Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[jinc1019]

Of course, the danger is not only that churches will fail to “rally to the standard of Truth”; the greater danger is that they will redefine “truth” to suit the secular society. The formerly-reliable-now-secularized churches are still “rallying”. They still see themselves as prophetic. They never noticed that they became secularized.

I’m sure at least some people in what is now ELCA, for instance, noticed the United Church of Christ unknowingly losing its vision decades ago. So they realized that vision loss is a possible outcome for churches (that most of them did not want). That realization did not stop at least some of the ELCA leaders from taking some partial steps halfway down the same road they saw the UCC had travelled a decade or two earlier.

It’s like when a few guys stop at the bar, the first effect of alcohol is to reduce your perception of the effects of alcohol - on you. It sounds like many orthodox Christians are looking to some one party to be the designated driver, someone with a charism (brake pedal) that they don’t have, and only lately see the need for. Guess who?

I don’t see that at all, quite frankly. American RCCs have built this fantastic tale that people are all flooding their churches now because of the failures of Protestantism, including modernism.

The facts don’t show that at all, however. The RCC is riddled with progressivism (political) and theological modernism. Its RCCs everywhere! But even more illustrative of my point, RCC has a bleeding membership just like many other denominations in the United States. In fact, the only reason the RCC’s situation has stabilized is due to immigration over the past 30 years. Without Latin Americans pouring into America, the RCC would be in HUGE trouble right now. There has definitely been a movement to bring people back to the RCC and it has been successful to some moderate degree among a select band of the population. But in general, many, many people who grew up RCC are no longer RCC, and one of the biggest complaints is the very same infallible charism you say is driving people to Rome.

The RCC hasn’t even had much success bringing in orthodox Anglicans, and in many ways, a lot of that movement shares a great deal with the RCC already.

 

[jinc1019]

Also … It’s true the RCC has had a lot of success in other parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa! But let’s be honest, so have most churches. In fact, When you consider how big and powerful the RCC is, it really ought to be even more successful than it is in those regions relative to Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed churches, and Pentecostals, etc. But it really hasn’t been. All those groups are growing rapidly on those other continents.

 

[PRmerger]

Also … It’s true the RCC has had a lot of success in other parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa! But let’s be honest, so have most churches. In fact, When you consider how big and powerful the RCC is, it really ought to be even more successful than it is in those regions relative to Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed churches, and Pentecostals, etc. But it really hasn’t been. All those groups are growing rapidly on those other continents.

The RCC is “powerful”?

Can you please 'splain why you say this?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see that at all, quite frankly. American RCCs have built this fantastic tale that people are all flooding their churches now because of the failures of Protestantism, including modernism.

I haven’t seen any of these tales.

Can you offer any online versions of reliable sources which proclaim that people are flooding our RCC churches?

 

[KjetilK]

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.

It’s true that Scripture isn’t a constitution, and that it is more than a juridical document. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term ‘equivalent.’ The comparison was not with regards to content, but to status. The status of Scripture in relation to Tradition (large T) is analogous to, the status of a state’s constitution in relation to its other laws. The constitution has primacy in relation to other laws, and Scripture has primacy in relation to Tradition.

This is also the position of Joseph Ratzinger, later pope (Em.) Benedict XVI, in “Standards for Preaching the Gospel Today,” chapter 2, pp.26-39, in Dogma and Preaching, and in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini, on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church. He cites there a crucially important image from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, that the “study of the sacred page,” i.e. Scripture, “should be, as it were, the very soul of theology.” The soul has primacy over the body, but it cannot survive or exist in actuality without it. Likewise, Scripture has primacy over (the living) Tradition, but cannot survive or exist in actuality without it.

And this is, of course, also the same principles used in the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura, or Prima Scriptura, to be more exact.

 

[commenter]

I don’t see that at all, quite frankly. American RCCs have built this fantastic tale that people are all flooding their churches now because of the failures of Protestantism, including modernism.

