The Early Church Fathers

[BJ Bear]

The Blue highlighting goes to Latin texts.
Where did Luther succinctly define his term of "Sola Scriptura", a principle that has been so foundational for Lutheranism?

Already quoted. Basically, scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth. Luther then goes on to cite Paul and Augustine in support of the claim. A person can read it in English in Defense And Explanation Of All Articles in the American Edition.

 

[rakovsky]

Already quoted. Basically, scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth. Luther then goes on to cite Paul and Augustine in support of the claim. A person can read it in English in Defense And Explanation Of All Articles in the American Edition.

BJ,
I couldn't find "Defense And Explanation Of All Articles" online.
When you wrote that Luther's definition of Sola Scripture was "already quoted", I guess you mean what I quoted earlier:
An Assertion of All the Articles (1520):

"I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I],
but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.2"

Certainly that would entail that scripture is ruling things, but to say that it's "lord and master over all other writings" makes it sound like it "governs" all other writings, which seems a different idea. When he says that he wants "Scripture alone to reign," I take it that he is referring to scripture alone deciding religious doctrines. And he said something along those lines later, saying in other words that he must be convinced of some doctrine by the scriptures for the doctrine to be accepted by him.

I have seen his Sola Scriptura being defined different ways.

• 1. I have seen it being called the only "final, infallible" source of written authority. This term could mean that it's either A. the only authority that is both final and infallible, or B. that it is the only authority that is infallible and and is also the final authority. It seems that Tertiumquid is taking the term to mean B.
• 2. You are saying that it means that "scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth."
• 3. In his statement that I quoted above, I take it to mean that he wants scripture alone to rule or decide on religious doctrines and he wants to understand it "by itself."

With Definition #1, if we take it to mean A. that it is the only source that is both final AND infallible, then maybe Roman Catholics could agree with this idea, in the sense that the Bible is considered both the highest ranked written authority among infallible authorities. Just because you consider the Bible final and infallible doesn't necessarily mean that you exclude all other texts as fallible. You could have an EO who considers the Bible and the Councils to be "infallible" and then sees the Bible as being explicit on a certain topic, and so he says "the Bible, the highest authority, has spoken on this topic, so its position is final." In other words, the Bible being your final authority on some issue doesn't mean that the other authorities are necessarily mistaken. They could just be ambiguous or not necessary to be consulted once we have the Biblical view. In other words, it becomes a procedural issue. You could have more than one "infallible" source to check as an authority on an issue and you stop with the Bible as your final source.

If we take it to mean Definition 1 B. then it would be helpful to see where Luther considered the Bible explicitly the only infallible source, because I have seen claims that Luther didn't consider the Bible infallible.

By comparison, the EO Church doesn't seem to have a consensus on the Bible being infallible. Augustine had that view, but Augustine isn't foundational in Orthodoxy to the extent that he is in the Western Church. The most common idea in the EO Church on infallibility is that the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

With Definition #2, it sounds ambiguous what it means for it to be the only master "over" all other writings, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is "infallible." Does the idea of being a "master over them" mean that we use the scripture to interpret all other writings? Or does it mean that we use the Bible to judge whether all other writings are right or wrong? I take it that you mean the latter. Like I said earlier, if it's just a matter of considering the Bible the highest authority, which makes it the highest judge on doctrines, then this is classical patristics.

A criticism that I have heard from EOs on using the Bible to judge other doctrines is procedural and directional. Namely, the EOs read the Church Fathers and traditions in harmony with the Bible, rather than interpreting the Fathers and the Bible in contradiction to each other. The issue comes up when the Bible and the Fathers are ambiguous on some topic. For instance, there is a certain ambiguity in the Bible as to the nature of the Real Presence, probably because it's a supernatural mystery. Calvinists interpret the Bible to mean that Jesus does not have a direct Presence in the communion food, and then they take their misinterpretation of the Bible and use their misinterpretation to judge the Church Fathers as wrong on the topic. In the Orthodox Church on the other hand, we try to read the Bible and the Fathers in harmony.

