Honest Questions re: Sola Scriptura

[Joshua G.]

What misrepresentations about Sola Scriptura do you come across either in reading/hearing Orthodox, Catholics, other protestants or fellow Lutherans (not inlcuding ELCA simply because I know that many ELCA approach the Scriptures differently and I don't want INter-lutheran debate here, if possible)?


I am not looking to debate. I am looking to understand what you truly believe about SS and, perhaps more interesting, what you do NOT believe about SS.

Thanks a lot guys!

Josh

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To my fellow Lutherans....


I very carefully discussed this at considerable length with this brother and others in the Debate forum of the EO.
You can view that here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7592969/
It went profoundly badly - and caused significant problems for me (about which I am mandated to be silent).

So, as you all know, THIS is an area I usually jump right in on. This will be my only post on this here.


Blessings upon all!




.

 

[steve_bakr]

I believe that Scripture.does not.stand alone but is supplemented by Tradition.

 

[DaRev]

I believe that Scripture.does not.stand alone but is supplemented by Tradition.

That, of course, is a non-Lutheran response from a non-Lutheran.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the source and norm of all teaching of the faith. Any traditions of the Church MUST line up with Scripture or else they are discarded.

One huge misconception is that Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural. But there are many places in Scripture where this is upheld:
Psalm 119:160
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 1:15
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Luke 24:27
Matthew 5:17
Hebrews 1:1-2a

 

[steve_bakr]

That, of course, is a non-Lutheran response from a non-Lutheran.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the source and norm of all teaching of the faith. Any traditions of the Church MUST line up with Scripture or else they are discarded.

One huge misconception is that Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural. But there are many places in Scripture where this is upheld:
Psalm 119:160
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 1:15
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Luke 24:27
Matthew 5:17
Hebrews 1:1-2a

.We have to remember that in New Testament times there was no NT canon. All the different letters and gospels were circulated and read. It was Tradition that formed the NT canon and it was decided upon by the.Council of Bishops. So you have three pillars at work in forming the.Church--Scripture, Tradition, and Apostolic authority. That is why you cannot rely on Scripture alone.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks steve.. but I really want a Lutheran perspective. Feel free to come here to learn about that or PM me to share mroe of your personal thoughts. Thanks!

josh

 

[Joshua G.]

DaRev. Is it fair to say that a practice NOT found in Scriptures can be fine and good and helpful as long as it does not contradict scripture?

 

[DaRev]

.We have to remember that in New Testament times there was no NT canon. All the different letters and gospels were circulated and read. It was Tradition that formed the NT canon and it was decided upon by the.Council of Bishops. So you have three pillars at work in forming the.Church--Scripture, Tradition, and Apostolic authority. That is why you cannot rely on Scripture alone.

We believe that the Scriptures (including the NT as the Scriptures state) were inspired by God. The Church, under the leadership and guidance of the Holy Spirit, compiled them into what we call the canon. They were given by God as the norm and guide of all teaching in the Church. Man made traditions are good and fine so long as they conform with Scripture, otherwise they are discarded. The Bible clearly teaches that the Scriptures are sufficient for the teaching of the faith. That is why we can and do rely on Scripture alone.

 

[DaRev]

DaRev. Is it fair to say that a practice NOT found in Scriptures can be fine and good and helpful as long as it does not contradict scripture?

That would depend on what it is.

 

[Luther073082]

DaRev. Is it fair to say that a practice NOT found in Scriptures can be fine and good and helpful as long as it does not contradict scripture?

It can be. . . I mean a lot of things are tradition. Everything from confirmation to Christmas to Lent are traditions. The scriptures never call upon us to celibrate these things.

I think the main question you have to ask yourself is what are the possible positives and negatives of a practice. A practice might not contradict scripture but still do more harm then good.

 

[ricg]

Dear Joshua,

I think much of the misunderstanding of the Luth. perspective on SS from EOs and RCs comes from the way Scripture and the Church are viewed and the importance of the doctrine of justification.

