Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

[rakovsky]

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.

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.

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."

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.

Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles, which are official for Lutheranism:

"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.

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 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".
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."

 

[rakovsky]

Scripture was the authoritative witness of the Apostles to Irenaeus.

It sounds like you are trying to assert that Irenaeus taught Luther's Sola Scriptura and that the Bible was the only authority. Where exactly did Irenaeus say that the Bible was the only authority, and that what Polycarp told him about John was not an "authority" for him?

• Thus, we know Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and also because the Fathers passed this down in their writings.
  The problem here is that Luther presented a false EITHER/OR dichotomy.

Thus is an inappropriate word since the so-called fathers knowledge of Mary being the Virgin was necesaarily downstream from the written Apostolic witness.

The fathers' knowledge of Mary's virginity is not purely "downstream" from the Bible. This is because the apostles would naturally write about this in their Gospels and also talk to their followers about this topic, both before and after authoring the Gospel. These followers would them write about what they orally heard about Mary's virginity directly from their teachers without purely getting their information from the Bible.

Protestant Apologetics books sometimes actually make this argument - We know that the things in the Bible happened because the Fathers who knew the Apostles asserted these events. It's not just that people in Judea found a mysterious book and started preaching its stories without independent information on the events. We ascertain that Jesus existed not only because the Bible says so, but also because there is major independent information confirming His existence, from Josephus to Tacitus.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

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.

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:

"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.

You keep on talking about Luther. There are four branches of Protestant Christianity. Luther only started one, and although there is somethings I respect about Luther, he is not but a man who made mistakes. Since you're not talking to Luther or excluively Lutherans now, wouldn't it be more pertinent to speak to how the doctrine is believed to be today by most protestants as opposed to what you're currently doing?

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".
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.

Anglicanism's position is the same as my position, and the Reformed position. Among the Reformed, we call that Sola Scriptura. FYI, the four branches of Protestantism are Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist(not to be confused with Baptists).

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."

I already admitted that your argument works against many things Luther said. That debate is over for me?

God Bless

 

[Tertiumquid]

The fathers' knowledge of Mary's virginity is not purely "downstream" from the Bible. This is because the apostles would naturally write about this in their Gospels and also talk to their followers about this topic, both before and after authoring the Gospel. These followers would them write about what they orally heard about Mary's virginity directly from their teachers without purely getting their information from the Bible.

Great point! Also, if it wasn't for the apostles talking about papal infallibility to their followers and it being carried down through tradition, that sacred truth would have been lost! Same with Mary not being born with original sin, I'm grateful the apostles talked about Mary being born absolutely sinless, and it got carried down through tradition!

 

[Tertiumquid]

For example on the perpetual virginity of Mary, if one thinks based upon the Fathers that Mary was perpetually a virgin, then that's your position: a position held by both Luther and Calvin.

As per my unspiritual gift on nitpicking: there is no meaningful positive evidence John Calvin adhered to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Irenaeus received Scripture as the main witness of the Apostles, but not as the only witness, since Irenaeus got information separately from the Bible Alone from Polycarp, from Papias, and thus indirectly from John the apostle..

I found Irenaeus really helpful in carrying down the tradition that Jesus lived to be 50 years old (Against Heresies 2:22:5, 2:22:6) and that the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3:3:2). I mean, he was closer in time to the actual apostles, therefore he'll be right, whereas we're like 2000 years out, so we'll get stuff like this wrong.

 

[Tertiumquid]

You keep on talking about Luther. There are four branches of Protestant Christianity. Luther only started one, and although there is somethings I respect about Luther, he is not but a man who made mistakes. Since you're not talking to Luther or excluively Lutherans now, wouldn't it be more pertinent to speak to how the doctrine is believed to be today by most protestants as opposed to what you're currently doing?

I would like to suggest the possibility of another explanatory scenario: simply because someone writes the word "Luther" a lot and puts up a bunch of quotes does not necessarily mean they know what they're talking about in regard to Luther. For proof, see the first 400 years of Roman Catholic scholarship written about Luther.

