The First Lutheran Answer

There seemed to be four main Lutheran answers. At least, I heard four different answers from Lutherans.

Lutheran Answer One:

That the guarantee of truth is the clear Word of God in Scripture. Many Lutherans hold that Tradition, reason, the church, etc have some function of guidance BUT, they remain convinced that the only infallible guarantee of truth is the ‘clear’ Word of Scripture.

The emphasis on clear is important since, if anything about Scripture is unclear, then the reliability of any interpretation is only as good as that of the interpreter him/herself. In other words Lutherans must claim, if they hold this theory, that Scripture is so clear it needs no interpretation.

The problem, of course, is that some Scriptures are plainly not obeyed (in their literal sense) in the modern context, nor were they in ancient contexts. Imagine if we all advocated stoning of adulterers? Yet that particular Scripture is clear!

Now Lutherans claim we must read all of Scripture together in order to discern it’s clarity, and that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ That is, the clear parts of Scripture interpret the unclear parts. Then we must ask; “Which part of Scripture applies to which other part?”. To make any such judgement is actually an act of interpretation! To interpret any text in any way that is contrary to the simplest, literal meaning is to apply and claim the authority to interpret. Something that Lutherans deny any human can claim.

But let’s say we did simply apply Scripture to interpret Scripture and came up with an answer to a current question. We could only claim whatever reliability the interpreter has as our guarantee of that answer. Did he ‘infallibly’ apply Scripture? Did he ‘infallibly’ discern what Scripture was saying in both the text he applied and the one he applied it to? Did he allow any previous training or prejudice get in the way of the ‘clear’ Word. The reality is, as soon as anyone picks up a book they interpret it.

Let us leave that aside for now and talk about the logical problems of Sola Scriptura.

The first question one can ask when our theology demands that we base everything on Sola Scriptura is: “Why?” Why insist on Scripture alone? From where do we gain this principle? And on what basis do we make it the founding principle of our theology?

There is no such principle in Scripture itself, nor can one be derived from Scripture by inference. So where else can we find support for this assertion? If we seek to prove ‘Sola Scriptura’ we can hardly go outside of the very Scriptures we are claiming to hold ‘solely’ to in order to prove our principle. That would be to contravene the very principle we are trying to prove!

It should be said that Lutherans attempt to ‘prove’ Sola Scriptura by appealing to texts which teach the reliability and necessity of Scripture, but fail to prove the only controversial part of their favourite maxim. That is, Lutherans can produce no evidence to support the ‘sola’ in ‘sola Scriptura’.

The second question is “Which Scriptures?” Do we include the deuterocanonical books, or even the Old Testament? Do we, with Luther, reject James as ‘an epistle of straw’ or Revelations? If we go along with the modern Protestant assumption that whatever is included in a Bible we buy is genuine, we are still faced with the question: “Why do we not include the 7 deuterocononical books? Even if, in a fit of magnanimous condescension, we decide to accept the full Western canon, we are still faced with the question: ‘Why?’ Especially in the face of the (slightly larger) Eastern canons. But even leaving aside all the canons in the world, we must ask why we would trust ANY of these writings as infallible?

Some Lutherans (a very few) hold to a theory of the ‘self assertion’ of the Christian canon. That is, that the canon asserted itself within the church community over the centuries. This theory is riddled with problems but, like most falsehood, contains a small part of the truth. There is no doubt that the Church cannot create the infallible Scriptures solely by human authority or effort, but she does recognise them by the divine authority Christ has given her.

It is no use asserting the ontological infallibility of Scripture without also asking the epistemological question. That is, we know God’s word is infallible by definition, but how do we know what is His word and what is not? This was probably my biggest question of that synod.

Some Lutherans like to argue that we simply accept the books that ‘everyone’ accepts. The problem with this, of course, is that Marcion together with many others through the ages have not accepted the canon as it is! Also, after Luther, many others cast doubt on James, Revelation, and the like because they contradict their own theology.

We have seen this principle at work in some of the arguments for Women’s ordination. Namely the ‘interpolation’ argument. That is, that two verses of 1 Cor 14 were actually an editorial note and were later included in the canon. It must not, (say the adherents of this theory), be regarded as apostolic, nor as ‘Scriptural’. And so, without anyone with authority to define the canon, it is whittled down to a few non-offensive passages somewhere in Galatians. No clear truth to be had there.

There are many more things to be said about the Protestant problem with Scripture, but I hope to cover the basics in the following questions.

Next: The Second Lutheran Answer