Sola vs. Solo Scriptura

[Arc F1]

Protestants/Evangelicals/etc.- please keep in mind you are on the Eastern Orthodox Forum. Feel free to respectfully ask questions or make friendly comments, but please refrain from arguing or preaching non-Eastern Orthodox doctrines.

This is a website I frequented as a Protestant (I still drop in from time to time to see what's up) because it teaches from the tradition I came from. I find that a lot of Orthodox confuse 'solo scriptura' (not an actual doctrine) for 'Sola Scriptura,' the true doctrine of Luther and the Reformers. I feel like I have a good grasp of the Orthodox understanding, but I am just interested to get some reaction to this from other Orthodox Christians.

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

I'm just a plain Ole Christian and I believe in clarity of scripture. I have no issues with Luther at all.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

What you are teaching me about the EOC does not harmonize.

If you have the truth why do you get so defensive?

Judging my motive is wrong.

The problem is we have different starting points.

Your starting point is: Solo Scriptura. The Scriptures as YOU interpret them.

Our starting point is: The Church through the ages and ages. The Scriptures as the Church interprets them.

You said you wanted the Truth.

What does the scripture say is the ground and pillar of truth? 1 Timothy 3:15

As St. Augustine (Circa: AD 430) says:

Honor the holy church as your mother. Love her, proclaim her the Jerusalem which is above, the holy city of God. She it is who, in this faith which you have heard, bears fruit and grows in the whole world, the church of the living God, the pillar and buttress of the truth. She tolerates the wicked in the communion of the sacraments, knowing that they are due to be separated from her at the end and withdrawing from them meanwhile in the dissimilarity of their morals.

As St. John Chrysostom (Circa: AD 403) says:

That you may know, he says, how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Not like that Jewish house. For it is this that maintains the faith and the preaching of the Word. For the truth is the pillar and the ground of the Church.

As St. Ambrose (Circa: AD 397) says:

Accordingly, as Scripture says, Jacob became rich by such means and reared a very good flock for Christ. He improved it with the title of faith and a diversity of virtues, the marks of a glorious name. And so he did not consider himself poor, for he was rich with the wealth of faith…. And it is no wonder that Jacob possessed peace, for he had set up a pillar and anointed it to God, and that pillar is the church. Paul calls that pillar “the bulwark of the truth.” That man anoints it who pours the ointment of faith upon Christ and of compassion upon the poor.

As St. Iranaeus (Circa: AD 202) says:

Such, then, are the first principles of the gospel. There is one God, the Maker of this universe; he who was also announced by the prophets and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law—principles which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and ignore any other God or Father except him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these documents, each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine…. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life. Therefore, it is fitting that it should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying all humanity afresh.

As you can notice, this is about 200 years of the Church teaching the same thing that we continue to keep to this day. That last one, Irenaeus, is the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John, so he wasn't that far off from the Apostles.

No offence, but I'd rather believe what they say over a random user on ChristianForums.com whose judgement is clouded by modernity. It's precisely that my judgement IS clouded by modernity as to why I look to what the early Church says rather than what you say. Both of our judgements are clouded.

Now, your pride may jump in and deny that your judgement is clouded by modernity, and that is a battle you'll have to fight. The Church can teach you how to fight demons, but that's up to you. Just know that the Church will always welcome a new soldier.

Your argument will then be "But, I'm already in the church of Christ." and you'll cite a verse from Romans as a prooftext, and we'll just agree to disagree, and we will have nothing more to do with you as it is written in Titus 3:10, Romans 16:17, and 2 John 1:10.

As St. Clement of Alexandria (Circa: AD 215) says:

He forbids us to salute such, and to receive them to our hospitality. For this is not harsh in the case of a man of this sort. But he admonishes them neither to confer nor dispute with such as are not able to handle divine things with intelligence, lest through them they be seduced from the doctrine of truth, influenced by plausible reasons. Now, I think that we are not even to pray with such, because in the prayer which is made at home, after rising from prayer, the salutation of joy is also the token of peace.