 

[Tertiumquid]

The problem was and remains that some people ignorant of the actual tradition tried to give tradition a role that it never had. The person you mention, Luther, never argued against the valid use of tradition with regard to adiaphora or fluff.

Wait, that's too easy. Let me post 30 Luther quotes from secondary sources, ignore the context, over-literalize specific words, ignore rhetorical statements, and pour in an anachronistic reasoning and ignore the historical situation Luther wrote in.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

As per my unspiritual gift on nitpicking: there is no meaningful positive evidence John Calvin adhered to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I could stand to be corrected on this. It is not an area of my expertise.

You keep on talking about Luther. There are four branches of Protestant Christianity. Luther only started one, and although there is somethings I respect about Luther, he is not but a man who made mistakes. Since you're not talking to Luther or excluively Lutherans now, wouldn't it be more pertinent to speak to how the doctrine is believed to be today by most protestants as opposed to what you're currently doing?

I would like to suggest the possibility of another explanatory scenario: simply because someone writes the word "Luther" a lot and puts up a bunch of quotes does not necessarily mean they know what they're talking about in regard to Luther. For proof, see the first 400 years of Roman Catholic scholarship written about Luther.

Not that I disagree with you necessarily, I'm just don't think it is rhetorically the best line of argumentation. The question was originally about protestants in General, not about Luther directly. So refocusing on protestants in general, would seem to useful as opposed to getting into parsing out each and ever quote in it's context, dealing with translational issues, and the like to justify Luther in particular. Luther is dead and has received his reward. What is pertinent now is those who are alive now. If someone wishes to parse all this out and defend Luther, more power to you. I neither have the expertise or time to answer these concerns directly.

God Bless

 

[Tertiumquid]

Not that I disagree with you necessarily, I'm just don't think it is rhetorically the best line of argumentation. The question was originally about protestants in General, not about Luther directly. So refocusing on protestants in general, would seem to useful as opposed to getting into parsing out each and ever quote in it's context, dealing with translational issues, and the like to justify Luther in particular. Luther is dead and has received his reward. What is pertinent now is those who are alive now. If someone wishes to parse all this out and defend Luther, more power to you. I neither have the expertise or time to answer these concerns directly.

God Bless

I think the reasoning is: since Luther "started" Protestantism, therefore Luther "created" sola scriptura. Hence, demonstrate the originator of Protestantism and creator of sola scriptura was in significant error.... now become Eastern Orthodox, the "true" church.

 

[rakovsky]

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.

I am trying to make a chart of comparisons below. Authoritative means that something is a respected guide or an authority, but not necessarily infallible or binding.

Status	Catholic	Orthodox	Anglican	Lutheran
Bible	Infallible (And Highest?)	Infallible? Highest	Highest and only infallible. (Is it infallible?)	Only infallible source, "Only" judge of all teachings
Ecumenical Councils	Infallible (Equal to Bible?)	Infallible? At least typically binding	Authoritative	Only authoritative to the extent that they teach Biblical ideas.
Church Teachers	Pope is Ex Cathedra Infallible, Magisterium is infallible. The rest are authorities.	Authoritative	Authoritative	Only authoritative to the extent that they teach Biblical ideas. Useful for understanding the Bible.
ExtraBiblical traditions	Authoritative	Authoritative	Authoritative	Is there a clear consistent position as to whether and how much they can be binding or endorsed?

Based on this chart, Anglicans look the closest in terms of authority.
I've heard that RCs put the Ecumenical Councils on equal footing with the Pope. I don't know if they put the Bible at the top.
I think that Anglicans consider the Bible infallible.

RCs and Lutherans seem rather opposite in a way. Catholicism would say that when the consensus of the bishops decides something or a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, then it can't be wrong. They wouldn't allow disagreement with the Immaculate Conception announced in a Papal Ex Cathedra declaration. So Catholicism comes across as much more dogmatic than Orthodoxy.

EOs typically disagree with the Immaculate Conception theory, although St. Augustine taught it. Further, just because all bishops happen agree on some doctrine doesn't necessarily make it "infallible." Like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism would not force you to agree to something just because all bishops agreed on it per se.

