S
steido01
Guest
Read a great many Lutheran texts, have you?
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
No. Not many.
Can you offer a Lutheran source that’s > 300 years old that limns that SS is a “hermeneutic principle”?
Not by any stretch of the imagination, which makes the errors of the popes in his day far more egregious.
Jon
The problem is there is none that makes it an article of faith, no place where it is said to bind the conscience of the believer.
Jon
This an excellent statement. Lutherans, by and large, I think would be more inclined to the conciliarism of Eastern Orthodoxy than papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc. Lutherans, more so than most protestants (though perhaps less so than some Anglicans) are open to vigorous use of Tradition.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
Sounds right to me.
Hi Eric.
Well, sure, Lutherans will point to, as a matter of scriptural support, many of the typical verses to support SS, including Psalms 119, and Galatians 1.
Without intending to sound trite about it, the Church. Its a practice. There are lots of practices Christians, including Catholics and Lutherans do, which are not explicit in scripture.
One could contend that, every time Jesus said, “It is written…”, He was using a model that reminds one of how Lutherans practice norming.
But again, I don’t want to sound trite or flippant. A number of posts back, Father K referenced Pope Benedict:
In many ways, should be the approach of the sola scripturist church.
Jon
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree the validity of the argument has nothing to do with the use of it. But the argument itself is often a bad one. The argument is essentially an absence of evidence argument. This can be a valid argument if one would expect there to be evidence. For instance it would be valid to argue that my wife is not in the room because I don’t see her in the room. But it would not be valid to argue that there is no bacteria in the room because I don’t see any with the naked eye.
The SS argument relies on the presumption that any important article of faith was written in one of the canonical books of the Bible. I would think it also gives more weight to what appear to be the actual teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels or Epistles. That is the exact same argument that some people who promote same-sex sexual relationships use. That particular use of the argument may ignore the Old Testament and New Testament Epistles. But it does apply the reasoning to the teachings of Jesus. It says Jesus never mentioned this so it must not be important. I don’t see that as being substantially different from the practical use of Sola Scripture in other cases.
I don’t see the people who reason this way as misusing an argument. I see them as just using it. Again, in this specific case I certainly think there is other evidence that makes the position argued for untenable. But the weight of the part of their argument that relies on the lack of Jesus direct teaching on the subject is no different than for any other subject.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Hi Eric.
Well, sure, Lutherans will point to, as a matter of scriptural support, many of the typical verses to support SS, including Psalms 119, and Galatians 1.
Hey Jon, thanks for the response.
I guess I am trying to figure out how the Formula of Concord gets the idea that the “Old and New Testament WRITINGS (emphasis only) are the ONLY rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike me be appraised and judged” as relating to the two parts of Scripture you provided.
Psalm 119…“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Notice here it says “thy word” and not “Scripture” or “written word”. We both know “thy word” is God’s word of which is spoken and written. Moreover, “thy word” would better be defined as the Eternal Word of God made flesh, fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Did not “thy word” guide and speak to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob many many centuries before Moses even compiled the Pentateuch in written form? You might object here and say, did not God the Holy Spirit inspire the chief articles of faith to be written where all we need as a norm to judge and appraise doctrines is that of which is written ONLY? To that I would object, and say, by the authority of Scripture, where does Scripture say that? If you say, it was handed down as a practice or tradition by the early church, which “church” substantiated it in conciliar fashion, or rejected it pre-Trent?
Galatians 1:8…“Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Notice here Saint Paul uses the word ‘preach’ twice and does not allude to anything that was written. Again, if everything that was preached as it contains to the gospel, was written in a sufficient manner as it pertains to judging and appraising doctrine, where does it say that in Scripture? If you say by the Church, then are you referring to the Lutheran Church? If so, where does the Lutheran Church get it’s authority, from Christ Himself, or from Scripture alone?
Without intending to sound trite about it, the Church. Its a practice. There are lots of practices Christians, including Catholics and Lutherans do, which are not explicit in scripture.
One could contend that, every time Jesus said, “It is written…”, He was using a model that reminds one of how Lutherans practice norming.
But again, I don’t want to sound trite or flippant. A number of posts back, Father K referenced Pope Benedict:
In many ways, should be the approach of the sola scripturist church.