With Definition #3 (the "Bible alone" reigns on religious doctrines), the implication seems to be that other sources of authority, such as Councils, would not also reign in deciding doctrines. So for instance if the Bible was ambiguous on infant baptism and we had Church Fathers and Councils on the topic, Luther's idea would be to go by the Bible alone, and not to have the Fathers and Councils also be reigning on that topic.

The underlying real-life problem here is what I mentioned earlier, that sometimes the Bible is not clear on numerous theological topics. The Bible's meaning is sometimes not actually self-evident. Luther writes in that quote that I gave above from him that he wants the Bible alone to reign and to understand it "by itself." But sometimes the Bible "by itself" is not clear in its meanings. And then the issue becomes how you go about understanding the Bible.

We can say that we want the Bible to rule over all other writings and teachings, but what rules over our reading of the Bible in the first place? If we use our reason and the Holy Spirit and Tradition to rule our understanding and interpretations of the Bible, does this imply that the Holy Spirit and Tradition and Reason are also ruling the Bible? In other words, if we use the Bible to say that a doctrine or writing is correct, and this means that the Bible is "ruling over" those other writings, then if we judge the Bible to be correct based on the Holy Spirit and our Reason and our Tradition (eg. Augustine and Luther calling the Bible "infallible"), then are those things based on this line of logic also "ruling over" the Bible in harmony with it?

At times Luther presented the Bible as if it was self-evident in its meaning, like saying that he wanted to understand it "by itself", but at other times he pointed to Church fathers as authorities to understand the Bible. So he was speaking in opposite directions on that topic, and it's probably a debate that is not resolvable because it's a kind of inner contradiction due to the underlying problem that the Bible is often not self-evident. So even if I had the energy and devotion to go through pages and pages on the topic, the issue would not be resolved because Lutheranism has a dogmatic or axiomatic stance on "Sola Scriptura."

As much as Luther criticised the Catholic Church for its dogmatism and its teachings that are not in the Bible, it seems dogmatic about "Sola Scriptura" even though the Bible nowhere explicitly says that the Bible is the only final, infallible source of authority. After all, imagine that in the End Times events God spoke from Heaven on some topic. If it was actually God's voice, wouldn't that be an infallible authority as well? And being later in time, wouldn't it be a more "final" authority?

 

[rakovsky]

Well, thanks to you both for the discussion.

 

[BJ Bear]

reBJ,

I couldn't find "Defense And Explanation Of All Articles" online.
When you wrote that Luther's definition of Sola Scripture was "already quoted", I guess you mean what I quoted earlier:
An Assertion of All the Articles (1520):


Certainly that would entail that scripture is ruling things, but to say that it's "lord and master over all other writings" makes it sound like it "governs" all other writings, which seems a different idea. When he says that he wants "Scripture alone to reign," I take it that he is referring to scripture alone deciding religious doctrines. And he said something along those lines later, saying in other words that he must be convinced of some doctrine by the scriptures for the doctrine to be accepted by him.

I have seen his Sola Scriptura being defined different ways.

• 1. I have seen it being called the only "final, infallible" source of written authority. This term could mean that it's either A. the only authority that is both final and infallible, or B. that it is the only authority that is infallible and and is also the final authority. It seems that Tertiumquid is taking the term to mean B.
• 2. You are saying that it means that "scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth."
• 3. In his statement that I quoted above, I take it to mean that he wants scripture alone to rule or decide on religious doctrines and he wants to understand it "by itself."

With Definition #1, if we take it to mean A. that it is the only source that is both final AND infallible, then maybe Roman Catholics could agree with this idea, in the sense that the Bible is considered both the highest ranked written authority among infallible authorities. Just because you consider the Bible final and infallible doesn't necessarily mean that you exclude all other texts as fallible. You could have an EO who considers the Bible and the Councils to be "infallible" and then sees the Bible as being explicit on a certain topic, and so he says "the Bible, the highest authority, has spoken on this topic, so its position is final." In other words, the Bible being your final authority on some issue doesn't mean that the other authorities are necessarily mistaken. They could just be ambiguous or not necessary to be consulted once we have the Biblical view. In other words, it becomes a procedural issue. You could have more than one "infallible" source to check as an authority on an issue and you stop with the Bible as your final source.