Lutheranism on the other hand, per its Sola Scriptura doctrine, theoretically restricts use of Fathers to only finding the Bible's teaching on a topic. If you wanted to judge whether churches should have bishops, you could quote a 1st-2nd century Father like Ignatius only for the narrow purpose of showing the Bible's teaching, which you would then use to judge the topic. You couldn't make the argument that Churches should have bishops because the Bible teaches it and also simply because the 1st-2nd century Christians taught it.

Further, Lutheranism seems to overall downgrade or neglect extraBiblical traditions that are not against the Bible, and doesn't seem to have a clear, consistent position on what to do in such cases.

• - Canons:
  Orthodoxy has councils' "canons", like canonizing saints. Luther says that "no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture", and suggested that the Bible doesn't take a position on extraBiblical saints' sainthood. This would seem to conflict with making "canons" (articles) confirming saints' sainthood. Don't Lutheran Churches have formal policies on some church order issues that Luther qualified as extraBiblical (eg. whether St. Augustine is a "saint", what "portable" to use for the Eucharist, etc.?)
• - Mandatory teachings:
  Canons in Orthodoxy seem somewhat binding. You can be Orthodox and reject the sainthood of individual saints. But how far can you go in opposing nonBiblical non-ecumenical conciliar decisions before the Church reacts? Likewise, Articles XVI and XXI of Augsburg endorse commemorating saints and holidays as nonmandatory. But how far would Lutheranism in practice allow its members to go in opposing nonmandatory teachings until the Lutheran Church reacted? According to Luther, the Council of Jerusalem's decision in Acts was nonbinding and Christians still should have followed it in order to have good relations with Jews. So what happens in Luther's paradigm if Christians don't follow "non-binding" rules that they "should" follow? Probably de facto Luther would still want some kind of Church order to be imposed in those non-mandatory cases. So the end result would seem similar to the Orthodox situation with non-ecumenical "canons" that EOs would tend to follow as a matter of Church "order."
• - Endorsement:
  "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." (Luther's essay on Henry VIII's tract)
• - Indifference:
  Another reaction to nonBiblical teachings is what Lutheranism calls "indifference/Adiaphora". Probably Orthodoxy does not use this label, as if Orthodox people literally "do not care" where saints are buried. Orthodoxy does not demand that you believe that Peter was buried in Rome, etc. But to say that the Church is formally "indifferent" sounds too absolute. Just because the Church doesn't have a formal opinion on something, or is formally indifferent doesn't mean that the Church collectively simply "doesn't care" or is informally indifferent to it. This category reminds me a little of the Orthodox category of Theologumena (private beliefs of individual theologians that are not formal doctrines), but it's not really the same thing as calling something Adiaphora. Augustine's belief in Original Sin being passed down would count as Theologumena in Orthodoxy, but it's not something that Orthodoxy doesn't care about. Usually EOs are critical of Augustine's theory.
• - Rejection:
  Another reaction could be deliberate ignoring or even rejection. Luther seems to make lots of statements that seem to imply that if something is not Biblical, then one should not accept it, or literally ignore it, eg.: "For, if you do not follow the Scriptures alone, the lives of the saints are ten times more dangerous and offensive than those of the ungodly." (Luther, 1522, Epiphany Sermon). This rejects following nonBiblical traditions about nonBiblical saints. But Luther seems inconsistent on this point, saying in Article XVI of Augsburg to use memories of saints as examples.

A possible theoretical difference is that when issues come up, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox would say that Councils have "authority" over individuals to decide issues, whereas my impression is that Luther asserted that a regular layman had equal authority as Councils, since it's really the Bible that decides the issues. In practice however in Lutheranism, what is going to happen at times is that Lutherans are going to call councils that decide what supposedly the Bible says on a topic and then they are going to hold their members to this decision. So if theoretically in Lutheranism a lone layman has equal standing as a Lutheran council to judge an issue as being "Biblical," in practice Lutheran councils are going to have higher governing authority for the Lutheran Church on these questions of Biblical interpretation.

