Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[JonNC]

I would characterize it as viewing the testimony differently.

Ok. We would say we “weight” them differently.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Then you understand our concern about the differing views of Tradition, such as the one we used as an example. Who does one believe?

Jon

If the disagreement between the CC and the EO about papal infallibility is the only thing which prevents you from accepting Sacred Tradition, then I suggest that you are merely looking for an excuse to stay away.

For in every other way which ST has informed our religious traditions, we are in agreement, Jon.

That should speak urgently to you to come home!

 

[JonNC]

I got sort of excited when I say your post…I guess I have a different take on the whole ‘sola scriptura’ matter…as it relates to ‘sola fide’…scripture alone…for me questions from the Protestant side that Tradition and ‘works’…it’s my understanding, and I listen to Bot Radio sometimes jus to get a ‘feel’ for the Protestant ‘take’ on things…I believe that there are very well meaning loving solid Evangelical Christians who love Christ…that are in that Protestant camp that believes that we ‘buy’ our way into Heaven…the Devotions, Litanies, Rosary…etc…as I understand it we believe that it’s faith with good works…I have had this loving discussion with Protestant friends who are almost vehement about the fact that once saved always saved…scripture alone…I often wonder if they realize who put the Bible together…seriously no insult intended here…if some one more eloquent could elaborate I would indeed be happy…Pax

I think those who contend that protestants buy their way into Heaven misunderstand. Meditative prayer - Rosaries and such - serve a good purpose to those that use them. I don’t believe that Catholics feel that these practices, or even good works, can buy one’s way into Heaven, anymore than most protestants believe that they need not respond to Christ’s call to good works.
Once saved always saved, or the Calvinist Perseverance of Saints, is not universally accepted by non-Catholics. It is rejected by Lutherans.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi GK,

Thanks for your response.

Professor Probst’s book look like something that might fit into one of my areas of interest. I’ll have to chase it down. So, if you hadn’t mentioned books on the Holocaust, I’d not have made a reply. And not have seen Probst’s book.

“Demonizing The Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany”, Dr. Christopher J. Probst – “Published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum”

I think you would find it very enlightening. With regard to the title, this book does not disappoint. Probst provides a very detailed account of the use of and impact of Luther during the period. It is very detailed and extremely well researched and referenced.

God Bless You GK, Topper

 

[GKC]

Hi GK,

Thanks for your response.

“Demonizing The Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany”, Dr. Christopher J. Probst – “Published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum”

I think you would find it very enlightening. With regard to the title, this book does not disappoint. Probst provides a very detailed account of the use of and impact of Luther during the period. It is very detailed and extremely well researched and referenced.

God Bless You GK, Topper

And its ISBN is 978-0-253–001000-9. Price $25.00, for a 270 page TPB.

It’ll be ordered within the week, when I pick up the 2 books currently on order. This is an unending cycle.

Enlightening, quite likely, but I’ll also settle for interesting. I’ve read the online sample. I predict it will be interesting.

 

[Topper17]

And I don’t think we should talk about historic Lutheran belief simplistically as related to Luther, since it is obvious to anyone willing to listen that, while he is very important, he is one part of our Tradition.

My approach to historic Lutheranism is not at all ‘simplistic’. However, I would suggest that now giving Luther his ‘due’ with regard to the history of Lutheranism and greater Protestantism is.

Irrelevant.

Jon, I can think of a lot of single words which describe the FofC and it’s description of the Pope and all Catholics, but “irrelevant” isn’t one of them. The way I see it, the FofC is a HUGE barrier to ecumenical efforts.

The issue of authority, and who has it or doesn’t, is not the topic, but it is also one that stretches much further back than the Reformation era. In fact, I would contend the Reformation doesn’t happen if the Roman see doesn’t overstep its authority by claiming universal jurisdiction without benefit of ecumenical council.

The OP refers to Sola Scriptura, which of course is something that Martin Luther introduced into the Western Church, especially his initial version. No matter which of the various competing and conflicting interpretations you pick, each and every one of them has, right at the very heart, the issue of the authorities of the Church and Scripture. In fact, the OP mentions that:

………one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.

