Wesleyan Quadrilateral vs. Sola Scriptura

[ltwin]

Than what, pray tell, does “alone” mean? Complete the sentence: Scripture alone is …

infallible.

Tradition, Reason, and Experience are sources of authority, but they can be fallible. Scripture alone is an infallible source of authority for the church.That is what it meant for the Protestant Reformers, including the Anglican ones. And that is what it meant for Wesley.

This is what article 20 and 21 of the 39 Articles meant.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;12442446]One thing I don’t understand is how is it that we must rely on a church which can be dismissed if we find from the scripture they affirm a different message?

Depending on one’s communion, this statement can be directed at Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, or any other.

If we have the scripture why do we need a church?

What you express here is an understanding of *sola scriptura * dramatically foreign to anything in my experience as a life-long Lutheran.
Seems to me Christ thought it a good idea. It is where we hear the word and receive the sacraments. It is where we are Baptized, where we receive His body and blood, where the power of the keys is exercised, where faith is strengthened and sins forgiven.

Is the church in some sense equal to scripture in authority? Clearly its not or else Lutheran’s would have remained Catholic, so the church is necessarily inferior to the scripture.

It isn’t a matter of inferior or superior. It is a matter of roles. The Church, for the reasons I expressed above, is equally necessary in the life of the Christian, to carry out the work of Christ and His Spirit, the truth of which is made known in scripture, and taught to us in the Church.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Depending on one’s communion, this statement can be directed at Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, or any other.

What you express here is an understanding of *sola scriptura * dramatically foreign to anything in my experience as a life-long Lutheran.
Seems to me Christ thought it a good idea. It is where we hear the word and receive the sacraments. It is where we are Baptized, where we receive His body and blood, where the power of the keys is exercised, where faith is strengthened and sins forgiven.

It isn’t a matter of inferior or superior. It is a matter of roles. The Church, for the reasons I expressed above, is equally necessary in the life of the Christian, to carry out the work of Christ and His Spirit, the truth of which is made known in scripture, and taught to us in the Church.

Jon

One could dismiss the church’s understanding of scripture within the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, but would that be warranted or justified by their own theology or understanding of church? In those traditions the church is equal to or the scripture is simply part of the whole tradition of the church which has to be accepted. But I concede one can gain a different understanding of the scripture and leave the church but only in the protestant tradition is one justified by the protestant insistence on Sola scriptura. The scripture is the final arbiter to which we must trust before all else, regardless of what men, council or tradition says, trust in the scripture before all of these and never make these its equal.

But I do think it matters, that is giving certain things inferior and superior status. We would all agree, sola scripturists and non that the apostles and their commentary (if we possessed it) would be superior to anything the church fathers or our pastors say. If we are going to go about the process of selecting our books to be our final authority while we admit ourselves to be a lesser authority in this regard via sola scriptura, how is it we can trust that our decisions have correctly determined what is the final authority to begin with? You may appeal to Romans but what makes that canon or scripture? The scholarship defining it as the quintessential epistle of Paul? The Universal tradition regarding its authenticity and it being a product of Paul? All of these are necessarily lesser (sola scriptura) than the epistle to the Romans itself yet without it we have no justification for including it within our canon. And if we must rely on the lesser to inform us of the greater is that authority really lesser to begin with?

I think it introduces problem which I don’t see accounted for. Also how do I have sola scriptura wrong? Even as a lutheran I know your basic theology, how much you consider the church essential, how much you consider the sacraments necessary and I think thats great. I notice however when Lutherans defend these things its always from the scripture, which is great as well, but ultimately it does come down to what the scripture says, it is the central authority above any church, creed, catechism or preacher right? You only trust Luther inasmuch as he agrees with the scripture correct? The emphasis whenever I hear a Lutheran speak is always this “what does the scripture say.” I’ll confess I don’t justify my practice from scripture alone. If the church cannot be said to be equal to the scripture what is to stop people from breaking off willy nilly so long as they feel compelled by the scripture? The church cannot be a factor if the person is so convinced that the scripture says this and not that.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;12444537]One could dismiss the church’s understanding of scripture within the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, but would that be warranted or justified by their own theology or understanding of church? In those traditions the church is equal to or the scripture is simply part of the whole tradition of the church which has to be accepted.