As St. Irenaeus says:

But as many as separate from the Church, and give heed to such old wives' fables as these, are truly self-condemned; and these men Paul commands us, "after a first and second admonition, to avoid.". "Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

As St. John Chrysostom says:

He shows that they do not so much err from ignorance as they owe their ignorance to their indolence. Those who are contentious for the sake of money you will never persuade. They are only to be persuaded, so long as you keep paying out, and even so you will never satisfy their desires…. From such then, as being incorrigible, it is right to turn away.

and again:

Division is the subversion of the church. Turning things upside down like this is the devil’s weapon. As long as the body is united he has no way of getting in, but harm comes from division. And where does division come from? From doctrines which are contrary to the teaching of the apostles.

So, the ball's in your court. Do you want to learn about us, or are you here to preach at us?

 

[Nova2216]

The problem is we have different starting points.

Your starting point is: Solo Scriptura. The Scriptures as YOU interpret them.

Our starting point is: The Church through the ages and ages. The Scriptures as the Church interprets them.

You said you wanted the Truth.

What does the scripture say is the ground and pillar of truth? 1 Timothy 3:15

As St. Augustine (Circa: AD 430) says:


As St. John Chrysostom (Circa: AD 403) says:


As St. Ambrose (Circa: AD 397) says:


As St. Iranaeus (Circa: AD 202) says:


As you can notice, this is about 200 years of the Church teaching the same thing that we continue to keep to this day. That last one, Irenaeus, is the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John, so he wasn't that far off from the Apostles.

No offence, but I'd rather believe what they say over a random user on ChristianForums.com whose judgement is clouded by modernity. It's precisely that my judgement IS clouded by modernity as to why I look to what the early Church says rather than what you say. Both of our judgements are clouded.

Now, your pride may jump in and deny that your judgement is clouded by modernity, and that is a battle you'll have to fight. The Church can teach you how to fight demons, but that's up to you. Just know that the Church will always welcome a new soldier.

Your argument will then be "But, I'm already in the church of Christ." and you'll cite a verse from Romans as a prooftext, and we'll just agree to disagree, and we will have nothing more to do with you as it is written in Titus 3:10, Romans 16:17, and 2 John 1:10.

As St. Clement of Alexandria (Circa: AD 215) says:


As St. Irenaeus says:


As St. John Chrysostom says:


and again:


So, the ball's in your court. Do you want to learn about us, or are you here to preach at us?

Is it your contention I cannot read the Bible and know truth? (Eph.5:17) (Jn 8:31,32) (Jn 6:44,45)

Eph 3:3,4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Is it your contention I cannot read the Bible and know truth? (Eph.5:17) (Jn 8:31,32) (Jn 6:44,45)

Eph 3:3,4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Of course you can, but you can just as well interpret them falsely depending on your level of spiritual discernment, or lack there of.

Spiritual fathers help us (Orthodox) with keeping our egos in check. Perhaps, you’re so spiritual that you don’t need help with your race to the crown. I get about ten feet into the race and trip on my own shoelaces!

As it is written, some are prophets, some interpret, some are spiritual fathers, etc.

Here’s a short, fun video about the value of discernment in The Church.

 

[Albion]

no message

 

[WanderedHome]

Is it your contention I cannot read the Bible and know truth? (Eph.5:17) (Jn 8:31,32) (Jn 6:44,45)

I think it would be helpful to mention we are not saying YOU cannot read the Bible on your own and know the truth, but that NO ONE can read and understand on their own 100% of the time... even Orthodox Christians, since we are part of the human race also. The point of being the Church is that we read, pray, worship, and live within the context of the entire Christian community (ie. "tradition"), throughout all time, as one Body.
Certainly, there are things that are clear enough for anyone to understand from a basic reading, but even a theologically educated Protestant didn't get his knowledge solely from Scripture, without the help of any other man or tradition, even if he claims to have done so. The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:31), for example, admitted his need for Philip to explain the Scriptures to him.

 

[rakovsky]

This is a website I frequented as a Protestant (I still drop in from time to time to see what's up) because it teaches from the tradition I came from. I find that a lot of Orthodox confuse 'solo scriptura' (not an actual doctrine) for 'Sola Scriptura,' the true doctrine of Luther and the Reformers. I feel like I have a good grasp of the Orthodox understanding, but I am just interested to get some reaction to this from other Orthodox Christians.

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

The article in the OP says,

As he [Luther] would explain in future writings, Scripture has priority over the church, for the church is the baby born out of the womb of Scripture, not vice versa. “For who begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his own maker” (LW 36:107; WA 6:561)?

