Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[PRmerger]

The question becomes how do we resolve these issues.

Jon

Egg-zactly. And what is the Lutheran answer to this? Appeal to Scripture?

 

[JonNC]

Egg-zactly. And what is the Lutheran answer to this? Appeal to Scripture?

Appeal to each other ISTM, prayerfully and in charity, seeking together the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost seems like an appropriate day to start.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Appeal to each other ISTM, prayerfully and in charity, seeking together the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost seems like an appropriate day to start.

Jon

I hope you can see why I’m confused by this Lutheran paradigm. You seem to be saying, “We use Scripture as the sure norm, except when we don’t use Scripture as the sure norm.”

That makes Scripture…in practice…NOT the sure norm, right?

 

[SteveVH]

We would say the same about Unam sanctam and the claim of universal jurisdiction.

The question becomes how do we resolve these issues.

Jon

Hi, Jon.

If it comes down to the Catholic Church having to renounce the authority given to it, as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, in order to loose the moniker “anti-Christ”, it simply is never going to happen. So I guess it depends upon the certainty of Lutherans as to the correctness of their position. I mean we aren’t talking about just some facet of the faith, we are talking about the very legitimacy and foundation of the Church, which received Christ’s own authority.

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,…” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Jon, I found quite a few things disturbing about his statement, the authority issue being only one, but an important one. So I would like to know, because I trust you, what is the Lutheran interpretation of binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining sins? What is the Lutheran interpretation of being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth? When you put all these things together, what do they mean to you?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Wonderful response. Thank you!

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon.

If it comes down to the Catholic Church having to renounce the authority given to it, as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, in order to loose the moniker “anti-Christ”, it simply is never going to happen. So I guess it depends upon the certainty of Lutherans as to the correctness of their position. I mean we aren’t talking about just some facet of the faith, we are talking about the very legitimacy and foundation of the Church, which received Christ’s own authority.

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,…” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Jon, I found quite a few things disturbing about his statement, the authority issue being only one, but an important one. So I would like to know, because I trust you, what is the Lutheran interpretation of binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining sins? What is the Lutheran interpretation of being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth? When you put all these things together, what do they mean to you?

Thanks.

Steve

Hi Steve
I think if any Lutheran expects the CC to renounce its teaching is naive. I think if any Lutheran leader goes into dialogue demanding it, they do a disservice to ecumenical dialogue. And the reverse is true.
Both sides have to recognize that the other is sincere in their beliefs, and the 450 years of demands of “recant” failed. I believe it was Pope Benedict recognized this very point regarding Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I hope you can see why I’m confused by this Lutheran paradigm. You seem to be saying, “We use Scripture as the sure norm, except when we don’t use Scripture as the sure norm.”

That makes Scripture…in practice…NOT the sure norm, right?

Except that this isn’t anything like what I said. What I’m saying is that scripture is the final for determining doctrine. It is really nothing more than that.
So, in all honesty, I don’t see why you are confused.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Except that this isn’t anything like what I said. What I’m saying is that scripture is the final for determining doctrine. It is really nothing more than that.
So, in all honesty, I don’t see why you are confused.

Jon

So when there’s confusion about something–such as, “Do we offer communion to women but not the ministerial priesthood?”–what do you appeal to?

 

[exnihilo]

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.
Now, that’s not to say the the Church has taught well, and enlightened the believers down through the centuries. We recognize this role of the Church - to teach - and the special service to the Church that the Fathers have provided in their writings. But if we are to bind the conscience of the believer, it is reasonable to expect at least an implicit confirmation. Beyond that, Christians ought to have the freedom to consider what we call adiaphora for themselves.

It would be an extra-Biblical assumption that the critical articles of faith are contained in the Bible. It would be a presumption. That may well be true but it would be a truth whose acceptance precedes the accepting the truth contained in the Bible.

I’d also point out this argument is used by some to justify same-sex relationships. The argument is basically Jesus didn’t say anything about same-sex sexual relationships so it must not be an article of faith that the relationships are wrong. I think, and believe you would agree, that particular argument is bad for other reasons. But it can be a dangerous argument.

A related dangerous argument uses the frequency of something being mentioned as the yardstick for the importance of an article of faith. Again I think it is a bad argument. How many times did Jesus need to say something for it to be important?

