Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[thecolorsblend]

Maybe the sola scriptura doctrine makes the realm of theological opinion harder to navigate.

It does. And for reasons obvious and maybe not so obvious.

For example, when I was a Protestant, I grappled with what I could justifiably believe in and what I had to reject. The basic core of the Christian faith, thankfully, is enshrined in Sacred Scripture. So that's good. But there are matters biblical and historic that present greater interpretive difficulties.

When it came to Sola Scriptura, I eventually settled on a hermeneutical approach where a given doctrine could not be explicitly spoken against or condemned by Sacred Scripture. But that left the door open to, say, Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. So I had to revise my approach to matters not explicitly mentioned in scripture. But that took would logically take me to the Churches of Christ dilemma, where many of them refuse to use musical instruments in worship even though there can't possibly be a problem with it. Further, Sacred Scripture mentions the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but there's a ton of Trinitarian theology that is at once absolutely orthodox and also entirely extra-scriptural.

Studying the Catholic faith helped me understand that Sola Scriptura is a logical dead end. It places an unfair burden upon Sacred Scripture and it's full of holes.

The problem is made worse by the lack of a single interpretive definition of Sola Scriptura. Does something have to be explicitly authorized by scripture? Must it only be condemned by scripture? Must it merely not conflict with scripture (and if this, who decides if something doesn't conflict with scripture?)?

None of these are problems with Catholicism, as it provides authority which anybody can measure and trace back to Our Lord Himself.

With all respect, I sometimes think the cradle Catholics may not realize how good they have it by having these structures and insights in their lives from the get-go. For converts like me, being able to receive the sacraments and participate in the Mass, secure in the authority of the Mother Church as my guide and teacher, are hard-won prizes found only after much search, study and dark nights of the soul.

For something is only possibly a doctrine only if it is in the Scriptures; but if it is in the Scriptures, it is certainly a doctrine. But even then, I'm really not sure how one would decide whether a Scripture passage is sufficiently unambiguous enough to really know whether it implies a particular Scriptural doctrine or not. It does not seem that the ordinary action of grace entirely erases the gash of ignorance on much of anything. To not know is a mark of fallen humanity, and I become suspicious when I don't see enough of it. And I mean that not just in others, but also in myself (as I am often reminded).

I understand your point. And to an extent I even agree. But I do believe that as people, our intellects are limited. Even the biggest genius in the world is a blithering, babbling idiot compared to God. So I do believe there is grace for our diminished capacities. If anything, I view that as an endorsement of the Magisterium. That is where certitude lies; in an unbroken line stretching all the way back to Our Lord Himself. God guides the Church, the Church guides me and I guide my children. Seems logical enough to me.

Perhaps I am going beyond what you meant, but a good observation from your end nonetheless.

I view your post as an expansion on my own. And a welcome expansion at that.

 

[brightlights]

Alright I'm think I'm reading to jump back in. Sorry about the uppity Romans comment. But come on, let's be civil. I don't deny that Romans love Jesus. Let's not resort to ad hominem attacks on our particular churches but focus on the arguments themselves.

So where are we at?

Last I saw the reasons for believing in PVM are:

1. Sex is dirty and Mary would not have engaged in it.
2. The Catholic church teaches PVM.
3. Early church fathers believed in the PVM.
4. Scripture does not explicit say that Mary was not a PV.

Am I missing anything?

 

[brightlights]

Studying the Catholic faith helped me understand that Sola Scriptura is a logical dead end. It places an unfair burden upon Sacred Scripture and it's full of holes.

Sola Scriptura teaches that there is no court of authority higher than, or on par with, Scripture itself. We see this as a derivative of the idea that there is no higher court of authority than God himself - since Scripture is the only authoritative word of God.

This does not mean that church teaching, human reason, science, etc... have no authority. It simply means that they are all under the authority of Scripture and none are coequal to it.

The Roman view, as I understand it, is that official Church teaching is on par with Scripture in terms of authority. In theory this might not be very problematic. But the devil is in the details.

If the church is only teaching Scripture then the teaching of the Church and Scripture should never conflict. Furthermore, the church ought only to teach what Scripture teaches or what can be reasonably deduced as a good and necessary consequence of Scripture. Protestants believe that, in this sense, the church has authority.