If we take it to mean Definition 1 B. then it would be helpful to see where Luther considered the Bible explicitly the only infallible source, because I have seen claims that Luther didn't consider the Bible infallible.

By comparison, the EO Church doesn't seem to have a consensus on the Bible being infallible. Augustine had that view, but Augustine isn't foundational in Orthodoxy to the extent that he is in the Western Church. The most common idea in the EO Church on infallibility is that the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

With Definition #2, it sounds ambiguous what it means for it to be the only master "over" all other writings, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is "infallible." Does the idea of being a "master over them" mean that we use the scripture to interpret all other writings? Or does it mean that we use the Bible to judge whether all other writings are right or wrong? I take it that you mean the latter. Like I said earlier, if it's just a matter of considering the Bible the highest authority, which makes it the highest judge on doctrines, then this is classical patristics.

A criticism that I have heard from EOs on using the Bible to judge other doctrines is procedural and directional. Namely, the EOs read the Church Fathers and traditions in harmony with the Bible, rather than interpreting the Fathers and the Bible in contradiction to each other. The issue comes up when the Bible and the Fathers are ambiguous on some topic. For instance, there is a certain ambiguity in the Bible as to the nature of the Real Presence, probably because it's a supernatural mystery. Calvinists interpret the Bible to mean that Jesus does not have a direct Presence in the communion food, and then they take their misinterpretation of the Bible and use their misinterpretation to judge the Church Fathers as wrong on the topic. In the Orthodox Church on the other hand, we try to read the Bible and the Fathers in harmony.

With Definition #3 (the "Bible alone" reigns on religious doctrines), the implication seems to be that other sources of authority, such as Councils, would not also reign in deciding doctrines. So for instance if the Bible was ambiguous on infant baptism and we had Church Fathers and Councils on the topic, Luther's idea would be to go by the Bible alone, and not to have the Fathers and Councils also be reigning on that topic.

The ulllll

You made some good points.

Here is a short informational reply that should add context. The information is from the Joint Lutheran Orthodox Commission and the Smalcald Articles. I think if you read them you will find a similarity if not near identity to your last sentence of the first paragraph under definition two.

"11. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula “sola scriptura” was always intended to point to God’s revelation, God’s saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church." https://blogs.helsinki.fi/ristosaarinen/lutheran-orthodox-dialogue/

"Article I: The First and Chief Article 1 That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . 2 And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . 3 Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] 4 Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ. 5 Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us." https://bookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/part-ii/article-i/

Thanks.

 

[Tertiumquid]

I couldn't find "Defense And Explanation Of All Articles" online.

The complete German text can be found here online. For the English version, go to your nearest college library and locate Luther's Works 32.

When he says that he wants "Scripture alone to reign," I take it that he is referring to scripture alone deciding religious doctrines.

It's best to actually read a context and interpret an author according to the author, and then make conclusions.

This term could mean that it's either A. the only authority that is both final and infallible, or B. that it is the only authority that is infallible and and is also the final authority.

I fail to see any meaningful difference between A and B, but it appears that you mean in "A" only to refer to a written source, thus allowing for other "final" infallible authorities via "Tradition" or... whatever. If this is the case, my view is that the only infallible source of divine revelation (or: the very "Word of God") existent NOW is the Bible. There are other authorities (church leaders, tradition, etc.), but these are not the very "Word of God." They have authority, just not infallible authority. Then again, I've only had a meager amount of coffee this morning, so I may not be interpreting your words accurately.

If we take it to mean Definition 1 B. then it would be helpful to see where Luther considered the Bible explicitly the only infallible source, because I have seen claims that Luther didn't consider the Bible infallible.

Go ahead and post your claims IF you can provide a context from Luther's writings. I'm not interested in a link to someone's online article, and Wikipedia is like quoting Mickey Mouse.

