Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[alchemon]

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

Yes I appeared to have totally messed up the quote function. My apologies to Mary but it does seem like the first start of it was from the other poster but I must have pulled something else in with it. Most likely user error and please forgive my mistake.

 

[MaryT777]

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]

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The quote feature is under your control guys.

 

[Topper17]

The CCC 817 mentions blame on both sides, which is why I say its simplistic, and I recognized, if you recall, that sometimes that’s the nature of the forum.

Jon, you might say that there is blame on both sides, and the CCC 817 takes responsibility for a portion of the blame on the side of the Church, but where is the official statement from ANY Lutheran communion which accepts part of the blame? Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is none.

Some could claim it gave itself permission to separate for Holy Orthodoxy

Yes, and some could claim that Luther actually posted his Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church, and that he said, “Here I stand”. Neither of those things happened of course, but some people, in error, say that they did. I have never thought that the ‘some could claim’ argument is very compelling, and am much more impressed with specific arguments supported by historical facts or a well-reasoned argument.

The great Protestant Theologian and Church Historian Alister McGrath comments on the early implementation of Sola Scriptura:

“[The early] Luther appears to suggest that the ordinary pious Christian believer is perfectly capable of reading Scripture and making perfect sense of what he finds within its pages…….

**The magisterial [Lutheran] Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture, but subsequently it became anxious concerning the social and political consequences this idea. The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German Peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. ** It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it……The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, or to Luther, or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 162-5

Jon, here we learn (again) that Luther’s Reformation taught not only Sola Scriptura, but Private Interpretation, up until 1525.

NOBODY practices Sola Scriptura, meaning Scripture Alone. Everybody ‘adds something’ to Scripture in order to interpret it. Luther originally taught that what needed to be ‘added’ to Scripture was the interpretation of the individual – everyone included. That didn’t work out all that well as you know, but it was the foundational principal upon which the Reformation was established. Later he changed the ‘added to’ to **his personal interpretations. **Confessional Lutheranism has since changed the ‘added to’ to the Lutheran Confessions.

No matter what the ‘added to’, as long as there is not a unifying earthly authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, there will be nothing but more and more competing and conflicting denominations.

 

[benjohnson]

Abraham Lincoln:

Quoting is dangerous - use carefully. Never believe everything you read on the internet. Also, Lutherans are like totally awesome.

Thanks for dropping in Mr. President!

 

[MaryT777]

Thanks for dropping in Mr. President!

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for dropping in Mr. President!

That’s totally amazing!

Originally posted by Mary Lincoln
Yes, Lutherans are really awesome. And they make a fantastic 3 bean salad–I have the White House chef make this for the President now

Yes, Mary. I agree. On both accounts.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you might say that there is blame on both sides, and the CCC 817 takes responsibility for a portion of the blame on the side of the Church, but where is the official statement from ANY Lutheran communion which accepts part of the blame? Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is none.

Yes, and some could claim that Luther actually posted his Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church, and that he said, “Here I stand”. Neither of those things happened of course, but some people, in error, say that they did. I have never thought that the ‘some could claim’ argument is very compelling, and am much more impressed with specific arguments supported by historical facts or a well-reasoned argument.

The great Protestant Theologian and Church Historian Alister McGrath comments on the early implementation of Sola Scriptura:

“[The early] Luther appears to suggest that the ordinary pious Christian believer is perfectly capable of reading Scripture and making perfect sense of what he finds within its pages…….

**The magisterial [Lutheran] Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture, but subsequently it became anxious concerning the social and political consequences this idea. The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German Peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. ** It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it……The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people. To put it crudely, it became a question of whether you looked to the pope, or to Luther, or to Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 162-5

Jon, here we learn (again) that Luther’s Reformation taught not only Sola Scriptura, but Private Interpretation, up until 1525.

NOBODY practices Sola Scriptura, meaning Scripture Alone. Everybody ‘adds something’ to Scripture in order to interpret it. Luther originally taught that what needed to be ‘added’ to Scripture was the interpretation of the individual – everyone included. That didn’t work out all that well as you know, but it was the foundational principal upon which the Reformation was established. Later he changed the ‘added to’ to **his personal interpretations. **Confessional Lutheranism has since changed the ‘added to’ to the Lutheran Confessions.

No matter what the ‘added to’, as long as there is not a unifying earthly authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, there will be nothing but more and more competing and conflicting denominations.