The issue is authority of judgment. In Orthodoxy, councils are higher authorities than individuals. Of course, individuals can be right and the councils can be wrong. And Orthodoxy would agree that this at times has happened - individual saints have been right on topics when councils made mistakes. However, in general, for the Church as an institution, the local council (eg. Rome's own council) is higher, even though it's not considered infallible.

 

[rakovsky]

I found Irenaeus really helpful in carrying down the tradition that Jesus lived to be 50 years old (Against Heresies 2:22:5, 2:22:6)

This is an occasional misunderstanding of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus says that the apostle John says that Jesus reached old age.
Where does John say this?
In John's Revelation, Jesus has white hair and John is in old age. Is John saying that Jesus is still 33 years old but now with white hair, or did Jesus age in heaven like John aged on earth? Irenaeus' idea is that Jesus has reached old age in heaven. It reminds me of how in the Apocalypse of Peter from about the 1st century, aborted babies grow up in heaven. If you want to discuss Irenaeus' quote on Jesus' aging more, it's worth another thread.

 

[rakovsky]

A possible theoretical difference is that when issues come up, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox would say that Councils have "authority" over individuals to decide issues, whereas my impression is that Luther asserted that a regular layman had equal authority as Councils, since it's really the Bible that decides the issues. In practice however in Lutheranism, what is going to happen at times is that Lutherans are going to call councils that decide what supposedly the Bible says on a topic and then they are going to hold their members to this decision. So if theoretically in Lutheranism a lone layman has equal standing as a Lutheran council to judge an issue as being "Biblical," in practice Lutheran councils are going to have higher governing authority for the Lutheran Church on these questions of Biblical interpretation.

The issue is authority of judgment. In Orthodoxy, councils are higher authorities than individuals. Of course, individuals can be right and the councils can be wrong. And Orthodoxy would agree that this at times has happened - individual saints have been right on topics when councils made mistakes. However, in general, for the Church as an institution, the local council (eg. Rome's own council) is higher, even though it's not considered infallible.

In Luther's essay, he writes:

To know and judge concerning doctrine belongs to all men, even to individual Christians; and in such a way belongs that, Let him be anathema who shall injure this right, even in the least particular. For Christ Himself instituted this right by various invincible sayings, such as (Matt. VII): Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing.
...
This saying speaks to the people against their teachers, and commands them to avoid their false teachings. But how can they avoid them unless they know? And how know unless they have the right of judging? And here Christ has established not only the right, but the commandment to judge, so that this sole authority can be sufficient against the opinions of all the Fathers, of all the Councils, and of all the Schools, which reserve the right of judging and discerning as only to be exercised by bishops and ministers, and have thus impiously and sacrilegiously taken it away from the people, that is from the rightful queen of the Church.

Here he contrasts the individual's and people's judgment of the Bible with the Church councils' judgment, and asserts that the people are the rightful queen. In Orthodoxy, the councils however are not juxtaposed against the people per se. The councils in general are representative of the people.

Luther's statements here seem individually defensible from an Orthodox POV (eg. the people as the Church), but he fails to qualify his statements to show the authority of councils.

Luther asserts: "To know and judge concerning doctrine belongs to all men". That makes sense broadly, but where is the role of councils in judging doctrine?
Luther elsewhere asserts that the "Bible alone" is the judge of all teachings.
Put together, Luther's emphasis is on the Bible alone judging all teachings and all men judging the Bible's meaning, with a question remaining as to whether a council or an individual or random group is a higher authority. Did Luther openly address this specific issue? I don't remember. In what I remember, he would seem to simply answer that it's the Bible that holds, not the councils.

 

[rakovsky]

You keep on talking about Luther. There are four branches of Protestant Christianity. Luther only started one, and although there is somethings I respect about Luther, he is not but a man who made mistakes. Since you're not talking to Luther or excluively Lutherans now, wouldn't it be more pertinent to speak to how the doctrine is believed to be today by most protestants as opposed to what you're currently doing?

Tertiumquid has the right idea:

I think the reasoning is: since Luther "started" Protestantism, therefore Luther "created" sola scriptura.

