A dialogue with a sola scriptura Guy


You don’t have to worry about us. You need to discuss that with your Protestant and Lutheran brethren.

The Lutheran Quarterly - Volume 47 - Page 344 - Google Books Result
1917 - ‎Lutheran Church
They teach that the sacraments become effective and convey their blessings to the recipients of them without the exercise of faith, by the mere performance of the act by … We reject this teaching in toto and insist that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. … Hence they teach that it is idolatry to worship them.

Hence, they, the Lutheran theologians, teach that it is idolatry to worship them.

However, this thread is about Sola Fide. If you would like to continue a discussion on the Lutheran eucharist, why don’t you start a new thread on that topic?


Luther and Melancthon, then, are your actual, final arbiters. Not Scripture alone. Who, for example, arbitrates disagreements, today?


Actually,it is about sola scriptura. And your link doesn’t work.


Before the Bible:

Iraneus of Lyons: 125-202 AD

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 20] (Bold added for emphasis.)


The point is, that it’s not about the Eucharist.

And your link doesn’t work.

Oh, is this better?


Umm, no. They did the sola scriptura thing, using the Fathers and the early Church to defend a doctrine.


Lol! So, now they’re using the three legged stool and not Scripture alone.

They, Luther and Melancthon (i.e. the Protestant magisterium), availed themselves of the writings of the Fathers and of the Councils (Tradition) along with Scripture, in order to come to a decision on doctrine.

Now, you might be able to argue that they relied more heavily upon Scripture. But you can’t say that Scripture somehow over rided Luther and Melancthon, because obviously, they wrote the last decision, they had the last word.


Obvious is a pretty vague term. Who decides what is obvious and what isn’t? Like my example pointed out. The New Eve was pretty obvious to many of the Fathers. But it isn’t even slightly visible, even when you point it out to our separated brethren.

Who do you believe is the Church universal?


Thank you all for your response. This has been a very healthy discussion. God bless you all!


Do you believe there is another plausible conclusion than Mary was Jesus mother?

I think if one looks at the early councils, one get a sense of that.


Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Then read the Summary Rule and Norm in the Epitome

_1] 1. 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.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God._

, then read the Apology about the real presence, then this:

_Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”_

Doctrine comes from scripture. Tradition supports it.


No, Jon. The New Testament is based upon the Traditions (i.e. Doctrines) established and passed down by Jesus Christ through the Church.

The New Testament did not exist before the Doctrines which it records.


I thought the thread was about sola scriptura?


I understand what you are saying but the council deciding that Mary being Holy Theotokos wasn’t to affirm and conclude that Mary was Jesus mother. It was to conclude that Mary was the God bearer. That Mary was the “Mother of God”. This title was “obvious” to many as early as 236. It wasn’t fully brought to a council until 430 due to the Nestorian heresy in which he asserted the Blessed Virgin Mary in giving Jesus human flesh could be the “Christ-bearer” but not "God bearer. Basically, he wanted the term to be redefined Christotokos.

I mean no disrespect but this example makes it seem like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe from the councils. You are making it seem like it is possible to use scripture to dispute the early councils.

How do you define early council? The above mentioned council was 430. Who decides where the cut off is?


But that was my point. The title is still obvious to most. They used scripture (virgin birth and Incarnation).

I was actually doing the opposite. The council affirms scripture. But I’m not sure where you noticed me picking and choosing.

I think it fair to recognize those councils accepted by both the EO and Rome. So, 7.


I’m sorry. I mean no disrespect but I can’t tell if I’m talking past you or if you are intentionally ignoring what I am saying.

No where in anything I said did I reference the virgin birth and incarnation. I’m specifically speaking of Theotokos being affirmed because of the very thing you are doing here.

I say Mary is the Mother of God.

You respond yes scripture is obviously used to prove the virgin birth and incarnation.

We aren’t talking about the same thing here. Yes I agree the virgin birth and incarnation are a part of what Theotokos means, but they don’t encompass all of what it means. This is the Nestorian heresy that they called the council for. Nestorius agreed with the virgin birth, he agreed with the incarnation, he was willing to say that Mary bore Jesus, he was willing to say Jesus was God, But he wasn’t willing to say Mary is the God bearer because Jesus is fully God. He wanted to teach, against the council, that Mary only bore Jesus in the flesh and not his divine nature.

Seeing that this was taken care of in an early council do you agree then, that anyone who does not believe in the terminology Mary Mother of God is using “sola scriptura” improperly?


We may be talking past each other. If you refer back to my original post to you on this, I set the obvious as: Virgin birth and Incarnation.
Do we agree that these are obvious and accepted by the vast number of Christians, east and west ?

Assuming we do, the council of the Church identified Theotokos. They did this based on the scriptural -obvious Virgin Birth and Incarnation.
Do we agree?

If so, then we are talking about the same thing.



Yeah. About debunking Sola Scriptura. If the Church has always taught the faith primarily by Sacred Tradition, then SS, is bunk.

Oh, yeah, that reminds me. Yesterday, you said that the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist was adiaphoron. Leaving the doctrine of the Eucharist aside, that means that for Lutherans, SS is not the method of determining doctrine. Because, adiaphoron means that one has the right to decide whether to believe a doctrine or not. Thus, without realizing it, you have admitted that which you denied. Lutherans have the right of private interpretation. And, more importantly, Lutherans are the final arbiters of doctrine. Not Scripture.


No, I didn’t. Please dialogue without doing this type of thing


Of course you think that. I’d be surprised if you didn’t. I think there are lots communions that do practice it improperly.
But if your goal now is only to dispute it, you really don’t need me anymore.

His peace

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.