I think the Catholic catechism says that the Church is a servant of scripture: "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48, though I grant that the CC considers Sacred Tradition as part of the word of God.

But I concede one can gain a different understanding of the scripture and leave the church but only in the protestant tradition is one justified by the protestant insistence on Sola scriptura. The scripture is the final arbiter to which we must trust before all else, regardless of what men, council or tradition says, trust in the scripture before all of these and never make these its equal.

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with that decision. Again, sdola scriptura is a practice of the Church, not of individuals. It is the Church that holds doctrines and teachings accountable.

But I do think it matters, that is giving certain things inferior and superior status. We would all agree, sola scripturists and non that the apostles and their commentary (if we possessed it) would be superior to anything the church fathers or our pastors say. If we are going to go about the process of selecting our books to be our final authority while we admit ourselves to be a lesser authority in this regard via sola scriptura, how is it we can trust that our decisions have correctly determined what is the final authority to begin with?

What Lutheranism does is look at the entirety of the Church, historically. We consider the Fathers of the Church, even the local councils, and we arrive at three categories: attested, disputed, and rejected. For our standpoint, the attested books are the only books where doctrine is to be confirmed. The disputed books may be used to confirm and support. It is a rather conservative practice, and one which probably deserves better description than I am giving.

You may appeal to Romans but what makes that canon or scripture? The scholarship de

fining it as the quintessential epistle of Paul? The Universal tradition regarding its authenticity and it being a product of Paul? All of these are necessarily lesser (sola scriptura) than the epistle to the Romans itself yet without it we have no justification for including it within our canon. And if we must rely on the lesser to inform us of the greater is that authority really lesser to begin with?

And yet the teaching authority of the Church supports the Church defining a canon.

continued

 

[JonNC]

I think it introduces problem which I don’t see accounted for. Also how do I have sola scriptura wrong? Even as a lutheran I know your basic theology, how much you consider the church essential, how much you consider the sacraments necessary and I think thats great. I notice however when Lutherans defend these things its always from the scripture, which is great as well, but ultimately it does come down to what the scripture says, it is the central authority above any church, creed, catechism or preacher right? You only trust Luther inasmuch as he agrees with the scripture correct? The emphasis whenever I hear a Lutheran speak is always this “what does the scripture say.” I’ll confess I don’t justify my practice from scripture alone. If the church cannot be said to be equal to the scripture what is to stop people from breaking off willy nilly so long as they feel compelled by the scripture? The church cannot be a factor if the person is so convinced that the scripture says this and not that.

Perhaps the Lutheran Confessions, specifically the Apology of the Augsburg Confession provides an example:

Article X: Of the Holy Supper.

54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Here, Melanchthon confirms the doctrine of the Real Presence using, first, scripture. He then supports this by referring to the historic Church, East and West, and defends his position finally by siting the Fathers.
This is the practice of sola scriptura in practice.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

The emphasis whenever I hear a Lutheran speak is always this “what does the scripture say.”

That there are plenty of Lutherans that aren’t great at apologetics is not a surprise - but I hope you’ve heard a few Lutherans mention the creeds, the confessions, and the early church fathers now and then.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

JonNC, I suppose I don’t understand how limiting sola scriptura to a practice helps you in the problem I see. By practice you mean what? The correct means for determining doctrine, practice and how the church should act? How sola scriptura as a practice determine the canon? An appeal to the fathers cannot beat an appeal to scripture correct? All of us will concede the fathers made mistakes and ultimately an appeal to a father is lesser than an appeal to scripture and what it reveals right? Lutherans will easily dismiss other historic practices of the church, apostolic succession for instance on the basis of what the scripture ultimately saying that the fathers had it wrong (ever since Iraneaus or Ignatius). If we make sola scriptura the practice for determining the canon of scripture we will be stuck with no scripture or we would have to presuppose the scripture to begin with, which begs the question of how we arrived at that canon at all.