The facts don’t show that at all, however. The RCC is riddled with progressivism (political) and theological modernism. Its RCCs everywhere! But even more illustrative of my point, RCC has a bleeding membership just like many other denominations in the United States. In fact, the only reason the RCC’s situation has stabilized is due to immigration over the past 30 years… But in general, many, many people who grew up RCC are no longer RCC, and one of the biggest complaints is the very same infallible charism you say is driving people to Rome.

I didn’t say Protestants are joining the Catholic Church in great numbers. But among the rapidly shrinking percentage of Protestants (in the US) who are orthodox in theology and morals, many are giving a second look at the Magisterium, who would not have thought it necessary a few decades ago. It’s like a man who trusted in his own watch for years, but now he recalibrates the time occasionally with the Catholic Church clock. Protestants whose own denominations have not - yet - drifted, have seen others with the same guidance mechanisms drift away.

The Magisterium has not been riddled with modernism. There have always been people who attacked it as too conservative, or too liberal. Its reliability is not affected by popularity. In some ways the Magisterium is most useful when it is unpopular, just as a lighthouse is most useful at night. A better analogy would be a thermostat.

 

[KjetilK]

I would like something from a Lutheran document of antiquity which shows SS is a “hermeneutic principle”.

This question is a weird one, I have to say. What else would Sola Scriptura be, if not a hermeneutic principle?

 

[PRmerger]

This question is a weird one, I have to say. What else would Sola Scriptura be, if not a hermeneutic principle?

How about a doctrine? A religious belief? A teaching? A dogma? An essential belief? A soteriological belief?

 

[JonNC]

How about a doctrine? A religious belief? A teaching? A dogma? An essential belief? A soteriological belief?

No. To all. It’s a practice. No one’s salvation is in danger for rejecting sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No. To all. It’s a practice. No one’s salvation is in danger for rejecting sola scriptura.

Jon

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

“The **doctrine **of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of faithfully following God’s word above all other, and it is built upon solid ground.”
scripturetruths5.tripod.com/solascriptura.html

" The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture."
vintage.aomin.org/SS.html

I think that it’s quite clear that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine held by many Christians.

 

[JonNC]

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

“The **doctrine **of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of faithfully following God’s word above all other, and it is built upon solid ground.”
scripturetruths5.tripod.com/solascriptura.html

" The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture."
vintage.aomin.org/SS.html

I think that it’s quite clear that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine held by many Christians.

It may be. You might even find some Lutherans who refer to it as a doctrine. Most knowledgeable Lutherans, however, will tell you it is not a doctrine, not an article of faith.
I can’t speak for other communions.

I would encourage the reading of this, by James Kiefer, an Anglican.
In part:

OBJECTION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. For if the doctrine is true, then it ought itself to be stated in Holy Scripture. But in fact it is not.

REPLY: We are offered an argument of the following form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a true proposition.

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

And to this conclusion I, for one, have no objection. I cheerfully look forward to seeing many of my Roman Catholic friends in Heaven, despite their regrettable error in holding certain propositions to be true, and their still more regrettable error in holding them to be essential parts of the Catholic faith. My comments on Line (2) of the argument appear below.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

It may be. You might even find some Lutherans who refer to it as a doctrine. Most knowledgeable Lutherans, however, will tell you it is not a doctrine, not an article of faith.
I can’t speak for other communions.

I understand that.

But I hope you can see the irony here. You are doing exactly what the CC does, to which Lutherans object.

That is, the CC claims the right/authority to define something. Martin Luther et al said, “No. We don’t have to submit to the authority of the Church”.

Similarly, the Lutheran Church apparently is claiming for itself the right to define SS. Other communions are saying, “No. We don’t have to submit to the definition of the Lutheran Church.”

And, apparently, you are saying that they must do so?

Or, are you saying that it’s perfectly find for other communions to define SS as a doctrine?

If so, then we Catholics are perfectly justified in saying, “Protestants see SS as a doctrine.”

