The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, I think we have misunderstood each other on a few counts. It would have been better if I had not used the word "T/tradition" anywhere in our discussion. I think it was introduced because someone else made the observation that some church interpret Scripture based on a "we've always done it that way" method - which was called in that vein a handed-down tradition.

I really don't want to argue Tradition vs. tradition in this thread.

Yes, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have Traditions (big T) that inform their doctrine and practices. I'm not denying that.

But otherwise, I think maybe we've misunderstood each other a bit, and I apologize for that. I'll try to address your post by points, but please forgive me as it's getting a little messy since we're going in several directions.

Well, that doesn't have much to do with tradition at all, except that the church of denomination X are most likely going to see it the way that that denomination has always interpreted the Bible...or else it would be affiliated with some other denomination instead.

I forget the whole history of that part, but essentially we may be agreeing with each other here. That's exactly what I was speaking of - holding to certain doctrines and interpreting Scripture in certain ways because that is the way that denomination has always done it.

Yes, I think so. I thought it was about the difference between Sola Scriptura and (Holy) Tradition.

Yes, that was our misunderstanding. I was more interested in how particular Churches interact with Scripture, and the discussion first began because the wording in the Lutheran position appeared to be very similar to the way the Orthodox position has been explained to me.

It certainly was not. Most of the Bible was available , including most of the New Testament, unless you are referring to the first decade or so after Pentecost when, best we can tell, only the rudiments of the religion (Christ is savior; he is coming again; and the world will end) were active.

That's why I said "in the very earliest years" ... I actually DID mean when the Church first got her start, and before the writings would have been available. Practice had to be based on something ...

But that actually doesn't have to do with how Churches interact with Scripture.

I see that we're still struggling to separate Tradition from traditions and traditionalism. Sola Scriptura churches actually are not churches that base their beliefs on something akin to the way the Catholic churches do it--although you said this isn't your area of interest.

I guess that I 've failed to explain the fact that to do something in a traditional way does not mean that it's being done in accordance with "Tradition."

My apologies. I think we were just talking past one another, and I will take responsibility for that. I should have avoided referring to anyone's habitual practices of interacting with Scripture as traditions, for the sake of avoiding confusion. I shouldn't post when I am that tired either.

The Protestant idea is not to relying upon tradition to define doctrine whereas the other churches do base their beliefs on legend, custom, and opinion and only choose to CALL IT "Tradition." They might just as well have called it Sacred Hearsay and then we wouldn't be trying to keep traditions that do not define doctrine separate from that other methodology which men have merely chosen to stick the word "Tradition" on.

I believe I understand what you are saying. I believe you are speaking about whether or not a Church uses information outside of Scripture in order to form doctrines and practices? That is certainly applicable to "sola scriptura" ... but that is what interested me in the first place. CL's post alluded to the allowing of outside sources of information, that which had been held by the Church, to have an influence in how Scripture is interpreted.

I suspect that we are talking about a matter of degree, after having this talk with you. There are certain doctrines that, while I'm not sure if they are allowed within the Lutheran Church, I'm fairly sure are not dogmatized. We have the Catholic Church as a "go-between" though, and she made certain changes compared to the Orthodox understanding, and which changes I think Lutherans particularly reacted to.

So the difference in degree seems a natural consequence, I think?

I'm not as familiar with how the Anglicans developed their Articles or the entire history between the Anglican and Catholic Church, nor even of Anglican doctrines, so it's more difficult for me to see that process on your side.

Even less so other Reformed Traditions. But I am interested.

Such as? A new slant on scripture wouldn't qualify, since it would still be based on Scripture and those smaller and more recent churches that sometimes admit of ongoing prophesy are simply on the fringe of Protestantism for having altered the principle of Sola Scriptura.

You truly wish to know? Well, we will just say it was not a new slant on Scripture, for the most part, although some Scriptures were reinterpreted to fit the experiences. It was more a case of reinterpreting much of the belief structure, independent of Scripture, and crediting the Holy Spirit with all of the new revelations and experiences. It was heavily dependent upon personal revelation and experience, and Scripture was reinterpreted to a great degree in light of those new revelations. But many more beliefs developed independently of Scripture at all - Scripture tended to become secondary (or worse) in some cases.

