Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Topper17]

Hi Ji,

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.

You say, ‘when read properly’, which of course admits that a LOT of people don’t read it properly. So then the question then becomes: Who is it specifically and exactly who decides (for all) how to read Scripture ‘properly’?

You say that God made Scripture ‘so that it could be understood clearly when read in whole”. How can that be when Protestantism has developed so many different understandings of virtually each and every doctrinal issue? Doesn’t that fact disprove the whole ‘clarity of Scripture’ thing that Luther developed and which has become the foundation of Protestantism?

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.

First of all, given it’s extremely anti-Catholic nature, I am not a big fan of the Book of Concord. I don’t see it as anything other than a document written by 16th century men who were in Rebellion against Christ’s Church. If you believe otherwise, then you should be able to provide some kind of explanation as to why the Formula is “Authoritative” and all those other ‘Confessions’ are not.

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

First of all, I very much appreciate that you posted that quote. That does not mean that I agree with you though.

You say that Lutheranism has ‘avoided the individualism of rejecting tradition’, but isn’t that exactly what Luther and early Lutheranism did in rejecting that of the Catholic Church? This brings us directly back to the authority that underlies your Confessions? By what Authority did your Reformers develop a brand new Confession in 1530? Then again, BWA did they do so again almost a half a century later with the development of the Formula?

God Bless You Ji, Topper

 

[commenter]

Yes, but he died 450 years ago, so I’m not sure how you can reconcile that with him.
Further, it seems he wasn’t alone with this kind of language:
Cochlaeus:
Quote:
“Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves of any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty-two gulden - the sum he required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him…”

Now that’s offensive, too. Cochlaeus even ends with some ethnic bigotry.

And what’s the point of all this? There is none, **unless one simply wants to score polemical points, drag up old hostilities, and fight old battles over again.

I don’t.**

Jon

Well, I’m glad you’re not one of those drag up old hostilities, fight old battles types!
That’s a relief.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

I did in #628, though admittedly it was addressed to PR rather than you directly, so you may have missed it. My point was that simply saying that something is egregiously anti-Catholic or offensive is missing the point; engage the truth or falsity of the matter.

I agree. The most important thing is the Truth. It is worth arguing about. It is worth battling all of the forces of Political Correctness. The real question is whether the Reformers were ‘right’ in the Eyes of God, to revolt against the Catholic Church. That is what I focus on.

OK, so here is your post number 628:

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.

Actually my argument goes right to the absolute heart of the matter. If Lutheranism is true, then the Church is not, and vice versa. It is crucial that we determine which is which. I do not sign on to this ‘I’m OK (doctrinally) and you’re OK also’ bologna. There IS God’s Absolute Truth and we actually CAN determine which side it is that holds to it.

Lutherans should drop claims that the Pope is Antichrist if it is untrue, without regard to their offensiveness to Catholics or otherwise.

The fact is that they are absolutely powerless to drop that claim.

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.

That is exactly what I do focus on, and I do it by pointing out that the foundation upon which those Confessions were made is NOT divine, but was simply a bunch of men who got together 1500 years after the fact, and basically made up their own version of Christianity on the basis of their own radical interpretations of Scripture.

And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t sign up to a statement saying that the Pope is anti-Christ, though I can understand and sympathise with what Confessional Lutherans mean when they do.

Gee – we really appreciate that!

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Here you are making the thread about you again.
You are neither famous nor infamous, Topper, since you are anonymous.

Jon

Thanks for the laugh Jon. Here (again) you provide a post which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the opening post or anything to do with the subject, and ONLY has to do with me.

Classic

 

[Topper17]

The only way to remove the offensive language between our traditions is through ecumenical dialogue between leaders, because both traditions rely on its leadership to set doctrines, teachings, and designates with whom the communion is in fellowship.

o

Here Jon, you infer that Lutheranism could actually ‘remove the offensive language’ contained in your Formula. Obviously you have given this some thought. I would like to know specifically and exactly how Lutheranism would ‘remove’ that language.

I ask because I don’t believe that Lutheranism actually could do it, but would be happy to see how you could.