Yes?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

But in fact, the argument should be of the form:

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture.”
(2) Sola Scriptura is not stated in Holy Scripture.
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

(1) All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scirpture
(2) “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture” is not expressed within Holy Scripture
(3) Therefore, “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture” is a self-defeating argument

 

[JonNC]

(1) All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scirpture
(2) “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture” is not expressed within Holy Scripture
(3) Therefore, “All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scripture” is a self-defeating argument

1. True
2. It does not have to be.
3. Only if salvation is self-defeating.

Styl, the most important aspect of that article is the statement that belief in the practice of SS is not an article of faith, that no one’s salvation is dependent on it.

JOn

 

[PRmerger]

(1) All truths necessary to salvation are stated in Holy Scirpture

1. True

Where does #1 come from, then?

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13014602]I understand that.

But I hope you can see the irony here. You are doing exactly what the CC does, to which Lutherans object.

That is, the CC claims the right/authority to define something. Martin Luther et al said, “No. We don’t have to submit to the authority of the Church”.

The two sentences are unrelated. We do not object to the CC the right/authority to define something. More likely, though not often, we contend that your definition is faulty. There are lots of non-Lutherans who do the same to us.

Similarly, the Lutheran Church apparently is claiming for itself the right to define SS. Other communions are saying, “No. We don’t have to submit to the definition of the Lutheran Church.”

What’s curious, PR, is how many times I have been told here at CAF by Catholics that Dr. Luther invented SS. Well, if he invented it, why can’t we stake a claim on the definition?

And, apparently, you are saying that they must do so?

Actually, what I said was I can’t speak for other communions.

Or, are you saying that it’s perfectly find for other communions to define SS as a doctrine?

It is perfectly fine for them to redefine it, since they often redefine its usage and meaning.
But you didn’t ask them, you asked us, Lutherans, on a thread “aimed especially at Lutherans”.

If so, then we Catholics are perfectly justified in saying, “Protestants see SS as a doctrine.”

Yes?

I guess, but I know you, and I know that you honor accuracy. If you are making the general statement that some protestants view SS as a doctrine, then we’d agree. If someone makes the statement that ALL protestants view SS as a doctrine, I would expect us to join together and say that’s not accurate.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The two sentences are unrelated. We do not object to the CC the right/authority to define something.

Fair enough.

More likely, though not often, we contend that your definition is faulty. There are lots of non-Lutherans who do the same to us.

Egg-zactly.

So non-Lutherans, such as me, say your def of SS is faulty.

What’s curious, PR, is how many times I have been told here at CAF by Catholics that Dr. Luther invented SS. Well, if he invented it, why can’t we stake a claim on the definition?

Why, because his definition is faulty, of course!

Non-Lutherans are simply trying to get the ship back on course when Fr. Martin took it off course with a wrong definition of SS.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, what I said was I can’t speak for other communions.

Understood.

It is perfectly fine for them to redefine it, since they often redefine its usage and meaning.

I am pleased to hear you say this. And it is indeed the right thing and consistent thing for a Lutheran to declare.

But you didn’t ask them, you asked us, Lutherans, on a thread “aimed especially at Lutherans”.

Well, as all threads naturally do, it evolved into other topics and tributaries.

I guess, but I know you, and I know that you honor accuracy. If you are making the general statement that some protestants view SS as a doctrine, then we’d agree. If someone makes the statement that ALL protestants view SS as a doctrine, I would expect us to join together and say that’s not accurate.

Jon

Yes. I am saying that some Protestants view SS as a doctrine, and that Lutherans have no right or authority to tell them that their definition is incorrect, nor to tell Catholics that we cannot say, “SS is a doctrine”.

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough.

Egg-zactly.

So non-Lutherans, such as me, say your def of SS is faulty.

Why, because his definition is faulty, of course!

Non-Lutherans are simply trying to get the ship back on course when Fr. Martin took it off course with a wrong definition of SS.

Because he was too Catholic.
So they say…

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes. I am saying that some Protestants view SS as a doctrine, and that Lutherans have no right or authority to tell them that their definition is incorrect, nor to tell Catholics that we cannot say, “SS is a doctrine”.

Of course we have every right to tell them they have distorted its definition and usage.
You can say it is a doctrine all you want, and even believe in that doctrine if you choose.
The historic usage and definition is not a doctrine, but a practice. And for Lutherans, therefore, we stick to its original usage.

Jon