In the Lutheran view, the Scriptures are the primary testament of Christ Himself -- the Word of God that conveys the Word of God, His own graciously conveyed righteousness -- again, Christ Himself. This stems from the centrality of the doctrine of the justification in the Scriptures and in Lutheran theology. The Scriptures are therefore the key to our life and mission -- to find and share the righteousness of God without which we cannot be saved. The Scriptures are a testimony of the promise of grace. In our view, righteousness is something God has promised to deliver to us gratis, for free, and the main purpose of the Scriptures is to deliver that promise.

My experience with RCs and EOs, who view righteousness as cooperation with God through "infusion of grace," is what we Lutherans see as a fundamentally legalistic view of Scripture as purely a source of doctrine, all of which is more or less equally important by virtue of the fact that it all comes from God, so the only real questions in respect of Scripture are extent of the canon and the authority to interpret, for which RCs and EOs look to the hierarchy, from which they also receive as binding certain non-Scriptural teachings.

While (confessional) Lutherans recognize the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture (as DaRev articulated), that is the result of SS, not the starting point for it. The Scriptures derive their importance because their central function is to deliver Christ, righteousness, life and salvation to humankind. They are therefore the fountainhead of public doctrine, and without antecedent. In Lutheranism, the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures deliver Christ to the Church and are therefore the final word on right teaching.

In EO/RC, the Church delivers, defines and interprets the Scriptures (among other things), so the source of right teaching is ultimately said to be the Church, by which is meant the bishops as successors of the apostles.

Because (in the Lutheran view) the main purpose of the Scriptures is to deliver the promise of the righteousness of Christ freely, we say that the Scriptures are sufficient. The other teachings of the Bible are illustrative of and illuminated by this promise. Even the legal passages of Scripture serve mainly to show our need of a gracious salvation because of our sinfulness (failure and inability to keep the law). Of course they serve as a guide for right living in our earthly lives, but that is secondary. Thus, Lutherans are not bothered by the fact that some aspects of Scripture are unclear, because the important (by which I mean life-giving) teaching, the promise of salvation by grace through faith, is clear to those who believe the promise.

I hope this makes sense.

Blessings,

Ric

 

[Resha Caner]

I once had a discussion with a Catholic about sola scriptura, and after much debate realized that he was interpreting the term very strictly. In other words, he thought Lutherans were saying the Holy Spirit is unnecessary - that the ongoing work of the Father is unnecessary - that all we required was the mere presence of a Bible and that we expected mystical things to stem from that.

Once I got that, I explained that sola scriptura is not the only sola. For example, check out my byline, which includes sola gratia.

Not that that is an issue for this thread, but I thought I would mention it just in case. Since that discussion I have found it interesting that sola scriptura is the one most non-Lutherans key on, but not the others.

 

[Joshua G.]

I think that was a valid issue to point out in this thread. Thanks!

 

[Joshua G.]

My experience with RCs and EOs, who view righteousness as cooperation with God through "infusion of grace," is what we Lutherans see as a fundamentally legalistic view of Scripture as purely a source of doctrine, all of which is more or less equally important by virtue of the fact that it all comes from God, so the only real questions in respect of Scripture are extent of the canon and the authority to interpret, for which RCs and EOs look to the hierarchy, from which they also receive as binding certain non-Scriptural teachings.

You certainly expressed your views very succinctly and respectfully and I don't wish to do debate not only because you were not being combative, but because this isn't the place, but I don't think EOs would typically (or accurately) express our view on Scripture in quite that way. "binding" and other terms you employed are very western in nature. Not that that is bad or good in and of itself, it's just a very western approach.

That's really the crux of why I am here, to understand you guys because SS has really only been a dialog between certain protestant groups (first of which are the Lutherans) and the RCC. It is a debate the Orthodox Church has never had a perspective in historically as Sola Scriptura vs NOT Sola Scriptura is absent in the East. There has never been a "versus" anything.

So, the concept of binding and particular terms to apply to the exact place of the Scriptures is virtually absent in the East unlike the West. That's not good or bad, it just is because history played out that way. Therefore, I am here to truly understand how you guys understand the place of the Scriptures and Sola Scriptura in the context of the Church and, perhaps more importantly, how you don't.