By comparison, the EO Church doesn't seem to have a consensus on the Bible being infallible. Augustine had that view, but Augustine isn't foundational in Orthodoxy to the extent that he is in the Western Church. The most common idea in the EO Church on infallibility is that the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

It all comes down to personal judgment as to where one places their faith. You have made a fallible decision based on your private judgment to place your faith in the EO church.

Namely, the EOs read the Church Fathers and traditions in harmony with the Bible, rather than interpreting the Fathers and the Bible in contradiction to each other.

In the Orthodox Church on the other hand, we try to read the Bible and the Fathers in harmony.

This is the typical picking and choosing method dominant in Roman Catholicism as well. Luther responds:

"In order that these word-jugglers may be seen in their true light, I ask them, who told them that the fathers are clearer and not more obscure than the Scriptures? How would it be if I said that they understand the fathers as little as I understand the Scriptures? I could just as well stop my ears to the sayings of the fathers as they do to the Scriptures. But in that way we shall never arrive at the truth. If the Spirit has spoken in the fathers, so much the more has He spoken in His own Scriptures. And if one does not understand the Spirit in His own Scriptures, who will trust him to understand the Spirit in the writings of another? That is truly a carrying of the sword in the scabbard, when we do not take the naked sword by itself, but only as it is encased in the words and glosses of men. This dulls its edge and makes it obscurer than it was before, though Emser calls it smiting with the blade. The naked sword makes him tremble from head to foot. But I cannot help him, he must take his punishment."

The underlying real-life problem here is what I mentioned earlier, that sometimes the Bible is not clear on numerous theological topics. The Bible's meaning is sometimes not actually self-evident.

The underlying problem is not with the infallible source. That some people misinterpret the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.

My apologies for not interacting with your every word or argument. I suspect the post took you a fair amount of time to compose. I'm limited by time and the weakness of age. On the other hand B.J. Bear has proved over the years to have a lot more energy than I do (I suspect I beat him only in patience, and that only by a hair's breath).

 

[BJ Bear]

The complete German text can be found here online. For the English version, go to your nearest college library and locate Luther's Works 32.



It's best to actually read a context and interpret an author according to the author, and then make conclusions.



I fail to see any meaningful difference between A and B, but it appears that you mean in "A" only to refer to a written source, thus allowing for other "final" infallible authorities via "Tradition" or... whatever. If this is the case, my view is that the only infallible source of divine revelation (or: the very "Word of God") existent NOW is the Bible. There are other authorities (church leaders, tradition, etc.), but these are not the very "Word of God." They have authority, just not infallible authority. Then again, I've only had a meager amount of coffee this morning, so I may not be interpreting your words accurately.



Go ahead and post your claims IF you can provide a context from Luther's writings. I'm not interested in a link to someone's online article, and Wikipedia is like quoting Mickey Mouse.



It all comes down to personal judgment as to where one places their faith. You have made a fallible decision based on your private judgment to place your faith in the EO church.





This is the typical picking and choosing method dominant in Roman Catholicism as well. Luther responds:

Do you have a WA or StL reference or link for the quote?

I'm sure you also beat me energy also. Gone are the days when coffee was enough to get through the day. ^_^

 

[Tertiumquid]

"

Do you have a WA or StL reference or link for the quote?

For Defense and Explanation of all the Articles (LW 32:7-99), cross reference that to WA 7:308-457. The Logos version at 32:5 has an error in the introduction when it says "WA 7, 308–357." It's off 100 pages.

 

[BJ Bear]

"


For Defense and Explanation of all the Articles (LW 32:7-99), cross reference that to WA 7:308-457. The Logos version at 32:5 has an error in the introduction when it says "WA 7, 308–357." It's off 100 pages.

Thanks. I was ambiguous again. Aargh!

The unattributed quote is worded a little different than I am used to. Is it from an updated translation of his answer to Emser or from a different writing? Thanks.

 

[BJ Bear]

Thanks. I was ambiguous again. Aargh!

The unattributed quote is worded a little different than I am used to. Is it from an updated translation of his answer to Emser or from a different writing? Thanks.

@Tertiumquid
The AE is as billed, a translation of the German, WA 7, p638, 26ff. It must be from another language or writing.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Thanks. I was ambiguous again. Aargh!

