Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[MaryT777]

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.

Not by a long shot. Sola scriptura does not work well in “real life” It requires extra Biblical sources like a Concord book to interpret what the Scriptures and the Commandments “mean.”

Luther’s small and large Catechisms are in there of course.

That said, even with these reference guides we see no unity, and no altar and pulpit fellowship among the Sola Scriptura Lutherans WELS, ELCA, and LCMS.

I don’t think a Lutheran “magisterium” is the answer because history repeats itself and no one will consider it as authoritative because Lutherans profess Sola Scriptura as the sole rule and norm of Faith.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

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.

These issues need to be reconciled before better unity can be achieved. I don’t think suggesting these have been resolved in helpful to the cause of unity.

It is hard to take Luther out of Lutheran. His writings were of import to Lutheranism generally and sola scriptura, specifically.

First of all Mary, the battles are worth discussing and even having today. As Protestantism overall continues to slide further and further from the historic moral and doctrinal teachings of Christianity, and drags the Church with it to some degree, we will continue to see the Church overall weakened. The differences between Protestantism and Catholicism are important.

It seems that here on CA Lutheranism generally attempts to minimize the ‘connection’ between Luther and Lutheranism.

For all of Luther’s constant complaining, his demonization of the Pope, and his accusations that the Pope was presuming to have some kind of divine authority, what did Luther actually DO? He of course demanded that HE held a degree of authority that NO Pope had ever claimed.

In the book I am reading there is a conversion account by a Marie Hosdil, a former Lutheran, who comments on Lutheranism’s view of Luther’s authority:

“I questioned a seminarian who lived on campus about why we all swore to uphold the Lutheran confessions when we were confirmed, and why we don’t simply swear that we believed in Scripture. He asserted with nonchalance that we couldn’t ‘just believe in Scripture’ since everyone who claims this believe interprets Scripture differently. He said Luther had done the best job of anyone at teaching what Scripture truly means, and so even though he’s not divine and the confessions aren’t inspired, they are as strong an authority as we can hope to have, this side of heaven.

I saw his point and accepted his explanation, though it stirred me to malcontent. **In my heart, the whole matter smacked of human tradition - - of Roman Catholicism. We had just substituted the Pope with Luther! ** Yet in my head I couldn’t bring myself to seriously assert anyone else’s doctrinal reasoning as superior to Dr. Luther’s (though I was itching to simply take the job upon myself).” Timothy Drake, “There We Stood, Here We Stand”, pg. 101

I think that this is an ‘action packed’ quote; one that is extremely revealing. First of all, Hodsil admits that Lutheranism effectively elevated Luther to a role similar to that of the Pope. I find this interesting in that Luther and Lutheranism has expended so much energy complaining about the pope professing for himself far too much authority. What in the world do Lutherans think Luther did?

Secondly, what is the true authority of the Lutheran Confessions? What are they really based on if not simply human tradition, and a really new tradition at that? Nobody here on CA seems to what to answer this question (also). If as Hosdil claims, Lutheranism does not believe that their Confessions to be ‘divine’, then how can they possibly hold people to believe in them. If they are not divine, then they are nothing more than the teachings of man, which means that any man who wants to, can claim that their opinions are superior to the Confessions.

This is exactly what has happened in Lutheranism. It would seem that people are ‘held to’ the Confessions, but only until they decide that they should not be. The other alternative of course would be if Lutheranism, or some subset of it, were to actually claim that their Confessions ARE actually ‘divine’ or ‘inspired’ or something like that. That however, would beg the question as to why we should believe that they are. As you can imagine, this is a subject best ignored or evaded.

Thirdly, how could anyone consider Luther’s ‘doctrinal reasoning’ to be so superior IF they knew about his ‘Scriptural teachings’ on the Jews, Catholics, Pope, Anabaptists, Peasants, ‘reluctant wives’ and others, all of which Luther rambled on and on about quoting Scripture – furiously, of course? I would suggest that there is a reason that those subjects are not well known by the Lutheran laity.

As you probably realize Mary, I am not a ‘big fan’ of Martin Luther, but I have never claimed or even hinted that he was the antichrist. Nor have I ever suggested that he was knowingly in league with Satan. As such, I am far more generous with him than he was with the Pope or with Catholics. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, which excommunicated him and condemned his heresies, NEVER said any such things about Luther either. Yet, the official position of the Formula of Concord STILL contains the kind of anti-Catholic statements which have absolutely no comparable language in Catholicism.