As for the connection between Martin Luther, Sola Scriptura, and the Protestant doctrinal dissension mentioned in the OP, please allow me to quote Harvard Professor Steven Ozment:
**
“The division within Protestant ranks that is so striking to us today began almost immediately with the Reformation’s success. Luther nailed his famous theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October, 1517, and before a decade had passed he faced determined Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement,** while at the same time decrying its corruption and declaring independence from it. **Here began the unending line of would-be reformers of the Reformation, who have ever since confronted the original and later versions of Protestantism with their own allegedly truer interpretations of Holy Scripture. Since Luther’s protest, hundreds of Protestant denominations have sprung up in the modern world, and new ones continue to appear.” **Professor Steven Ozment, “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x

In less than 10 years, Luther’s ‘success’ (Ozment’s term) had resulted in many competing and conflicting doctrines and communions, each of which ‘took inspiration from his movement’. Since those early days of Luther’s Reformation, ‘hundreds of Protestant denominations have sprung up”, which is obviously an understatement.

Jon, do you agree with (Harvard Professor of History) Ozment’s assessment? If not, can you explain how and why you think he has misunderstood the history of Luther and the spread of denominalization?

The fact of the matter is that Luther is right in the middle of the subject of the OP. I believe that revealing Luther’s role in the doctrinal dissension that plagues Protestantism is necessary in order to understand how to combat and reverse it. Of course a very closely related topic would be Luther’s personal authority, as in his authority to teach differently than the Church.

and the Catholic Church didn't stand for Luther's, did it?  They excommunicated him, just like there were mutual excommunications in the 11th century.

Just a simple question here Jon – are you saying that the Catholic Church shouldn’t have excommunicated Luther? A simple yes or no would suffice, followed of course by your more detailed explanation.

 

[Topper17]

Hi GKC

And its ISBN is 978-0-253–001000-9. Price $25.00, for a 270 page TPB.

It’ll be ordered within the week, when I pick up the 2 books currently on order. This is an unending cycle.

Enlightening, quite likely, but I’ll also settle for interesting. I’ve read the online sample. I predict it will be interesting.

Count on it. It’s one of those books which contain so many fact that you have to take notes because there is too much going on to be able to remember in your head. I think you will be shocked by the difference between Catholic and Lutheran ‘behavior’ during the war.

God Bless You GK, Topper

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC

Count on it. It’s one of those books which contain so many fact that you have to take notes because there is too much going on to be able to remember in your head. I think you will be shocked by the difference between Catholic and Lutheran ‘behavior’ during the war.

God Bless You GK, Topper

You assume this is my first rodeo.

I only rarely take notes. I buy books. And keep them, as notes.

Along with Probst’s book, the order will include Connelly’s FROM ENEMY TO BROTHER. I expect to find it interesting, too. I’m interested in the general topic of antisemitism/antiJudaism, as historically manifested in western civilization before and after Fr. Martin, in a number of institutions. Among a lot of other things that result in those book orders, over the past 60 years. There is no end to it.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;13034361]If the disagreement between the CC and the EO about papal infallibility is the only thing which prevents you from accepting Sacred Tradition, then I suggest that you are merely looking for an excuse to stay away.

No, PR, that’s not the case. Infallibility* ex cathedra* is an example, related to the underlying problem for me concerning the CC.

For in every other way which ST has informed our religious traditions, we are in agreement, Jon.

No entirely.

That should speak urgently to you to come home!

Honestly, I’ve never left home, but I understand your sentiment. Let’s put it this way for now; the Catholic Church does not need another “cafeteria” Catholic who picks and chooses which doctrines to believe or not. In conscience, I couldn’t do that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Topper,

=Topper17;13034612]My approach to historic Lutheranism is not at all ‘simplistic’. However, I would suggest that now giving Luther his ‘due’ with regard to the history of Lutheranism and greater Protestantism is.

That’s fine.

Jon, I can think of a lot of single words which describe the FofC and it’s description of the Pope and all Catholics, but “irrelevant” isn’t one of them. The way I see it, the FofC is a HUGE barrier to ecumenical efforts.

There are lots of Catholic documents that are barriers, as well. That’s the point of ecumenical dialogue.

The OP refers to Sola Scriptura, which of course is something that Martin Luther introduced into the Western Church, especially his initial version. No matter which of the various competing and conflicting interpretations you pick, each and every one of them has,** right at the very heart, the issue of the authorities of the Church and Scripture.** In fact, the OP mentions that:

Indeed, that is an issue.

The fact of the matter is that Luther is right in the middle of the subject of the OP.