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

However, these underlined premise statements are quite strange, because historically, the Church did exist in the mid-1st century AD before the Church writers made the Scriptures.

The Scripture was in fact born from out of the Church.

The Scripture is one of the writings within the Church, and as a result, it has first priority among the Church's writings, not "over" them, because it is one of them.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The article in the OP says,

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

However, these underlined premise statements are quite strange, because historically, the Church did exist in the mid-1st century AD before the Church writers made the Scriptures.

The Scripture was in fact born from out of the Church.

The Scripture is one of the writings within the Church, and as a result, it has first priority among the Church's writings, not "over" them, because it is one of them.

Interesting blast from the past!

Also kind of funny when people seem to try to use rhetorical questions as a form of Socratic questioning to passive aggressively debate, on a board that is technically suppose to be a safe space from anything like that. Looking back, I wanted to point out how ham handed those questions were. As a person said in a novel I read decades ago, "you have all the subtly of a chained bear."

 

[rakovsky]

Occasionally I see Protestant writings that want to define Sola Scriptura to mean just that the Bible is infallible and the highest authority, not that the Bible is the only source of teachings. I think that it would be hard for Protestants to openly renounce Sola Scriptura because it's so foundational for them, but it seems that in substance many of them have a different idea than Sola Scriptura. Many seem to recognize that other writings like Augustine count as authorities for establishing doctrine.

So I looked for all of Luther's quotes where he used the term Sola Scriptura and also checked for similar phrases.

Perhaps Luther's most formal statement on the topic was:

"For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel." (Martin Luther, 1537, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)

To be clear, Luther talked this way about Biblically establishing religious teachings in general, not just core credal faith statements.

For Luther, this declaration is based on a certain method of establishing teachings. In his theory,
1. First, you should use dictionaries and commentaries to get the Bible's "pure" meaning.
2. Then, you use the Bible's pure meaning, its facts and principles, to establish all teachings and judge writings. In this fashion, Luther concludes that the Bible is being being the only "true" master of all writings and teachings, because the Bible is the highest authority checking all of them.

Luther wrote about the first step when he claimed:

One should not use the fathers’ teachings for anything more than to get into Scripture as they did, and then one should remain with Scripture alone. But Emser thinks that they should have a special function alongside the Scriptures, as if Scripture were not enough for teaching us.

Luther, 1523, Reply to "Emser the Goat"

One place where Luther explained how the Bible's highest place among writings results in "Sola Scriptura" was when he said:

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II

If one checks critical through Luther's theory, one may find significant fallacies. In his starting step, if one uses Dictionaries and Church Fathers' writings to try to find the "pure" meaning of Scripture, is the "Bible Alone" establishing the Bible's meaning? It seems not. In reality, it seems that the Bible, the dictionaries, and commentaries are all de facto establishing, evaluating, and ascertaining what the Bible says on the topic. And if these sources are all ascertaining the Bible's teachings, then de facto the Bible is not the only establisher of the Bible's teachings. Even if you limited yourself to the Bible's teachings, de facto it's not the Bible Alone that establishes these teachings.

However, suppose that we accepted Luther's premises, reasoning, and conclusion, and we agreed that any true religious teaching must be found in the supposed "pure" meaning of the Bible. The result would be that Christians could have zero teachings that are based even partly outside of the "pure" meaning of the Bible. Put simply, there could be no "extraBiblical" teachings.

I can think of two categories where this method would potentially result in a practical problem. One category is the issue of teachings on principles where the Bible does not take a position. It seems doubtful whether the Bible can be said to judge topics that it does not address. An example could be infant baptism. The Bible does not specifically teach it. At most, the Bible writers could have had infant baptism in mind when they made some statements like a story of a whole family being baptised, which we today could guess may or may not have had infants.

As a result, Protestants must use various principles to find what the Bible's material implies on potentially extraBiblical topics. Some of these Biblical principles might be in opposition on the topic. Calvin used infant circumcision to prove infant baptism, whereas Anabaptists use the Biblical general importance of one's belief as a criterion to deny baptism to infants.