Luther was the foundational figure of the Protestant movement and of Sola Scriptura in the Protestant world. Thus, his definition is the most foundational. Otherwise, what definition would we use? One answer is that we can use the term as major churches define it. This brings up a few issues:
1. Lutherans still use Sola Scriptura most formally as it's in the Concord Formula and Smalcald articles from the 16th century, as well as Luther's writings.
2. Anglicans and Methodists don't use Sola Scriptura, but Prima Scriptura.
3. Other than Anglicans, Luther seems the one to move the least away from Catholicism. My impression is that Calvinists would use a similar definition than Luther, and if anyone formally as a Church uses another definition in a more "radical" church, it would tend to be either more radical than Luther (ie. the more radical idea of Solo Scriptura). Otherwise it really be some version of the Methodist/Anglican idea, where the Bible is the highest (Prima), not "only".
4. I heard that Zwingli took a more extreme approach to the Bible than Luther did.

The Lutheran service preserved much of the medieval inheritance that Luther said the Bible does not condemn. Zwingli looked in the Bible for exactly what should be done in worship. In Zwinglian churches, that led to an elimination of images, crucifixes, vestments, special feast days, and organs and instruments, because Zwingli did not believe he could find those things in Scripture.

...there was also an unhappy and unfortunate clash with Luther. The clash was over the Lord’s Supper. ...
Luther said, “The Bible says it and we believe it.” Zwingli responded, “We believe in the Bible too, but that is not what the Bible says.” It was a difference of opinion on interpreting Scripture rather than on the authority of Scripture. Zwingli was also afraid that Luther would move too close to the Catholics into a kind of superstition related to the Lord’s Supper. So unfortunately, there was the break, which has continued to the present. Marburg is the word, the symbol, the moment of the break between the Lutherans and the Reformed.
...
Another common question is whether the regulative principle applied only to worship. It applied primarily to worship, in the context of the debate between the two sides. Yet it also applied to church polity. All sides also applied the principle the same way to Scripture in terms of doctrine. We are not to create doctrines that we do not find in the Bible. When it came to worship and polity, however, the Reformed movement was much more concerned to determine what the Bible definitely prescribes, rather than only what it proscribes. That gave the Lutheran side much greater liberty in constructing their liturgy. It also meant they did not have much concern about church polity.

https://edwardwimberley.com/courses/80458/zwinglife.pdf

5. The Westminster Confession of the Reformed Tradition asserts that everything "necessary" for faith and life can be deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from the Bible and nothing is to be added from the Spirit's Revelation or from "traditions of men." But some "circumstances" about worship and church governance are ordered from nature or "prudence". (Chapter 1.6)

Westminster Confession Chapter 1.6 - Sola Scriptura

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set d...

reformedspirit.blogspot.com

This would seem to imply that you can have nonBiblical teachings that are not considered necessary for faith and life. Perhaps I am misreading the statement, and perhaps anything not in the Bible, even nonmandatory teachings, would be labeled impermissible "additions" from "traditions of men"?

The Westminster Confession 1:10 doesn't call the Bible the "only" judge, but rather: “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of counsels, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture.”

So the Westminster Confession, interestingly, doesn't seem to be as strong as Luther in defining Sola Scriptura as considering it the "only" judge. This is curious because the Reformed seem, as a rule, less "Traditional" than Luther.

6. John Macarthur, a modern Reformed leader, cites Chapter 1.6 of the Westminster Confession after commenting:

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

What Does “Sola Scriptura” Mean?

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply

www.ligonier.org

This goes beyond saying that it only concerns what is necessary and asserts that it's the "only" standard.

7. The Reformed "Belgic Confession" asserts that worship is written in the Bible "at large" and that the Bible is complete "in all respects":

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures; nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden to add unto or take away any thing from the Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.

8. Calvin's 1537 Instruction and Confession asserts something that resembles the Formula of Concord:

First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God...

One could say that there are "versions" of what people call Sola Scriptura. That is, some people talk about Sola Scriptura as if it just means the Methodist Prima Scriptura, whereas other talk about it as meaning what some call Solo Scriptura. It seems that neither one is Sola Scriptura in the strict, foundational sense of the term.

