, the Lutheran position known historically as Sola Scriptura would better be described as Prima Scriptura.

And this is, incidentally, also the position of Dei Verbum, and of Joseph Ratzinger/pope (em.) Benedict XVI. In Dei Verbum, this is pointed out in paragraph 10:

This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

In Dogma and Preaching, which is available on Google Books, Ratzinger presents his case, on pp.26-39. What Ratzinger says there is that Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, and the concrete, contextual faith of the faithful depend on each other, but that primacy belongs first to Scripture, then to Tradition (focusing on the Creeds and Dogmas), then to the Magisterium (the servant of Scripture and Tradition), and then to the concrete faith as it is lived out in the dioceses and parishes. One key passage comes on page 38: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.”

We find the same pattern in Lutheranism: Scripture is the norm which norms other norms (norma normans non normata); Tradition (with emphasis on Creeds and Dogmas, and on liturgy and Canon Law) are norms that are normed by Scripture (norma normata); the ordained priesthood, with the bishops as leaders, has the task to preach and interpret that which has been handed over (Confessio Augustana 4, 28); and this has to be lived out in the context of the faithful’s own lives.

And as to infant baptism, it should be noted that Luther explicitly used Tradition in its defence. If, as Scripture teaches, God keeps the Church from error, then it follows, according to Luther, that infant baptism is valid, since that he been a constant teaching of the entire Church throughout history.

Thanks for this, I found it helpful. Looks like there is not as much of a difference between Catholics and Lutherans on this issue as I originally thought.

 

[KjetilK]

Who is your church’s interpretive office? Is it Apostolic, if so, how?

My bishops, and the priests, who are tasked with interpretation too. It is apostolic because we have apostolic succession - the Church of Norway, that is, not ‘Lutheranism’ in general.*

“Scripture is the highest authority”? Wouldn’t you say that Jesus Christ is the highest authority?

Yes, I misspoke. Scripture is the highest authoritative text. Persons have authority (or are authorities), text are authoritative.

Is God’s Word Scripture only, or as mentioned previously, is it also those things which Jesus said and did that were not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25)?..those things that do not contradict Scripture, but in perfect and perpetual harmony, supplement it.

I agree that God’s word (lowercase w) extends beyond Scripture. That doesn’t mean, however, that Scripture isn’t the highest authoritative text. As Ratzinger points out: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.” We need, again, to see this in analogy to the constitution of a nation or a state. The constitution has primacy, and everything is read in light of that, yet that doesn’t mean that the lawmaker (God in this analogy) cannot, directly or through agents, posit new, binding laws (i.e. his words), and it doesn’t mean he cannot task someone with the duty, and right, to uphold, interpret, and enforce the constitution (and other laws).

But again it must be pointed out, with Dei Verbum, that this teaching office “is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (§10)

• There is no ONE Lutheran Church, just as there is no ONE Byzantine Church.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know, but suspect many Lutherans would say “the church is where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed…” or “accurately” proclaimed, or “faithfully” proclaimed, and the Sacraments are administered. Even if they don’t say it, isn’t that understood?

And yet, Lutherans as a rule would consider those we believe may have some error mixed with truth as being in The Church.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

If we had to use scripture: Acts 16:15 - where the whole household (presumably children) was baptized.

What about offering communion to women?

If Scripture is the norm, where does Scripture propose that women receive the Eucharist?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’ve seen some Lutherans say they do not hold to the popular conception of sola scriptura, because they maintain the Lutheran confessions are in some way necessary for their faith as a guide to interpret the scriptures, along with the tradition of the church before the reformation.

Have I stated the Lutheran position correctly and would all Lutherans agree with that statement if represented correctly?

 

[AugustTherese]

My bishops, and the priests, who are tasked with interpretation too. It is apostolic because we have apostolic succession - the Church of Norway, that is, not ‘Lutheranism’ in general.*

Yes, I misspoke. Scripture is the highest authoritative text. Persons have authority (or are authorities), text are authoritative.

I agree that God’s word (lowercase w) extends beyond Scripture. That doesn’t mean, however, that Scripture isn’t the highest authoritative text. As Ratzinger points out: “[T]he Bible has such an absolutely unique normative importance because it alone is really the sole book of the Church as Church.” We need, again, to see this in analogy to the constitution of a nation or a state. The constitution has primacy, and everything is read in light of that, yet that doesn’t mean that the lawmaker (God in this analogy) cannot, directly or through agents, posit new, binding laws (i.e. his words), and it doesn’t mean he cannot task someone with the duty, and right, to uphold, interpret, and enforce the constitution (and other laws).

• There is no ONE Lutheran Church, just as there is no ONE Byzantine Church.