If you think so, but that’s not the questions the OP asks:
**If I’m a Lutheran and I want to know, for instance, whether or not the church should practice infant baptism, I first should go to scripture and see what is said. I read the scriptures and conclude the proper interpretation is that infants should be baptized. But then there are all these other Christians saying infants shouldn’t be baptized and that the Bible doesn’t teach it. So how do I know my interpretation is the Apostolic interpretation of scripture and not just my own faulty understanding? The Baptist says he’s got it right, I say I have it right, who settles the dispute? Whichever side can argue it the best?

OR, can the Lutheran look to the early church fathers and say, “I know my interpretation is correct because the church has always properly interpreted this teaching the correct way”? Or is that a violation of the sola scriptura principle?**
They are questions about how Lutherans (and the Reformed) practice* sola scriptura*.

I believe that revealing Luther’s role in the doctrinal dissension that plagues Protestantism is necessary in order to understand how to combat and reverse it.

That’s an interesting topic, but unrelated to the OP’s question. Another interesting question would be the underlying doctrinal dissension within the western Church, as well as the Church at large, that was the catalyst for the various reformation era movements, including the Lutheran movement in Germany.

Just a simple question here Jon – are you saying that the Catholic Church shouldn’t have excommunicated Luther? A simple yes or no would suffice, followed of course by your more detailed explanation.

I’m not saying that at all. This, too would be an interesting thread.

Jon

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Another interesting question would be the underlying doctrinal dissension within the western Church, as well as the Church at large, that was the catalyst for the various reformation era movements, including the Lutheran movement in Germany…

Related to the OP…

I think The introduction of Gutenberg’s Bible and the sudden access to the Bible by common people helped develop the sense of sola scriptura that probably didn’t exist before it’s mass production.

 

[PRmerger]

No, PR, that’s not the case. Infallibility* ex cathedra* is an example, related to the underlying problem for me concerning the CC.

Then why bring up the EO?

It appears that their view is irrelevant–you would reject PI regardless of whether they endorsed it or not.

 

[JonNC]

Then why bring up the EO?

It appears that their view is irrelevant–you would reject PI regardless of whether they endorsed it or not.

Actually, PR, you brought them into it when you said “any bishop”.

But you are right that I am no fan of private interpretation, and tend to side with Chemnitz on the matter.

ISTM that the primary reason for the use of sola scriptura by the Lutheran reformers of the first and second generation was precisely this issue. Yes, I know, its irony considering the use/abuse of sola scriptura has fared no better, and likely worse.

Jon

 

[commenter]

You assume this is my first rodeo.

I only rarely take notes. I buy books. And keep them, as notes.

Along with Probst’s book, the order will include Connelly’s FROM ENEMY TO BROTHER. I expect to find it interesting, too. I’m interested in the general topic of antisemitism/antiJudaism, as historically manifested in western civilization before and after Fr. Martin, in a number of institutions. Among a lot of other things that result in those book orders, over the past 60 years. There is no end to it.

Then there are the lazy Christian scholars/opinionists like myself, who have ceased reading any whole books, since we can get the gist on any topic from reading GKC, and other posters, who still do read actual books.

 

[Topper17]

The only context within which your questions can be answered is an assumption that Lutheranism is a break-away from the One Holy Church. I reject that assumption on its face.

I asked about Arius and what I assume are 21st century Arian Bishops, and also Montanus, Pelagius, and Nestorius. I don’t think that my question has to be viewed in any specific context, so let me take another shot at it:

Jon, I think we probably agree that the Church was right in it’s judgment of the men listed above, and also that it was within it’s authority to make those judgments. If you disagree, please state why.

In regards to ‘certainly’, Yale Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, writing then as a Lutheran, recounts the comments of a Friedrich Schliermacher writing about the Augsburg Confession 400 years after the fact, asking the rhetorical question:

“Would it not be presumptuous if we imagined that we had found the truth in such a way as to make us perfectly certain, both that no one else could condemn us this same way and that we can gain nothing further from associating with those who thing otherwise and whom we condemn.” Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 42.

