Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Topper17]

If my Synod steps away from Lutheran orthodoxy, in a way that some others have, do I have not only a right, but a responsibility, to speak out against heterodoxy?

And if they continue in their movement away from Lutheran orthodoxy, am I obligated to stay?

First of all, this statement seems to PRESUME that ‘Lutheran orthodoxy’ (pick one of the conflicting defintions) is what SHOULD be adhered to. It PRESUMES that Lutheranism (or some specific variation) is God’s Absolute Truth.

What is it that that presumption is founded upon?

Furthermore , it must be noted, that here you very much retain for yourself the ‘right’ to decide which church teachings are true and which are not. In fact, I think that you recently stated that you are embroiled in a controversy with your communion, on an issue of faith or morals. If I have misstated this please correct me. The point is that you state that it is the church which determines doctrine, but when it comes right down to it, you seem to hold to your judgment as being superior to that of your whole church. To me, from my Catholic perspective, that seems to be a potentially very harsh judgment with regards to the authority of your church.

What you are describing is exactly what Martin Luther did. The results of the exercising of this kind of ‘right’ has been tens of thousands of doctrinally conflicting Protestant sects, not to mention the who knows how many doctrinally independent Lutheran communions.

If you personally decide that your synod has ‘fallen away’, it is your ‘duty’ to leave and attach yourself to a communion which teaches more perfectly – right? Well, some people will stay and will call you the ‘rebels’ who split the church. Of course, those of you who split off will consider the people that chose to not leave as ‘misguided’ (your term regarding the ELCA BTW).

Can you see that this is NOT the way that Christ designed His Church? Can you see how having an earthly authority, precluded by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on faith and morals, is the ONLY way to protect Christian doctrine? Can you see how the Lutheran Confessions have NOT been able to protect even Lutheran doctrine OR issues of Christian morals? Can you see how Sola Scriptura is at fault for all of the doctrinal dissension you have within both Protestantism overall and also within Lutheranism specifically?

Somehow you claim that Christians are to follow their church on matters of doctrine, YET, you excuse Luther for His Rebellion against the Catholic Church. Specifically and exactly how does he get this pass?

*“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
*

Should he have recanted? Could the Church have handled him differently?

Jon, you have asked these questions, but given your years of experience as a Lutheran Apologist, the number of posts you have written, and the hundred thousand or so you have read, certainly you have developed a mature well thought out opinion on these questions.

So Jon, do you Jon think Luther should have recanted?

As for whether the Church should have handled him differently, I have seen this generalized comment before, but nothing much more than that. So, how, specifically and exactly do you think the Church should have handled Luther differently?

Do you think Luther was right or wrong to disobey the Church? This is not a place for relativistic generalizations. He was either right or wrong – which is it? Like Luther said, everything depends on this answer.

Lutheranism was founded on Luther’s authority to disobey. As such, Lutheranism has ‘bet the farm’ on Luther, so the answers to my questions are of extreme importance.

 

[bjess8411]

Hello All,

I

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?

Hi, I think either is acceptable and both is best, but I am Baptist. I really like the concept of referring to Church tradition as well as the Bible when making decisions instead of just flowing with the tide of culture.

 

[bjess8411]

I’m not personally against infant baptism, although I was raised Baptist and wasn’t baptized until I was 13. But we can’t tell much from Acts 16:15 or other references in Scripture, none of which specifically mention infants being baptized. So it is still a matter of speculation as to whether the early Christians were doing this or not.

Do Catholics believe it is acceptable to take communion as a child or should they wait until they make the faith their own? I honestly don’t know what is commonly thought.

I was raised that baptism should be full immersion only done after faith is made personal along with a verbal confession before being immersed and communion should only be taken after you follow Christ for yourself.

 

[bjess8411]

Well…how did Scripture exactly tell you, in this instance, to baptize infants?

And your response is quite interesting…you stated…“If you had…”…it seems like you did not have to resort to Scripture to prove infant baptism…using Scriptures here, as you imply, is optional and not required.

Well if this means anything Jesus was baptized as an adult around the time he started his ministry. John was baptizing people who came to faith it seems because he was preaching a message of repentance and baptizing those who accepted the message from what I can tell from the Bible. I strongly believe in Baptism after one comes to the faith, repents and accepts it as their own. Oh, and Philip baptized the man he led to faith on the road after the fact. I am not saying it is completely wrong to do infant baptism, Baptists believe in committing a child to Christ as a baby, but there is a precedent that baptism occurs after salvation.
[/quote]

 

[Thorolfr]

Do Catholics believe it is acceptable to take communion as a child or should they wait until they make the faith their own? I honestly don’t know what is commonly thought.