But if the church ever teaches something as binding on the conscience or upon matters incumbent upon us to believe that is not explicitly set out in Scripture or cannot be deduced from Scripture as a good and necessary consequence then the church has no special authority on this matter. This is doubly true if the church ever teaches something which contradicts Scripture. And the problem with the Roman Magesterium is that they teach many things which cannot be deduced from Scripture and some things that contradict Scripture. The doctrine of PVM certainly cannot be deduced from Scripture as a necessary consequence. And I believe it actually contradicts Scripture, though I know this is hotly debated and I'm willing to be charitable here.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Alright I'm think I'm reading to jump back in. Sorry about the uppity Romans comment. But come on, let's be civil. I don't deny that Romans love Jesus. Let's not resort to ad hominem attacks on our particular churches but focus on the arguments themselves.

So where are we at?

Last I saw the reasons for believing in PVM are:

1. Sex is dirty and Mary would not have engaged in it.
2. The Catholic church teaches PVM.
3. Early church fathers believed in the PVM.
4. Scripture does not explicit say that Mary was not a PV.

Am I missing anything?

As a somewhat parenthetical comment on method, I might add that we also should distinguish between arguments from intrinsic authority (the reasonability of something apparent to us) from extrinsic authority (that someone with possession of such reasonability has said it, e.g. Scriptures).

As regards the intrinsic authority of the PVM, the only arguments one can produce even in principle are more or less probable arguments from congruity. An example of this is typology, which someone mentioned right from the beginning. The PVM, like the Immaculate Conception, was not a necessity but a congruity; for we are talking about a free action of God which could have been otherwise. If it could have been otherwise, it is not necessary. And if not necessary, then we cannot produce a necessary, principled argument. The same is true of, say, the Incarnation. It was not absolutely necessary that God save us at all, much less become Incarnate. But, as the Scholastics would say, it was fitting, and so He [freely] did it.

As regards the extrinsic authority of the PVM, it is only here that one could formulate fully principled, deductive arguments, such as, for example, (1) The Catholic Church cannot err in its teachings; (2) The Catholic Church teaches the PVM; (3) Thus, the Catholic Church cannot err in teaching the PVM. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, unlike mere congruity. Another example: Both Protestants and Catholics take the necessity of the Incarnation on extrinsic authority. (1) Sacred Scripture cannot err about our Salvation; (2) The Incarnation is part of our Salvation; (3) Sacred Scripture cannot err about the Incarnation.

The obvious problem with extrinsic authority is that it is not agreed upon. As a result, principled, deductive arguments are difficult to come by. If one wants those strong arguments, they need to sort out issues concerning extrinsic authority first.

That leaves us with arguments based upon congruity, which are more or less appealing. If one wants to talk about the PVM without talking about extrinsic authority, this is the only way I can see that happening.

Hopefully this can help us organize our efforts better.

In Sanguine Agni

EDIT: I just made a couple of revisions to make the point clearer.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sola Scriptura teaches that there is no court of authority higher than, or on par with, Scripture itself.

That's the definition of the term. How the term gets applied, as is typical of Protestantism, varies based on the flavor of Protestantism espousing it. Must something be mandated by scripture in order to be acceptable doctrine or practice? Some Protestants say yes. Or is anything and everything permitted as long as scripture doesn't forbid it? Some Protestants say yes. Must a given doctrine or practice merely be "consistent" with scripture? Some Protestants say yes. And they all believe in Sola Scriptura.

All of those approaches will either prohibit harmless practices, open the door to extra-scriptural doctrines or leave room for outright heresy.

Sola Scriptura is unworkable, as are most man-made traditions.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Sola Scriptura teaches that there is no court of authority higher than, or on par with, Scripture itself. We see this as a derivative of the idea that there is no higher court of authority than God himself - since Scripture is the only authoritative word of God.

This does not mean that church teaching, human reason, science, etc... have no authority. It simply means that they are all under the authority of Scripture and none are coequal to it.

The Roman view, as I understand it, is that official Church teaching is on par with Scripture in terms of authority. In theory this might not be very problematic. But the devil is in the details.