The unattributed quote is worded a little different than I am used to. Is it from an updated translation of his answer to Emser or from a different writing? Thanks.

Ah, sorry. The English translation for the quote I used appears to be from the old Jacobs English set. See also LW 39:163-164. LW's translation is based on WA 7:621-688. The quote I cited above is found at WA 7:638 (last full paragraph).

Edited to add: The old Jacobs English set I have compiled here.

 

[Tertiumquid]

@Tertiumquid
The AE is as billed, a translation of the German, WA 7, p638, 26ff. It must be from another language or writing.

Ah, I began my previous reply before lunch, finished after, and we ended up on the same page.

 

[BJ Bear]

Ah, sorry. The English translation for the quote I used appears to be from the old Jacobs English set. See also LW 39:163-164. LW's translation is based on WA 7:621-688. The quote I cited above is found at WA 7:638 (last full paragraph).

Edited to add: The old Jacobs English set I have compiled here.

Thanks. The last link is helpful.

Fwiw, the publishing arm of Just & Sinner is republishing a lot of older English works and translations.

 

[BJ Bear]

Ah, I began my previous reply before lunch, finished after, and we ended up on the same page.

Good to know your priorities are in order. ^_^

 

[rakovsky]

"This term could mean that it's either A. the only authority that is both final and infallible, or B. that it is the only authority that is infallible and is also the final authority."


I fail to see any meaningful difference between A and B, but it appears that you mean in "A" only to refer to a written source, thus allowing for other "final" infallible authorities via "Tradition" or... whatever. If this is the case, my view is that the only infallible source of divine revelation (or: the very "Word of God") existent NOW is the Bible. There are other authorities (church leaders, tradition, etc.), but these are not the very "Word of God." They have authority, just not infallible authority.

The difference is that Catholics and Orthodox might agree to A., but typically they would not agree to B.

Catholics and Orthodox might agree that the Bible is the only written authority that is BOTH final and infallible, since a common idea is that the 7 Ecumenical Councils are infallible but are not the highest authority. After all, what does it mean for two true authorities to be right, yet only one to be "final?" Sometimes people can have two opinions on things and both can be OK, yet one has to be chosen over the other. If the Bible is "final", even if another authority is not "wrong."

 

[rakovsky]

"In the Orthodox Church on the other hand, we try to read the Bible and the Fathers in harmony."


This is the typical picking and choosing method dominant in Roman Catholicism as well. Luther responds:

"In order that these word-jugglers may be seen in their true light, I ask them, who told them that the fathers are clearer and not more obscure than the Scriptures? How would it be if I said that they understand the fathers as little as I understand the Scriptures? I could just as well stop my ears to the sayings of the fathers as they do to the Scriptures. But in that way we shall never arrive at the truth. If the Spirit has spoken in the fathers, so much the more has He spoken in His own Scriptures. And if one does not understand the Spirit in His own Scriptures, who will trust him to understand the Spirit in the writings of another? That is truly a carrying of the sword in the scabbard, when we do not take the naked sword by itself, but only as it is encased in the words and glosses of men. This dulls its edge and makes it obscurer than it was before, though Emser calls it smiting with the blade. The naked sword makes him tremble from head to foot. But I cannot help him, he must take his punishment."

It feels like you are making some kind of unreasonable argument against the importance of reading Church fathers and commentaries to understand the Bible.

I wrote that EOs read the Bible and the Church fathers in harmony with each other. It feels like you are leading me down a rabbit hole when you say that to read two texts in harmony with each other is "picking and choosing."

Reading two sets of texts in harmony is a general approach for understanding a whole category of literature, so it's not "picking and choosing." If I pick up the Bible and the meaning is unclear or I want some deeper insight, then I go to the church fathers or commentaries. I do that for each verse, so it's not "picking and choosing." When I was a teenager I was interested in the Book of Revelation, but it was so obscure for me that I got Barclay's commentary to read with each chapter.