EOs use Church fathers' writings to decide in favor of infant baptism. We have Church writing from the 2nd century AD teaching infant baptism. Strictly speaking, Luther's Bible Alone method would say that we can only use such Church writings to establish the Bible's teaching, and not to directly establish infant baptism. This requires us to do some mental exegetical Biblical gymnastics that Orthodoxy and the early Church did not demand.

The second category of problems would be teachings about facts that cannot be found in the Bible's "pure" meaning. Luther in the Augsburg Confession, Art. XV and XXI said that we ought to commemorate holidays and saints, so long as they are not compulsory. Luther noted that the Bible does not say that Peter was buried in Rome, even though early Christians recorded this. Since Luther used the extraBiblical factual nature of Peter's burial place to declare this to be a non-compulsory teaching, it seems that whether some person or event is narrated in the Bible must play a key role in whether the Bible "establishes" it or not.

But how can we establish extraBiblical saints, their lives, writings, and holidays for commemoration if we must rely on the pure meaning of the Bible alone?

Are there teachings that Orthodox Lutherans have that they would recognize as being ExtraBiblical?

Fr. Matt in this forum mentioned liturgies and service books. Protestants might say that service books can be composed based on Biblical principles, like basing the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches' use of "Kyrie Eleison" on Biblical requests of God for mercy. But this method seems to be true only in some general way, whereas Lutherans have a set, detailed schedule for services.

The other example that I can think of would be extraBiblical saints and holidays. The Bible can give general principles for establishing whether someone is a saint, but the Bible's "pure" meaning cannot give the facts and detailed narratives necessary for establishing them. We can Biblically establish that a good theologian in general might be a saint, but we can't establish that Augustine was a 4th century Christian theologian using the "Bible Alone."

The Bible does not say whether 10 of the 12 Disciples were fatally martyred, but Protestants commonly teach this. Some Lutheran churches are named St. Augustine, and Luther's Church has called itself the Church "Augustana."

 

[Albion]

Whoops. Wrong forum.

 

[Moses Medina]

Hello. I was a Lutheran (converted from pentecostalism) for 7 years before converting to Orthodoxy in 2019.

Right now I am just posting so I can easily come back but give me sometime to read through this board or feel free to send me a PM.

 

[rakovsky]

Question: Does Orthodoxy have nonmandatory "doctrines" like Luther was promoting? The answer seems to be Yes. For example, are canonizations of saints in Orthodoxy nonbinding? This feels like a weird issue, because the Catholic Church considered Papal Bulls to be not "infallible", yet they would also consider them to be "binding" commands.

Luther repeatedly complained that the Catholic Church made binding or required beliefs out of teachings that were not in the Bible. He complained that the then-Catholic Henry VIII of England was making the time of liturgy, Sunday morning, to be a necessary doctrine, whereas Luther said that the Bible did not fix a time of day for the service. Luther claimed that all nonBiblical teachings should be voluntary, what Lutherans call "adiaphora".

Luther's polemics with the Pope seemed to involve several categories. Perhaps I will not do these categories justice here:
1. "Infallible" teachings. Luther said that the Bible never erred.
2. Mandatory teachings like a Papal Bull. The Pope could command people to accept certain teachings or else they would be considered heretics. However, Papal Bulls were not "infallible".
3. Nonmandatory teachings. Luther noted that in his time, the Catholic Church did not consider people heretics if they rejected the "article" of the Immaculate Conception.
4. Private opinions that one could be indifferent about. Luther gave as an example St. Augustine's mother asking St. Augustine to pray at the Eucharist for her.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Question: Does Orthodoxy have nonmandatory "doctrines" like Luther was promoting? The answer seems to be Yes. For example, are canonizations of saints in Orthodoxy nonbinding? This feels like a weird issue, because the Catholic Church considered Papal Bulls to be not "infallible", yet they would also consider them to be "binding" commands.

Luther repeatedly complained that the Catholic Church made binding or required beliefs out of teachings that were not in the Bible. He complained that the then-Catholic Henry VIII of England was making the time of liturgy, Sunday morning, to be a necessary doctrine, whereas Luther said that the Bible did not fix a time of day for the service. Luther claimed that all nonBiblical teachings should be voluntary, what Lutherans call "adiaphora".