The main thing I came across above that might seem to be looser than Luther's definition is the Westminster Confession (as per Chapter 1.6 that talks about "necessary" teachings). But the Westminster Confession was written in 1646 in England, and intended for the Church of England, so it could actually have an Anglican Prima Scriptura bent to it on this topic.

Anglicanism's position is the same as my position, and the Reformed position. Among the Reformed, we call that Sola Scriptura. FYI, the four branches of Protestantism are Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist(not to be confused with Baptists).

I see Reformed writings online identifying their understanding of Sola Scriptura with Luther.

 

[rakovsky]

"The person you mention, Luther, never argued against the valid use of tradition with regard to adiaphora or fluff."

Wait, that's too easy. Let me post 30 Luther quotes from secondary sources, ignore the context, over-literalize specific words, ignore rhetorical statements, and pour in an anachronistic reasoning and ignore the historical situation Luther wrote in.

You would not need 30 quotes to dispute this, just one quote.
If something is not Biblical, but not contrary to the Bible either, then at times this category has been called "Adiaphora".

"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, 1523, Reply to "Emser the Goat"

If you are using the fathers regarding nonscriptural fluff, then you are using the fathers' teachings for more than to get into Scripture.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

A possible theoretical difference is that when issues come up, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox would say that Councils have "authority" over individuals to decide issues, whereas my impression is that Luther asserted that a regular layman had equal authority as Councils, since it's really the Bible that decides the issues. In practice however in Lutheranism, what is going to happen at times is that Lutherans are going to call councils that decide what supposedly the Bible says on a topic and then they are going to hold their members to this decision. So if theoretically in Lutheranism a lone layman has equal standing as a Lutheran council to judge an issue as being "Biblical," in practice Lutheran councils are going to have higher governing authority for the Lutheran Church on these questions of Biblical interpretation.

I have no reason to believe Luther held "a regular layman had equal authority as Councils."

The issue is authority of judgment. In Orthodoxy, councils are higher authorities than individuals. Of course, individuals can be right and the councils can be wrong. And Orthodoxy would agree that this at times has happened - individual saints have been right on topics when councils made mistakes. However, in general, for the Church as an institution, the local council (eg. Rome's own council) is higher, even though it's not considered infallible.

In short, you wrote a lot to express what I said in one sentence: I'm simply stating that that Orthodox Christianity is far closer to Protestant side of this debate than Rome is today.

I see Reformed writings online identifying their understanding of Sola Scriptura with Luther.

Frankly, I find your uncharitable way of reading these citations to be the source of your conclusion. I'll be blunt, an Anglican can say every single one of these quotations. They may not due to differences in emphasis, but they logically can. Let's go through a couple?

everything "necessary" for faith and life can be deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from the Bible and nothing is to be added from the Spirit's Revelation or from "traditions of men." But some "circumstances" about worship and church governance are ordered from nature or "prudence"

What in this statement throws out the councils? It's talking about the usefulness of Scripture. It's not talking at all about anything else. Besides, direct quotations are always better: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." What's it saying? Scripture and that which is the natural consequence is not to be added to my human traditions. You don't think you're adding human tradition to Scripture do you? I would think you would agree with this. This part of the Westminster Confession is simply designating what is necessary for the Christian life and what should be left out. Most who wrote this would call Nicaea the good and necessary consequence of Scripture, and they would call Trent, the traditions of men.

FYI, Westminster Confession was created by and associated with the Anglican Church although it is no longer accepted for political reasons.

6. John Macarthur, a modern Reformed leader, cites Chapter 1.6 of the Westminster Confession after commenting:
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

What's wrong here? Is it saying anything about the councils? Is it saying anything about the Church Fathers? What is a "standard of spiritual truth"? That which judges everything else to see what is true. The councils are the councils because they have been tested by Scripture before being written down—at least those everyone is in agreement with. Councils cannot be used to judge Scripture. But, you can, and do, use Scripture to judge Vatican 1 as errant. So, logically what's the standard? Scripture. You functionally agree with Scripture being the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth. Do you think there are things one needs to believe that are not in Scripture for salvation? Is there something not found in Scripture that we must do to glorify God?