You pointed me to Luther, when he asks rhetorically, "who told them that the fathers are clearer and not more obscure than the Scriptures?" With the Church fathers, you are getting a big mass of literature aimed at explaining the Bible, which at times seems consciously cryptic, like the Book of Revelation. Obviously, works aimed at explaining a cryptic text tend to be clearer and less obscure than the cryptic text. What is the point of his rhetorical question in bold, Tertoumquid, that we de facto don't need to read church father commentaries to understand the Bible? If that is his point, then it's an unreasonable one.

I stayed away from this thread a bit because the Sola Scriptura concept feels unrealistic and the arguments for come across as unreasonable like this, yet it is axiomatic for Lutheranism. I don't know that Lutheranism officially calls it a Dogma or calls it "infallible", but the 5 Solas come across as basically something that the Lutherans can't give up without ceasing to be Lutheran. If that is not dogmatic or axiomatic, then what would you call that?

Luther's next question was, "How would it be if I said that they understand the fathers as little as I understand the Scriptures?" The logical answer to his question is that if his interlocutors do not understand the church fathers well, then Luther does not understand the Bible well either.

He makes his question sound like a great logical blow against some people who are arguing for the Church fathers, but actually as a matter of logic, his declaration means that Luther doesn't understand the Bible either. This is what I mean about the Sola Scriptura arguments coming across as unreasonable. He seems to have this unrealistic underlying premise that the Bible is self explanatory when it actually is not self explanatory.

His next statements were " I could just as well stop my ears to the sayings of the fathers as they do to the Scriptures. But in that way we shall never arrive at the truth." He seems to be saying that you need to listen to the Church fathers or else we don't arrive at the truth. If that is what he means, then it means that it is necessary to read the Church fathers, which undermines the Sola scriptura idea. But the again maybe he just means that we need to listen to the Fathers in order to get to the truth about the debate, not that we need to get to the truth doctrines. When he asks "If the Spirit has spoken in the fathers, so much the more has He spoken in His own Scriptures.", it seems that he is implying that the Spirit DID speak in the Fathers, but he is not clear about that either.

 

[rakovsky]

When you say that the Bible is the only "final" authority, do you mean that it is the highest authority like Anglicans and RCs and Orthodox do, or do you mean that there is no written authority to use after you go to check the Bible, ie. that you literally want the Bible Alone to speak on the issue in question, as Luther himself seemed to explain his idea on the topic as I quoted him earlier?

To call something a "final authority" seems to mean in the way Lutheranism talks about it that there is no later authority to go to after that. It would be like the Supreme Court. In terms of authorities and decisionmaking, US plaintiffs and appellants in our court system always go to the Supreme Court with finality and nothing after it.

To give an example of why this "Bible Alone" idea is not realistic: Even the Bible does not say that it is the only "final, infallible" written authority. The Bible is a written record that does not explicate a teaching on that point. To treat the idea that the Bible is the only "final, infallible" authority as axiomatic or as a dogma would place this dogma as something more final than the Bible in judging teachings.

If the Bible does not have a clear teaching on "Sola scriptura", then to make "Sola scriptura" axiomatic or dogmatic would put it more "final" than the Bible because Sola Scriptura gives a teaching where the Bible does not clearly give one.

To give a comparison, in the Orthodox Church, or for that matter the Anglican or Catholic Church, we would say that the Bible is the highest authority. If the Bible is not clear on something, then we look to church fathers and canons. Maybe De Facto Lutheranism works the same way, ie. If the Bible is not clear, then Lutheranism would in practice consider church fathers and traditions, like on the infant baptism issue. So I considered whether by calling the Bible the only "final" authority, Lutheranism just meant the same thing that we do when we call the Bible the highest authority. But probably Lutheranism means something more than what I do when we or the RCs call the Bible the highest authority, because he emphasized it so much. He seems to have this idea as he explained it that he wants the Bible ALONE to speak and decide on issues. But this in practice is not realistic because when Lutheranism relies on church fathers and traditions to help decide on issues like Infant Baptism, then it is not actually the Bible ALONE that is being used to make the decision.

 

[rakovsky]

"The underlying real-life problem here is what I mentioned earlier, that sometimes the Bible is not clear on numerous theological topics. The Bible's meaning is sometimes not actually self-evident."