If the church is only teaching Scripture then the teaching of the Church and Scripture should never conflict. Furthermore, the church ought only to teach what Scripture teaches or what can be reasonably deduced as a good and necessary consequence of Scripture. Protestants believe that, in this sense, the church has authority.

But if the church ever teaches something as binding on the conscience or upon matters incumbent upon us to believe that is not explicitly set out in Scripture or cannot be deduced from Scripture as a good and necessary consequence then the church has no special authority on this matter. This is doubly true if the church ever teaches something which contradicts Scripture. And the problem with the Roman Magesterium is that they teach many things which cannot be deduced from Scripture and some things that contradict Scripture. The doctrine of PVM certainly cannot be deduced from Scripture as a necessary consequence. And I believe it actually contradicts Scripture, though I know this is hotly debated and I'm willing to be charitable here.

So, I guess I should ask, are you even interested in arguments from congruity, or should the discussion shift topics to argument about extrinsic authority? (And as I say that, I should of course add that only inerrant extrinsic authority can give us deductive arguments regarding these matters. So it would seem most fruitful that, if we do shift topics, we should focus mostly on inerrant extrinsic authority. On the other hand, I am not saying that arguments from congruity or non-inerrant extrinsic authority are fruitless. It just depends on what you are looking for.)

 

[brightlights]

Must something be mandated by scripture in order to be acceptable doctrine or practice? Some Protestants say yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mandated". I think it terms of matters of faith (what we ought to believe), we should only believe with total confidence the things that Scripture puts forth for belief. Since Scripture never speaks of PVM then, even if it may be true, we cannot accept it as certain.

Or is anything and everything permitted as long as scripture doesn't forbid it? Some Protestants say yes.

Again I'm not quite sure what you mean. Scripture does not forbid believe in PVM, even though it does not positively teach it. So I think that one can probably believe this doctrine. I do think that PVM contradicts Scripture, but I understand the arguments that make PVM biblically possible.

Must a given doctrine or practice merely be "consistent" with scripture? Some Protestants say yes. And they all believe in Sola Scriptura.

Concerning matters where Scripture is silent we need to use reason and the light of nature and Scripture as a general guide. But we can never be dogmatic about these matters.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think it terms of matters of faith (what we ought to believe), we should only believe with total confidence the things that Scripture puts forth for belief.

Ah. So something must be affirmed by scripture in order to be acceptable doctrine to Christians then. Is that correct?

Since Scripture never speaks of PVM then, even if it may be true, we cannot accept it as certain.

How do you know what Sacred Scripture is though? I mean, there's no Divinely authored table of contents. So how can you be sure that the compilation you call a "Bible" (incidentally, the word "Bible" is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture) is actually scripture?

Concerning matters where Scripture is silent we need to use reason and the light of nature and Scripture as a general guide. But we can never be dogmatic about these matters.

This is confusing because above you said "I think it terms of matters of faith... we should only believe with total confidence the things that Scripture puts forth for belief". How can you abide by that policy while also saying that where scripture is silent we should use reason? So which is it? Does scripture inform the totality of our faith? Or are there instances where we should use reason?

Separately, if Sacred Scripture is to be the all-encompassing rule of faith, why would it be silent on anything at all? Surely it should be so comprehensive as to answer basically any question of religious faith a believer might have, right?

 

[brightlights]

So, I guess I should ask, are you even interested in arguments from congruity, or should the discussion shift topics to argument about extrinsic authority? (And as I say that, I should of course add that only inerrant extrinsic authority can give us deductive arguments regarding these matters. So it would seem most fruitful that, if we do shift topics, we should focus mostly on inerrant extrinsic authority. On the other hand, I am not saying that arguments from congruity or non-inerrant extrinsic authority are fruitless. It just depends on what you are looking for.)

I'm not sure I totally understand what you're talking about with congruity. I am willing to hear arguments from congruity, and I think some have been articulated in this thread. It's possible that Mary was a PV based on certain understandings of Scripture which would seem to indicate the opposite. So while I don't think that PVM is congruent with Scripture I understand why someone might.