This is all very interesting, but the question I asked you many posts ago was do you know of a communion or tradition or denomination that used sola scriptura in a way different than Lutherans do prior to Lutheranism. The answer is no. So the answers provided to the OP by various Lutherans correctly answer his question.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

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 Lutheran 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.

You say that the Lutheran Confessions stand on the authority of Scripture. Well, that’s exactly what the Reformed say about their confessions. Of course neither of you can demonstrate why your beliefs are any more reliable than those of the other, without using an argument that can be used, exactly, by the other. Both are based on Sola Scriptura, but both ‘add something’ different. You, - the Lutheran Confessions, and they - their confessions. Anybody who wants to can follow this exact same precedent, start their own tradition and write their own confessions. Sola Scriptura has not worked out all that well in the real world.

This is all very interesting, but the question I asked you many posts ago was do you know of a communion or tradition or denomination that used sola scriptura in a way different than Lutherans do prior to Lutheranism. The answer is no. So the answers provided to the OP by various Lutherans correctly answer his question.

If I remember correctly Jon, I answered that nobody prior to the 16th century practiced Sola Scriptura. NOBODY. Sola Scriptura was the 16th century invention of one man. Luther claimed that all of his beliefs were SO obvious in Scripture, and YET, nobody had ever ‘noticed’ Sola Scriptura prior to him.

“If the early sixteenth century Western Church was in an unstable and volatile condition, **Martin Luther was the catalyst that caused it to explode. His conflicts with Rome ignited what is called the Protestant Reformation. The concern here is with only one particular aspect of Luther’s thought – his view of Scripture and tradition, but it is almost impossible to understand why Luther said and did the things he did without some understanding of his personal background and the social and ecclesiastical context in which he found himself………He had been acutely depressed over the prospect of death since his youth……As he began to recite the first words of the mass, terror struck him as he realized his unworthiness to stand before the infinitely holy God………He would confess his sins daily, sometimes for periods as long as six hours, but his torment continued………
**
We find the first public hints of Luther’s concept of Sola Scriptura at the Leipzig debate between himself and John Eck. At this debate Luther defended the proposition that Scripture was the supreme authority – above the pope and above councils. It was at the Diet of Worms, however, where Luther made his most famous speech regarding the authority of Scripture. After being challenged by the magistrates to repudiate his books and recant his views. Luther said:

“Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and teeth.** Unless I am convicted to Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God.** I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right or safe. God help me. Amen.” Keith Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 86-94

If a Reformed Scholar isn’t enough to prove the point, how about a Lutheran Scholar:

**“Luther was indeed one of ‘the Reformers,’ whose proposals triggered lasting schism in the Western church. **Whether he would have pressed his convictions in quite the same way had he been able to look farther into the future, we cannot know. In any case, the aspects of Luther’s work over which the church divided – whatever they may in fact have been – have long since had their effect for good and ill.” Professor Robert Jenson, “Luther’s Contemporary Theological Significance”, in “Companion”, pg. 272-3

First of all, we see a Lutheran Professor stating that that it was Luther ‘whose proposals triggered lasting schism……”, which I think is quite an admission. It also brings out the point that it is acceptable, at least to Lutheran academics, to discuss Luther’s Sola Scriptura and his ‘role’ in the Western Schism.

To be continued……

 

[Topper17]

Continued:

Keith Mathison wrote a book specifically addressing Sola Scriptura, which happens to be the subject of this thread:

**“Among the apostolic fathers, one will search on vain to discover a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as may be found in modern theology textbooks. The doctrine of Scripture did not become an independent locus of theology until the sixteenth century. **What we do find throughout the writing of the apostolic fathers is a continual and consistent appeal to the Old Testament and to the Apostles teaching. During these first decades following Christ, however, we have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents………As already noted, we have broad scholarly agreement that Scripture and tradition were not mutually exclusive concepts in the mind of the early fathers. The concept of ‘tradition,’ when used by these fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and his Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication.” Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 20-21

Luther’s initial version of Sola Scriptura was to allow ALL men to interpretation. Of course, Luther couldn’t get that particular genie back into the bottle. R. C. Sproul also discusses Luther’s ‘legacy’ – ‘the principal of private interpretation’.

“*Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. *The two principals go hand in hand and were accomplished only after great controversy and persecution. Scores of persons paid with their lives by being burned at the stake (particularly in England) for daring to translate the bible into the vernacular. One of Luther’s greatest achievements was a translation of the Bible into German so that any literate person could read it for himself.” R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33

Somehow Sproul ignores the fact that there were at least 27 different German translations of Holy Scripture before Luther’s ‘translation’.