Statements like "Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church." project Scripture as your perfect and only standard of spiritual truth; otherwise, you wouldn't need lens to focus your attention on it. Scripture is still on a different level.

God Bless

 

[Tertiumquid]

"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, 1523, Reply to "Emser the Goat"

If you are using the fathers regarding nonscriptural fluff, then you are using the fathers' teachings for more than to get into Scripture.

It appears you continually choke on Luther's words when he directs his readers to Scripture over the writings of the "fathers." There also appears to be something downright distasteful to you when Luther uses the words "Scripture" and "alone" together, to the extent that your bias doesn't allow you to actually read Luther in context. Agan, my simple question is: what is your end game? Are your readers supposed to arrive at the conclusion that the collective writings of the "fathers" are "clearer" than the Bible, therefore Luther was wrong?

In Luther's writing (LW 39:166) against Emser, he's parrots back what Augustine wrote long before him:

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.

As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.

Luther says -in context- "From this we learn how the fathers should be read, namely, that we should not consider what they say but whether they use clear Scripture or reason." Luther appears to be speaking to you directly if we change the word "Emser" to "Rakovsky":

"That is why [he is] almost forced to blaspheme and to disgrace Scripture, to sweep it under the rug, and to pretend that it is an obscure fog and that one should follow the interpretation of the fathers and seek the light in the darkness. 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 [Rakovsky] thinks that they should have a special function alongside the Scriptures, as if Scripture were not enough for teaching us."

 

[BJ Bear]

This is an occasional misunderstanding of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus says that the apostle John says that Jesus reached old age.
Where does John say this?
In John's Revelation, Jesus has white hair and John is in old age. Is John saying that Jesus is still 33 years old but now with white hair, or did Jesus age in heaven like John aged on earth? Irenaeus' idea is that Jesus has reached old age in heaven. It reminds me of how in the Apocalypse of Peter from about the 1st century, aborted babies grow up in heaven. If you want to discuss Irenaeus' quote on Jesus' aging more, it's worth another thread.

It is a gross error and a blatant demonstration of fideism to try and amend or justify the error of Irenaues in this regard through a work, the Apocalypse of Peter, which isn't recognized as canonical even in the longest canon in use in Orthodox circles. Is the bottom line of Orthodox theology in this regard really any port in a storm?

Any port in a storm seems to be the Orthodox Standard Operating Procedure in their misguided attempts to defend their error of Tradition in regarding the LXX as the "OT" of record. That error necessarily leads to the Orthodox rejection and attack of Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings on earth since they abandoned the faith with their choice of OT of record.

What did Jesus do? Did He ever say or imply that the Samaritan Scriptures got it right but the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures got it wrong? Of course He didn't so who has convinced you that the correctness of the Samaritan Scriptures and other errors of translation in the LXX and the other errors within the canon of the LXX are necessary aspects of the faith?

With a tip of the hat to Mr. Baum, has someone told you convincingly to ignore the little man behind the curtain or have you just not checked?

 

[BJ Bear]

Wait, that's too easy.

lol, good points. It really is that simple and easy for anyone familiar with the primary sources.

Let me post 30 Luther quotes from secondary sources, ignore the context, over-literalize specific words, ignore rhetorical statements, and pour in an anachronistic reasoning and ignore the historical situation Luther wrote in.

Well, since the LXX is their "OT" of record those types of errors in reasoning have a long history of use in their attempts to justify their Tradition. It is no surprise that they reject Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings on earth.

 

[Tertiumquid]

It is a gross error and a blatant demonstration of fideism to try and amend or justify the error of Irenaues in this regard through a work, the Apocalypse of Peter, which isn't recognized as canonical even in the longest canon in use in Orthodox circles. Is the bottom line of Orthodox theology in this regard really any port in a storm?

I see Rakovsky's interpretation of Irenaeus as pure irony. He's been all over Luther for declaring the Bible is clearer than "other writings." Above though, Rakovsky explains that I misunderstand Irenaeus by using "John's Revelation" to really explain what Irenaeus meant.

Game over. The machine has tilted.