But the main problem I see is that the Church existed and the faith was known prior to the actual commitment of the teachings to a book. The Bread of Life discourse is only in the Gospel of John. But the truths expressed by the teaching were an article of faith even when you only had the synoptic Gospels. It was not necessary for John to write this for the teaching to be an article of faith. So to have a rule that that something must be contained in Scripture to be an article of faith is an ex post facto rule. And it is a rule without merit within the Christian tradition because I’m not aware of any teaching that says all the articles of faith will be written down.

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.

The analogy has some merit. However, a constitution is more like a contract. Its main purpose is to define all the important points and establishes rights and obligations. The scripture is a mix of teachings, history, prayer and more. Its main purpose is not to establish rights and obligations. Therefore you have the challenge of sifting any rights and obligations from the rest of scripture. Also it is clear from some of the New Testament scripture, the Epistles, that the purpose of the work is to correct problems. The purpose is not to set forth the complete faith. Rather, it is the case that the person or group being written to is already instructed in the faith. The Epistles would then not be like a constitution but maybe like a judicial opinion which applies and clarifies the law with respect to specific cases.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d also point out this argument is used by some to justify same-sex relationships. The argument is basically Jesus didn’t say anything about same-sex sexual relationships so it must not be an article of faith that the relationships are wrong. I think, and believe you would agree, that particular argument is bad for other reasons. But it can be a dangerous argument.

Excellent point.

 

[LutheranScholar]

We would say the same about Unam sanctam and the claim of universal jurisdiction.

The question becomes how do we resolve these issues.

Jon

Well said and quite true.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve
I think if any Lutheran expects the CC to renounce its teaching is naive. I think if any Lutheran leader goes into dialogue demanding it, they do a disservice to ecumenical dialogue. And the reverse is true.
Both sides have to recognize that the other is sincere in their beliefs, and the 450 years of demands of “recant” failed. I believe it was Pope Benedict recognized this very point regarding Orthodoxy.

Jon

And yet something must change, somehow, sometime if any kind of communion is to be realized. And at this point I cannot imagine the Lutheran Church(es) wanting to be in communion with the anti-Christ, which I understand to be the general authority of the Church as well as the primacy of the Pope. So unless the Lutherans re-think their position or the Church disclaims its authority it looks like a pretty wide chasm to me, unfortunately.

Peace to you, Jon.

Steve

 

[JonNC]

And yet something must change, somehow, sometime if any kind of communion is to be realized. And at this point I cannot imagine the Lutheran Church(es) wanting to be in communion with** the anti-Christ**, which I understand to be the general authority of the Church as well as the primacy of the Pope. So unless the Lutherans re-think their position or the Church disclaims its authority it looks like a pretty wide chasm to me, unfortunately.

Peace to you, Jon.

Steve

And peace also with you, Steve.
Again, I think the understanding of the charge remains elusive for some. I blame my poor ability to explain it.
As I said, no Lutheran should ever consider any pope to be **the ** anti-christ. First, all of those popes who have transferred to the church Triumphant could not have been the anti-christ. Secondly, neither Pope Emeritus Benedict nor Pope Francis should or could be considered the anti-christ.
Second, I would contend that all the anathemas of Trent, all of the mutual condemnations, including this one, would be repudiated were our communions to come to reconciliation.
It is not the charges and condemnations that would keep us apart, but the doctrines upon which we disagree. Solve the doctrinal differences, and reconciliation will happen.
I would contend further that, of all the western non-Catholic so-called protestant traditions, Catholics and Lutherans have the most in common. I think it worth the continued explorations of the last fifty years.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So when there’s confusion about something–such as, “Do we offer communion to women but not the ministerial priesthood?”–what do you appeal to?

The first I’ve already answered. See Galatians 3. There is no confusion here.
Neither is there confusion with female ordination. The following link relates the two quite well.
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1099

There are those churches which believe that St. Paul’s
words in Gal.3:28 mandate the service of women as pastors:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek,there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus.”
But this verse does not teach that there is no distinction
between these various groups; rather,it teaches the equality of
salvation that all Christians have in Christ Jesus our Lord.Paul
wants us to know that all individuals are equally sinful and
equally saved by the work of God through Jesus Christ.
Gal. 3:28 does not contradict or overturn St. Paul’s comments
elsewhere.This passage does not speak to the issue of
the ordination of women; instead it is speaking of the equality
of our salvation in Christ,for which we praise the Triune God,
but it certainly does not mean that all may serve as pastors.

The two are distinct issues. There is no confusion.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The first I’ve already answered. See Galatians 3. There is no confusion here.
Neither is there confusion with female ordination. The following link relates the two quite well.
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1099

The two are distinct issues. There is no confusion.