“It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation.

When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….” **In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. **Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” **Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” **R.C. Sproul, (Protestant Theologian) “Knowing Scripture”, pg. 33-4

“Like German troops Luther was best in taking the offensive. These early years when he was standing almost alone and attacking one abuse after another were the finest of his whole career. **Later, when he came to reconstruct a church, he modified or withdrew much of what he had at first put forward, **and reintroduced a large portion of the medieval religiousity which he had once so successfully and fiercely attacked.” Preserved Smith, PhD, ‘The Age of the Reformation’, pg. 70

Here Smith informs us that at the beginning Luther was almost alone. This means that the doctrinal views that he formed, he formed on his own, which would also mean that it is he alone that is responsible for them.

At Leipzig and at Worms, before the whole of the Empire, Luther declared that Popes and Councils could not be trusted in that they both had erred. Previously some had questioned one or the other, but what made Luther’s challenge so radical was that never before had anyone challenged both. Luther also claimed that the Fathers were prone to error. So what does he ‘produce’ to take the place of the Pope and Councils after he finally realized that Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation had led to doctrinal disaster? Answer – a church with Himself as the head and various non ecumenical ‘councils’ which wrote supposedly authoritative Confessions.

So Jon, to answer your question about the communions which ‘used’ Sola Scriptura prior to Luther. The answer is that there were NONE. Sola Scriptura didn’t exist prior to Luther. Now it exists in an amazing number of variations and is responsible for, as the opening post puts it, a ‘million different interpretations’:

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.

Jon, I would like to get your comments on the quotes that I posted. Could you explain your opinion regarding the origin of Sola Scriptura if it was NOT a ‘discovery’ of Martin Luther?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13128847]
If I remember correctly Jon, I answered that nobody prior to the 16th century practiced Sola Scriptura. NOBODY.

Good. We finally agree.

Now, regarding the OP’s question:

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?

Yes! The early Church Fathers play a significant role in the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura, even in our understanding of that principle itself.

From time to time Luther and the Lutherans who take their Lutheranism seriously are ridiculed for sola Scriptura. Though part of this comes from a true misunderstanding of the sola and an abuse of that sola by making it a naked or nuda Scriptura, some Lutherans actually talk as if sola means nuda. I have long debated in this blog that no Lutheran means a naked Scripture and Luther never operates as if Scripture were a vacuum. Scripture is that which norms our belief and it is the font and source of all doctrine. While some have made out as if this were something new from Luther, the truth is that this is the ancient faith. Nothing can attest to the antiquity of this Reformation sola than some words from St. Cryil of Jerusalem (313-386).

*“No doctrine concerning the divine and saving mysteries of the faith, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the holy Scriptures. We must not let ourselves be drawn aside by mere persuasion and cleverness of speech. Do not even give absolute belief to me, the one who tells you these things, unless you receive proof from the divine Scriptures of what I teach. For the faith that brings us salvation acquires its force, not from fallible reasonings, but from what can be proved out of the holy Scriptures.” *Catechetical Lectures 4:17.

The Reformation sola insisted that the all doctrine, the church and its traditions are to be subject to Scripture, and not the other way around. Far from being a radical invention, in the earliest days of the written canon, this was already what was believed and confessed – Scripture is the norma normans. Scripture sits in judgement over that which can or must be believed. This is the ancient position of catholicity and not some modern idea at all. - See more at: pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-sources-of-sola-scriptura.html#sthash.nVdHTQm6.dpuf

continued

 

[JonNC]

Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura, or nuda scriptura.

The slogan Sola Scriptura developed out of the perception that certain Christian teachings and practices—especially some teachings and practices formulated during the medieval period of Western Christianity—had little or no Biblical basis.

For instance, in the 95 Theses of 1517, Martin Luther famously challenged the effectiveness of the “indulgences” granted by the pope. Soon afterward, Luther and other reformers were not merely challenging the effectiveness of indulgences, but the entire system from which indulgences derived. Centuries old traditions regarding Purgatory, the Treasury of Merits, and the Intercessions of the Saints were brought into question and finally discarded by reformers who discerned that such traditions were not supported by Holy Scripture. (Of course, the Roman Catholic Church drew upon and continues to draw upon scripture to support such traditions.)