The underlying problem is not with the infallible source. That some people misinterpret the Bible is not the fault of the Bible, hence not a proof against sola scriptura. In the same way, that I may possibly configure my computer incorrectly is not the fault of the owner’s manual that comes with it. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source.

A big difference between
A. Using an owner's manual and configuring a computer, and
B. Using the Bible to configure a religion is that the owner's manual is deliberately written as a clear precise step by step guide for a very limited and simple number of steps, whereas the Bible is not actually set out as a clear step by step guide for all religious rules and doctrines of a functioning church. The owner's manual clearly states directly and explicitly what to type into the necessary command prompts, whereas the Bible authors did not clearly and directly specify whether to baptize infants, what words to say in baptism, etc. etc.

Luther had this idea of having the "Bible Alone" being the decider on religious issues, but that is not realistic even if we say that the Bible is "infallible." How can you say that the Bible is the one and only "final" authority on an issue when the Bible itself is actually so unclear that you are forced to check other authorities after reading the Bible on the topic?

It would be nice if you could just open the Bible Alone like it was a purely perspicacious computer manual and pick what it said on any significant religious topic and that your answer would be obvious. But that is not actually how reality works.

 

[BJ Bear]

It feels like you are making some kind of unreasonable argument against the importance of reading Church fathers and commentaries to understand the Bible.

I wrote that EOs read the Bible and the Church fathers in harmony with each other. It feels like you are leading me down a rabbit hole when you say that to read two texts in harmony with each other is "picking and choosing."

Reading two sets of texts in harmony is a general approach for understanding a whole category of literature, so it's not "picking and choosing." If I pick up the Bible and the meaning is unclear or I want some deeper insight, then I go to the church fathers or commentaries. I do that for each verse, so it's not "picking and choosing." When I was a teenager I was interested in the Book of Revelation, but it was so obscure for me that I got Barclay's commentary to read with each chapter.

You pointed me to Luther, when he asks rhetorically, "who told them that the fathers are clearer and not more obscure than the Scriptures?" With the Church fathers, you are getting a big mass of literature aimed at explaining the Bible, which at times seems consciously cryptic, like the Book of Revelation. Obviously, works aimed at explaining a cryptic text tend to be clearer and less obscure than the cryptic text. What is the point of his rhetorical question in bold, Tertoumquid, that we de facto don't need to read church father commentaries to understand the Bible? If that is his point, then it's an unreasonable one.

I stayed away from this thread a bit because the Sola Scriptura concept feels unrealistic and the arguments for come across as unreasonable like this, yet it is axiomatic for Lutheranism. I don't know that Lutheranism officially calls it a Dogma or calls it "infallible", but the 5 Solas come across as basically something that the Lutherans can't give up without ceasing to be Lutheran. If that is not dogmatic or axiomatic, then what would you call that?

Luther's next question was, "How would it be if I said that they understand the fathers as little as I understand the Scriptures?" The logical answer to his question is that if his interlocutors do not understand the church fathers well, then Luther does not understand the Bible well either.

He makes his question sound like a great logical blow against some people who are arguing for the Church fathers, but actually as a matter of logic, his declaration means that Luther doesn't understand the Bible either. This is what I mean about the Sola Scriptura arguments coming across as unreasonable. He seems to have this unrealistic underlying premise that the Bible is self explanatory when it actually is not self explanatory.

His next statements were " I could just as well stop my ears to the sayings of the fathers as they do to the Scriptures. But in that way we shall never arrive at the truth." He seems to be saying that you need to listen to the Church fathers or else we don't arrive at the truth. If that is what he means, then it means that it is necessary to read the Church fathers, which undermines the Sola scriptura idea. But the again maybe he just means that we need to listen to the Fathers in order to get to the truth about the debate, not that we need to get to the truth doctrines. When he asks "If the Spirit has spoken in the fathers, so much the more has He spoken in His own Scriptures.", it seems that he is implying that the Spirit DID speak in the Fathers, but he is not clear about that either.

Nott Tertium Quid, but here are some short answers.

