rakovsky
Well-known member
The issue is that as Luther and founding Lutheran documents defined and openly used "Sola Scriptura", the term means not just that the Bible "trumps" everything else as the rule, but that the Bible is the only rule. It's not just that when there's disagreement, Scripture is the only judge to decide it ultimately, but as they defined it, Scripture is the only judge to decide it period.All that Sola Scriptura adds is that Scripture holds a unique position in the Church that trumps everything else as the rule and norm of all doctrine. When there is a disagreement, Scripture is the only judge to decide the manner ultimately. We realize that men are men and regularly make all sorts of mistakes. Mistakes that can only be rectified ultimately by looking too Scripture. The Niciean Fathers didn't argue with the Arians from Tradition. Their primary tool to answer all falsehood was Scripture.
If one were to answer falsehood under this construct, it's not just that Scripture is "Primary" (like Anglicans' Prima Scriptura), but rather as Luther explained it, "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."
Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles, which are official for Lutheranism:I find this statement odd. Why couldn't I say "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it."? I see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings. I simply don't hold extrabiblical Tradition as authorities as perfect in all they say. I look to Scripture as the final arbiter of what is true.
"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.)
So by this declaration, one could say, "The Bible establishes that Mary was a Virgin", but not state, "The angel Gabriel separately establishes that Mary was a Virgin."
In Luther's reasoning, Gabriel himself does not establish Mary's virginity, and Gabriel's declaration to Mary is usable only to the extent that it's either in the Bible or confirmed by the Bible.
In Catholicism, are the Bible, Ecumenical Councils, and Pope officially all equally on the highest level? Catholicism considers them and the consensus of the Magisterium to all be "Infallible".
I'm not arguing that you hold a form of Sola Scriptura; Im simply stating that that Orthodox Christianity is far closer to Protestant side of this debate than Rome is today.
In Orthodoxy, the Bible is the highest authority. But it's often said that the Bible and Ecumenical Councils are both infallible in Orthodoxy, although EOs have different opinions on this. Orthodoxy doesn't consider anything else "infallible."
As I understand it, Anglicanism considers the Bible the highest authority, and the only infallible one, but also considers extraBiblical Tradition to be an authority.
Luther's Sola Scriptura doctrine considers the Bible "the only" judge/establisher of all teachings. In his explanation, other writings are used, but only to show the Biblical meaning.
An inherent dilemma or gap seems to exist in Luther's system as to what to do with Extrabiblical biblical topics and teachings that are not against the Bible.
- First, repeated Lutheran declarations that the Bible alone judges all teachings suggests that there are no such extrabiblical topic teachings, because if this declaration were true, there would be no teachings that the Bible does not judge.
- Second, nonetheless, Luther said that there were topics that the Bible does not speak about (eg. Peter's burial place) and decisions that the Bible does not make, like on components of sacramental rituals (eg. whether to mix water with wine at communion).
- Third, Luther repeatedly asserts to use the Bible alone, and limits using the Fathers to only discovering the Bible's meaning. This implies that one would not have any extraBiblical teachings, even if the Bible did not judge all topics.
- Fourth, Luther seems to rarely deal with what he openly considers extraBiblical topics and teachings that are not in conflict with the Bible. When he does, he seems to contradict himself on whether one can endorse them as nonmandatory teachings or must reject them altogether.
- On one hand, he asserts about the "teachers of the Church": "I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred."
- However, elsewhere Luther asserts in his essay about Henry's tract that he can "endorse" extraBiblical teachings if they are neither articles of faith nor mandatory: "...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."