On the other hand Sola Scriptura in Lutheran form is not against tradition per se. While some brands of Christianity might insist that if it’s not in the Bible then it’s not Christian, Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity.

It is nonetheless possible to assert the principle of Sola Scriptura in a manner similar to the bumper sticker that says: “The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It.” However, a Lutheran theological approach resists simplification. For Lutheran Christians, reading the Bible does not mean setting aside critical thinking skills. Instead, the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura includes certain rules for thought:

Understand that the Bible Is the Manger in Which Christ is Laid. The Bible (in both its Testaments) was inspired to reveal the crucified and Risen Jesus Christ, the one sent from God to justify and save the ungodly. To understand that the Bible’s primary purpose is something other than the revelation of Jesus Christ (for instance, to understand that the Bible is primarily a book of rules for better living) is decidedly un-Lutheran. Luther put a point on it when he wrote that if the Scriptures are quoted “against Christ,” then we should “urge Christ against Scripture.”[3]

Be aware that Some Books of the Bible are More Central than Other Books of the Bible. Luther saw that some Bible books were better at revealing Christ and his work than others. In an introduction to one of his Bible translations, Luther explained that John’s Gospel, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter contained all one needed to know about Christ. On the other hand, the Book of James is “really an epistle of straw, when compared with these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.”[4]

Recognize that Scripture Interprets Scripture. The Bible says a lot of things. And, taken out of context, a Bible verse or passage can be used to support just about any crackpot notion. On the other hand, the Lutheran approach understands that Scripture’s message is, generally speaking, easily apprehended. When one encounters seemingly unclear or confusing Bible passages, then those passages need to be interpreted in light of (a) the clear passages and (b) the Bible’s overall witness to a gracious God who justifies the ungodly on account of Christ.

When reading and hearing the Word of God, Discern Law and Gospel. The art of discerning Law and Gospel, Command and Promise, is essential to an understanding of Sola Scriptura Lutheran-style. “The understanding of nearly all scripture and all theology depends upon the correct recognition of law and gospel.”[5] It is, of course, possible to contend for the principle of Sola Scriptura but at the same time interpret and proclaim scripture incorrectly. Most of the religious mischief and harm done in the name of Holy Scripture can be attributed to the improper discernment of law and gospel. For more on the discernment of Law and Gospel, see “A Brief Introduction to Law and Gospel” on this website.

lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/

This practice of sola scriptura is evident even in the Augsburg Confession.

Article I. Of God
Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term “person” 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

“Our Churches… do teach.” This is a statement of doctrine. And take note, there is no caveat which says, “unless someone personally disagree”. Doctrine is held by “our Churches”
The statement further says, that the doctrine of the Trinity found in the Council of Nicaea **“is true and to be believed without any doubting.” ** Obviously, the Council of Nicaea is not part of scripture, but we confess as doctrine that it is true and to be believed without doubting.

There are more examples, but here one finds by 1530 the use of the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

The bolded is also a mistake under the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura. Since infant baptism is a doctrine of the Church,

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

one first goes to the Church, the Confessions, to best understand infant baptism.
Article IX of the Augsburg Confession says “they teach”. The “they teach” is “our churches teach”. This states that it is doctrine.

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?

So, for the Lutheran, going to the Church to understand what scripture teaches, particularly regarding doctrine, is the appropriate practice. Its called catechesis.

Jon

 

[simspt]

The bolded is also a mistake under the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura. Since infant baptism is a doctrine of the Church,

one first goes to the Church, the Confessions, to best understand infant baptism.
Article IX of the Augsburg Confession says “they teach”. The “they teach” is “our churches teach”. This states that it is doctrine.

So, for the Lutheran, going to the Church to understand what scripture teaches, particularly regarding doctrine, is the appropriate practice. Its called catechesis.

Jon

Rob Koons states the historical reality surrounding this issue,
“The Scriptures clearly teach that the
true church will possess two essential characteristics: unity and doctrinal purity. It
is only the Roman Catholic Church (and, to a degree, the Orthodox churches) that
has realized these two ends simultaneously. Conservative Protestants have
maintained doctrinal purity at the price of unity, and liberal Protestants have
pursued unity at the price of doctrinal consistency. Although there is certainly
both doctrinal diversity and disunity within the Roman Catholic Church, it is hard
to deny an impressive degree of both doctrinal consistency (at the level of official
pronouncements) and institutional unity (most fundamentally, Eucharistic
fellowship).”…“If the Scriptures were
perspicuous comprehensively, there would be only one major sola scriptura
denomination, instead of hundreds.”

