A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy


You’re trying to tell Lutherans what they believe. It isn’t a good apologia.

For a Lutheran, it means a teaching found in scripture. You’ve looked at the Book of Concord. It’s right there in the FC, Epitome, Summary Rule and Norm.
We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

It is pretty clear what they mean


But neither the OT or the NT are the Bible. The Catholic Church put them together in the Bible in around the 3rd or 4th century.

Somebody had to read and interpret and communicate what they judged worthy of discussion when they compared the purported “sole final norm” to whatever was being examined.

The same could be said of Catholics when they created universal jurisdiction, or the Filioque. It just depends on where you stand.

On the contrary, in the case of the Catholic Church, it is the Magisterium which considers and decides how Doctrine will develop.

That said, i think it important that, when discussing this, we don’t tell the other what they believe

I’m not. Am I discussing Lutheranism with a Lutheran or with an Anglican?


FAR more perplexing than THAT, [IMO], is if the RCC is as suggested a now Heretical church; then either GOD lied or the Bible lied. SO WHICH IS IT?

Mt 16: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

THat my friend the QUESTION we need to be asking those holding such a self-serving & unprovable position

God Bless you



Search me. And no, they are not all right.

You’re picking at nits. The writings were there, and the churches used them.

Again, I was not providing that view, nor did I claim to. Just the one I knew as a Lutheran


Jon’s idea and explanation of Sola Scriptura is not the same with Protestants of other denominations. The way he explained it, he might as well a Catholic and we cannot tell the difference (essentially).

It still boils down to authority to interpret the scripture. And so are we.

Their differences (with Catholic), of course, their doctrines would not include anything that are not explicitly in the scripture. Jon was too polite in not saying that knowing that we do.

Thus different denominations, which he refers to as Communions, have different interpretations of the same verses/passages of the scripture, so they are different because that makes them different, which we are saying.

Jon’s premise is that Catholicism is simply just another denomination.


Of course they are. You’re picking at nits. Denying their existence at the time prior to Carthage or Rome or Hippo is just silly.

Read what they wrote. Of course it is people. That’s the teaching role of the Church. And they use Scripture as the sole final norm for making their determination

You certainly are, when you say they believe something to be a doctrine when they don’t.
60+ years a Lutheran, I think I can remember back two years ago.


can they all be right?

is baptism needed for salvation or not?

some say yes, some say no.

how can it be both


Who claimed they are all right, or that all could be right?


what state of salvation does that leave the various believers in?


On this forum, I’m talking to you, not to Lutherans. However, in separate discussions, on another forum, I am talking to real live Lutherans. Not former Lutherans.

FYI, one of them says that she worships the Eucharist in the Mass. Another says that he considers it a custom to kneel for communion and adultery :wink: to worship when receiving because the bread is present. She’s a layperson, he’s a pastor.

It isn’t a good apologia.

I’ve been using the same technique for many years. I like it.

Yeah. Nothing there says that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine. In fact, if you claim that they only describe as doctrines, things that they claim are taught in Scripture, they have pointed to Psalms 119:105 and Gal 1:8.

So, they obviously consider SS a doctrine.


I cannot imagine a pastor saying kneeling to receive is adultery. That’s silly. And it is the second thread in which you made that comment. It doesn’t make any sense. You have to mean idolatry.
Care to share with me in a PM a link to this pastor’s comment?


It’s not even the same as other Lutherans.


How about a source


The one “you believed”. Whether your knowledge was infallible, is open to serious question. Especially since ex-Lutherans on this board see it much differently. And also, since current Lutherans on other boards, also disagree with you.


Read it again.

He said,

  1. Kneeling to receive is merely custom.
  2. Worshipping the Eucharist when receiving is idolatry.

That’s silly. And it is the second thread in which you made that comment.

You didn’t see the winking smiley face?

It doesn’t make any sense. You have to mean idolatry.

Yeah, I guess the joke went right past you. The first thread where I “said” that, must have been an autocorrect error or something.

You made great hay out of it, though. I replied to your comments, making fun of myself, but it was taken down, unfortunately.

Sure. I was having that conversation concurrently as we were speaking here. And it’s a busy forum, so I’ll have to do some scrounging. Let me see.


I understand what you are saying here Jon. But I think the point trying to be asked of you is what about when there is disagreement in that “sole final norm”?

Who arbitrates the disagreement?

Take for example the Mairian Dogmas. The Church fathers used scripture as their norm. They point us to passages that show Mary to be the new Eve. What happens when years later, not talking about Luther because he actually believed in many of the Marian dogmas, but what about the men that came later and said, nope we don’t see Your interpretation in scripture, must be your tradition.

Both are using scripture, but one claims the other is not. How do we get to the truth?


You are correct. I did miss the joke. I should have caught it. Sorry


Don’t beat yourself up. No problem.:grinning:


My personal view is that we absolutely look at the Fathers, the councils, etc. For example: that Mary is the Mother of Jesus is obvious in scripture. So is the Incarnation. The council decided that Holy Theotokos is doctrine. Those who disagree have to dispute not only scripture, but the Church universal on the subject.

Luther and Melanchthon both use this very argument to defend the doctrine of the real presence


Kneeling is more than custom. It is scriptural.
_Oh come let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD our maker” (Psalm 95:6). _

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:9-11

And worshipping the the Eucharist (Christ Himself) is idolatry? Really?

Now, kneeling is not required, but many Lutherans do. Lutheran pastors are not mandated to genuflect, but some do. But to say that worshipping Christ and His real presence is idolatry strikes me as hyper-anti-Catholic.

From the website linked below, on the topic, a quote from a prayer book published by CPH:
Now, here we are not saying that one should not worship our dear Lord Jesus Christ in this Sacrament, being present, of that one should not hold this Sacrament with all honor and reverence. On the contrary, since these divine, almighty, true words are believed, all of this follows of itself, and not only in external gestures but also both externally and, first and foremost, in the heart, spirit, and truth. On account of this, such adoration of Christ is not thereby cancelled, but much rather, confirmed. For where the Word is rightly seen, considered and believed, the adoration of the Sacrament will happen of itself. For whoever believes that Christ’s body and blood are there (as there is plenty of evidence so to believe, and it is necessary so to believe), he cannot, to be sure, deny his reverence to the body and blood of Christ without sin. For I must confess that Christ is there when His body and blood are there. His words do not lie to me, and He is not separate from His body and blood." - George von Anhalt, TDP, February 3, pp. 1179-80

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.