Schliermacher is commenting on the level of certainty expressed in the Augsburg Confession. I think the point he is also making is that when people are THAT certain, they shut themselves off from even hearing the evidence that people put forth against their positions. When there is THAT level of certainty, even well thought out arguments and compelling evidence do not have any impact because they ‘do not compute’. Nothing can break down that certainty. Those arguments are automatically dismissed without much thought. “They CANNOT be correct, because I am THAT certain.” 100% assurance of the correctness of one’s own position destroys the possibility of progress in ecumenical dialogue because people do not respond to the questions and points of the other side.

No more than the Lutheran position on the papacy should give you pause.

I see the two as apples and oranges, or possibly apples and some non-fruit type substance. In other words, the claims of the Catholic Church, at least IMHO, are FAR more compelling than those made by 16th – 21st century Lutheranism. One of the reasons I see the two as being so different is the actual source of those condemnations. You don’t have to get too deep into the history of the Reformation to see Luther in those FofC statements.

It seems that we are asked to believe that somehow the writers of the Formula were able to sort out all of the wheat from the chaff in Luther’s teachings, but also that the Council of Trent was somehow unable to correctly judge Luther’s teachings. What was it about the two groups which supposedly insured that one would be right and the other wrong?

Reformed Scholar Heiko Oberman also comments on certainty:

“In 1521 Luther had not been willing to recant before the emperor in Worms without factual refutation, but now his tone was even more strident, leaving no opportunity for a counterargment: This is what the Scriptures teach……and so do I. Here I can yield to no one. He goes on even more pointedly: “Whoever teaches otherwise denies Christ and faith.” So whoever rejects the Reformer rejects him totally. How inconceivably bold it was of Luther to venture such an assured, conclusive judgment on a problem the Greek philosophers and scholastic theologians before him – and many others after him – had tried in vain to solve. Who has ever succeeded in overcoming the basic conflict between God’s omnipotence and man’s freedom without opening an even greater abyss? Luther’s answer is short but not immediately clear, the testimomy of the Holy Scriptures is his legitimation.

For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of Sola Scriptura, the Scripture Alone, has not brought the certainty he anticipated.” Oberman, pg. 220

Here we see yet another noted Scholar making the connection between Luther, Sola Scriptura, and the lack of certainty that it has fostered.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, PR, you brought them into it when you said “any bishop”.

My universe of discourse did not include the EO.

But you are right that I am no fan of private interpretation, and tend to side with Chemnitz on the matter.

Sorry I wasn’t clear. PI was my abbreviation for papal infallibility.
You don’t believe in it regardless of whether the EO and the CC are in communion on this point or in disagreement.

 

[GKC]

Then there are the lazy Christian scholars/opinionists like myself, who have ceased reading any whole books, since we can get the gist on any topic from reading GKC, and other posters, who still do read actual books.

Well…shucks. Yeah, I do. And the local domestic environment suffers from it.

But I’m a fallible filter for all those facts. An informed (degree undefined) opinion, not an authority. And I’m not alone in that, as you say. Evidence suggests that there is reading going on around here. Not as broad based as possible, perhaps, but I do suspect someone is turning pages, besides me.

 

[MaryT777]

Well…shucks. Yeah, I do. And the local domestic environment suffers from it.

But I’m a fallible filter for all those facts. An informed opinion, not an authority. And I’m not alone in that, as you say. Evidence suggests that there is reading going on around here. Not as broad based as possible, perhaps, but I do suspect someone is turning pages, besides me.

I wish I lived nearby to you, GKC. I’d get a library card and check books out from the GKC library.

 

[GKC]

I wish I lived nearby to you, GKC. I’d get a library card and check books out from the GKC library.

I’ve often day dreamed about that sort of thing, with folks borrowing and returning. Then I wonder how to enforce the retuning part.

One of my heroes was the late Russell Kirk, conservative scholar, author of classic ghost stories, and RC convert, fond of Chesterton. He had a stupendous personal library, housed in a separate structure at his home. Local folks knew it as Kirk’s library, One day a stranger entered the place, while Kirk was there, and asked to look around. Kirk was sort of used to that. After a brief survey, the visitor began wrting up a number of things Kirk would have to do, in accordance with state regulations, to make his" public" library legal: rest rooms. exit signs, etc. The bureaucracy couldn’t grasp the idea of that many books not being a public institution.

 

[steido01]

Then there are the lazy Christian scholars/opinionists like myself, who have ceased reading any whole books, since we can get the gist on any topic from reading GKC, and other posters, who still do read actual books.

Reminds be of a short story by Asimov. A Feeling of Power.