 

[JonNC]

Rob Koons states the historical reality surrounding this issue,
“The Scriptures clearly teach that the
true church will possess two essential characteristics: unity and doctrinal purity. It
is only the Roman Catholic Church (and, to a degree, the Orthodox churches) that
has realized these two ends simultaneously. Conservative Protestants have
maintained doctrinal purity at the price of unity, and liberal Protestants have
pursued unity at the price of doctrinal consistency. Although there is certainly
both doctrinal diversity and disunity within the Roman Catholic Church, it is hard
to deny an impressive degree of both doctrinal consistency (at the level of official
pronouncements) and institutional unity (most fundamentally, Eucharistic
fellowship).”…“If the Scriptures were
perspicuous comprehensively, there would be only one major sola scriptura
denomination, instead of hundreds.”

Thanks, Simspt.
I think there are a couple of flaws in Koons’ presentation here.

1. He tries to line up protestantism as if it were one monolith. He speaks of “conservative protestants”, etc. Meanwhile, he speaks of Catholic and Orthodox as two distinct entities.
   I would contend that conservative* Lutherans* do have a strong level of unity, and we therefore maintain strong levels of unity and doctrine.
2. I would contend that the very existence of western non-Catholic Christian traditions is evidence that the Roman Catholic church has not maintained doctrinal and institutional unity.

But I like Koons, and at times envy his position.

“I’ve always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the
Lutheran/Catholic controversy. If the Roman church has been in error on this
point, to the extent of condemning the true understanding of the basis of our
righteousness before God, then the Reformation was fully justified. Conversely, if
Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a
faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection
of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the
Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other
issues are secondary: sola scriptura, the role of the papacy, purgatory, the
veneration and invocation of the saints, and so on.”

Again, two points:

1. I think, speaking personally, a major issue was justification, though for me it has never been the force that it is for others. For me it is the role of the papacy. That is the major factor in the institutional division of the Church on Earth, not justification. The issue is ecclesiology, not soteriology.
2. I also agree that, from a Lutheran perspective, sola scriptura is not the dividing issue. If our traditions were to agree on the role of the papacy, the division in how we practice hermeneutics is moot.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Similar opinions from another Lutheran.

1. I also agree that, from a Lutheran perspective, sola scriptura is not the dividing issue. If our traditions were to agree on the role of the papacy, the division in how we practice hermeneutics is moot.

:yup:

 

[Topper17]

Good. We finally agree.

If you think we agree then you misunderstand my position. Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to Luther. It is 16th century innovation that is in disagreement with all of prior Christianity. This was made very clear by the quotes I posted yesterday, while at the same time asking for your reaction. Did you read them?

There are more examples, but here one finds by 1530 the use of the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura.

I agree. There are examples of Sola Scriptura prior to Augsburg, but they are all attributed to Luther. In fact, Lutheran Scholar E. G. Schweibert comments that it was Luther who ‘discovered’ Sola Scriptura, which of course means that it did not exist prior to him:

Speaking of Luther’s pre-95 Theses days in the monastery (probably pre 1515): “Once he was fully prepared to understand just what the Bible did teach on the doctrines of sin, grace, penance, and salvation, he was ready to rebuild the whole system on theology on the basis of his own exegesis and study the Bible in the original languages. Luther discovered Sola Scriptura, therefore, long before he was prepared to say what the Bible taught in all matters of doctrine.” Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 174

On the ‘basis of his own personal exegesis’, does not exactly sound like ‘the Church decides doctrine’. Someday I would like to receive an explanation as to how it was ‘ok’ when Luther defied the Church, and is not ok today when someone defies the Lutheran church. Could you explain that now?

“Our Churches… do teach.” This is a statement of doctrine. And take note, there is no caveat which says, “unless someone personally disagree”. Doctrine is held by “our Churches”

And yet you say that you are currently embroiled in some controversy with your church. May I ask if it is about abortion or birth control?

Would you allow a Lutheran Scholar to refute Lutheran doctrinal teaching wholesale, form his own communion, and THEN claim that his new Church was following the Lutheran teaching by letting his NEW church determine doctrine? I think not, but that is exactly what Luther did.

There are more examples, but here one finds by 1530 the use of the Lutheran principle of sola scriptura.

In fact, Luther was depending on Sola Scriptura and his personal interpretations long before Augsburg.

