Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[steido01]

Excellent points comm. As you note, even in those communions in which the church (supposedly) determines doctrine, ultimately, it is the INDIVIDUAL who is allowed to overrule the communion and decide, seemingly infallibly, that it is THEM that is right and their denomination wrong.

Flagrantly false. No individual Lutheran can make up doctrine. That’s the whole bloody point of SS - no one parishoner, pastor, bishop, or king can make up doctrine willy-nilly when sitting in a fancy European chair. In fact, the LCMS recently disciplined an individual pastor who taught contrary to the communion (folks can see that thread instead).

Even within Lutheranism, various communions look down on those who also bear their name (the name of Luther). Another quote from Drake’s book, this time from a former member of WELS, which is known as being the ‘most conservative’ of the American Lutheran communions:

"We (WELS) considered ourselves to be the truest interpreters of the truth’s Luther taught. Even the Missouri Synod (LCMS) seemed liberal on many points to us……I once asked my pastor whether it was true that the WELS was truly the only correct church on the face of the earth. He seemed a bit uncomfortable with the question, but he affirmed that we and those officially in fellowship with us (the Evangelical Lutheran, or “Norwegian,” Synod, and a few international missions) were ‘it’ in terms of doctrinal purity. He stressed that other Christians could be saved because the Word of God was preached in their churches, too. But they faced the danger that false doctrine would lead them away from trusting in Christ’s free gift of salvation.” Marie Hosdil, “The Road from Wisconsin to Rome”, in Drake, pg. 98-9

Of course they believe they’re the purest church, or they’d convert to something else! I think it’s worth contrasting the pan-Lutheran understanding that all who bear the name Christian can be saved because the Word of God and the Sacraments are present also in their churches. But the Roman Catholic view (which I’ve yet to read you mention) says rather explicitly that one must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome to gain salvation. Now which is focuses on God’s Word, and which on man’s?

I’d also say you misunderstand the nature of Confessional Lutheran communions when they break fellowship with one another. It is not of some exclusive, fussy, pedantic spite. It is a brotherly, loving, disciplinary action.

As for the ‘courage of the leaders of the LCMS’, I would agree that they are on the ‘right side’ of several of the current issues.

Thank you. I hope you will join us in praying that our leaders remain steadfast.

However, being an SS communion, they have nothing more substantial to stand on than their Confessions, and those Confessions have proven that they cannot protect either Christian Doctrine OR Christian morals.

Actually, the Confessions do very well to maintain doctrinal purity. It is only when the Confessions are subjugated to cultural intrusions (like when Catholics ignore their Magisterium) that doctrine suffers. Bodies like the ELCA don’t even consider the Confessions binding, but rather “useful historical documents,” which had their day. So they don’t practice SS as laid out in the Confessions, and they admit as much.

 

[MaryT777]

Then I’m sure that you can guess what I’m going to say. Confessional Lutherans are required to believe something offensive to your religious sensibilities. Catholics are required to believe something offensive to Confessional Lutherans’ religious sensibilities. Arguments which suggest that which is offensive ought to be removed will get us nowhere. The real issue is truth - if the claims of the Confessions are true then it doesn’t matter that they’re offensive to Catholics; if the claims of Exsurge Domine et al. are true then it doesn’t matter that they’re offensive to Lutherans. Topper’s argument is simply a distraction from the question of the truth of the matter. Lutherans should drop claims that the Pope is Antichrist if it is untrue, without regard to their offensiveness to Catholics or otherwise.

For what it’s worth, I’m neither a Lutheran nor a Roman Catholic, so I have no horse in this race. I don’t think I could sign up to the Lutheran Confessions. I just think that Topper’s argument against “anti-Catholicism” unnecessarily conflates the offence that he and others take at the Confessions’ claims, when he could and should simply focus on their truthfulness.

Good grief, the topic is NOT Topper. Discuss the topic not the TOPPER.
Mary.

 

[KjetilK]

OK, so which Lutheran communion then is the one which is responsible for defining what is and what is not a ‘faulty hermeneutic’ for all of the rest of Lutheranism?

Textual interpretation involves looking at the sources and interpreting them, in their own context, i.e. the textual context of the sentences in question, the cultural context of the time, and the historical ecclesial context.

I don’t need anyone to define for me how to do textual interpretation. I’m not a postmodernist.

 

[Novocastrian]

Then you should use the term “Catholic” when you mean “in communion with Rome”.
There is no such thing as a special type of Catholic who has permission to be divorced from Rome.