So you appeal to the teaching authority and say it still decides the canon, but the fundamental problem has not been addressed, you have only repeated your emphasis. The church is essential in determining the canon of scripture, correct? Before we go on can this question be answered?

Benjohnson. Do you not consider the show Issues Etc a good Lutheran representative?

 

[benjohnson]

Benjohnson. Do you not consider the show Issues Etc a good Lutheran representative?

I think they and their guests generally do a good job of proclaiming the Gospel - especially given their means.

I would say that Lutheran theology can sometimes be stuck with an modern viewpoint - but we’re getting much better.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;12444789]JonNC, I suppose I don’t understand how limiting sola scriptura to a practice helps you in the problem I see. By practice you mean what? The correct means for determining doctrine, practice and how the church should act? How sola scriptura as a practice determine the canon?

We seem to be talking past each other. By practice I mean the holding accountable doctrines and teachers to scripture as the final norm.
That said, I’m not sure I see the problem that you see.

An appeal to the fathers cannot beat an appeal to scripture correct? All of us will concede the fathers made mistakes and ultimately an appeal to a father is lesser than an appeal to scripture and what it reveals right?

No, but an appeal to the Fathers often supports what scripture says.

Lutherans will easily dismiss other historic practices of the church, apostolic succession for instance on the basis of what the scripture ultimately saying that the fathers had it wrong (ever since Iraneaus or Ignatius).

Incorrect.
Augsburg Confession:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

The Apology:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

If we make sola scriptura the practice for determining the canon of scripture we will be stuck with no scripture or we would have to presuppose the scripture to begin with, which begs the question of how we arrived at that canon at all.

Sola scriptura is not the practice by which the canon is determined.

So you appeal to the teaching authority and say it still decides the canon, but the fundamental problem has not been addressed, you have only repeated your emphasis. The church is essential in determining the canon of scripture, correct? Before we go on can this question be answered?

I’m still trying to figure out what you see the fundamental problem being.

Jon

 

[steido01]

JonNC, I suppose I don’t understand how limiting sola scriptura to a practice helps you in the problem I see. By practice you mean what? The correct means for determining doctrine, practice and how the church should act? How sola scriptura as a practice determine the canon? An appeal to the fathers cannot beat an appeal to scripture correct? All of us will concede the fathers made mistakes and ultimately an appeal to a father is lesser than an appeal to scripture and what it reveals right? Lutherans will easily dismiss other historic practices of the church, apostolic succession for instance on the basis of what the scripture ultimately saying that the fathers had it wrong (ever since Iraneaus or Ignatius). If we make sola scriptura the practice for determining the canon of scripture we will be stuck with no scripture or we would have to presuppose the scripture to begin with, which begs the question of how we arrived at that canon at all.

So you appeal to the teaching authority and say it still decides the canon, but the fundamental problem has not been addressed, you have only repeated your emphasis. The church is essential in determining the canon of scripture, correct? Before we go on can this question be answered?

Benjohnson. Do you not consider the show Issues Etc a good Lutheran representative?

I’m typically not much for cleverly-worded “ecumenical” documents (neither are the Orthodox nor Confessional Lutherans, so you know when they make a common statement, it’s not fluff). Perhaps this can help clear some of the waters. The Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogues are worth a read in full, but here is a little snippet:

1. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

…

The confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church do not contain a list of biblical books because the canon of the holy scripture was received by the Reformation as a given entity. Accordingly, there is also no delimitation of the canon of the Old Testament which is binding for all Lutheran churches. In Martin Luther’s translation which became normative for German-speaking lands, the following books and texts which “are profitable and good to read” are reckoned as the Apocrypha (this name does not here mean writings rejected by the church): Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Additions to Esther, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Prayer of Manasseh

Emphases mine.