I was raised that baptism should be full immersion only done after faith is made personal along with a verbal confession before being immersed and communion should only be taken after you follow Christ for yourself.

According to Catholic Answers and based on Canon Law:

The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion. (CIC 913 §1)

It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach Holy Communion. (CIC 914)

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-did-the-church-decided-that-seven-is-the-age-of-reason-and-the-age-for-first-comm

 

[PRmerger]

bbut there is a precedent that baptism occurs after salvation.

No, bjess.

Salvation occurs when one is present with the Lord before the eternal throne of heaven.

And therefore no one will be baptized after salvation.

 

[JonNC]

That’s true Jon. We are talking about Sola Scriptura, a teaching which Martin Luther developed and a teaching which had never been ‘noticed’ in Scripture prior to him. Given that this was a brand new ‘Christian doctrine’ and the fact that it was used by Luther to proclaim his teachings to be true, we have a responsibility to investigate the issue of Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Church and his claims to authority. After all, Protestantism is in large part based on Luther’s claims to the authority, the personal authority to disobey the doctrinal teachings of the Church. If Luther’s authority is found to be illegitimate, the implications for Protestantism overall, and Lutheranism specifically, are profound.

Understanding Luther’s self-proclaimed authority and his accusations against the Church are crucial in sorting all of this out.

Martin Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles, which later were judged to be ‘confessional’ or authoritative, by the Lutheran Church. As you know, in that text Martin Luther makes it VERY clear how he feels about the Catholic Church. He also makes some VERY strong claims about his personal authority. The Smalcald cannot be swept under the carpet. It is a key piece of evidence in the investigation into Luther’s thinking about Sola Scriptura.

To use your term, eliminating the Smalcald Articles or any of the other writings of Luther than you might find to be embarrassing from this conversation would lead to a ‘simplistic explanation’, although I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid discussing the details.

As part of the Lutheran Confession, the Smalcald Articles are very much a part of the discussion of how Martin Luther defied the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church.

In fact, Jon, the Lutheran Confessions stand on the foundation of Martin Luther’s Authority. If his authority is found to be illegitimate, then the same is true of the Lutheran Confessions. If you disagree with this statement, please explain specifically and exactly why.

Except that the discussion is not about Luther’s authority, real or perceived, Topper. It isn’t about how Luther felt about the Catholic Church. You’d probably be amazed that, at our parish, we can go weeks and never mention the name, Martin Luther. Because he doesn’t have any particular authority.
Finally, the Luther an confessions stand on the authority of scripture. That’s what the thread is about; how Lutherans ( and Reformed) practice that recognition of scripture as the final norm, a practice referred to as Sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Well if this means anything Jesus was baptized as an adult around the time he started his ministry.

I’ve always found this to be a curious assertion–“Jesus was baptized as an adult, therefore we should be baptized as an adult”.

Why do we take the age of Jesus as the important factor? Where does the Bible say that this is of great import?

Jesus was also baptized in the Jordan river. Why do folks not say, “Well, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river, therefore we should be baptized in the Jordan river.”

Or…

Jesus was baptized by his cousin. Why do folks not say, “Well, Jesus was baptized by his cousin, therefore we should be baptized by our cousins.”

 

[PRmerger]

You’re viewing us Lutherans through Roman Catholic eyes in that you think we’ve split from the church.

We Lutherans think we’ve preserved the church and practice the faith of our forefathers.
.

Ok. So walk me through this. A Luther equivalent appears in your church. He wants to reform what he sees as abuses. He also believes that you are teaching some very, very incorrect things.

What should he do?

 

[JonNC]

Returning to unity on earth is simple, Jon. We are waiting

On a lighter note, it will be refreshing when we get to heaven and see the fullness of God and realize how little and insignificant our differences on earth were.

Jon

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Hello All,

I have an honest, non-inflammatory sola scriptura question for Lutherans and traditional Reformed individuals. I’m trying to figure out if the tradition of the church plays ANY role at all in determining how scripture should be interpreted. Obviously 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.

So the question is, can the early church fathers play any role in that debate, or must scripture by itself be the only way to prove an interpretation is correct?