But even if something is congruous with Scripture this alone is not a strong reason to accept it as true. Something like the PVM is also extraordinary. It would be strange for a married, Jewish woman living in the first century to remain a virgin her entire life. So even if this doctrine is congruous with Scripture, the idea is so strange that it's difficult to accept.

 

[brightlights]

Ah. So something must be affirmed by scripture in order to be acceptable doctrine to Christians then. Is that correct?

Either explicitly laid out in Scripture or able to be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly laid out in Scripture as such, but it is certainly deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.

How do you know what Sacred Scripture is though? I mean, there's no Divinely authored table of contents. So how can you be sure that the compilation you call a "Bible" (incidentally, the word "Bible" is found nowhere in Sacred Scripture) is actually scripture?

Scripture is self attesting. God has made Scripture what it is. The church recognizes Scripture and agrees with God and submits to God. But the church does not make Scripture into what it is.

This is confusing because above you said "I think it terms of matters of faith... we should only believe with total confidence the things that Scripture puts forth for belief". How can you abide by that policy while also saying that where scripture is silent we should use reason? So which is it? Does scripture inform the totality of our faith? Or are there instances where we should use reason?

Scripture does inform the totality of our faith. But it does not say everything. For instance, Scripture does not tell us everything that Jesus did during the 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. We know that he was with his disciples and he taught them. But beyond this we cannot say with certainty exactly what was going on. We might guess or make suggestions but we can't be dogmatic about it.

Scripture is also silent concerning how photosynthesis works. To learn this we must consult the light of nature.

Scripture does not tell us the most effective model for running a business. This means that we can take principles from Scripture, use the light of nature, and use human reason and make free decisions within those bounds. But we cannot be dogmatic and say that the CEO model is the absolutely right model for business leadership.

The Roman church is dogmatic about PVM. While PVM may be true, and many early church fathers believed it, Scripture does not say that it is true. So we cannot make it into a dogma as the Roman Church has done. The Roman Church might be wrong. And, based on Scripture, I believe that they are.

Separately, if Sacred Scripture is to be the all-encompassing rule of faith, why would it be silent on anything at all? Surely it should be so comprehensive as to answer basically any question of religious faith a believer might have, right?

No. God reveals to us what we need to know for salvation. But he does not reveal every little detail that we might want to know.

 

[brightlights]

Here are some reasons not to accept PVM:

1. Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms it.
2. Scripture seems to clearly indicate that Jesus had siblings, which would strongly suggest that PVM is false.
3. It would be incredibly strange for a married, Jewish woman living in the first century to remain a virgin throughout her life.
4. A woman who never consummates a marriage by sex would not be married at all. Sex and marriage go hand in hand.
5. A "married" woman who remains a virgin throughout her life would likely be living in sin barring some extraordinary circumstances that necessitated her virginity.
6. There is archaeological evidence to suggest that James the Just is the brother of Jesus and son of Joseph, suggesting that Mary was James' mother.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Either explicitly laid out in Scripture or able to be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.

Why doesn't everybody agree on that then? Some Protestants believe that if something isn't found in scripture, it is to be rejected. Others believe that scripture need only not conflict with their beliefs or practices. There are other gradations as well.

If Sola Scriptura is so self-evident, why do so many Protestants have different definitions of it?

Scripture is self attesting.

No it isn't. Church authorities debated the scriptural canon for years and years. Up to the last Martin Luther wanted to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from his personal canon. He did remove the deuterocanonical books that had long been accepted as canonical from his personal canon.

But even before Luther there was considerable debate as to what was and what was not canon.

The mere acceptance of the Bible as Sacred Scripture (whether it's the traditional canon or the abbreviated canon used by a lot of Protestants) is contingent upon some degree of tradition in order to derive its authority. In case I'm not being clear here, men had to study a bunch of different texts so as to determine what was truly inspired and what wasn't. Whether one is a traditional Christian or a Protestant Christian, the canon one accepts had to be determined and recognized as inspired by men.

But the church does not make Scripture into what it is.