And I have found all of your responses so helpful in this. Even the part I quoted above was helpful because I know what you meant. Pointing out that that doesn't represent the EO perspective was just a nit-picky thing and didn't override the usefulness of your helpful post.

Anyway, I thought I would use it as a springboard to let you guys in better on the ultimate purpose of my thread: to build understanding of your approach on the part of the EO's to see if there aren't perhaps places where we might unexpectedly agree.

I think in many of the typical debates (faith vs works, Sola Scriptura) we understand each other so poorly because our language is so different and, while I am not suggesting we see it all the same or that it's just semantics, there are perhaps areas where we on both sides have knee-jerk reactions to our words not so much because we truly understand what's being said but because we interpret the words without understanding each other's theological culture.

So, don't worry, while this is ecumenical in nature, it is not a kumbayya session. lol It's about YOU guys and YOUR beliefs.

Thanks so much for your thoughts everyone. I look forward to more insight.

Josh

 

[Resha Caner]

Anyway, I thought I would use it as a springboard to let you guys in better on the ultimate purpose of my thread: to build understanding of your approach on the part of the EO's to see if there aren't perhaps places where we might unexpectedly agree.

I think in many of the typical debates (faith vs works, Sola Scriptura) we understand each other so poorly because our language is so different and, while I am not suggesting we see it all the same or that it's just semantics, there are perhaps areas where we on both sides have knee-jerk reactions to our words not so much because we truly understand what's being said but because we interpret the words without understanding each other's theological culture.

Well, I for one would be very interested in taking this discussion further. You're right that this may not be the right place, so if you can think of a better one, please name it.

My history advisor found my attempt to communicate my interests very confusing. It makes sense to me, but why I tried to roll Eastern Europe, the Turks, The Greeks, the Byzantines, philosophy, and science all into one topic befuddled her. She "advised" me to stick to the history of science. But I suppose you could say I am interested more in intellectual history and how all those different cultures came together to create our current worldview. So, I am very interested in the Orthodox Church.

 

[Joshua G.]

The Scriptures derive their importance because their central function is to deliver Christ, righteousness, life and salvation to humankind. They are therefore the fountainhead of public doctrine, and without antecedent. In Lutheranism, the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures deliver Christ to the Church and are therefore the final word on right teaching.

I am not debating at all, so understand this as a sincere question for you:
I assume you and I would agree (based on what some others have said so far uncontested) that the Scriptures are not self-interpreting. Correct me if I am wrong.
If that is so, you and we would agree on this point. (Kumbay ya! )
If that is so, can you revisit what "sufficient" and "have the last word on right teaching" mean to you in this context.
If that is not so, my apologies and would you still expound on what you mean by "sufficient" and "have the last word on right teaching."

In EO/RC, the Church delivers, defines and interprets the Scriptures (among other things),

I think this is fair

so the source of right teaching is ultimately said to be the Church, by which is meant the bishops as successors of the apostles.

I cannot speak for the RC, but just for what it's worth that does not accurately represent an EO view of what the Church is and even to speak of anything as a unique source of infallibility does not mesh well with EO perspective. Again, I AM being off-topic but I am only taking the moment to clarify what we don't believe. Another thread can expound on what we DO believe (IF that is even something that interests anyone here, which I don't expect either way of you for this to be a useful thread since it's not about US). that said, your point is taken and is helping me to understand you.

Because (in the Lutheran view) the main purpose of the Scriptures is to deliver the promise of the righteousness of Christ freely, we say that the Scriptures are sufficient.

see my question above.

The other teachings of the Bible are illustrative of and illuminated by this promise.

What do you mean by "other" teachings in the Bible. "Other" as in apart from those passage that deliver the promise of the righteousness of Christ freely? Can you give me an example of this juxtaposition so I can better understand? Thanks a lot.

Even the legal passages of Scripture serve mainly to show our need of a gracious salvation because of our sinfulness (failure and inability to keep the law). Of course they serve as a guide for right living in our earthly lives, but that is secondary.

So you are not saying that in the scriptures, there are primary passages and secondary passages but, rather, primary purposes and secondary purposes. Is that right? Can you give me an example? (This is NOT a challenge, I just want to be sure I am on the same page with you).