I’m afraid we just have to agree to disagree there. As far as I can tell, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for example, hold the historic Catholic faith and are not in communion with Rome.

 

[Novocastrian]

Good grief, the topic is NOT Topper. Discuss the topic not the TOPPER.
Mary.

Topper made an interesting, though in my view invalid, point. It’s perfectly ok to address tangential points in the course of a discussion on sola scriptura and Lutheranism.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m afraid we just have to agree to disagree there. As far as I can tell, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, for example, hold the historic Catholic faith and are not in communion with Rome.

Yep.

That’s why we don’t call them…Catholic.

But if you bear the name “Catholic”, you must be in communion with Rome.

There is no special subset of Catholics who get to divorce themselves from Rome.

Just like there’s no special subset of Anglicans who get to say, “We believe that God is a Quadrinity, and that Mary is the 4th person of the Godhead!”

 

[MaryT777]

Topper made an interesting, though in my view invalid, point. It’s perfectly ok to address tangential points in the course of a discussion on sola scriptura and Lutheranism.

Of course.
Topper’s POINT is an interesting tangential point then. LOL

Topper can I have your autograph? You’re getting slightly famous here. Or should I say your “points”

Mary

 

[Novocastrian]

Can you be more specific about what you’re thinking re: ED?

Sure: the repeated condemnation of Jan Hus; that it is the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned; condemnation of Luther himself. I assume that Confessional Lutherans are offended by those things.

My point is that obviously it doesn’t matter if Hus or Luther’s condemnations are offensive. The question is whether they should have been condemned or not.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yep.

That’s why we don’t call them…Catholic.

But if you bear the name “Catholic”, you must be in communion with Rome.

There is no special subset of Catholics who get to divorce themselves from Rome.

Just like there’s no special subset of Anglicans who get to say, “We believe that God is a Quadrinity, and that Mary is the 4th person of the Godhead!”

Sure. We just disagree on the necessary and sufficient conditions for Catholicism. But this probably isn’t the time or place to argue about this; we know each other’s views.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure: the repeated condemnation of Jan Hus; that it is the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned; condemnation of Luther himself. I assume that Confessional Lutherans are offended by those things.

My point is that obviously it doesn’t matter if Hus or Luther’s condemnations are offensive. The question is whether they should have been condemned or not.

Ah. So not sure what your point was in addressing Topper?

We all agree that there are many a things that Christians must assert that could be construed as offensive, but we must still assert them. (To wit: Christ Himself said something very offensive to non-Christians–no one gets to God except through Him).

Topper agrees with this. You agree with this. I agree with this.

So not sure what you’re arguing now?

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. We just disagree on the necessary and sufficient conditions for Catholicism.

LOL!

Umm…but we are agreed that the Orthodox are not Catholic, yes?

But this probably isn’t the time or place to argue about this; we know each other’s views.

Since this is a forum to discuss religion, it’s always the time or place.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Good grief, the topic is NOT Topper. Discuss the topic not the TOPPER.
Mary.

I think that when people try to change the subject to a particular poster, rather dealing with the actual subject, all it does is expose the fact that they don’t have an adequate response to the questions and points being put forth.

When people think they have a response, they rush to post it so that everyone can see how well their point of view can be defended. When they KNOW for a fact, that they have no defense or point to make, they attempt to change the subject. One of the ‘best’ ways to do so, is to change the subject to the “one” whose points are ‘troublesome’.

So, while it is annoying, I see all of the changing of the subject as being a ‘win’, an admission that the point or question cannot be addressed.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[steido01]

So, while it is annoying, I see all of the changing of the subject as being a ‘win’, an admission that the point or question cannot be addressed.

I am correct, then, in thinking that you will address my response?

Intentionally ignoring my post to pontificate about poor, poor martyr self would be a sad admission of “defeat” (since discussion is apparently all about winning and losing?).

 

[MaryT777]

I am correct, then, in thinking that you will address my response?

Intentionally ignoring my post to pontificate about poor, poor martyr self would be a sad admission of “defeat” (since discussion is apparently all about winning and losing?).

 

[Topper17]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

Textual interpretation involves looking at the sources and interpreting them, in their own context, i.e. the textual context of the sentences in question, the cultural context of the time, and the historical ecclesial context.

I don’t need anyone to define for me how to do textual interpretation. I’m not a postmodernist.

I appreciate your answer and can see where you are coming from, but you didn’t actually address my point and my question. I think you have explained HOW you think the Scriptures are to be interpreted, technically, but you have not explained WHO is ‘authorized’ by Lutheranism overall to do this.