I disagree. The Holy Spirit inspired all scripture. But, humanly speaking, the authors were all human. Humanly speaking, the Church wrote the New Testament and then the Church compiled the first canons of scripture. Full stop, the existence and recognition of Sacred Scripture and the compilation of it into a single volume called "The Holy Bible" is uniquely an invention of the Church.

Still, you've touched upon an interesting dilemma. You seemingly believe that God guided the Church leadership into correctly recognizing and discerning Sacred Scripture. If God is capable of doing that and obviously is willing to do that, why would He stop there? Why wouldn't He guide the Church leadership in everything?

I've posed this question to Protestants without a satisfactory response. But to me it seems evident that if God would guide the Church's decision-making with respect to the canon (a conceit most Protestants are willing to allow) then why wouldn't God simply guide the Church leadership's decision-making full time so as to protect them from error?

Put more simply, if God can steer the Church leadership in the right direction of recognizing Sacred Scripture, why wouldn't He guide all of the Church's decisions?

No. God reveals to us what we need to know for salvation. But he does not reveal every little detail that we might want to know.

Why not?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms it.

You've just acknowledged that bar of evidence isn't absolute.

Scripture seems to clearly indicate that Jesus had siblings, which would strongly suggest that PVM is false.

I've dealt with this in previous posts. In brief, the scriptures are not at all clear on that.

It would be incredibly strange for a married, Jewish woman living in the first century to remain a virgin throughout her life.

What do you base that on?

A woman who never consummates a marriage by sex would not be married at all. Sex and marriage go hand in hand.

What do you base that on?

A "married" woman who remains a virgin throughout her life would likely be living in sin barring some extraordinary circumstances that necessitated her virginity.

What do you base that on?

There is archaeological evidence to suggest that James the Just is the brother of Jesus and son of Joseph, suggesting that Mary was James' mother.

What archaeological evidence are you referring to?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Alright I'm think I'm reading to jump back in. Sorry about the uppity Romans comment. But come on, let's be civil. I don't deny that Romans love Jesus. Let's not resort to ad hominem attacks on our particular churches but focus on the arguments themselves.

So where are we at?

Last I saw the reasons for believing in PVM are:

1. Sex is dirty and Mary would not have engaged in it.
2. The Catholic church teaches PVM.
3. Early church fathers believed in the PVM.
4. Scripture does not explicit say that Mary was not a PV.

Am I missing anything?

I doubt that the 'sex is dirty' thing has been advanced by any Catholic or Orthodox in this discussion. I could go back and re-read all the posts I suppose ....

 

[NursingNinja]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

In all fairness it's not just Roman Catholics. Lutherans hold to this too, it's not enforced quite so strictly but it is in our confessions, particularly the smallcald articles. Also Eastern Orthodox believe in Perpetual Virginity. And I would be willing to bet that conservative Anglicans do as well, and likely many others.

 

[SolomonVII]

In Roman Catholic theology, it is not just important in terms of dogma and belief, but it serves as an archetype for the celibate lifetyle that is held in the highest order by Catholic theology.
St Jerome ultimately rejected the idea that even St Joseph had children, for the celibacy of the Holy Family, May Joseph and Jesus, sanctified the celibate life of the convents and the brotherhoods and the priesthoods, deemed to be the higher forms of Christian life from an early age.

In American Protestantism, and truly in more and more Christians in all denominations, such a theology has become more and more of an archaic appendage, as the celibate life is becoming less and less of a factor.
Feminism has rejected the Madonna model on moral grounds, beleiving that it perpetuates a way of thinking about women that has men separating women as those that mother them and those that they have sex with. In denominations without celibate orders, married life is the norm that is promoted, and the idea that sexual marital relations on behalf of Mary are somehow beneath her, or even dirty conflicts with with marital relations being the fullest expression of who we all can be as Christians.

 

[brightlights]

I doubt that the 'sex is dirty' thing has been advanced by any Catholic or Orthodox in this discussion. I could go back and re-read all the posts I suppose ....

I've seen it pop up a few times in this thread.

 

[brightlights]

Why doesn't everybody agree on that then? Some Protestants believe that if something isn't found in scripture, it is to be rejected. Others believe that scripture need only not conflict with their beliefs or practices. There are other gradations as well.

You're speaking too generally for me to be able to comment on this. Could you give some specific examples of what you're talking about?