Luther's polemics with the Pope seemed to involve several categories. Perhaps I will not do these categories justice here:
1. "Infallible" teachings. Luther said that the Bible never erred.
2. Mandatory teachings like a Papal Bull. The Pope could command people to accept certain teachings or else they would be considered heretics. However, Papal Bulls were not "infallible".
3. Nonmandatory teachings. Luther noted that in his time, the Catholic Church did not consider people heretics if they rejected the "article" of the Immaculate Conception.
4. Private opinions that one could be indifferent about. Luther gave as an example St. Augustine's mother asking St. Augustine to pray at the Eucharist for her.

Can you give a compare and contrast on the Lutheran end of things and things like Theologoumena? My parents are Lutheran is why I ask, not to mention I think this area of knowledge has been buried compared to all the other stuff.

Catholics have Aristotelian terms of "Formal" and "Material" sufficiency of scripture. Material sufficiency is the Apostolic belief that the scriptures provide you with the bricks, mortar, wood etc. that you need to build your house, church or other building. While Formal sufficiency implies that as well, but also implies that the scriptures also give you the blue prints for the building, while Material sufficiency recognizes that sort of thing comes from the Tradition and the life of the Spirit working in the Church with the clergy, church counsels, etc. And well most Protestants are in the Formal sufficiency camp, rather than other one that describes the basic position of non-Protestants.


Anyway what you are talking about seems a lot more nuanced than how I remember Lutherans talking about things in my younger days as one, where if you disagree on something you are disagreeing not with their interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself, what Jesus preached etc.

 

[rakovsky]

Anyway what you are talking about seems a lot more nuanced than how I remember Lutherans talking about things in my younger days as one, where if you disagree on something you are disagreeing not with their interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself, what Jesus preached etc.

Pavel,
Yes, it seems like this is really getting into a fine point and nuance (nonmandatory doctrines) that Luther and Lutheranism did not make very clear.

That is on one hand, Luther wrote:

If we are called by the title of teachers [ie. Doctors] of Holy Scripture, then we ought to be compelled, in accordance with our name, to teach the Holy Scriptures and nothing else, although even this title is too proud and boastful and no one ought to be proclaimed and crowned teacher of Holy Scripture. ... The dear fathers wished, by their writings, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them as to be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our vineyard in which we ought to work and toil.

Luther 1520, in: Open letter to the Christian nobility (Reform Part 3.25).

And he wrote:

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II

These statements and others where he promotes explicitly "Sola Scripture" (Bible Alone) do not seem to leave any room for even nonmandatory non-Biblical/extra-Biblical teachings. It seems that "Sola Scriptura" as Luther used it does not leave room for them.

On the opposite end, Luther did seem at times to endorse what he categorized as the nonBiblical/extraBiblical teachings/"opinions" of men as something to be freely followed, as in "Martin Luther against Henry King of England":

If any usage and authority of men be allowed, which are not repugnant to the Scriptures, I do not condemn them, but wish them to be treated with toleration with this one provision, that they do not interfere with Christian liberty, and that we have the option of following them, keeping them, or changing them when and wherever and how we please.

SOURCE: Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliae

Near the end of this document, he writes:

"On the contrary, the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances."

His conclusion is that positions on extraBiblical topics should be free:

Wherefore we choose to keep silence before these Papists and holy Henrys on the question of those magnificent articles of their faith by which they believe that Communion should be celebrated only in the morning, that it should only be celebrated in a sacred place or by means of their portables (as they call them), that water should always be mixed with the wine, and other articles most weighty and most worthy of these most holy saints. But we call those who are tied up to all these details mere fools and block-heads, and hold that we are free to communicate in the Sacrament either by day or by night, either in the morning or in the evening. The time, the hour, the place, the dress, the ritual are left free.

Luther explains the issue more in the next passage where he seems to consider "traditions" and "commands" to be technically different from "articles of faith", until Henry makes them into "articles of faith" as things compelled to be believed:

But to us, against this Thomist straw and stubble, those divine thunderbolts are more than overpowering, whereby Christ (Matt. XV) passes judgment on all the traditions of men, saying: In vain do they worship Me with the teachings and commandments of men. What avail the universal dregs of this demented Thomist against this one saying of Christ, that I may pass over many others recorded elsewhere? If what is commanded by men is but vain, how brazenly does this stolid King, from men's commands, make for us articles of faith!