If in fact, Lutheranism does not consider their Confessions to be ‘divine’ then they should be able to ‘amend’ them. However, as with all things, my guess is that there are quite a few different Lutheran ‘understandings’ of the true authority of their Confessions. I would ask about it, because I am interested in learning the truth, but given the difficulty in getting straight answers to straight questions, I am not going to expend the effort.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
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

Your assessment is debatable. The Magisterium of 2015 seems to be in unity with the Magisterium, say, of Trent; development since then, in response to the changing times but no sharp divergence or repudiation. Within 2015, there is an astonishing degree of unity across continents of at least a few hundred million people who are deeply or fairly influenced by Pope Francis. The Media/Government combine may be the most powerful “magisterium” in the world today, but the Pope would be second. Given the attention given to public opinion polls and dissenters in the Church, it’s easy to forget the Church has grown enormously in the last century, that the number of Catholics committed to the Pope now is likely larger than several decades ago (smaller percentage of Catholics, but much larger base of Catholics today).

If you look back several decades ago, many large Protestant denominations were officially still calling the Pope “anti-Christ”. Today powerful denominations such as the Southern Baptists and Assembly of God are much friendlier, or attentive (I didn’t say obedient) to the Pope than ever before. Who would be the single identifiable leading exponent for unity on Prolife, or the Natural Law, for the whole planet?

I would say the papal “unity” glass is over half full.

 

[Topper17]

Yes, but he died 450 years ago, so I’m not sure how you can reconcile that with him.

First of all Jon, it would appear to be necessary to review (again) the role that Martin Luther has had in the doctrinal disunity and confusion that is found within all of Protestantism, including Lutheranism. You can say that he died 450 years ago, but the IMPACT of his Revolt and his disobedience continues on today. Furthermore, being the primary source of our disunity, he is the KEY to us achieving unity.

“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 further into the future, we cannot know.” Lutheran Professor Robert W. Jenson, in “Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 272

Wow! That’s quite an admission from a Lutheran Scholar. It seems to be far more than can be admitted here on CA.

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

For us in the twentieth century, his answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he (Luther) anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seems to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” (Reformed biographer of Luther) Heiko Oberman, (Reformed Scholar), “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 220-1

As Oberman points out, ‘the Reformation principal of sola scriptura……has been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations. In addition, Oberman (Reformed) declares, on the evidence of the ‘multiplicity’, dependence on the clarity of Scripture – ‘absurd’. Strong words but very much in keeping with the facts as presented by the doctrinal dissension within Protestantism.

Interestingly, in this quote from one of Luther’s best biographers, we find a ‘Trifecta’ connecting Luther to SS and SS to what a ‘multiplicity of interpretations’, in consecutive sentences no less.

**“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”- **Martin Luther

Luther himself recognized the impact of his radical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, even if he couldn’t admit, even to himself, his wrongdoing.

**“For living people today, the Protestant Reformation is three different stories, and each has an ending that would have saddened Martin Luther. If is, first of all, the story of the division of Western Christendom and the loss, probably forevermore, of its religious unity……**The second story the Protestant Reformation has to tell is the awakening of German nationalism and the shaping of German culture and character as we know them today. A long intellectual tradition, hostile to the Germans, traces everything that kept Germany backward and impeded its development as a modern nation to its “Protestantism.”….Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, pg. x

As pointed out in the quote you posted, Luther was not at all happy with the results of his ‘reformation’ during his lifetime, and as Ozment comments, if he only knew what the results of it have turned out to be, he would have been ‘saddened’. BTW, here we have yet another Scholar connecting Luther to the division of Christianity.

Protestant Scholar Keith A. Mathison’s book on Sola Scriptura:

**“If the early sixteenth century Western Church was in an unstable and volitile 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………

 

[Topper17]

Mathison 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

Here we learn that it was Luther who was the catalyst that caused the Western Church to explode. In addition, we learn that, at least according to Mathison, Luther’s first espousal of SS was at the Leipzig Debate of 1519, which of course was long after his doctrinal revolt against the Church had begun. If this is true and it was not much earlier as indicated by Schwiebert, then it would mean that Luther developed SS because the Church would not go along with his radical teachings.

Lutheran Professor James Kittleson points out that it wasn’t until 1519 that Luther gave much thought to the nature of the Church.

**“Indeed, it is at least arguable that, save for one early disputation, which he 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 Johannes Eck at Leipzig.” **Lutheran Professor of Church History James Kittleson, in “Companion”, pg. 262

From what I have been able to learn, I think Kittleson is correct and it is especially significant that a Lutheran Scholar is honest enough to make such a damning accusation. If Kittleson is correct, it means that Luther was 18 months or so into his revolt against the Church without having considered what the nature of the thing was that he was revolting against. The results of the Reformation bear out Luther’s completely lack of understanding as what he was doing when he began his ‘reformation’. IF it had been properly thought out, he would not have had to completely go back on so much of what he originally taught.