If Sola Scriptura is so self-evident, why do so many Protestants have different definitions of it?

I'm not aware of any other definition of "Sola Scriptura" and I never said it was self evident.

No it isn't. Church authorities debated the scriptural canon for years and years. Up to the last Martin Luther wanted to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from his personal canon. He did remove the deuterocanonical books that had long been accepted as canonical from his personal canon.

God's word would be God's word even if the established church rejected it as such. There were many periods of sacred history wherein this was the situation. In the times of the prophets God's word was rejected by the church (think Elijah and also the minor prophets after him). And in the time of Jesus God's word (Jesus himself) was rejected by the established church. So it's not that the church makes the word of God. The word of God, rather, makes the church.

I disagree. The Holy Spirit inspired all scripture. But, humanly speaking, the authors were all human. Humanly speaking, the Church wrote the New Testament and then the Church compiled the first canons of scripture. Full stop, the existence and recognition of Sacred Scripture and the compilation of it into a single volume called "The Holy Bible" is uniquely an invention of the Church.

I'll concede that the Scriptures were written by men and thus, in a sense, written by the church. But they are not an invention of the church. The Scriptures come from God through his chosen prophets and apostles. But the office of prophet and apostle is not a continuing office as Romans suppose.

Still, you've touched upon an interesting dilemma. You seemingly believe that God guided the Church leadership into correctly recognizing and discerning Sacred Scripture. If God is capable of doing that and obviously is willing to do that, why would He stop there? Why wouldn't He guide the Church leadership in everything?

What do you mean by "everything"? Just because God's word is infallible (not able to fail - once God speaks it to his people it will never be lost despite the sinfulness of man), and God acts to miraculously preserve his word does not mean that church leaders are infallible - especially when they are speaking out of bounds of Scripture.

Put more simply, if God can steer the Church leadership in the right direction of recognizing Sacred Scripture, why wouldn't He guide all of the Church's decisions?

To me it sounds like you're asking: "If Scripture is infallible, then why shouldn't the church be infallible?" And I think I would say it's because that Scripture claims to be infallible but nowhere does Scripture say that the church is infallible. In fact it says the exact opposite - the church can and often does err and needs to constantly be returning to the Scriptures in order to reform itself. Semper Reformanda.

 

[brightlights]

You've just acknowledged that bar of evidence isn't absolute.

We may believe things that Scripture does not explicitly affirm. But this is still a strike against PVM.

I've dealt with this in previous posts. In brief, the scriptures are not at all clear on that.

I can see the wiggle room.

What do you base that on?

We have no evidence from OT, IT, or NT literature to suggest that marital celibacy was a practice. It seems very anachronistic. If you would challenge this, please produce some OT, IT, or NT evidence apart from Mary that shows that marital celibacy was even a thing.

What do you base that on?

Sex and marriage are always associated in Scripture. If a man had sex with a virgin that he was not married to in OT times the OT Law required him to marry that virgin.

What do you base that on?

Paul in 1 Cor 7 says that it would be sinful for a wife or husband to withhold their conjugal rights from one another.

What archaeological evidence are you referring to?

There is a link in my previous post. I'm referring to the James Ossuary.

 

[Tangible]

Just as a point of information, there are significantly differing concepts sometimes lumped together under the heading of Sola Scriptura.

Lutherans, for example, have historically confessed the PVM because of the lack of scriptural evidence against it, and because of the witness of the Church extending back to the ECFs. Yet Lutherans were among the first to make Sola Scriptura a defined doctrine and a formal hermeneutic.

For Lutherans, Sola Scriptura means that all dogmatic statements and doctrines must not conflict with the cannon of scripture in any point. It is the norm by which all doctrine is normed. However, that is not to say that any doctrine that is not present in scripture but not proscribed by scripture cannot be confessed. Lutherans differentiate between orthodox doctrine and pious opinion. The first must be subscribed in order to maintain fellowship, the second may or may not be held according to conscience.

Other traditions exceed the norma normans concept and state that any doctrine not explicitly found in scripture is thereby proscribed. This is rejected by orthodox Lutherans and other Reformation traditions.