"Interact with Scripture?" Well then, you are saying that they base it upon Scripture unlike the RC and EO approach.

I don't wish to get into Church-bashing discussions. My experience with the Orthodox Church is that Scripture is heavily central to all, and to suggest that Scripture is brushed aside in favor of other Tradition is not accurate, IMO.

I have no personal experience that the Catholic Church is any different.

 

[Targaryen]

I'm going to again broach somethings from the Anglican prespective,as GCC raised some things I'd like to look respond to:

I also, with that in mind, think it's time to reintroduce monasticism, pilgrimage, and various motifications of the flesh (fasting, etc.) as vibrant forces in the church- again, not as means to merit grace, but as ways to discipline and kill the Old Adam within us. Salvation may not be a linear process in Lutheranism (as in Orthodoxy or Catholicism), but it is a daily or cyclical process of dying and rising

This is an area in "protestantism" that the Anglican Communion has responded to well and has taken steps to move towards on its own accord. Monastic orders rose quite strongly in the years post the Oxford Movement and nowadays are significant factors in the the Church's ministry. Prilgramages are done though not on a wide scale or highly publicized manner to the holy Land or to other locations in the Christiand world that have a deep and lasting significance to the faith and fastings are more and more common in the life of the church and not just prior to receiving the Holy Sacrament either.

Originally Posted by Kylissa

Hmmmm. You have a point. The intent at the same time was to discard certain traditions, was it not? Such as indulgences, particularly?

The Lutherans probably know more about this than anyone else. But I'm interested.
​

The reforms which were carried out among the churches of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and other territorial signatories to the Augsburg Confession are detailed in that Confession in Articles XXII-XVIII.

These are:

XXII: Reception of wine as well as bread in the sacrament of the altar.
XXIII: Marriage of priests.
XXIV: Abolition of endowed private Masses (and with it the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass).
XXV: Introduction of an absolute word of absolution in the sacrament of confession, and the abolition of an absolute requirement for total enumeration of sins and the assignment of penance as a proper part of the rite.
XXVI: Abolition of teaching that humans traditions, like participation in certain holy days and fasts, can merit special grace (such practices, however, can discipline and mortify the flesh and are to be retained for that reason).
XXVII: The possibility of release from monastic vows.
XXVIII: Reform under princes apart from bishops loyal to Rome (actively engaged in persecution of Lutheran teaching), and the limitation of episcopal authority

These are some of the issues to why England reformed as well though they did not sign the Augsburg Confession, and why some of these points raised still would cause some questioning of Roman position

XXII: Communion in both kinds is the practise of all Anglican communion churches. While the RCC does allow communion in both kinds nowadays, in the medieval church that wasn't the case. And is still not practised by rome in a widespread manner.

XXIII and XXVIII: Marriage of priests and bishops is an clear sticking points well as enforced celibacy within the clergy as XXVII points out. I've heard the the Pope and Roman officials are looking into re-evaluating this process but as the ancient church fathers did not practise enforced celibacy, this in the Reformed opinion is Roman error of enforcement.

XXIV: I'm not sure this is practised by Rome any longer but it was during the time of reform.

XXV: I think this assumes or makes the case for assumption that Rome's practise in regards to the Sacrament of Reconciliation was practised very laxly by its prelates in the medieval church. I'm not certain of this myself.

XXVI: This is a least no longer the case in Anglicanism though some parishes don't practise Holy Days and the like. but during the time of the Reformation, it was this practise that seemed to be the most abused by the church with its indulgences.

XXVIII: Not really a sticking point in Anglicanism really but this would require a newer definition. Rather then reform under temporal secular bodies as a the main form of reform or oversight. nowadays it would be easier to say, reform or enforcement of practises should be left to the particular rite of the church alone rather the enforcement from the Pope down.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What is the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass? I think I may know?

An endowed private Mass would be someone paying to have their own Mass? As in so they can participate in the Eucharist privately? Or I have heard something about Masses being dedicated to someone somehow? I don't really understand this part?