The sum of the whole matter is that if the sayings of men are able to be made into articles of faith, why should not my sayings be made articles of faith? Am I not a man? Moreover, according to this new Kingly wisdom, all men are compelled to believe the words of all other men.

Another place where this endorsement shows up of nonBiblical topics is in Articles XV and XXI of the Augsburg Confession, where he endorses festivals, church calendars, and saint commemorations as things that "ought" to be observed, but on the basis that they be voluntary, not mandatory/"necessary."

This is kind of a fine point that Lutheranism doesn't seem to leave room for: On one hand, he repeatedly asserts when talking about Sola Scriptura that all teachings must be Biblical, and can't be accepted otherwise, but on the other he says that one can or ought to observe certain nonBiblical ideas like commemorating saints, etc., albeit in a free way.

Can you give a compare and contrast on the Lutheran end of things and things like Theologoumena?

Strictly speaking, I can think of roughly four categories in terms of compulsion that come up in these polemics, although I might not be doing them justifce:
1. Infallibility. eg. Luther said that the Bible alone was infallible.
2. Mandatory Doctrines. eg. A Papal Bull was considered not "infallible" by Rome, but still a binding command.
3. NonMandatory Doctrines. eg. Luther noted that the Catholic Church did not consider rejection of the "article" of the Immaculate Conception of our Lady to amount to "heresy."
4. Private opinions. eg. Augustine's mother asked Augustine to pray for her at the Eucharist, and Luther classified this as a private devotion as separate from a binding "article of faith."

It seems that Lutherans have a habit of calling non-erroneous nonBiblical ideas as "adiaphora", meaning "indifferent." However, when Luther says that someone "ought" to do something that is voluntary, it seems that in fact this means something different than adiaphora/indifference. Something that you believe that you "ought" to do is not something that you are "indifferent" to. An example of this fine point is commemorations of nonBiblical saints like Augustine. Article XXI of the Augsburg Confession would seem to mean that you "ought" to commemorate saints like him, yet since he was an extraBiblical saint, Augustine's sainthood would seem to go in the "indifferent" category.

You asked about "Theologoumena". Wikipedia says:

The Orthodox Church in America defines theologoumena as acceptably orthodox "theological opinions" that can develop into "pious traditions", but which nevertheless can be erroneous or imperfect.[6] A more comprehensive Orthodox definition is often given as "the theological opinion of one or many of the holy fathers of the undivided Church."[7] "The content of the theologumena," according to Bulgarian theologian Stefan Zankow, "is probable truth." In Zankow's words, "the number of the fathers who accept a given viewpoint of this nature has no significance as to its validity; still, the greater the number who defend such a statement, the greater probability of its truth."

Some things that I am talking about here as #3 Nonmandatory teachings seem more than just "Theologoumena", the private opinions of theologians. This is because canonizations and local conciliar decisions go beyond theologians' private opinions and become corporate decisions. St. Jerome's theory than the Holy Spirit is either female or genderless seems to be his own Theologoumena (in either Categories #3 or 4 in my list above), whereas the 17th Century Council of Jerusalem's decisions on Protestant-Catholic debates seems instead to be an authoritative corporate decision (in either Categories #2 or 3 in my list), even though the that council's decision doesn't reach to the level of infallibility.

I can't really remember reading Orthodox materials classifying their levels of authority succinctly into each category, and am having a hard time giving you a full explanation that defines whether something is in each of Categories #1-#4.

Here I go off on a tangent:

The Orthodox Church has very strong consensus on the Local Presence on the Eucharist table, yet most Local Councils have not taken an on-point decision (Jerusalem's Council is the only one that I know of). This made me at first think that the EO Church's position would de facto be mandatory (Category #2), even if there was no local council or synod decision that covered your region of the world. But Luther correctly considered the Local Presence to be "Biblical," meaning that he would put it in Category #1 as an infallible doctrine. I agree that the Bible teaches this (eg. John 6), but an issue in authority arises as to who is competent to prove this. Luther's response according to his tract against Henry VIII is that any Christian has the "authority" to judge these issues, but in practice this is just kicking the can down the road, because a Calvinist can just argue back about what the Bible supposedly says, and Luther in his polemics does not leave room for any higher body like a council to arbitrate the debate. Of course in practice the Lutherans can and do have councils that judge teachings, but the have the fallacy that Lutheran Confessions are just "normed norms", meaning statements imposed by the Bible without distinct authority.

