Sola Scriptura

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Please do not put me down like this. I have a PhD in NT studies (historical Jesus), so I'm more than aware of the need to read any writer in context.

With your examples of the LDS and JW you have used the fallacy of biased sample. It is an example of illogical reasoning. When you engage in fallacious reasoning like this, we cannot have a logical discussion. I urge you to quit this kind of logical fallacy.

Not fallacious reasoning at all; such is how many, many heresies and heterodoxies have been justified over the past 2000 years and beyond.

And... it's not good form to beat people over the head with a rolled up sheep-skin; many of our members have devoted more time and effort to the study of theology than is recognized in a college degree. Likewise, while we call many of the ECF's Fathers and Doctors , I doubt more than a handful of them ever actually earned one.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks I read it but still want an authoritative definition. It doesn't help to just say to go ask Lutherans if this is a theory one holds himself. If it's a belief you are advocating on this thread, I think it's acceptable to ask for the authoritative, original definition.

One already did: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sola-scriptura.7936590/#post-69365643

 

[rakovsky]

One already did: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sola-scriptura.7936590/#post-69365643

Sorry, I don't see which definition you refer to exactly in that post. Maybe I missed something?

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks I read it but still want an authoritative definition. It doesn't help to just say to go ask Lutherans if this is a theory one holds himself. If it's a belief you are advocating on this thread, I think it's acceptable to ask for the authoritative, original definition.

Here is a Lutheran online definition:

A Brief Introduction to sola scriptura

By Dr Hans Wiersma

Sola Scriptura (Latin for “scripture alone”) is one of three or four—or five or six—“solas” that attempt to evoke the basic principles of Lutheran theology (or even Protestant Theology). No matter how many solas you care to list, it would be difficult to deny that Sola Scriptura is an essential component of the Lutheran DNA.

Consider, for instance, the words of Jacob Andreae—words that were written as part of an attempt to unify “second generation Lutherans” in the late 1570s: “We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it…”[Book of Concord, p. 486].

In other words, if you can’t back it up with scripture, then it probably shouldn’t be part of the Christian faith and life.

The slogan Sola Scriptura developed out of the perception that certain Christian teachings and practices—especially some teachings and practices formulated during the medieval period of Western Christianity—had little or no Biblical basis (Lutheran Theology: An Online Journal).

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

Here is a Lutheran online definition:

the words of Jacob Andreae—words that were written as part of an attempt to unify “second generation Lutherans” in the late 1570s: “We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it…”[Book of Concord, p. 486].​

Oz

I see. However, this was written by Andreae, not Luther. I wonder if Luther defined the term someplace.

To affirm in a legal or intense way "that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone" creates problems.

1. Are we to evaluate and judge the teachings of whether the earth is round and whether the sun is the center of the universe by the Bible? The Italian church judged Galileo using religious writings.

2. If by teachings is meant religious teachings, then is not the Nicene Creed a rule for judging all religious teachings, including the Bible? The JWs do not use the Nicene Creed and they judge the Bible to teach Arianism. It seems instead that the Nicene Creed, an Ecumenical Church Council Creed, is a tool instead to judge the Bible as teaching Trinitarianism.

3. If by "judge" The Book of Concord means judge whether something is right and legitimate, it seems that the Nicene Creed can also be a tool to judge the Bible, in that it helps to judge what books are in the Bible and what books are not. The number of books of the Bible themselves were stated in the course of Church decisions. The Nicene Creed is a tool to judge that the Bible is correct.

4. The passage cited in the Book of Concord I think does not use the phrase "Sola Scriptura".

There are other problems, but this shows that I would like to see if Luther himself defined this term, or if the Book of Concord was ever explicit about it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't have a source offhand, but a couple of years ago I ran across Luther's statement regarding sola scriptura (or perhaps "one of his statements" if he had more than one - I do not know, and he did develop his stance on some issues over time). It was remarkably similar to the Orthodox understanding, which held Scripture as the highest authority, but understood that Tradition was an invaluable guide in its interpretation. Nothing could contradict Scripture, but neither does it encompass the complete sum of all knowledge received by the Apostles - nor was it ever claimed to do so.

 

[OzSpen]

I see. However, this was written by Andreae, not Luther. I wonder if Luther defined the term someplace.

Dr Google is your friend.

 

[rakovsky]

Dr Google is your friend.

Not all friends are God.
They can let you down.

 

[OzSpen]

Not fallacious reasoning at all; such is how many, many heresies and heterodoxies have been justified over the past 2000 years and beyond.

