Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Topper17]

Hi Still,

In the context of the times, I think this may be a fair assumption - reading Pastor Weedon’s thoughts seem to indicate that we may be closer than we thought. When I heard the language of the Mass referring to the sacrifice at a Catholic church, I was disturbed and confused – until here, on CAF, it was explained as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. That changed my thinking. Perhaps the Catholic church has come now to articulating the nature of the sacrifice in a way that we understand it. One person’s sacrifice is another’s offering.

This almost makes it sound that in order for there to be some kind of reconciliation, the Catholic Church is going to have to ‘articulate’ its beliefs in such a way as to be compatible with Lutheran doctrine.

In your opinion, is there any real possibility that Lutheranism (let’s say the LCMS) is going to ‘adapt’ or change its teachings such that they conform to that of the Church? In other words, is it possible that the LCMS could deny any of its current teachings or would reconciliation require the Catholic Church to change its doctrines?

God Bless You Still, Topper

 

[JonNC]

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.

Neither. The Augsburg Confession teaches that we should baptize infants. For the Lutheran, the CA is a right reflection of scripture. Further, there is more than implicit confirmation of infant baptism in scripture, “Go into all Nations…”, whole households were baptized, etc. Tradition is often used as a witness to the truth of scripture. This is how it should be, and is not a contradiction of the Church’s practice of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am confused, Jon, yes.

Galatians 3 affirms or denies that women should be ordained?

Did you read the link? Galatians 3 “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.”

Galatians 3 does neither. There are other verses that restrict the ordained priesthood to men, and this is confirmed in the Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Did you read the link? Galatians 3 “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.”

Galatians 3 does neither. There are other verses that restrict the ordained priesthood to men, and this is confirmed in the Church Catholic.

Jon

I have heard many a Christian use Galatians 3 as apologia for women priestesses.

That’s the problem, isn’t it, with declaring Scripture to be the “norming norm” for all doctrine?

One uses Galatians 3 to declare women can receive communion, but another uses Galations 3 to declare women can receive ordination.

Scripture simply can’t be the “norming norm”. It’s too obfuscatory, and has things which are difficult to understand.

It needs an interpreter. An authoritative interpreter.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13000226]I have heard many a Christian use Galatians 3 as apologia for women priestesses.

Yes, and they are wrong…

That’s the problem, isn’t it, with declaring Scripture to be the “norming norm” for all doctrine?

One uses Galatians 3 to declare women can receive communion, but another uses Galations 3 to declare women can receive ordination.

…because the use of it contradicts Paul’s other statements in scripture regarding women and their role in the Church. Those who Use Galatians to support female ordination choose to ignore these others as “cultural”, etc.

Scripture simply can’t be the “norming norm”. It’s to obfuscatory, and has things which are difficult to understand.

It needs an interpreter. An authoritative interpreter

Yes. Agreed. The Church uses scripture as the final norm. it is the Church that interprets. That’s how sola scriptura works. I don’t determine whether or not infants should be baptized,. I’m a layman. That’s not my place.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and they are wrong…

But if Scripture is the “norming norm”, all each of you can do is quote Bible verses at each other…and that leads to…

what?

Unity of doctrine?

No.

But in the Catholic paradigm, when 2 people disagree with each other’s interpretations on the Bible they can say, “Let’s take it to Mama!” And what she says has…authority.

 

[PRmerger]

…because the use of it contradicts Paul’s other statements in scripture regarding women and their role in the Church.

The one which states women should be silent in church? Really? Does your pastor believe this, Jon?

Yes. Agreed. The Church uses scripture as the final norm. it is the Church that interprets. That’s how sola scriptura works. I don’t determine whether or not infants should be baptized,. I’m a layman. That’s not my place.

Jon

Then Martin Luther was out of place for disagreeing with the Church?

EDIT: Understood that Fr. Martin was not a layman–and your point was that you, as a layman, do not have that authority.