I have to admit, I am genuinely intrigued with your Church of Norway! I am a convert from Confessional Lutheranism and have never heard of such. I see you have bishops and priests, which is cool! Does your church hold ¨councils¨, and which Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church do you accept and/or reject? When you say you have apostolic succession, could you elaborate on perhaps the lineage, if it exists?

When you say Scripture is authoritative and ¨people¨ are of authority, does that mean there is a distinction in authority or at least which can bind and to what extent? In other words, does one have more jurisdiction over the other?

I think I understand your constitution analogy. Over here in the good ole United States, I would say that the U.S. Constitution serves as a framework of government that came from the people it was meant to protect in the first place, the liberty of the people. This document isn’t necessarily above the people, as the people who fought for the freedom to draft this document, came before the document and gave it to us. Are the citizens subject to this document and it’s authority? Absolutely, but only insofar as it safeguards the unalienable rights that were given to the people not by the Constitution, but by God himself (natural law/natural rights). God gave us our natural rights, the Constitution protects those rights only insofar as the Courts(Magisterium) interpret them correctly. The government/Founding Fathers/citizens came first, the Constitution came afterwards.

So, to illustrate a parallel to the ¨document¨ of Scripture and the people, the Church. I would say that the supreme authority that was given to Our Blessed Lord, and then directly handed on to the Apostles, came before anything of the New Testament was written/inspired. Even Moses and the Prophets and their inspiration came before that which was recorded. Now, it was the people (the Church where as Christ the Head, apostles and followers the body) whom fought heresy, endured persecution, and were eventually martyred to keep this Body of Christ (people) to even be able to draft a document (inspired, inerrant, authoritative, written Word of God), that does safeguard our spiritual rights if you will, but only insofar as at it does not surpass the authority that was handed down by the words of Jesus Christ Himself, held together by Apostolic Tradition. Many Protestants claim that the Roman Catholic Church arrogates itself and abuses its authority over the written Word of God. This is completely false. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are complementary and in equal harmony and magnitude as it relates to authority. I will say, however, that Jesus gave Peter (a person) the keys to heaven, and gave Peter the ability to loose and bind, and He didn’t give it to Scripture ALONE (emphasis only). This doesn’t undermine Scripture, considering Scripture tells us this and the Church and its Apostolic Tradition cannot contradict, surpass, or undervalue the authority of Sacred Scripture. I would even say that the Holy Spirit gave us the Scriptures to safeguard MUCH* which was already spoken to the Apostles by Christ, but not everything per John 21:25, and not the ONLY way of safeguarding; as we know ¨in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.¨ 1 Timothy 3:15 and ¨through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.¨ Ephesians 3:10.

So, back to your constitution analogy…Is the Constitution above the State? Over here it isn’t. It is the authority that comes from the State that even gave us our constitution, and it’s the authority of the State that upholds, protects, and interprets correctly the document itself and what it is suppose to say. Imagine if we have no authority of the State, which comes from and is given by THE PEOPLE (Church as we vote them in. Could you imagine? Our United (Unity/Oneness) States would dissolve and break as states (denominations ) would secede from the National Government and interpret the Constitution in many different ways; as they would all be claiming to have the Spirit of Washington and the original intent of the Founding Fathers and how they understood the Constitution. Sola Constitution

¨There is no ONE Lutheran Church.¨ I would agree, but how would you define the Church that Christ founded and kept together (Matthew 16:18)?

With charity,

Eric

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by benjohnson View Post
“I think most simple definition that Lutherans would recognise would be that the church is where the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered.”

And yet, Lutherans as a rule would consider those we believe may have some error mixed with truth as being in The Church.

Jon

Ben and Jon are not disagreeing here, but addressing different aspects. Ben is talking about where Church is. Jon is talking about individuals, individual Christians who in good conscience may go to places that have far worse than “some error” mixed with little or no truth. (I appreciate the capital letter on Church, and even on the article before it!)

As a Catholic I wonder - we all agree the Eastern Orthodox are The Church; and I think we all agree the “White Supremacist Church of Snake Handling and Revenge” is not The Church (even if they snag some sincere, well meaning Christians misled through no fault of their own). Protestants would use the terminology that the misled individuals, who accepted Christ somewhere else, are still “in The Church” and I can see that. But how do we judge the Snake Handlers, the institution itself? If you say, the ELCA (institution itself, not just individuals) is The Church, who draws the line between them, and the Snake Handlers?

What I’m getting at, where is the 2015 template of The Church (institution itself, not just individuals) to which we can compare ELCA, or the Moonies; WHO says “ok ELCA still sufficiently resembles the template, Westboro Baptist does not” (though some individuals there may be Christian).

 

[AugustTherese]

Jesus is the Word, is He not?

Just a thought…

God bless!

Rita

Of course! He is the Eternal Word of God made flesh. However, Sacred Scripture is not Jesus Christ per se, as the Holy Bible is the written Word of God and Jesus Christ is the total Word of God.

Thanks for the blessing!