Thus, Lutherans are not bothered by the fact that some aspects of Scripture are unclear, because the important (by which I mean life-giving) teaching, the promise of salvation by grace through faith, is clear to those who believe the promise.

Can you clarify this part? I am not trying to be silly or snotty but for me in my slowness, it seems to say "The promise is understood by those who believe the promise". Is that what you meant to say? Can you clarify?

Thanks so much!

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

Well, I for one would be very interested in taking this discussion further. You're right that this may not be the right place, so if you can think of a better one, please name it.

My history advisor found my attempt to communicate my interests very confusing. It makes sense to me, but why I tried to roll Eastern Europe, the Turks, The Greeks, the Byzantines, philosophy, and science all into one topic befuddled her. She "advised" me to stick to the history of science. But I suppose you could say I am interested more in intellectual history and how all those different cultures came together to create our current worldview. So, I am very interested in the Orthodox Church.

TAW has a cool section called St. Justin's corner wherein non-members can debate. While I am not interested in debate, per se, I am interested in people being able to freely challenge with the PRIMARY goal of enriching OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING-- not necessarily the other person's (so... NOT in order to "win" or show the other person to be wrong) it is a useful suspension of the rule because it allows for people to speak more openly.

That said, I have generally found your own forum to be pretty open to allowing others to defend their non-Lutheran POV in a respectful manner without fear of being called out for prosyletizing. So, I guess whereever you want.

Right now I am not going to start any thread about that because I am not sure yet exactly how I want to frame the discussion. But if you started one I might pop by

Josh

 

[Resha Caner]

TAW has a cool section called St. Justin's corner wherein non-members can debate.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

While I am not interested in debate, per se, I am interested in people being able to freely challenge with the PRIMARY goal of enriching OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING-- not necessarily the other person's (so... NOT in order to "win" or show the other person to be wrong) it is a useful suspension of the rule because it allows for people to speak more openly.

Since I know I'm right, I don't care if I "win". Jokes aside, [what you said] is also my preferred mode of operation. Occassionally I get dragged into something nasty, but I try to watch that carefully.

That said, I have generally found your own forum to be pretty open to allowing others to defend their non-Lutheran POV in a respectful manner without fear of being called out for prosyletizing.

Really? Many seem to feel otherwise.

I don't have a prepared agenda so I'd have to think about it for a bit before I could launch my own thread. However, just off the top of my head, I could ask about the filioque.

It seems like every book I read talks about how every Byzantine in Constantinople took personal offense when the RCC added the filioque, and it was such an outrage that the OC had no choice but to sever ties.

Really? That always seemed a bit over the top to me. My suspicion is that the Schism was more power politics than theology. Further, I really doubt the masses were as engaged as some histories indicate. Rather, it was just a chance to riot and release some frustration, and the RCC made a good target since it was so distant from Constantinople.

In fact, one pastor commented to me that if the filioque were the only difference between Lutherans and the OC, union would be an easy matter.

So, what is your impression of the importance of the filioque both when the issue first surfaced and today?

 

[DaRev]

I assume you and I would agree (based on what some others have said so far uncontested) that the Scriptures are not self-interpreting. Correct me if I am wrong.

Confessional Lutherans follow the hermeneutic of "Scripture interprets Scripture". Having said that, when reading the Bible one must take into consideration the language the text was written, the time it was written to determine word usage and idiomatic expressions, the author and his writing style, the intended audience, and the genre of the particular writing or passage. We do not look outside of the Scriptures (Pope, human reason, personal interpretations, etc.) to determine what God is telling us in His word.

 

[Joshua G.]

Confessional Lutherans follow the hermeneutic of "Scripture interprets Scripture". Having said that, when reading the Bible one must take into consideration the language the text was written, the time it was written to determine word usage and idiomatic expressions, the author and his writing style, the intended audience, and the genre of the particular writing or passage. We do not look outside of the Scriptures (Pope, human reason, personal interpretations, etc.) to determine what God is telling us in His word.

Thank you, DaRev, my mistake.