But the question remains: the ordained have the authority, then, to disagree with the Church on doctrinal issues?

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, and they are wrong…

…because the use of it contradicts Paul’s other statements in scripture regarding women and their role in the Church. Those who Use Galatians to support female ordination choose to ignore these others as “cultural”, etc.

Yes. Agreed. The Church uses scripture as the final norm. it is the Church that interprets. That’s how sola scriptura works. I don’t determine whether or not infants should be baptized,. I’m a layman. That’s not my place.

Jon

When different Churches interpret different issues, (infant baptism, Holy Communion,
homosexuality, women ordination and the list goes on) differently yet all claim to be Sola Scriptura Churches then what is the Church to do to heal these divisions and more divisions?

Mary.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Neither. The Augsburg Confession teaches that we should baptize infants. For the Lutheran, the CA is a right reflection of scripture…

Why is the Augsburg Confessions the standard to be relied on? I don’t understand how relying on documents outside of Scripture doesn’t contradict the principal of Scripture Alone.

JonNC:

…Further, there is more than implicit confirmation of infant baptism in scripture, “Go into all Nations…”, whole households were baptized, etc…

Go into all nations and whole households being baptized is less than explicit however.

JonNC:

… Tradition is often used as a witness to the truth of scripture. This is how it should be, and is not a contradiction of the Church’s practice of sola scriptura.

Tradition is often used as a witness to the truth of Scripture in Catholicism too. We view this however as outside the realm of Sola Scriptura.

It’s possible that Lutherans and Catholics can bridge the gap of our understandings of Tradition and Scripture and how they relate to each other. It may be more of a language barrier than anything else when it comes to this specific issue. Maybe our churches are closer to joint agreement on this. Other issues remain of course. One step at a time as they say.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13000259]But if Scripture is the “norming norm”, all each of you can do is quote Bible verses at each other…and that leads to…

No. Take a look at The Apology’s handling of the real presence. It defends the doctrine using scripture, supported by the Fathers, and by the EO and CC. That’s how SS works.

But in the Catholic paradigm, when 2 people disagree with each other’s interpretations on the Bible they can say, “Let’s take it to Mama!” And what she says has…authority.

Yep. Us too. I am in the midst of this kind of situation in my parish right now. I am taking it to the Church.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

When different Churches interpret different issues, (infant baptism, Holy Communion,
homosexuality, women ordination and the list goes on) differently yet all claim to be Sola Scriptura Churches then what is the Church to do to heal these divisions and more divisions?

Mary.

To structure the Church under one authority, beginning with the Pope, makes so much sense. We were meant to have one Lord, one baptism, one faith. I don’t believe a diversity of conflicting beliefs is what any faith community desires, yet it is the consequence of private interpretation and the lack of an authoritative interpreter, not to mention the absence of Sacred Tradition. Diversity is nice, except in doctrine and morals.

 

[JonNC]

=Stylteralmaldo;13000277]Why is the Augsburg Confessions the standard to be relied on? I don’t understand how relying on documents outside of Scripture doesn’t contradict the principal of Scripture Alone.

Because it is normed by scripture.

Go into all nations and whole households being baptized is less than explicit however.

I think it is rather enough explicit.

Tradition is often used as a witness to the truth of Scripture in Catholicism too. We view this however as outside the realm of Sola Scriptura.

From the Formula of Concord:

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.

It’s possible that Lutherans and Catholics can bridge the gap of our understandings of Tradition and Scripture and how they relate to each other. It may be more of a language barrier than anything else when it comes to this specific issue. Maybe our churches are closer to joint agreement on this. Other issues remain of course. One step at a time as they say.

Let’s pray for this.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13000264]The one which states women should be silent in church? Really? Does your pastor believe this, Jon?

Doesn’t matter what my pastor believes. The doctrine of the Church relies on this and other statements in scripture.

Then Martin Luther was out of place for disagreeing with the Church?

EDIT: Understood that Fr. Martin was not a layman–and your point was that you, as a layman, do not have that authority.

