Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Stylteralmaldo]

Could a Lutheran please explain this or correct it (since Wikipedia can’t always be trusted):

Lutherans hold that the Bible presents all doctrines and commands of the Christian faith clearly.[10] God’s Word is freely accessible to every reader or hearer of ordinary intelligence, without requiring any special education.[11] Of course, one must understand the language God’s Word is presented in, and not be so preoccupied by contrary thoughts so as to prevent understanding.[12] As a result of this, no one needs to wait for any clergy, and pope, scholar, or ecumenical council to explain the real meaning of any part of the Bible.[13]

Source:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_of_scripture

 

[PRmerger]

Because he was too Catholic.
So they say…

Jon

I am not following your point, friend.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course we have every right to tell them they have distorted its definition and usage.

What is your response when Catholics tell you this regarding what we perceive to be your divorce from the kerygma?

You can say it is a doctrine all you want, and even believe in that doctrine if you choose.

Yes. We are agreed.

The historic usage and definition is not a doctrine, but a practice. And for Lutherans, therefore, we stick to its original usage.

Jon

Can you offer some examples of its historic usage as not a doctrine but a practice?

 

[JonNC]

I am not following your point, friend.

I guess I was rather cryptic. Sorry.

You had said: 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.

My comment was: Because he was too Catholic. So they say…

In other words, Luther was far too Catholic for them. Really, it had nothing to do with sola scriptura, per se, but instead things such as sacraments, the real presence, Baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Could a Lutheran please explain this or correct it (since Wikipedia can’t always be trusted):

Source:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_of_scripture

Over and above Wikipedia, I’ll take the words of Martin Chemnitz, from his “Examination of the Council of Trent”:

“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’ And whoever twists the Holy Scripture so that it is understood according to his preconceived opinions does this to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.”

This is the Lutheran understanding I grew up with. During Catechetical Class, we were not handed a Bible and told to go home and interpret for ourselves. We were trained in the catechesis of the Evangelical Lutheran tradition.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13015523]What is your response when Catholics tell you this regarding what we perceive to be your divorce from the kerygma?

My response is that this view is not unexpected, and is the result of our sad division. I do, however, disagree with the view - obviously.

Can you offer some examples of its historic usage as not a doctrine but a practice?

I think the very introduction of the principle in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord is an example: “Comprehensive Summary, Rule, and Norm”. It is something we believe to be a good and necessary way to come to doctrine, but I’ve never been asked to state an other, saying I believe in “sola scriptura” as a belief that binds the conscience.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I guess I was rather cryptic. Sorry.

No need to apologize!

You had said: 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.

My comment was: Because he was too Catholic. So they say…

In other words, Luther was far too Catholic for them. Really, it had nothing to do with sola scriptura, per se, but instead things such as sacraments, the real presence, Baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism.

Jon

Well, that he was Catholic, there is no doubt.

That he was “too” Catholic, well…I don’t think so.

 

[PRmerger]

My response is that this view is not unexpected, and is the result of our sad division. I do, however, disagree with the view - obviously.

And I think that is the response we non-Lutherans give to your definition of SS.

I think the very introduction of the principle in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord is an example: “Comprehensive Summary, Rule, and Norm”. It is something we believe to be a good and necessary way to come to doctrine, but I’ve never been asked to state an other, saying I believe in “sola scriptura” as a belief that binds the conscience.

Jon

Would you be so kind as to offer some texts which state that SS is not a doctrine but is rather a practice?

And it would be helpful also to have some texts from Luther and other historical leaders in the Lutheran communion which define SS?

 

[benjohnson]

And it would be helpful also to have some texts from Luther and other historical leaders in the Lutheran communion which define SS?

Your not going to find the words Sola Scriptua in early documents - the whole listing of “solas” were in my opinion a bit of propaganda that came about later - they removed too much of the nuance from what we profess as well.

The gist of Luther’s argument agains the abuses goes like this - in my opinion:

Luther: You’re doing it wrong
Church: It’s tradition
Luther: It may be, but it’s a modern tradition of man
Church: We have the fancy hats, and we decide that it’s tradition! (<-- benjohnson is being a snit here)
Luther: God’s Word trumps whatever you may say.