Furthermore, in reading some of the official statements of the LCMS and those of your leadership, I don’t see anything which indicates a willingness to remove those offensive texts.

 

[JonNC]

o

Here Jon, you infer that Lutheranism could actually ‘remove the offensive language’ contained in your Formula. Obviously you have given this some thought. I would like to know specifically and exactly how Lutheranism would ‘remove’ that language.

I ask because I don’t believe that Lutheranism actually could do it, but would be happy to see how you could.

Furthermore, in reading some of the official statements of the LCMS and those of your leadership, I don’t see anything which indicates a willingness to remove those offensive texts.

You first, Topper, since this is your rabbit hole. How will the Catholic Church, specifically and exactly, remove the offensive language? Is it possible for the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope able to rescind Unam Sanctum?

See, it doesn’t matter what you think the LCMS can or can’t do. It is up to leadership. You saying we can or can’t is a waste of bandwidth.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the laugh Jon. Here (again) you provide a post which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the opening post or anything to do with the subject, and ONLY has to do with me.

Classic

I think you claimed fame or infamy for yourself first.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well, I’m glad you’re not one of those drag up old hostilities, fight old battles types!
That’s a relief.

Yeah, I should probably just ignore and not respond.

Jon

 

[commenter]

Yeah, I should probably just ignore and not respond.

Jon

Hard to say…In the heat of argument, I find there’s nothing more calming than a juicy, 500 year old quote from the opposition, that makes that opposing side seem stupid or narrow minded. The reaction is invariably for all sides to cease polemics, stopped in their tracks by your soothing quote. The tone is lifted back up a sharing of hearts and minds, the search for Truth not Victory. (Is that a guitar I hear, softly nurturing?)


I am grateful for the Cochlaeus quote, as my Cochlaeus library has gaps. We can forgive him as he lived in a century when Catholics and Protestants spent time looking up embarrassing things about their Christian opponents, an era so different from our own.

 

[commenter]

Did you read Chesteron’s “Why I am a Catholic?” It’s very up front, bold and blunt actually in nature… Mary.

Why I am a Catholic - The American Chesterton Society

www.chesterton.org/why-i-am-a-catholic/

G. K. Chesterton
The difficulty of explaining “why I am a Catholic” is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true

Yes, I have read it. I’m no Chesterton, but in my communications I am up front, bold and blunt when I have to be, but no more than I have to be. For instance it’s very hard to be lighthearted and indirect when communicating about prolife, in person or Internet. But I do it as friendly and non threatening as I can - but without compromising. My hope is not to win an argument, but to ease my fellow humans a little closer to the Truth.

I was on the sidewalk twice this week, and it is depressing. I come to the non-Catholic Religions Forum to relax, have some fun, dodge the slings and arrows of outrageous egos, and try to promote my ideas, for instance the value of the Magisterium. Here, I don’t need to be blunt, so I’m not. I am sort of indirect, conversational. But I also come here to learn, that some Protestants and others have insights that I never thought of.

I’m not trying to block Topper’s sword, I’m trying to coach him to make it more effective. I’m not a trained theologian, but as a social worker over 40 years I have some idea what seems persuasive, and what less so. Our purpose of course is to benefit our fellow posters and get to Heaven. Now, this diversion from the Thread ends, and back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[JonNC]

Hard to say…In the heat of argument, I find there’s nothing more calming than a juicy, 500 year old quote from the opposition, that makes that opposing side seem stupid or narrow minded. The reaction is invariably for all sides to cease polemics, stopped in their tracks by your soothing quote. The tone is lifted back up a sharing of hearts and minds, the search for Truth not Victory. (Is that a guitar I hear, softly nurturing?)


I am grateful for the Cochlaeus quote, as my Cochlaeus library has gaps. We can forgive him as he lived in a century when Catholics and Protestants spent time looking up embarrassing things about their Christian opponents, an era so different from our own.