The idea- not official Catholic doctrine but widely promoted unofficially by the church in the late middle ages- was that the priest performs a sacrifice that somehow re-sacrifices Christ and then distributes the benefits to the recipient. And just as someone could buy an indulgence for themselves or for a deceased loved one, so too a person could purchase the services of a priest who would say Mass at one of the side altars a cathedral; the person to whom the Mass was dedicated would then receive the benefits even though they were not there, either because they were simply not present or because they were dead. Wealthy sovereigns like Henry VIII donated substantial parts of their estates in their wills to churches so that someone would say Masses for them in perpetuity as an aid in purgatory.

I don't understand - what would be not an absolute word of absolution? Partial or conditional or refused?

As far as the requirement of the total enumeration of sins - is that speaking to something someone forgot to mention? Or something they wish to deliberately withhold?

I'm assuming then that this means penance is required and part of absolution, and I would guess absolution is probably dependent on the act of penance being completed?

Would Lutherans then object if penance was sometimes required, if it seemed necessary for the person's spiritual health and related to that particular sin? Would the answer depend on whether or not it was a requirement for absolution?

Conditional absolution is the practice and belief of offering absolution under the condition that the penance will be performed. This is why the sacrament of absolution was known as the sacrament of penance, and why the penance was described by medieval theologians as the "material element" of the sacrament.

Lutherans eliminated both the belief and the practice. We firmly believe that the properly called and ordained pastor has total authority from God to actually, right there and then, forgive sins. And, because the forgiveness of sins is an act of grace independent of human work, penance is not a requirement.

However, I would agree that penance can and often should be assigned- not as an assurance of grace nor as a condition of grace, but as a mortification of the flesh that will help combat that sin in the future. And, of course, if restitution needs to be made because the sin in quest actually harmed someone.

I guess I'm not exactly completely clear on the "special grace" part. I have heard comments that speak about quantifying grace (Do x so many times and you will receive y favor?). We also in very different kinds of churches speak of being "blessed" which is not quantifiable, not guaranteed, but I guess just "happens" when some practices are carried out. Are either of these kinds of things what is being talked about here?

Essentially, we say that human traditions cannot communicate grace like the sacraments. Indeed, human traditions almost always fall under the category of "law" rather than "grace." In that sense, they are helpful. Fasting, pilgrimages, monastic life, etc., can aid the belief in disciplining the flesh and killing the Old Adam; but only the hearing of the preached Word and partaking in sacraments can raise us to new life in Christ.

And another important caveat: I do think that performance of human traditions can be gracious or lead to blessedness in the sense that performance of legal requirements and our vocations involve "common grace" (in Reformed terminology) or increasing in "civil/horizontal righteousness/righteousness before the world (Lutheran terminology). But do they further us along the path of salvation? No, only God's special grace-in-Christ through the Word and Sacraments does that.

I read MC's comment about a priest being released to become a different sort of priest. Does this mean though that generally it is not possible for monks, priests, or others to be released? I'm guessing (since people can do what they want) that if a person chose to leave without being released, there would be spiritual consequences then?

Yes, the situation is different now, and it's worth nothing that at the time monasteries served a fairly notorious function as a prison system for political prisoners throughout Europe (no escape there)). And, while there was always a theoretical possibility of release from monastic vows for consecrated children (yes, children were sent to the monasteries at birth if they were unwanted) and for your standard monk, they were extremely, extremely difficult to acquire and usually required political connections and money. Leaving the monasteries was virtually unheard of (as, I would contend, it really is today as well).

I still don't know much about political history of the Church, and probably need to push that back for now.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's

The Reformation: A History

focuses largely on the social, economic, and political aspects of the reformation and is a good source.

Thanks for the post, GCC. And I appreciate answers on these questions from anyone who has any input. Thanks very much!

As always, you're welcome. I didn't respond to a couple points, so just assume you've got those figured out because that's what it seems like to me.

 

[seeingeyes]

Other questions related to this topic are welcome also, but I would ask that we not seek to turn this into a argument about particular churches. I would like to discuss the ideas and practices as much as possible.

Jesus himself was not Sola Scriptura, neither did he limit himself to Tradition.