In some ways, I think Fr. Martin was out of place. But then, so was what he was witnessing in the Church of his time.

But the question remains: the ordained have the authority, then, to disagree with the Church on doctrinal issues?

My pastor can disagree if he wants, but not from the pulpit, not in his teaching role. He is bound in his ordination to the confessions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

When different Churches interpret different issues, (infant baptism, Holy Communion,
homosexuality, women ordination and the list goes on) differently yet all claim to be Sola Scriptura Churches then what is the Church to do to heal these divisions and more divisions?

Mary.

When different Churches interpret different issues, -](infant baptism, Holy Communion,
homosexuality, women ordination and the list goes on) /-] the Filioque, the nature of the Pope’s primacy, Purgatory, differently yet all claim to be -]Sola Scriptura /-] Apostolic Churches then what is the Church to do to heal these divisions and more divisions?

I don’t know, Mary. I wish I did. Nothing would please me more than to be able to share His supper with you.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t matter what my pastor believes. The doctrine of the Church relies on this and other statements in scripture.

In some ways, I think Fr. Martin was out of place. But then, so was what he was witnessing in the Church of his time.

My pastor can disagree if he wants, but not from the pulpit, not in his teaching role. He is bound in his ordination to the confessions.

Jon

Ok. I don’t understand, then.

Fr. Martin was just as bound by his ordination to his confessions, yes?

And I see you have acknowledged that in some ways he was indeed out of place…but how do you justify this?

It’s no small thing to overlook.

That which you deny in yourself and all other members of your church was done by Fr. Martin.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[JonNC]

Ok. I don’t understand, then.

Fr. Martin was just as bound by his ordination to his confessions, yes?

And I see you have acknowledged that in some ways he was indeed out of place…but how do you justify this?

It’s no small thing to overlook.

That which you deny in yourself and all other members of your church was done by Fr. Martin.

How do you reconcile this?

Every pope that claims universal jurisdiction despite the early councils does the same. I can’t reconcile it. I am a member of the One Holy Church in the Lutheran tradition, whether or not Luther or popes violated Chirch. Teaching or not.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Every pope that claims universal jurisdiction despite the early councils does the same. I can’t reconcile it. I am a member of the One Holy Church in the Lutheran tradition, whether or not Luther or popes violated Chirch. Teaching or not.

Jon

Martin Luther has the same authority as every pope?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…From the Formula of Concord:…

The statement expressing that ancient writings outside the Bible are not to be considered equal to Scripture is not incompatible with Catholic teaching. This is why I hope that we are closer on this issue than may appear.

The stumbling block may be the Catholic view that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. There is likely an uneasiness by Protestants, including Lutherans, that they require an explicit-enough truth contained in the words of Scripture before they’ll commit to unity.

 

[AugustTherese]

Well, not here, but I would agree with your statement, since sola scriptura itself is not an article of faith. Its a practice.

Jon

Hey Jon,

I have to admit, I have never received this response from a Lutheran or Confessional Lutheran. What I have received is a variety of different portions of Scripture, both from Old and New Testament.

If sola scriptura itself is not an article of faith and is merely a practice, then from what authority does this practice come? Also, did Jesus Christ or His apostles teach and/or command the practice of sola scriptura?

Eric

 

[PRmerger]

Hey Jon,

I have to admit, I have never received this response from a Lutheran or Confessional Lutheran. What I have received is a variety of different portions of Scripture, both from Old and New Testament.

If sola scriptura itself is not an article of faith and is merely a practice, then from what authority does this practice come? Also, did Jesus Christ or His apostles teach and/or command the practice of sola scriptura?

Eric

Yes. I must admit that it seems to me to be a new approach as well. “Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, but rather a practice”. Hermeneutic principle is the buzzword that’s been tossed around of late.

I just have never seen it in any historical Lutheran/Reformer texts which state: “Sola Scriptura is a hermeneutic principle”.