I thought it was twin fiddles and a steel guitar.
Thanks for the humor.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, I have read it. I’m no Chesterton, but in my communications I am up front, bold and blunt when I have to be, but no more than I have to be. For instance it’s very hard to be lighthearted and indirect when communicating about prolife, in person or Internet. But I do it as friendly and non threatening as I can - but without compromising. My hope is not to win an argument, but to ease my fellow humans a little closer to the Truth.

I was on the sidewalk twice this week, and it is depressing. I come to the non-Catholic Religions Forum to relax, have some fun, dodge the slings and arrows of outrageous egos, and try to promote my ideas, for instance the value of the Magisterium. Here, I don’t need to be blunt, so I’m not. I am sort of indirect, conversational. But I also come here to learn, that some Protestants and others have insights that I never thought of.

I’m not trying to block Topper’s sword, I’m trying to coach him to make it more effective. I’m not a trained theologian, but as a social worker over 40 years I have some idea what seems persuasive, and what less so. Our purpose of course is to benefit our fellow posters and get to Heaven. Now, this diversion from the Thread ends, and back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your posting style and your reasons for coaching Topper. Everyone has a unique posting style and I myself appreciate all of them for the most part. If I truly had some fit every time someone posted I would refrain from posting back. Just leads to craziness in my opinion and violating forum rules by making the poster the topic and not the subject or the content of the post.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

I think you claimed fame or infamy for yourself first.

Jon

Seriously, this is what I mean about craziness being posted when someone posts back to a poster whose posting style they don’t care for.

“You did it first” Good grief, be done with it.

 

[MaryT777]

Precisely. This is why Lutherans like me can, at the same time, be devoted supporters of Benedict XVI and much of his theology, yet still lament the powers claimed by the office he held.

Frankly, Lutherans toss around the anti-Christ label more than most folks today find palatable. In some circles, Joel Osteen is labelled anti-Christ because he obscures the Gospel in a different (and more dangerous) way. The best we can do is explain that what we mean is not what people might think.

What do you mean? Do you mean that Joel Osteen who claims no universal jurisdiction
is a more dangerous anti Christ than the office of Benedict XVI or the Pope of Rome? If so why?
What do you mean in a more “dangerous way?”
Are there criteria as to who is a more dangerous anti Christ than another one?

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

You first, Topper, since this is your rabbit hole. How will the Catholic Church, specifically and exactly, remove the offensive language? Is it possible for the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope able to rescind Unam Sanctum?

See, it doesn’t matter what you think the LCMS can or can’t do. It is up to leadership. You saying we can or can’t is a waste of bandwidth.

Jon

Jon,
this post I don’t understand from your POV for you have noted you are in dispute with an issue in your Church and that you have taken that issue “to the Church.”

Do you then feel it’s up to the leadership and what you said to your church leaders then is a waste of “bandwidth”? If so why did you bother?

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,
this post I don’t understand from your POV for you have noted you are in dispute with an issue in your Church and that you have taken that issue “to the Church.”

Do you then feel it’s up to the leadership and what you said to your church leaders then is a waste of “bandwidth”? If so why did you bother?

Mary.

Topper is asking about ecumenical relations between our communions. The dispute I have been engaged in is about interpretation of doctrine within ours. They’re different events.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

:sad_yes:

If indeed it does come to pass that the LCMS does develop a magisterium, it would not claim the charism of infallibility, I’m assuming.

And that would mean that Lutherans could not be certain that their magisterium’s decisions were correct.

Now, of course, infallibility is not a requirement for any of us to follow a legitimate authority.

I am just proposing this thought as we all muse together about the possibility of a Lutheran magisterium.

Infallibility of the Pope, Catholic Church, is a requirement for Catholics to follow. It is the protection of the Holy Spirit Christ promised for HIS Church to protect her from error. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Topper17]

If one accepts as orthodox the acceptance and close following of the traditional beliefs and customs of a religion or tradition within a religion, one can see quite well what is and is not orthodox.

By this standard, you should recognize Luther as being extremely unorthodox. You are aware that he rejected more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Catholic Church even before he was excommunicated. How in the world do you get from ‘there’ to a Lutheranism which is supposedly ‘orthodox’?