:Jams stick in hornets' nest:

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Jesus himself was not Sola Scriptura, neither did he limit himself to Tradition.

:Jams stick in hornets' nest:

Well, yeah. Jesus' whole point is that he was the sovereign interpreter of Scripture (something Jews expected of the Messiah, anyway) not only to the extent that he could reevaluate, discard, and affirm various traditions, but to the point where he could reevaluate, discard, and affirm various Scriptural injunctions based on the advent of the new age under God's reign.

 

[seeingeyes]

Well, yeah. Jesus' whole point is that he was the sovereign interpreter of Scripture (something Jews expected of the Messiah, anyway) not only to the extent that he could reevaluate, discard, and affirm various traditions, but to the point where he could reevaluate, discard, and affirm various Scriptural injunctions based on the advent of the new age under God's reign.

I do not see how that would limit his Church to either scripture, or scripture plus tradition, or scripture through tradition (or however one views it). None of these seem to have been mandated nor even encouraged by Christ. Certainly none were exemplified by him.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks so much for the explanations, GCC.

The idea- not official Catholic doctrine but widely promoted unofficially by the church in the late middle ages- was that the priest performs a sacrifice that somehow re-sacrifices Christ and then distributes the benefits to the recipient.

If I may ask a little more closely here - I see that you say it is not official Catholic doctrine, but I wasn't sure if that comment applied to the whole thought.

You specifically mentioned "somehow re-sacrifices" ...

Do you mean to say that the idea of re-sacrificing Christ (not just the idea that the Mass could be "applied" to someone) ... that the re-sacrifice was not official doctrine but was promoted?

However, I would agree that penance can and often should be assigned- not as an assurance of grace nor as a condition of grace, but as a mortification of the flesh that will help combat that sin in the future. And, of course, if restitution needs to be made because the sin in quest actually harmed someone.

Just a tiny minor point - would you then agree or disagree with the idea that absolution could/should be dependent upon penance and/or restitution in that case? (Or someone turning themselves in to the authorities, perhaps, which isn't exactly either a penance nor restitution.)

And another important caveat: I do think that performance of human traditions can be gracious or lead to blessedness in the sense that performance of legal requirements and our vocations involve "common grace" (in Reformed terminology) or increasing in "civil/horizontal righteousness/righteousness before the world (Lutheran terminology). But do they further us along the path of salvation? No, only God's special grace-in-Christ through the Word and Sacraments does that.

Thanks. Not a question then, just an observation that I need to study this out. I asked our parish priest about this general set of beliefs (the Orthodox Church vehemently rejects the idea of grace being meted out by measure, and also rejects the idea of meriting grace in a transaction/contractual sense - but of course recognizes grace conferred through the sacraments). But now I need to understand what you are saying above and ask about it. Fr. M. did speak of God generally blessing us in various things we might do, when we are drawing close to Him in worship, prayer, or whatever. It's just not guaranteed or measured or obligated. Whether it has anything to do with salvation I did not know to ask.

Yes, the situation is different now, and it's worth nothing that at the time monasteries served a fairly notorious function as a prison system for political prisoners throughout Europe (no escape there)). And, while there was always a theoretical possibility of release from monastic vows for consecrated children (yes, children were sent to the monasteries at birth if they were unwanted) and for your standard monk, they were extremely, extremely difficult to acquire and usually required political connections and money. Leaving the monasteries was virtually unheard of (as, I would contend, it really is today as well).

Oh, wow, I knew almost none of this. Are you saying that prisoners were sentenced to become monks??? (Or do I misunderstand that part?)

I don't know much about the Catholic monastics - not really. Though I've read some writings by them. It seems the Orthodox system is much more lenient, as I know some former monks. I don't know the details of how/why they left though.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's focuses largely on the social, economic, and political aspects of the reformation and is a good source.

Thanks, I will make a note. It will probably be a while before I get around to studying that since it seems a bit off to the side, but I want to understand someday.

As always, you're welcome. I didn't respond to a couple points, so just assume you've got those figured out because that's what it seems like to me.

Gotcha. Thanks!