Yes, Jesus quoted Old Testament Scripture. But, when Jesus quoted OT and said “It is written…”, how does one conjure up the practice of ONLY quoting Scripture? In Matthew 5, he begins his Gospel Commandments by saying, ““You have heard that it was said…” But was everything that was said, entirely written down? Well, I would suggest you to look into Jewish tradition from a Rabbai. For instance, when Jesus refers to Moses’ seat in Matthew 23:2, that is from Tradition and can nowhere be found in Old Testament Scripture. Jesus transformed and fulfilled Jewish tradition into Apostolic Tradition. Our Blessed Lord gave the Apostles, singling out Peter, to bind and loose, not to the future written books of the New Testament along with the Old. If so, Scriptures and Tradition would have told the Church so.
Eric
G
GKC
Guest
C
commenter
Guest
Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
Martin Luther has the same authority as every pope?
In some cases the defacto pope is a televangelist, or a writer, or pastor, or denominational leader. Lutherans and Anglicans are more realistic than other Protestants in acknowledging Tradition. But even there, there are very different interpretations (in effect, different schools of defacto popes) who apply lessons from the ECF’s, Confessions, Articles, or whatever heritage documents are relied on.
You might say these defacto popes aren’t regarded as infallible. Well not officially. But in real life they are regarded as such. Now, with my Pope, we all know who he is, what the limits of infallibility are. I can’t change popes each month to suit my taste, and avoid personal change. There’s no man behind the curtain.
But the defacto pope is a man behind the curtain. People do change their defacto popes, to avoid insights that require personal change. Unlike Francis, the defacto pope does not have clear limits on his infallibility; parameters of infallibility could be very different between John MacArthur and the guy on the other channel, or the theologian you’ve been reading. None of the defacto popes I know of claim fallibility.
Martin Luther has the same authority as every pope?
Luther did not explicitly claim the same authority, but didn’t he, in effect, exercise it in the minds of some followers? Every time I read a Protestant’s position on doctrine, I always wonder who is this person’s defacto pope? Every argument that seems to be based totally on Scripture really depends on some more recent human’s choice of Scriptures; “the answer to this question can be found in Romans, NOT James; the verses in James do not apply here”. “This verse in John 6 is not what you think it is, it really is understood only in context of this other Scripture”. If you follow *this *defacto pope you reach totally different conclusions from following that one, but you attribute everything to Scripture. Even if you say we look at Tradition but Scripture has the final word, there’s a defacto pope somewhere who declares which Scripture is the final word; or not so final, in the case of the Mainlines’ defacto popes.
In some cases the defacto pope is a televangelist, or a writer, or pastor, or denominational leader. Lutherans and Anglicans are more realistic than other Protestants in acknowledging Tradition. But even there, there are very different interpretations (in effect, different schools of defacto popes) who apply lessons from the ECF’s, Confessions, Articles, or whatever heritage documents are relied on.
You might say these defacto popes aren’t regarded as infallible. Well not officially. But in real life they are regarded as such. Now, with my Pope, we all know who he is, what the limits of infallibility are. I can’t change popes each month to suit my taste, and avoid personal change. There’s no man behind the curtain.
But the defacto pope is a man behind the curtain. People do change their defacto popes, to avoid insights that require personal change. Unlike Francis, the defacto pope does not have clear limits on his infallibility; parameters of infallibility could be very different between John MacArthur and the guy on the other channel, or the theologian you’ve been reading. None of the defacto popes I know of claim fallibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, what errors do you mean?
And secondly, how is it more egregious for a pope to exert his authority vs an ordained minister? I don’t understand.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Makes “it” an article of faith–meaning, Sola Scriptura is not an article of faith?
Ok.
Do you have any documents of historical Lutheranism which asserts this is a “hermeneutic principle” and not an article of faith?
B
benjohnson
Guest
It’s certainly not dogma: in that a partitioner who hears the Gospel and receives the Sacraments isn’t obliged to profess “Sola Scriptura” as a matter of salvation as a Lutheran could spend their entire spiritual life deep within God’s Word without even knowing the principal exists.
So frankly, you’re not going to find much evidence that it’s “not an article of faith” because it’s not even worth discussing such a distinction from a Lutheran standpoint.