And... it's not good form to beat people over the head with a rolled up sheep-skin; many of our members have devoted more time and effort to the study of theology than is recognized in a college degree. Likewise, while we call many of the ECF's Fathers and Doctors , I doubt more than a handful of them ever actually earned one.

Mark,

You have ignored the context. I was dealing with a person who was putting me down (and treating me like a theological idiot). That's the context of my making that statement.

My statement had nothing to do with despising the many people through the history of the church who have learned a great deal about theology without college or university degrees. You have erected a straw man about me with that example.

 

[OzSpen]

Not all friends are God.
They can let you down.

Search engines can be great helpers on the Internet. Try Dr Google or Dr Bing to find your answer.

 

[rakovsky]

Search engines can be great helpers on the Internet. Try Dr Google or Dr Bing to find your answer.

Sorry I already checked with Google, Bro.
This is not a college assignment for me. I await someone to find a definition by Luther.

 

[Athanasias]

Dr Google is your friend.

Hey Dr. Ozpen,

My offer still stands politely and in charity. I have some background in graduate theology and Church history. I would love to formally dialog on this one on one.I think It would be fruitful and informative for everyone and I would learn alot myself. Let me know. God bless you!

Athanasais

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Dr. Ozpen,

My offer still stands politely and in charity. I have some background in graduate theology and Church history. I would love to formally dialog on this one on one.I think It would be fruitful and informative for everyone and I would learn alot myself. Let me know. God bless you!

Athanasais

Athanasais,

I would enjoy engaging in such a discussion with you but I do not have the time at the moment. I'm in a busy schedule of converting a 488pp doctoral dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system) into a drove of journal articles. In the midst of that I preach, lead a Bible study on a 3 weekly basis, disciple a new Christian and I'm an older bloke with 2 major disabilities.

I recently looked into an aspect of this, particularly as it applies to the church fathers. See: Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

However, you'll need to seek other involvement on this topic at the moment. My busy schedule prevents it.

Here's a starter from Luther:

'Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us' (Diet of Worms 1521 in response to Dr Eck, Archbishop of Trier)

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Lutheran position is clearly stated in the Book of Concord. Scripture is the norm by which everything else is measured. If a "tradition" conflicts with Scripture, then it is to be discarded; if a tradition is not found in the Bible, but does not conflict with it, it is "adiaphora" and may or may not be observed/practiced as one chooses.

In other words, if you can’t back it up with scripture, then it probably shouldn’t be part of the Christian faith and life.
​

By Dr Hans Wiersma is ELCA; considering that the ELCA views the BoC as nothing more than an historic foot note, and the version that they publish has a number of non-lutheran edits (not the unaltered 1580 edition), the fact that their synod applies various "critical" standards to Scriptural interpretation, and that they are in full altar and pulpit fellowship with non liturgical bodies that do not hold to the efficacy of the sacraments speaks to the fact that we confessional Lutherans see them as being Lutheran in name only; but they are reformed protestants in reality.

 

[OzSpen]

The Lutheran position is clearly stated in the Book of Concord. Scripture is the norm by which everything else is measured. If a "tradition" conflicts with Scripture, then it is to be discarded; if a tradition is not found in the Bible, but does not conflict with it, it is "adiaphora" and may or may not be observed/practiced as one chooses.

In other words, if you can’t back it up with scripture, then it probably shouldn’t be part of the Christian faith and life.
​

By Dr Hans Wiersma is ELCA; considering that the ELCA views the BoC as nothing more than an historic foot note, and the version that they publish has a number of non-lutheran edits (not the unaltered 1580 edition), the fact that their synod applies various "critical" standards to Scriptural interpretation, and that they are in full altar and pulpit fellowship with non liturgical bodies that do not hold to the efficacy of the sacraments speaks to the fact that we confessional Lutherans see them as being Lutheran in name only; but they are reformed protestants in reality.

Mark,

Isn't the ELCA fairly liberal theologically? Well, it was when I lived in the USA. How does that denomination agree or disagree with the Book of Concord (BoC)? Would there be a requirement for ELCA clergy to agree with the BoC's teaching on Sola Scriptura and the authoritative Scripture?

Oz

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lutheran approaches to the BoC, at least in North America (afaik), tend to be described as either quia or quatenus. A quia approach to the BoC says that the BoC is believed because (Latin: quia) it agrees with Scripture. A quatenus approach to the BoC says the BoC is believed insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with Scripture. Confessional Lutheranism is marked by its quia approach.

Inter-Lutheran slug matches seem to be fought on such things.