 

[Albion]

Jesus himself was not Sola Scriptura, neither did he limit himself to Tradition.

But does it make any sense to think that our situation and Jesus' situation are interchangeable? Scripture, after all, was given for OUR instruction and guidance. Jesus had no need for such assistance.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jesus himself was not Sola Scriptura, neither did he limit himself to Tradition.

:Jams stick in hornets' nest:

LOL! (Hornet's nest )

True, Jesus was not limited in any way (except by Truth). I think that's an important distinction, that God Himself is ABOVE the Scriptures. Yet I don't by any means suggest we discard the Scriptures (nor Tradition of benefit).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, that kind of thinking can go many ways. Depending on who's doing the picking up and running with it.

I've seen folks take "personal revelation" above Scripture when it directly contradicted those very Scriptures - because "God is above Scripture".

I think most (or hopefully all) of us would agree that if someone thinks God told him to commit adultery or steal money so he can buy something he's been coveting ... that it's not God he's listening to.

But people can get confused. So some measure of absolute statement of accountability is helpful - whether you are sola scriptura - or led by inspiration - or whatever you happen to believe. Otherwise some people go WAY off the tracks.

I've seen it happen.

 

[seeingeyes]

But does it make any sense to think that our situation and Jesus' situation are interchangeable? Scripture, after all, was given for OUR instruction and guidance. Jesus had no need for such assistance.

When Jesus preached, he was praised not for his ability to quote the most verses, nor his ability to stick to tradition (ha!), but for his wisdom and authority.

Whether one preaches the scriptures alone, or the scriptures and tradition, one can still be completely lacking in wisdom.

I think it does make sense to say that as followers of Jesus Christ, we should be seeking out (and acquiring) the wisdom and authority that Christ displayed. These things do not come from a book, or from a series of books, or from knowledge passed down for centuries. They come from the heart (out of which the mouth speaks).

Jesus said, "My sheep will know my voice". How do they know? The answer is not in scripture or tradition.

 

[Albion]

When Jesus preached, he was praised not for his ability to quote the most verses, nor his ability to stick to tradition (ha!), but for his wisdom and authority.

Whether one preaches the scriptures alone, or the scriptures and tradition, one can still be completely lacking in wisdom.

OK. I'm with you so far.

I think it does make sense to say that as followers of Jesus Christ, we should be seeking out (and acquiring) the wisdom and authority that Christ displayed.

Sure.

These things do not come from a book, or from a series of books, or from knowledge passed down for centuries. They come from the heart (out of which the mouth speaks).

Uh...no. While the ultimate source of that information is God/Jesus, we have it only thanks to the written record. This, apparently, was God's chosen method of imparting to men of all ages that which was essential for us to know. He could have made each of us a prophet, of course, or something like that, but the Bible is timeless and open to all to see, so it makes a perfect vehicle.

Jesus said, "My sheep will know my voice". How do they know? The answer is not in scripture or tradition.

I believe that the sheep know his voice. I do not know that the sheep know anything more than who's calling, though, and we have good reason to think that much that is in scripture in addition to that is intended for us. The Ten Commandments, for instance, and to cite only one obvious example.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I do not see how that would limit his Church to either scripture, or scripture plus tradition, or scripture through tradition (or however one views it). None of these seem to have been mandated nor even encouraged by Christ. Certainly none were exemplified by him.

Then you would suggest, what? Charismatic prophetic leadership? But we aren't Jesus. He had that authority. I don't. You don't. Nobody does.

 

[Rick Otto]

So you would suggest what... monolithic hierarchy?

 

[seeingeyes]

Then you would suggest, what? Charismatic prophetic leadership? But we aren't Jesus. He had that authority. I don't. You don't. Nobody does.

I'm not a Charismatic (last I checked), nor am I a prophet (as far as I can tell), but I can see that you are separating Jesus from his followers in a way that he himself did not. I could quote whole chapters out of John on this point, but let's go with this: "Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."

If one abides in Jesus, and Jesus in him, then where, exactly, is the dividing line between them? Jesus put exactly the same division between himself and his followers as he did between himself and his Father ("In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you"), which is to say, none at all.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, seeing, but I'm interested. Sometimes it takes me a while to put 2 and 2 together ...