Allow me to provide an example to better explain my question:

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?

Please return to the topic of the OP.

 

[alchemon]

It is not our profession of faith which is the cause of salvation. Rather it is baptism itself which results in sanctifying grace. This is why circumcision was replaced by baptism in the NT as the sign of us being a child of God rather than our faith being the sign. Of course we cannot rely solely on our baptism because our sin causes us to fall from grace and baptism without faith and works is dead. Thus, it is important to note, that we are saved by the grace of our Lord, and this grace is imparted to us at baptism - not our profession of faith.

So what I think you are meaning is that baptism occurs after belief since it doesn’t make sense logically to say baptism occurs after salvation. While I do agree that scripture implies this for adults, scripture is not clear on what we are to do with children as every detailed baptismal account is of an adult convert. There is however a strong implication in scripture that children of Christians should be baptisted as infants. Specifically this is due to the early church Tradition, Original Sin, and baptism replacing circumcision.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PR,

Thanks for your response.

Yes. If what Luther did = good, then every Lutheran should be able to do that to their own church.

But it seems that the Lutheran communion does not give permission for its own members to do what Luther did to the CC.

Agreed. It is a massive contradiction, and what is even more important is that the legitimacy of the Lutheran church. In fact, the credibility of all of Protestantism is at stake in this question about the ‘right’ to rebel against the Church.

We have been discussing the ‘authority’ to disobey, which BTW is exactly what Sola Scriptura is about. I think that Authority is the key issue here, and also that the way in which that Authority was ‘transferred’ to the Lutheran Confessions. The historical record hold the answers.

Either the church has the Authority to determine doctrine or it doesn’t. Either Luther was wrong in his disobedience or he was right.

One of the things I have noticed in my study of history is that every heretical group in history seems to have agreed that the Church was right to oppose the heresy that cropped up just prior to theirs. But it was not correct in condemning THEIRS. They (of course) had ‘become the Church’ because the Church had fallen away from Scriptural Christianity (or some such thing). The Church simply could not still be authoritative UNLESS it caved in and followed their radical new doctrines. This is exactly the approach that Luther took.

Richard Marius, whom I consider to be Luther’s best biographer stated:

“**Luther was never able to say with precision at just what moment the Catholic Church had fallen away from its divine calling. **As he grew older, he would push the time of the church’s fall closer and closer to its beginnings, seeing, as one commenter has said, ‘the whole history of the church (seeming to be) under the influence of the devil.” Marius, pg. 273.

You would think that as important as going off the rails was, Luther should have been definite about when it happened. However, he probably realized that if he had gotten specific, he could have been easily refuted or criticized and that it would be better for his cause to just speak in generalities and evade the important questions.

Lutheran Professor James Kittelson makes an even more important point about Luther’s reliability as a ‘Reformer’ of the Church:

**“….it is at least arguable that, save for one disputation, which he [Luther] mentioned in his memoir but which has been lost, he did not even think about the Church as such until he was forced to it in 1519 by the impending debate with Jon Eck at Leipzig.” ** Kittelson, ‘Companion’, pg. 262

I find it amazing that almost two years into his Revolt, and at a time where he was 100% committed to carry on to the end, he STILL hadn’t thought out the nature of the Church, the Church he was determined to bringing to its knees. Seriously, I don’t have a good enough imagination to make this stuff up. It points directly to Luther’s ‘credibility’ as a ‘Reformer’ of the Christian Church.

God Bless You PR, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

bjess8411;13122561:

It is not our profession of faith which is the cause of salvation. Rather it is baptism itself which results in sanctifying grace. This is why circumcision was replaced by baptism in the NT as the sign of us being a child of God rather than our faith being the sign. Of course we cannot rely solely on our baptism because our sin causes us to fall from grace and baptism without faith and works is dead. Thus, it is important to note, that we are saved by the grace of our Lord, and this grace is imparted to us at baptism - not our profession of faith.

So what I think you are meaning is that baptism occurs after belief since it doesn’t make sense logically to say baptism occurs after salvation. While I do agree that scripture implies this for adults, scripture is not clear on what we are to do with children as every detailed baptismal account is of an adult convert. There is however a strong implication in scripture that children of Christians should be baptisted as infants. Specifically this is due to the early church Tradition, Original Sin, and baptism replacing circumcision.