“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 (other than a heretic of course), 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 SS+PI had led to disaster? Answer – a church with Himself as the head and various ‘councils’ which wrote supposedly authoritative Confessions.

He developed his own church, which over the years has come to view itself as being authoritative. Go figure! What evidence is there that would cause us to conclude that the Lutheran church is more reliable than the Catholic Church when it comes to reflecting God’s Absolute Truth?

The reference to German nationalism is in regards to Luther’s connection to the ‘problems’ of 20th century Germany, which by the way is extremely well documented.

As you know Jon, I have posted these quotes previously and have asked you for your comments, without ever getting anything. Could you please give me your reaction to the quotes which clearly tie Luther to the invention of Sola Scriptura AND Sola Scriptura to doctrinal disunity?

Further, it seems he wasn’t alone with this kind of language:
Cochlaeus:

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.

Jon, I know that you would rather discuss Cochlaeus than Luther, which seems odd for a Lutheran. But as you well know, this is a thread about Sola Scriptura and Lutheranism. Cochlaeus was a powerful opponent against Sola Scriptura and as such he can hardly be blamed for the disunity that it has caused. Furthermore, there is no Christian sect or heresy which today is called the Cochlaeusites.

Nice try though.

Given your common insistence that we return to the subject of the OP, what in the world are you doing discussing Cochlaeus? If you want to discuss him, maybe you should start a new thread, if you know what I mean.

 

[MaryT777]

Sadly, neither has the Pope of Rome.

Jon

There will never be 100 percent unity in any denomination on this side of heaven. What will one place their trust in? I choose to place mine in the Church that Christ founded ground in Scripture, tradition and the magisterium which is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in Faith and Morals.

Sola Scriptura “sounds good” to itching ears but it does not work out in reality. The division resulting from Sola Scriptura in the Lutheran Church is all around us in the divided synods, the amoral teachings of the ELCA, the ridiculous teaching the Pope is anti Christ, etc etc etc. These are not doctrines from God by any means. They are man made teachings by yours truly, Martin Luther.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

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.

None?

It doesn’t make any sense to suggest that all of the polemics and hostilities are behind us while your ultra offensive Confessions are STILL the official teaching of Lutheranism. Lutherans STILL are bound to believe what they say. No amount of spin can change that - until Lutheranism actually changes those Confessions, and by your very admission, they WILL NOT. The official teachings of your LCMS leaders TODAY are ‘hostile’, so any complaint about ‘old hostilities’ rings pretty hollow. Would you like to review, again, the recent quotes of your LCMS leaders that support my point? The comment about ‘450 years’ does not match up well with reality.

Do you believe that Lutheranism should not be criticized or confronted or challenged and that we should all just ignore Lutheranism’s official teachings about the nature of the Church that Christ established for all of us.

The ‘old battles’ as you call them continue to rage as Lutheranism continues to fracture, which is exactly what Luther built into the cake with his immensely damaging doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

On what planet should we be criticized for opposing your teachings?

This is after all, a Catholic apologetics website, and it was created for a purpose. As you know, the official position of this website is that Protestantism is a heresy, plain and simple. Should posters here on CA be allowed to refer to Protestantism in this manner?

 

[Topper17]

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.

For the record comm, I feel the exact same way that you do about the pro-life issues. I consider what happens here though ALSO as being of maximal importance and I am surprised that you don’t. What we are discussing here comm is God’s Absolute Truth. Obviously I believe that to be of greater importance than you do. I don’t come here to ‘relax, and have some fun’. I come here to expose people to an argument and historical facts that they will NEVER learn about in their Protestant churches.

Do you understand the connection between today’s issue of abortion and the relatively recent (in the last 100 years) change in the doctrinal teachings of ALL Protestant communions on the matter of Artificial Birth Control? Where do you think that originated?

Luther’s degradation of the Christian Sacrament of Marriage started a horrible slide on matters of Christian sexual morals. If you would like I can document exactly what the ‘results’ of Luther were in terms how early Lutherans ‘dealt’ with marriage. Needless to say, it didn’t work out all that well.

I’m not trying to block Topper’s sword, I’m trying to coach him to make it more effective.

My guess is that you would like to have a ‘do over’ on this statement. If not then please say so and I will be guided accordingly.

God Bless You comm, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

This is a pretty ‘through the looking glass’ environment isn’t it. Sometimes I have to pinch myself to remember that it is a Catholic Apologetics forum.

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.

I see it at least partially as a smokescreen intended to deflect attention from the fact that the questions asked cannot and will not be answered. So, really it isn’t a matter of ‘styles’ at all, unless you consider avoiding the points and questions made to be a ‘style’.

God Bless You Mary, Topper