Jon

I am confused, Jon, yes.

Galatians 3 affirms or denies that women should be ordained?

 

[Topper17]

Hi LS,

We have the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord to help us with issues such as infant baptism and our Catalogue of Testimonies from the Early Church Fathers tell us how Confessional Lutheranism is in line with the teachings of the Western Christian Church. The Augsburg Confession and its Apology go over issues such as infant baptism and the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion bookofconcord.org/defense_7_baptism.php ,bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php and because Confession is also practiced in our churches: bookofconcord.org/defense_9_confession.php.

I understand that Lutherans believe that their Confessions are authoritative and binding, but what I have never understood is why. Why do you believe that they are any different (or better) than those of the Reformed, or of, for that matter, Trent?

God Bless You LS, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

The Church judges all doctrines and teachings accountable to scripture. Doctrine must be confirmed, so to speak, by scripture.

It seems to me that the only way that this ‘works’ is if there is only one Church.

I know that Lutherans believe that the church, rather than the individual, determines doctrine. But the fact of the uncountable number of Protestant churches, indicates that there is a lot of ‘confusion’ regarding what is and what is not ‘the church’.

Again, the Lutheran concept of the church determining doctrine, works ONLY if there is only one church.

Topper

 

[JonNC]

=exnihilo;12998618]It would be an extra-Biblical assumption that the critical articles of faith are contained in the Bible. It would be a presumption. That may well be true but it would be a truth whose acceptance precedes the accepting the truth contained in the Bible.

Your presumption here is that I believe that the truth of the Apostolic era begins with the writing down of words. That’s not the intent of our understanding of sola scriptura.

I’d also point out this argument is used by some to justify same-sex relationships. The argument is basically Jesus didn’t say anything about same-sex sexual relationships so it must not be an article of faith that the relationships are wrong. I think, and believe you would agree, that particular argument is bad for other reasons. But it can be a dangerous argument.

There are some that say the general welfare clause gives permission to the federal government to do virtually anything it wishes “for the general welfare”. Simply by saying that is not its intent does not make the speaker responsible for those who say it is. This is what you are doing here: that some people have (mis)used an argument to justify a wrong conclusion doesn’t make the argument wrong, just the misuse of it.

A related dangerous argument uses the frequency of something being mentioned as the yardstick for the importance of an article of faith. Again I think it is a bad argument. How many times did Jesus need to say something for it to be important?

I can’t argue with this. It isn’t an argument I’ve used.

But the main problem I see is that the Church existed and the faith was known prior to the actual commitment of the teachings to a book. The Bread of Life discourse is only in the Gospel of John. But the truths expressed by the teaching were an article of faith even when you only had the synoptic Gospels. It was not necessary for John to write this for the teaching to be an article of faith. So to have a rule that that something must be contained in Scripture to be an article of faith is an ex post facto rule. And it is a rule without merit within the Christian tradition because I’m not aware of any teaching that says all the articles of faith will be written down.

Again, your misunderstanding is that Lutherans claim that these only became the truth of the faith when they ended up being written down. In fact, they did not need to be written to be truth, but these written truths provide us the single best, and only inerrant source of truth. That’s not to say other things can’t be or are not truth, but only that we measure them by that which we have and know to be an expression of truth.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

It seems to me that the only way that this ‘works’ is if there is only one Church.

I know that Lutherans believe that the church, rather than the individual, determines doctrine. But the fact of the uncountable number of Protestant churches, indicates that there is a lot of ‘confusion’ regarding what is and what is not ‘the church’.

Again, the Lutheran concept of the church determining doctrine, works ONLY if there is only one church.

Topper

First, please recognize that a Lutheran ought not be confused by any other communion or tradition, protestant or not. I am not confused by what Calvinists or Baptists or Methodists say.
Other than that, in many ways I agree. And one could say the same about Sacred Tradition.
The goal should, again, therefore be constant and prayerful efforts toward reconciliation.

Jon

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…We recognize this role of the Church - to teach - and the special service to the Church that the Fathers have provided in their writings. But if we are to bind the conscience of the believer, it is reasonable to expect at least an implicit confirmation…

When you state “it is reasonable to expect at least an implicit confirmation”, you are denying sola scriptura and relying on historical context outside of Scripture (Sacred Tradition) as being equal to Sacred Scripture. Scripture itself does not say (to my knowledge) that we can rely on implicit understandings of Scripture.

Unless you are stating that this is your opinion only and that Lutherans are free to disagree with implicit understandings such as infant Baptism and other implicit teachings.