Luther's point was regarding the clarity of the content according to the Holy Spirit of the Father's writing relative to that of Scripture. (An almost universally accepted fact demonstrated by the patristic use of Scripture. Most were not so obtuse as to disregard Scripture outright and assert their own authority or the authority of another over Scripture.) It was not whether the mass of patristic literature was great or small. He obviously knew it was large.

It again appears that your definition of sola scriptura is not that of Luther. The statement of Luther re sola scriptura which caused the hubbub was, "Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth..." So the hypothetical of what if Jesus comes and says X then it isn't final is a non sequitur.

The quote provided by TQ may not have been long enough for you to realize that Luther was being accused of introducing new ideas and of rejecting the Fathers. That is something Luther denied. So taking his comment regarding the understanding of the Fathers by some and Luther's understanding of Scripture out of context isn't helpful. His point is that that their claim is false and if he were as ignorant as they of the Fathers then he too could close his ears to the Fathers as they do to Scripture, but then they wouldn't arrive at the truth.

For the record, the five solas are the fruit of Reformed sloganeering.

 

[BJ Bear]

@rakovsky

Here is a link to Exsurge Domine, the Papal Bull to which Luther is responding. You will have to read both the introductory and closing remarks (not the italicised portion) to see what it it calls the true interpretation of Scripture and of Luther's purported rejection of the Fathers.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

 

[rakovsky]

It again appears that your definition of sola scriptura is not that of Luther. The statement of Luther re sola scriptura which caused the hubbub was, "Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth..." So the hypothetical of what if Jesus comes and says X then it isn't final is a non sequitur.

I quoted this as one of the definitions of "Sola Scriptura" in Message #42.

A criticism of this thesis is that you actually need other writings in order to guide your reading of the Bible and find the correct teachings. If the Bible is cryptic or pretty unclear on some issue like some symbols in Revelation or Infant Baptism, then you de facto need to look to other written sources to clarify the Bible's view on that topic. This is because if you don't know about other Christians' interpretations and you have to reach your own, then in reality you get a kaleidescope of interpretations, from Calvinism to Seventh Day Adventism.

If saying that the Bible is the "master over all other writings" means that you use the Bible to A. interpret those writings and to B. see if those writings are correct, then the practical reality is that you also need to use other writings to interpret and evaluate the Bible. The logical inevitable conclusion is that other writings are also "masters" in regards to the Bible, guiding you and teaching you about the Bible's meanings.

Let me give an example of each A. and B.
A. Sometimes the Bible is ambiguous. In reality, you don't actually know what lots of things in it mean when you just read the plain words on the page, like all the symbols in Daniel and Revelation, or whether the Bible meant for Baptizing Infants, or what it teaches on the Real Presence. De Facto you need to turn to writers, whether they are Church fathers or even modern preachers like Luther himself, in order to understand what it's talking about.
B. How do you know what books go into the Bible? You can feel those books' interpretations are correct, you can check it against other Biblical Books. But De Facto you have to use what the Church Fathers and Councils listed as the Biblical Books. In reality, if someone just threw the full range of different churches' Biblical books from Enoch to Genesis to 3rd Corinthians to Tobit on a giant table of 100 Protestant scholars who did not already know which books were in the Bible or what other writers thought were right, you would not get a consistent answer. Luther himself went through a process of evaluating which books were "Biblical" when he made the Lutheran Bible, and he was considering even throwing out James' Epistle. De Facto he had to consult other writings outside the Bible like the earliest Church canon lists to decide whether the Biblical books were correct and should be included in the Bible.

So the problem with Luther's thesis "Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth..." is directional, actual, real, and practical. Judging writings and doctrines is not actually a simple situation of:
Bible (Master/Judge/Interpreter) ========= over ========>>>> All other writings.

It's actually a cycle where both the Bible and other writings interpret and evaluate each other.

It makes sense to say that the Bible is the "master" of St. Ignatius' writings, for example, because you use the Bible to decide what he meant and whether he was right or not. But that being the case, you also are de facto forced to use writings of the Church Fathers to see what the Bible meant and to evaluate that the books of the Bible were right.