A lot of Luther's writing on the topic when taken together feels like mental gymnastics, because Luther's explicit theory is that a layman has the same "authority" as a council, yet in practice Lutherans called councils to judge on issues and then de facto made their judgments binding as to the issue of who was right (eg. Lutherans vs. Calvinists).
​

Catholics have Aristotelian terms of "Formal" and "Material" sufficiency of scripture. Material sufficiency is the Apostolic belief that the scriptures provide you with the bricks, mortar, wood etc. that you need to build your house, church or other building. While Formal sufficiency implies that as well, but also implies that the scriptures also give you the blue prints for the building, while Material sufficiency recognizes that sort of thing comes from the Tradition and the life of the Spirit working in the Church with the clergy, church counsels, etc. And well most Protestants are in the Formal sufficiency camp, rather than other one that describes the basic position of non-Protestants.

Pavel,
I get what you are saying - Protestants and Catholics debate whether what is in the Bible is both materially and formally sufficient, ie. whether the Bible just gives you the blocks or if the Bible is fully self-explanatory. I don't know whether Protestants consider this to be limited to Salvation topics.

I am hesitant to conclude whether Luther adhered to what Protestants today call "Formal Sufficiency", but it sounds like he did. My hesitancy is in part because I didn't find Luther using this term, and because at times Luther implied that one should use Church fathers to "get into" the meaning of Scripture:

You say, “scripture alone must be read without commentaries.” You say this correctly about the commentaries of Origen, Jerome, and Thomas. They wrote commentaries in which they handed down their own ideas rather than Pauline or Christian ones.

Luther's 1522 Preface on Melanchthon's notes on Romans.

Luther seems to be correcting Melanchthon implicitly, as against the statement that commentaries should not be used per se. Luther has a habit of using Augustine to prove his points, and this helps explain why Luther didn't include Augustine next to Jerome. So you might conclude that Luther did not consider the Scriptures to be fully self-explanatory on salvation questions.

Yet Luther also openly claims that the Bible is "simpler" and "clearer" "than any other writing" and claims at one point mistakenly that "all the fathers concede their own obscurity and illumine Scripture by Scripture alone." These ideas could imply formal sufficiency, because one would just be using the Bible Alone to piece together the Bible's meaning. I would prefer to have more conclusive statements by Luther on the matter, but lean to thinking that he did consider them "formally sufficient" here.

In any case, at times Luther went beyond just the issue of whether the Bible alone is sufficient for establishing all salvation teachings, and at times suggested that it judges all teachings:

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II,

He repeatedly made this kind of statement elsewhere. That is, the Bible is not just sufficient for making all teachings on salvation, but also for judging all religious teachings "on earth."

Yet as I quoted earlier, at times Luther seems to be inconsistent on this point and recognizes there as being certain topics that the Bible does not cover. One example that he gives is what time of day to have liturgy. The implication is that the Bible alone does not give a judgment on this teaching, ie. the Bible is not "sufficient" for a judgment as to what time of day to have liturgy. At times he declares that he won't accept any teaching without Biblical support, and at other times he says that he can tolerate or endorse nonBiblical teachings that are not against the Bible.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Near the end of this document, he writes:

Haven't read the article or clicked on it yet but the title looks really juicy! Thanks!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

A lot of Luther's writing on the topic when taken together feels like mental gymnastics, because Luther's explicit theory is that a layman has the same "authority" as a council, yet in practice Lutherans called councils to judge on issues and then de facto made their judgments binding as to the issue of who was right (eg. Lutherans vs. Calvinists).

lol yeah

I got a useful term you may like or use some day when talking to Protestants (really describes Luther especially in the early days of the Reformation). I got it from psychology. It was hard to find, I was never taught it but as a former student of psychology in the 80s and early 90s

I was interested if their was a succinct way of describing how Biblical Fundamentalists think and operate, where they cannot understand their is a difference between their "interpretation of the Bible" vs. what the scripture's say or mean in the original language, or what the original author's meant or intended when they wrote the Gospel, epistle, book of the OT and so on (understand that they interpret the Bible and may even misinterpret it).

For a number of years I searched, at least 3 maybe as many as 5 years but I finally found it.