I think Jon’s quote form Martin Chemnitz is as early as you’ll find from the reformed Lutheran tradition, though we could go back to St. Augustine and quote from him as we also claim him as a church father.

“As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.”

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Over and above Wikipedia, I’ll take the words of Martin Chemnitz, from his “Examination of the Council of Trent”:…

…This is the Lutheran understanding I grew up with. During Catechetical Class, we were not handed a Bible and told to go home and interpret for ourselves. We were trained in the catechesis of the Evangelical Lutheran tradition.

I’m glad to hear that the Wikipedia entry is incorrect.

Although I suppose it’s possible that some Lutheran groups teach one way and others another.

 

[PRmerger]

Your not going to find the words Sola Scriptua in early documents - the whole listing of “solas” were in my opinion a bit of propaganda that came about later - they removed too much of the nuance from what we profess as well.

The gist of Luther’s argument agains the abuses goes like this - in my opinion:

Luther: You’re doing it wrong
Church: It’s tradition
Luther: It may be, but it’s a modern tradition of man
Church: We have the fancy hats, and we decide that it’s tradition! (<-- benjohnson is being a snit here)
Luther: God’s Word trumps whatever you may say.

I think Jon’s quote form Martin Chemnitz is as early as you’ll find from the reformed Lutheran tradition, though we could go back to St. Augustine and quote from him as we also claim him as a church father.

“As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.”

I hope you can see how skeptical I am, then, that SS is not a doctrine but a practice in Lutheranism.

Firstly, it appear that this is indeed a doctrine in non-Lutheran Christendom.
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22sola%20scriptura%20is%20a%20doctrine%22

Secondly, I don’t have any evidence to see that Lutheranism views it in any way that differs from the rest of Christendom.

 

[benjohnson]

I hope you can see how skeptical I am, then, that SS is not a doctrine but a practice in Lutheranism.

Firstly, it appear that this is indeed a doctrine in non-Lutheran Christendom.
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22sola%20scriptura%20is%20a%20doctrine%22

Secondly, I don’t have any evidence to see that Lutheranism views it in any way that differs from the rest of Christendom.

You’re going to find a lot of American Lutherans run claiming that it’s doctrine - they’re usually just confused with the meaning of doctrine and are probably just getting ahead of themselves.

If you ask those same Lutherans - “Is a dogmatic belief if the practice of Sola Scripture necessary for salvation?” the answer would almost assuredly be no.

If you need evidence that Lutherans practice is different that other christians traditions commonly lumped in with the label of “Protestant” - here’s photos of a Lutheran Divine service that I attend, and one of a random “Protestant” service.

I’d say there’s something different in the two, but I’ll leave it to you to figure out if the difference is meaningful from your standpoint.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

You’re going to find a lot of American Lutherans run claiming that it’s doctrine - they’re usually just confused with the meaning of doctrine and are probably just getting ahead of themselves.

If you ask those same Lutherans - “Is a dogmatic belief if the practice of Sola Scripture necessary for salvation?” the answer would almost assuredly be no.

But if you ask those same Lutherans: is it a teaching of Lutheranism that the Bible is where look to find out what to believe as Christians…they will answer…yes?

And what is a “teaching” except another word for “doctrine”?

If you need evidence that Lutherans practice is different that other christians traditions commonly lumped in with the label of “Protestant” - here’s photos of a Lutheran Divine service that I attend, and one of a random “Protestant” service.

I’d say there’s something different in the two, but I’ll leave it to you to figure out if the difference is meaningful from your standpoint.

http://www.flcws.org/P1010489a web.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ene-01.jpg/640px-Bridges-Worship-Scene-01.jpg

Point taken. I do see the liturgical aura in Lutheran worship services.

And I will add, apropos to nothing at all here on this thread, that about 60% of the folks in the 2nd picture come from my Church.

#greatsadness

 

[benjohnson]

But if you ask those same Lutherans: is it a teaching of Lutheranism that the Bible is where look to find out what to believe as Christians…they will answer…yes?

I’d also give a tentative “yes” - but if pressed further and I knew what the question was about, I’d reply that the church is who interprets scripture, and that we follow the creeds, councils and even our own “giant book of rules” in the confessions.

We Lutherans are to come to church to hear the “Gospel proclaimed and the Sacraments administered” - the hearing of the Gospel is really important.