You are talking about us seeking out His wisdom and authority. And hearing His voice.

And you're not Charismatic, which closes just about all the doors those statements added together open in my mind.

You said your answer is not in Scripture, which is good, because I can't see where you are going.

Hmmmm ....

Ah, no, I don't think I'm getting where you are going. What's coming to mind is just living the Christian life, loving one another, loving God, denying ourselves. A certain kind of wisdom develops from that, I suppose. And if there is any authority that comes with it - hopefully we are becoming victorious over sins in this process of mortifying the flesh.

Nope, that's all I've got. It doesn't fit your suggestions perfectly so I don't think that's where you're going with this?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm not a Charismatic (last I checked), nor am I a prophet (as far as I can tell), but I can see that you are separating Jesus from his followers in a way that he himself did not. I could quote whole chapters out of John on this point, but let's go with this: "Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing."

If one abides in Jesus, and Jesus in him, then where, exactly, is the dividing line between them? Jesus put exactly the same division between himself and his followers as he did between himself and his Father ("In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you"), which is to say, none at all.

Could you actually address the practical question, though, of how doctrine is to be established and taught in the church if you reject both Sola Scriptura and the traditional model?

 

[seeingeyes]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, seeing, but I'm interested. Sometimes it takes me a while to put 2 and 2 together ...

You are talking about us seeking out His wisdom and authority. And hearing His voice.

And you're not Charismatic, which closes just about all the doors those statements added together open in my mind.

I'll spell out my "affiliation" just for the record. I was raised very conservative evangelical (mostly in a non-denominational church that was heavy on reading scripture and dissuading the suit-wearing congregation from applauding lest the head pastor get a big head...yeah, I don't think I'd ever feel totally at home in a Charismatic church ) by parents who walked the walk of love.

I've come to question (and ultimately discard) many of the doctrines I was raised with, but I still attend the same church I did since I was twelve...mainly for social reasons. I can no longer sit through the sermons there, but I connect with my brothers and sisters regularly (online and in real life). I don't really have a label that I can slap onto my beliefs or my methods, and I don't claim to be a member of any church (small c), though I would like to as it would probably make life easier to just say "I believe exactly what those guys believe, here's their list". That doesn't seem to be in the cards for me, though. And ultimately, I'm comfortable with that.

In short, I'm not a lone wolf, but I am my own Pope.

I was never argued into my current beliefs and so I don't expect to argue anyone else into them, but I have found something so beautiful in this God and His son and His spirit and His methods and His grace that I am quite certain that I'm on this road for good. Nothing gets any better than this.

My source is the scriptures, of course, just as it always was. But now I see them with different eyes.

You said your answer is not in Scripture, which is good, because I can't see where you are going.

How do the sheep know the Shepherd's voice? It's a good question, isn't it?

Hmmmm ....

Ah, no, I don't think I'm getting where you are going. What's coming to mind is just living the Christian life, loving one another, loving God, denying ourselves. A certain kind of wisdom develops from that, I suppose. And if there is any authority that comes with it - hopefully we are becoming victorious over sins in this process of mortifying the flesh.

Nope, that's all I've got. It doesn't fit your suggestions perfectly so I don't think that's where you're going with this?

I was responding to the point that we are not Jesus therefore we cannot have Jesus's wisdom and authority. Yet that is certainly quite different from what Jesus himself said.

I can't remember which thread it was, but a few weeks back I was discussing with another poster the impulse to divide God from man even though God's impulse is to unite God and man. This falls under that heading.

If Jesus was known for his wisdom and authority (rather than his slavish obedience to tradition or to scripture) then shouldn't we be likewise known? Shouldn't both tradition and scripture be tools used to deliver wisdom and authority rather than the sole source of the same?

 

[seeingeyes]

Could you actually address the practical question, though, of how doctrine is to be established and taught in the church if you reject both Sola Scriptura and the traditional model?

How did Jesus establish doctrine? (Honest question.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

In short, I'm not a lone wolf, but I am my own Pope.

...

I reckon that the things you write are more authoritative for you than what any pope ever writes for the Church.