The ELCA is "liberal" generally depending on perspective and as a generality; in the same way that the LCMS is "conservative" generally depending on perspective and as a generality. Where things stand at the synod-wide level changes a lot once you get down to how things work at the congregation level.

I'm ELCA, but it seems to me that there's enough criticism to go around to everyone, ELCA, LCMS, WELS (and that's only the big three bodies in the US).

I've only been a Lutheran for several years now, but I've noticed things can get pretty rough and tumble. I've seen the "not a real Lutheran" charge come from LCMS folk to ELCA folk, and from ELCA folk to LCMS folk.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark,

Isn't the ELCA fairly liberal theologically? Well, it was when I lived in the USA. How does that denomination agree or disagree with the Book of Concord (BoC)? Would there be a requirement for ELCA clergy to agree with the BoC's teaching on Sola Scriptura and the authoritative Scripture?

Oz

Lutheran approaches to the BoC, at least in North America (afaik), tend to be described as either quia or quatenus. A quia approach to the BoC says that the BoC is believed because (Latin: quia) it agrees with Scripture. A quatenus approach to the BoC says the BoC is believed insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with Scripture. Confessional Lutheranism is marked by its quia approach.

Inter-Lutheran slug matches seem to be fought on such things.

The ELCA is "liberal" generally depending on perspective and as a generality; in the same way that the LCMS is "conservative" generally depending on perspective and as a generality. Where things stand at the synod-wide level changes a lot once you get down to how things work at the congregation level.

I'm ELCA, but it seems to me that there's enough criticism to go around to everyone, ELCA, LCMS, WELS (and that's only the big three bodies in the US).

I've only been a Lutheran for several years now, but I've noticed things can get pretty rough and tumble. I've seen the "not a real Lutheran" charge come from LCMS folk to ELCA folk, and from ELCA folk to LCMS folk.

-CryptoLutheran

Their approval of same sex marriages, gay clergy, female clergy and pro choice speak to the fact that there is sola scriptura and then there is sola scriptura.

In some ways the LCMS is more literally Sola Scriptura; yet, as I said before, SS and Tradition are not mutually exclusive. For example: The Bible is silent regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary; the 1580 edition affirms that position (so it's not binding as Scripture does not come out and say it) but it does not conflict with Scripture in our opinion, so we are free to hold such a belief. The Assumption/Dormation of Mary is on our calendar, but we are free to celebrate it as such, or only as a simple commemoration. Again Scripture is silent, but it does not conflict with Scripture.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark,

Isn't the ELCA fairly liberal theologically? Well, it was when I lived in the USA. How does that denomination agree or disagree with the Book of Concord (BoC)? Would there be a requirement for ELCA clergy to agree with the BoC's teaching on Sola Scriptura and the authoritative Scripture?

Oz

Lutheran approaches to the BoC, at least in North America (afaik), tend to be described as either quia or quatenus. A quia approach to the BoC says that the BoC is believed because (Latin: quia) it agrees with Scripture. A quatenus approach to the BoC says the BoC is believed insofar as (quatenus) it agrees with Scripture. Confessional Lutheranism is marked by its quia approach.

Inter-Lutheran slug matches seem to be fought on such things.

The ELCA is "liberal" generally depending on perspective and as a generality; in the same way that the LCMS is "conservative" generally depending on perspective and as a generality. Where things stand at the synod-wide level changes a lot once you get down to how things work at the congregation level.

I'm ELCA, but it seems to me that there's enough criticism to go around to everyone, ELCA, LCMS, WELS (and that's only the big three bodies in the US).

I've only been a Lutheran for several years now, but I've noticed things can get pretty rough and tumble. I've seen the "not a real Lutheran" charge come from LCMS folk to ELCA folk, and from ELCA folk to LCMS folk.

-CryptoLutheran

Their approval of same sex marriages, gay clergy, female clergy and pro choice speak to the fact that there is sola scriptura and then there is sola scriptura.

In some ways the LCMS is more literally Sola Scriptura; yet, as I said before, SS and Tradition are not mutually exclusive. For example: The Bible is silent regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary; the 1580 edition affirms that position (so it's not binding as Scripture does not come out and say it) but it does not conflict with Scripture in our opinion, so we are free to hold such a belief. The Assumption/Dormation of Mary is on our calendar, but we are free to celebrate it as such, or only as a simple commemoration. Again Scripture is silent, but it does not conflict with Scripture.

 

[mark46]

I would suggest that, with a little work, one can find Scripture to support almost any position.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would suggest that, with a little work, one can find Scripture to support almost any position.

We see that happen continually.