I never posted what is attributed to me as MaryT777 nor one other posted. Where are you getting these posts? I have been told there is a MaryT777 on a anti Catholic website.
Please quit quoting me incorrectly.

Mary.

 

[PRmerger]

I never posted what is attributed to me as MaryT777 nor one other posted. Where are you getting these posts? I have been told there is a MaryT777 on a anti Catholic website.
Please quit quoting me incorrectly.

Mary.

Mary, ironically, in your post above, you attributed to bjess8411 what another poster wrote.

It’s not your fault–there is something wrong with the “quote” feature here.

This is easily corrected, however, by simply ensuring that what’s between these two prompts is what you actually want quoted:

blah blah blah / QUOTE]

You may have to delete another poster’s name that appears. Not sure why this is happening.

 

[benjohnson]

Ok. So walk me through this. A Luther equivalent appears in your church. He wants to reform what he sees as abuses. He also believes that you are teaching some very, very incorrect things.

What should he do?

(Awesome question!)

I would say that there’s three levels of discord:

This Luther is nuts: He’s asking why we don’t marry two men. We can easily use scripture to rebuke him.

This Luther is spot on: He’s caught us practicing simony and missing the treasury of merit. We can easily use scripture to correct our own behavior, repent, and move forward.

This Luther is challenging and the question isn’t easily answered by scripture - perhaps the question is “Will we do good works in heaven?”: We would have to look to church councils, early church fathers, and other sources for guidance. That failing, we would need a ecumenical council - and failing that, we should practice the faith handed to us and resist any change in practice of dogma.

From the Lutheran perspective, we would think our little pet theologian was of the second verity.

 

[steido01]

(Awesome question!)

I would say that there’s three levels of discord:

This Luther is nuts: He’s asking why we don’t marry two men. We can easily use scripture to rebuke him.

This Luther is spot on: He’s caught us practicing simony and missing the treasury of merit. We can easily use scripture to correct our own behavior, repent, and move forward.

This Luther is challenging and the question isn’t easily answered by scripture - perhaps the question is “Will we do good works in heaven?”: We would have to look to church councils, early church fathers, and other sources for guidance. That failing, we would need a ecumenical council - and failing that, we should practice the faith handed to us and resist any change in practice of dogma.

From the Lutheran perspective, we would think our little pet theologian was of the second verity.

To the credit of orthodox Lutherans, our pastors and bishops are generally pretty good about realizing and repenting when door #2 opens. Perhaps it’s easier for us than for some other Christians, for the simple reason that we recognize what we are: sinful, fallible human beings. Another reason to be thankful for one of God’s great gifts - a community of fellow believers.

 

[PRmerger]

(Awesome question!)

I would say that there’s three levels of discord:

This Luther is nuts: He’s asking why we don’t marry two men. We can easily use scripture to rebuke him.

This Luther is spot on: He’s caught us practicing simony and missing the treasury of merit. We can easily use scripture to correct our own behavior, repent, and move forward.

This Luther is challenging and the question isn’t easily answered by scripture - perhaps the question is “Will we do good works in heaven?”: We would have to look to church councils, early church fathers, and other sources for guidance. That failing, we would need a ecumenical council - and failing that, we should practice the faith handed to us and resist any change in practice of dogma.

From the Lutheran perspective, we would think our little pet theologian was of the second verity.

So this Luther says that your church is practicing incorrectly. And teaching some incorrect doctrines.

Your communion says: no, we are not.

What should Luther do now?

 

[steido01]

So this Luther says that your church is practicing incorrectly. And teaching some incorrect doctrines.

Your communion says: no, we are not.

What should Luther do now?

Thank the church for its clarification and shepherding. Repeat the message of the Gospel. Repent, if necessary. Return to communion.

Of course, we’ve learned a thing or three about how disagreements ought to be resolved. Disagreements are generally taken care of before they explode into public spectacles, and in the few instances where they do, they’re reconciled. Typically, a joint public statement then is made by all parties involved.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank the church for its clarification and shepherding. Repeat the message of the Gospel. Repent, if necessary. Return to communion.

Of course, we’ve learned a thing or three about how disagreements ought to be resolved. Disagreements are generally taken care of before they explode into public spectacles, and in the few instances where they do, they’re reconciled. Typically, a joint public statement then is made by all parties involved.

Now Luther (the real Luther) didn’t do that. He battened down the hatches, and made it a fight.

Do you think that a modern day Luther doing what the ancient Luther did would be tolerated by your communion?