Just as, I would presume, that you’d wouldn’t expect to see a deep discussion from a Catholic viewpoint about if holding hands at the Our Father is infallible dogma. From a Catholic perspective, such a question would seem almost silly (or at least, that was my intention).
P
PRmerger
Guest
I would like something from a Lutheran document of antiquity which shows SS is a “hermeneutic principle”.
Hi ex,
I would disagree generally with the premise, but more importantly with the part I bolded.
From my point of view, it is the reverse. We accept the possibility that other important articles of faith may or may not have been accounted for in written text. But that is not the point. The point is we have the written word of God, from which we can hold teachings and doctrines accountable. Its what we have, and that by grace. We know that, as regenerate, we live under grace.
The problem is for many of the innovations today, the scripture is very clear, though certainly a deeper understanding of the text is required. And that is why sola scriptura, properly practiced, is not something the laity is expected to do, at least not within Lutheranism.
I would also contend that, for the most part, those who claim that female ordination, gay marriage, and other more modern ideas do so from the perspective of “we should ignore the cultural views of the era within which Jesus lived”. IOW, its a claim that we have to read scripture with a more “critical” view.
Done this way, I would also contend, that is not sola scriptura, and in fact intentionally marginalizes what scripture says, in order to come to conclusions that the proponents believe are more just.
Granted, this is a view coming from an admittedly traditional Lutheran.
Jon
S
steido01
Guest
I would like something from a Catholic document of antiquity which shows getting drunk before Mardi Gras is not an article of Catholic faith.
PR, you’re asking for something that’s assumed and common knowledge, and wasn’t a focus of those good people of antiquity. But because you’re asking:
Read here and understand what is explained.The guiding principle used in Lutheran study, contemplation and exegesis of scripture --that is, the prime hermeneutic principle– is that Scripture is takes precedence over all other writings. It is our practice. Our hermeneutic principle. It is not an article of faith, like what we profess in the creeds.
Hi Eric,
All of this has merit. In short, why only the written parts? Forgive me for answering your questions with a question: how is it that you know what Psalms 119 says, or Galatians 1:8 says? How do we know what David sang, or Paul said? Someone wrote it down.
We recognize, as your communion does, that the written word has a power and in fact inerrancy.
So, it probably comes down to what source are we sure of. Lutherans accept the seven ecumenical councils, to one degree or another depending on the synod. We accept the creeds as a matter of doctrine. These from the early Church have significant sway with us. They, too, are written down. The words of the Fathers also are significant for us - written down. There is a much higher level of trust in what has come to us written down.
Let’s keep in mind that scripture is not a god. It isn’t scripture that we worship. The word of God comes from the Word of God. This isn’t book worship. The bible doesn’t save, Grace does.
Further, we teach, our confessions say, there is “One Holy Church”. so Lutheranism is a tradition within that One Holy Church. the Keys belong to the Church, as does the authority to teach. We recognize the significant role the Bishop of Rome has played in the teaching role throughout the history of the Church. we also recognize that the Bishop of Rome is not the only bishop, and the Church is not only and exclusively bound to his authority.
Who said He, or we, only quote scripture? We refer, note in the BoC, to Tradition, too.
And while it is true Christ first singled out St. Peter, and his confession of faith, the power to bind and loose belongs to the whole Church.
Jon
I understand what you’re saying, and I actually think that sometimes, with some communions, there’s truth to what you say. In my synod, sometimes I wish our leaders acted more like a pope, instead of being so blasted congregationalist. I wish our “district presidents” acted more like bishops. I wish the synod and our leaders would sometimes take to teaching of the flock in the doctrine of the faith more seriously. As you can see, how its viewed is sometimes dependent on ones when is viewing things from.
I have a great deal of respect for men like Matthew Harrison, and Will Weedon, but I have no delusions regarding their fallibility. Same goes with my pastor, with whom I am confronting a matter of doctrine. That said, my wife continues to remind me that not all parishioners are as interested in the topic. They just like the pastor. Yep, I know what you’re talking about. I bet its true in some Catholic parishes too.
To be honest, couldn’t tell you what the televangelists teach. I know some are prosperity, some are other things. I’d watch EWTN before any of them. But I know the limits of my pastor, bishop, synod president. I know what they’re bound to by ordination.
Jon
- Status