And I will add, apropos to nothing at all here on this thread, that about 60% of the folks in the 2nd picture come from my Church.

#greatsadness

You’re not alone - our church is suffered along the same lines as well. Come Lord Jesus!

 

[JonNC]

I’m glad to hear that the Wikipedia entry is incorrect.

Although I suppose it’s possible that some Lutheran groups teach one way and others another.

Typically, the difference is in the approach to scripture and the confessions, a quia versus and quatenus subscription. Confessional tend to hold a quia subscription to the confessions, that they are completely faithful to the teaching of the Bible, more liberal Lutherans a quatenus subscription, in so far as they are faithful.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No need to apologize!

Well, that he was Catholic, there is no doubt.

That he was “too” Catholic, well…I don’t think so.

Of course not, PR, but the Reformed, Anabaptists, etc., and many American evangelicals, Baptists, and others today think so.

Jon

 

[pablope]

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:

Jon

Just a comment on this:

[SIGN]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.
[/SIGN]

So the author finds regrettable error in what the RCC holds…so the author is making an infallible statement.

Secondly, does the author also realize that there may be errors in what he believes…so he is in the same boat as what he says of the RCC? Or does he not see any error in what he believes?

 

[JonNC]

Just a comment on this:

[SIGN]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.
[/SIGN]

So the author finds regrettable error in what the RCC holds…so the author is making an infallible statement.

Secondly, does the author also realize that there may be errors in what he believes…so he is in the same boat as what he says of the RCC? Or does he not see any error in what he believes?

Simply stating one’s opinion in no way implies they believe they speak infallibly.
Perhaps, however, he has an email address.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

But if you ask those same Lutherans: is it a teaching of Lutheranism that the Bible is where look to find out what to believe as Christians…they will answer…yes?

And what is a “teaching” except another word for “doctrine”?

Well etymologically speaking you are correct. The word ‘doctrine’ comes, via Old French and Middle English, from the latin nouns doctrina (‘teaching, instruction, learning, knowledge’) and doctor (‘teacher, instructor’), and the verb docere (‘to teach’). But, as is often the case with words, you cannot simply find out what it means by tracing its etymological roots. Consider the Greek noun δόγμα (dogma), which was later translated into doctrina in (ecclesiastical) Latin. Etymologically speaking, this means nothing more than ‘opinion’ or ‘tenet,’ from the verb δοκεῖν (dokein, ‘to seem good, think’) and when used in the New Testament, that is basically what it means. But, as is often the case, it was divorced from its roots, and now it, alongside ‘doctrine,’ has a very specialised usage. It doesn’t simply mean ‘teaching,’ but a teaching of seminal importance, like the Trinity or the Incarnation. Would you say that those dogmas are merely ‘opinions’ or ‘tenets’?

Sola Scriptura is a practice, where Scripture is the most authoritative norm we have. We believe it is a true practice, but if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, that is not enough to condemn you to hell. If you, deliberately, reject Christ as fully God, fully man, “acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis,” that IS enough to condemn you to hell.

 

[GKC]

Well etymologically speaking you are correct. The word ‘doctrine’ comes, via Old French and Middle English, from the latin nouns doctrina (‘teaching, instruction, learning, knowledge’) and doctor (‘teacher, instructor’), and the verb docere (‘to teach’). But, as is often the case with words, you cannot simply find out what it means by tracing its etymological roots. Consider the Greek noun δόγμα (dogma), which was later translated into doctrina in (ecclesiastical) Latin. Etymologically speaking, this means nothing more than ‘opinion’ or ‘tenet,’ from the verb δοκεῖν (dokein, ‘to seem good, think’) and when used in the New Testament, that is basically what it means. But, as is often the case, it was divorced from its roots, and now it, alongside ‘doctrine,’ has a very specialised usage. It doesn’t simply mean ‘teaching,’ but a teaching of seminal importance, like the Trinity or the Incarnation. Would you say that those dogmas are merely ‘opinions’ or ‘tenets’?

Sola Scriptura is a practice, where Scripture is the most authoritative norm we have. We believe it is a true practice, but if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, that is not enough to condemn you to hell. If you, deliberately, reject Christ as fully God, fully man, “acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis,” that IS enough to condemn you to hell.

Seems I recited and affirmed something like those closing words yesterday, at Mass.