From what I can tell there are an uncountable number of doctrinally autonomous Lutheran communions who ALL claim that their group is authorized to interpret, independently of all of the rest. So I guess the question still stands as to who it is, meaning which communion it is, specifically and exactly, that is authorized to interpret the Scriptures. If in fact the answer is that ALL of them can, but that some of them do it incorrectly (the others of course), then that will be pretty revealing.

God Bless You Father K, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Topper made an interesting, though in my view invalid, point. It’s perfectly ok to address tangential points in the course of a discussion on sola scriptura and Lutheranism.

Hi Novo,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether my point was valid or not. After all, if I thought it was invalid, I never would have posted it.

It seems to me that a lot of times, it is easier to call something ‘invalid’ rather than simply dealing with it straight out. Or, if it is actually ‘invalid’, then posting the actual reason that it is invalid would be helpful to the readers of the thread.
God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

I have something of a hypothetical question for you. Given that we all have the freedom to dialogue with whomever we want here, what would you do (hypothetically of course) if somebody accused you of being a liar on multiple occasions, and refused to apologize? That charge of course, that of being a liar, means that you are supposedly intentionally deceiving readers here, which is an extremely serious matter. How would you approach this hypothetical situation?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Of course.
Topper’s POINT is an interesting tangential point then. LOL

Topper can I have your autograph? You’re getting slightly famous here. Or should I say your “points”

Mary

I’m sure that some would consider me to be infamous. It seems that it has to do with your ‘relationship’ with Martin Luther. His followers especially would agree with the ‘infamous’ thing, with him being granted the label of ‘famous’ of course.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

I have something of a hypothetical question for you. Given that we all have the freedom to dialogue with whomever we want here, what would you do (hypothetically of course) if somebody accused you of being a liar on multiple occasions, and refused to apologize? That charge of course, that of being a liar, means that you are supposedly intentionally deceiving readers here, which is an extremely serious matter. How would you approach this hypothetical situation?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Continue to speak the truth in accordance with forum guidelines. The truth was never popular even in the days of Jesus and needed much in this day and age.

Mary.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Father K,

Thanks for your response.

I appreciate your answer and can see where you are coming from, but you didn’t actually address my point and my question. I think you have explained HOW you think the Scriptures are to be interpreted, technically, but you have not explained WHO is ‘authorized’ by Lutheranism overall to do this.

From what I can tell there are an uncountable number of doctrinally autonomous Lutheran communions who ALL claim that their group is authorized to interpret, independently of all of the rest. So I guess the question still stands as to who it is, meaning which communion it is, specifically and exactly, that is authorized to interpret the Scriptures. If in fact the answer is that ALL of them can, but that some of them do it incorrectly (the others of course), then that will be pretty revealing.

God Bless You Father K, Topper

From the Lutheran perspective, the idea was that scripture is clear enough that, when read properly (and Lutherans spend a lot of time talking about what that means, ie Law and Gospel, etc.), the conclusion would be clear. In other words, God made scripture so that it could be understood clearly when read in whole.

Secondly, the Book of Concord clearly lays out who has the authority in the Lutheran scheme: the Church, which is led by those who hold the keys, the office of the ministry. Presumably they are the ones responsible for ensuring the truth is taught, but their job is basically to reassert what scripture already makes clear or to apply those scriptural truths to complex modern problems. The idea that an interpreter is needed because scripture isn’t clear really isn’t a Lutheran concept at all.

Further, I think the following is very insightful (It’s about how Lutherans and the so-called “Magisterial Reformers” decided to interpret scripture:

Instead, the Reformers developed a third position, one which stood as a middle way between the extremes of enshrining tradition and rejecting it outright. On this position, “Tradition designates a traditional way of interpreting a biblical text, which does not displace the text” (McGrath a, 100). Tradition therefore does not become an independent source of authority, but rather a way of interpreting the authority–Scripture–in an authoritative manner. By using tradition in this manner, the Reformers avoided the individualism of rejecting tradition, while also avoiding the error of raising tradition to the same level of importance as Scripture.

The third way was developed largely in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, but it had its core in the historic Christian Creeds. Within the Lutheran tradition, the Apostles’; Nicene; and Athanasian Creeds were taken as theological foundations, and the Augsburg Confession and the later Book of Concord (which drew together several other confessions of the Lutheran faith) became the interpretive lens through which the Lutheran church would view Scripture and right doctrine. -J.W. Wartick

The above description is not written by a particularly famous theologian or anything, but based on a lot of the reading I have done, it sums things up very nicely and accurately.