Lutheranism is based on a rejection of ‘traditional beliefs and customs’, as evidenced by Luther’s and Lutheranism’s rejection of 5 of the 7 Orthodox Sacraments of the Christian Church.

Drifted from what - orthodox Lutheranism.

Yes, in my view they have drifted significantly from what you call ‘orthodox Lutheranism’, which by the way, was also a significant departure from the Christianity from which it sprung. Using the number of Sacraments as an example of this point, Confessional Lutheranism reduced the number of Sacraments from 7 to 2, a HUGE difference. The difference in the number of Sacraments between ‘Confessional Lutheranism’ and the ELCA – there is none. They both hold to exactly the number that Luther finally settled on. That being said, I do agree that each ‘iteration’ will get further and further away from the teachings of the original.

this would be an interesting argument if you want to discuss whether or not LCMS teaching is compared to the teachings of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But you were speaking of Lutherans, and I think you answered your own question.

Finally on topic. :clapping:

Jon, I am ALWAYS on topic, but I have noticed that Lutherans are never all that excited about a lot of the aspects of a subject. Holding to an extremely strict understanding of the subject of the OP only works when you apply it uniformly.

Even in the LCMS, I am concerned about the strength of congregationalism.

Unless I misunderstand the term, each congregation going its own way doctrinally (or trending that way) is simply a ‘logical conclusion’ of Luther’s Sola Scriptura and the ‘Right of the Individual to Interpret Scripture’, which is the doctrine that Luther used to justify his own authority for the first 7 years of his revolt against the Church. It shouldn’t be surprising that Lutheranism is suffering from the very same kind of disobedience.

No idea. Most synods are in fellowship with many other synods worldwide. The LCMS, for example, has partner synods around the world.

I think that is exactly the point. From what I have researched, there appears to be something like 120 separate doctrinally independent Lutheran communions. You can say that you are ‘in fellowship’, but that does not mean that you are tied to those other communions doctrinally. In other words, you still each demand the right to decide doctrinal matters without the ‘interference’ of those whom you might or might not be ‘in fellowship’.

I agree, Mary , that Topper is not and should not be the topic.

OTOH, if a Lutheran joined this forum, and professed that it was his goal to “reveal” events and actions of popes past because Catholic leadership had failed to properly teach the laity of these flaws, and further continued to bring that topic up in numerous threads, claiming that one has to understand their flaws before one can understand the topic, and further claim that that he would continue to oppose Catholicism until offensive language was “rescinded” by that Catholic Church, I suspect he would clearly be “the topic”.

And rightly so.

There is not a pope in history, or even 20 popes combined who have taken as many liberties with doctrine as Luther did, or as much authority OVER doctrine. Not a one of them charged off and created a new denomination that is now known by their names. Please reveal whatever you would like about this pope or that, and then we can have a conversation about how different Luther was than ANY of them in terms of unsubstantiated and self-professed authority.

Luther rebelled against the Church and was the biggest factor in the destruction of the unity of Western Christianity. Which pope would you like to suggest also did this? Luther deserves the very scrutiny that Lutheranism prefers that he not suffer. The man took a HUGE amount of doctrinal responsibility onto his own shoulders, which is exactly the reason that we need to look into ALL of the history that surrounds his early Revolt.

As you know, the “Legend of Luther” that is commonly taught by Lutheranism is more than a little ‘sanitized’. Lutheran laity know very little of the ‘lesser-known’ actions and teachings of Luther.

 

[pablope]

Some old “battles” are worth discussing today in my opinion. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura as defined by the Lutherans certainly does not coincide well with the teachings of the Catholic Church that include a Magisterium and a Pope as head of our Church that sits in the seat of the Antichrist According to Lutherans.

Mary.

I forgot where I read or heard it, but Lutherans have been described as having their own pope…it is their confessions and it is a paper pope.

But their pope could not hold unity, obviously.

 

[JonNC]

I forgot where I read or heard it, but Lutherans have been described as having their own pope…it is their confessions and it is a paper pope.

But their pope could not hold unity, obviously.

Sadly, neither has the Pope of Rome.

Jon