2). I also agree that, from a Lutheran perspective, sola scriptura is not the dividing issue. If our traditions were to agree on the role of the papacy, the division in how we practice hermeneutics is moot.

Ok, in order for the papacy not to be a dividing issue, will we have to accept and adopt the definition of the Pope as defined in various places in your Lutheran Confessions? Will we have to give up our understanding of the mass as indicated by your leadership? Will we have to reduce the number of Sacraments to something less than seven? Will we have to reduce that number to two or will you be willing to meet us more in the middle somewhere?

As always Jon, the devil is in the details.

Sola Scriptura, at its very core, and running throughout in every way, is an issue of authority. As formulated by Martin Luther it was a wholesale rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church. It is not at all just a matter of a “division in how we practice hermeneutics”. That is “simplistic” and a very incomplete depiction of how SS separates us. In fact, Sola Scriptura was the means by which Luther justified (at least to himself) his disobedience of the Church. In addition, I would suggest that the issue of authority is what separates the various Lutheran communions from each other, all of them holding to the Augsburg Confession, which by the way, is not nearly ‘enough’ to protect doctrinal unity, even amongst Confessional Lutherans.

As for the Fathers, not one of them supported Sola Scriptura in any of its competing and conflicting definitions. If you think otherwise, then it rests on you to make the case for one of them by quoting them and explaining in a compelling manner as to what that quote means.

 

[MaryT777]

Topper

Your statement “the devil is in the details” is so important to consider and reflect upon.

We have the ELCA Lutherans that subscribe to Sola Scriptura defending gay marriage and a woman’s right to murder a child all in the name of the Bible alone.

Surely this is not a doctrine from God.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Topper17;13130277]If you think we agree then you misunderstand my position. Sola Scriptura did not exist prior to Luther. It is 16th century innovation that is in disagreement with all of prior Christianity. This was made very clear by the quotes I posted yesterday, while at the same time asking for your reaction. Did you read them?

Of course I read them.
the point of this responds to what I asked you long ago. The Lutheran practice of SS precedes what other communions claim to use

And yet you say that you are currently embroiled in some controversy with your church. May I ask if it is about abortion or birth control?

You’ve never heard of “take it to the Church?”

In fact, Luther was depending on Sola Scriptura and his personal interpretations long before Augsburg

. Luther wasn’t / isn’t the Lutheran tradition. The question of the thread is how Lutherans use SS, not what Luther did personally.

As for the Fathers, not one of them supported Sola Scriptura in any of its competing and conflicting definitions. If you think otherwise, then it rests on you to make the case for one of them by quoting them and explaining in a compelling manner as to what that quote means.

And you know this how? Which of the Fathers lived at the time of the Reformation? None of councils support universal jurisdiction, either, but you can should me quotes from the Fathers that sound like they do, and I can show you quotes that sound a lot like SS. So what?

Jon

 

[commenter]

I would contend that conservative* Lutherans* do have a strong level of unity, and we therefore maintain strong levels of unity and doctrine.

Without a papacy, no one can officially say what constitutes “conservative Lutheranism” in 2015. Doesn’t ELCA justify everything quoting old documents?

…the very existence of western non-Catholic Christian traditions is evidence that the Roman Catholic church has not maintained doctrinal and institutional unity.

Commitment to the Magisterium takes free will. If a Baptist, or even a nun, choose not to commit to the Magisterium, that doesn’t undermine it. (I haven’t been able to follow my doctor’s counsel on healthy weight. So I am seeking new weight charts where 240 is the “new normal”). My doctor’s counsel is still valid. The validity of the Magisterium is not affected, whether 1% or 99% unite with it.

…For me it is the role of the papacy. That is the major factor in the institutional division of the Church on Earth, not justification…

I agree. The role of the Magisterium is clearer to me now than in the 1960s. This is partly from watching at a distance mainline Protestantism , but also from seeing close up the fruits of some Catholics drifting away from the Magisterium. I see nothing good come out of that drifting, and much harm to catechesis, ministry, evangelism, community, and fidelity to Truth, and even Reason. I also see much good now, but only where there is fidelity to the Magisterium.

I am confident older conservative Lutherans and Anglicans will maintain fidelity to what I consider Truth, no matter how their denominations respond to the secular tidal wave hitting us all. Just because they could do it, without the Magisterium, doesn’t mean their grandchildren, or mine, will be able to. They won’t.