Follow up on SS

[Isaiah45_9]

We see this in Lutheran circles - where the Confessions are ready and available, but people chose to ignore them.

And we see this in Catholic circles - where the Magisterium is clear, but the people pick and chose what to accept.

No way [me].

 

[Topper17]

The term ‘nobility’ was broadly used to cover the ruling class in Germany, from the emperor down. But by what right, the modern reader may well inquire, might Luther call upon them to reform the Church? The question has more than an antiquarian interest, because some contend that in this tract Luther broke with his earlier view of the Church as a persecuted remnant and laid instead the basis for a church allied with and subservient to the state.” Bainton, pg. 143

“He was always ready to disobey, but exceedingly loath to raise a hand against the Lord’s anointed (secular leaders).” Bainton, pg. 397

After the Peasant’s War, Luther placed an unprecedented degree of religious responsibility in the hands of the secular leaders This had far reaching consequences.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Topper, these recent discussions with you have ben a joy.

I am enjoying our honest and open dialogue very much also.

I’d certainly be more understanding, but I couldn’t accept their errors.

I think it comes down to whether “they” are willfully teaching and believing something that they know to be false. Maybe it comes down to whether God ‘s Absolute Truth can be known. Personally I believe that we can know it, but in order to find ‘them’ responsible, we have to believe that they SHOULD have ‘known better’.

I don’t think we could effectively change their minds, but we could show them that we’re not at all hostile to God’s sinners. The best way to reach them would be to renew our invitation for all of God’s sinners - that they could fine new life with Christ.

I understand what you are saying but don’t know how you would specifically carry that out. Plus, I am not sure what you mean by ‘sinners’. Are you suggesting that it is a ‘sin’ for a Lutheran to ‘go against’ or to ignore the Lutheran Confessions?

I don’t think this is just a Private Interpretation problem - but a larger problem of not binding the will to Christ.

Same comment as above, but again, how are we supposed to know that they don’t THINK that they ARE not binding the will of Christ? Again, I think the difference goes possibly to ‘intent’.

Even presented with facts and correct interpretations, we would be confronted with a mind already made up to follow itself.

We see this in Lutheran circles - where the Confessions are ready and available, but people chose to ignore them.

And we see this in Catholic circles - where the Magisterium is clear, but the people pick and chose what to accept.

You mention ‘correct interpretations’, which of course is very subjective. ‘They’ could theoretically (and actually DO) say that THEY have shown YOU the ‘correct interpretations’. All of this goes directly to how, specifically and exactly, we are supposed to KNOW what is and what is not 'correct interpretations, or better put, God’s Absolute Truth (doctrinally).

In my mind, IF God’s Absolute Truth can be known by us here on earth, then there must be a specific means by which we are to know it. In other words, one ‘method’ SHOULD stand out as being superior when we look at all of the competing ‘methods’ side by side.

Sola Scriptura clearly is NOT that method because it has produced tremendous doctrinal dissension. Nor is the answer in the ‘proper use’ of SS, because Scripture does not explicitly describe how it is to be interpreted. Plus, if the correct ‘use’ of SS were really ‘so clear’, there wouldn’t be such a tremendous variety of explanations as to that ‘use’.

As for the Lutheran Confessions and the Catholic Magisterium, the way I see it, Luther himself set a precedent for refuting the dogmatic beliefs of one’s own ‘Communion’. In other words, Lutherans have no leg to stand on when claiming that their members do not have the authority to ignore, or refute, or believe things opposed to the Lutheran Confessions. On the other hand, there is no such precedent in Catholic teaching.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you too.

Thanks Ben and God Bless You, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

I understand what you are saying but don’t know how you would specifically carry that out. Plus, I am not sure what you mean by ‘sinners’. Are you suggesting that it is a ‘sin’ for a Lutheran to ‘go against’ or to ignore the Lutheran Confessions?

When I said ‘sinner’ I was probably being too coy. It’s a fair critique that some Lutheran churches have railed against same-sex sexual behavior almost exclusively - this is dangerous for two reasons; That it can drive away those that need Christ’s message, and can give those that don’t suffer from those sins a false sense of superiority.

In my mind, IF God’s Absolute Truth can be known by us here on earth, then there must be a specific means by which we are to know it. In other words, one ‘method’ SHOULD stand out as being superior when we look at all of the competing ‘methods’ side by side.

I don’t know if that’s possible - even when God walked with us in the flesh even the his Apostles betrayed and denied Him.

Sola Scriptura clearly is NOT that method because it has produced tremendous doctrinal dissension. Nor is the answer in the ‘proper use’ of SS, because Scripture does not explicitly describe how it is to be interpreted. Plus, if the correct ‘use’ of SS were really ‘so clear’, there wouldn’t be such a tremendous variety of explanations as to that ‘use’.

As you’ve defined SS, I would agree. As the Lutheran church practices SS, I don’t see your definition matches.

As for the Lutheran Confessions and the Catholic Magisterium, the way I see it, Luther himself set a precedent for refuting the dogmatic beliefs of one’s own ‘Communion’. In other words, Lutherans have no leg to stand on when claiming that their members do not have the authority to ignore, or refute, or believe things opposed to the Lutheran Confessions. On the other hand, there is no such precedent in Catholic teaching.

It’s good that you feel that way, otherwise you’d be Lutheran. Personally, I don’t see it that way - if I did, I’d be Catholic.

Thanks Ben and God Bless You, Topper

Thank you too.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Topper17;12048843:

In my mind, IF God’s Absolute Truth can be known by us here on earth, then there must be a specific means by which we are to know it. In other words, one ‘method’ SHOULD stand out as being superior when we look at all of the competing ‘methods’ side by side.

I don’t know if that’s possible - even when God walked with us in the flesh even the his Apostles betrayed and denied Him.

Do you think St. Peter denied Jesus because he didn’t know that he shouldn’t?

There’s a distinction to be made between truth and sinlessness.
I think it’s very much related to the constant misunderstanding that protestants have of the charism of infallibility.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Topper17;12048843:

As for the Lutheran Confessions and the Catholic Magisterium, the way I see it, Luther himself set a precedent for refuting the dogmatic beliefs of one’s own ‘Communion’. In other words, Lutherans have no leg to stand on when claiming that their members do not have the authority to ignore, or refute, or believe things opposed to the Lutheran Confessions. On the other hand, there is no such precedent in Catholic teaching.

It’s good that you feel that way, otherwise you’d be Lutheran. Personally, I don’t see it that way - if I did, I’d be Catholic.

Topper’s statement wasn’t one of “feelings,” ben. It was a logical deduction, and a valid one at that. It can’t really be addressed by how one “feels.”

 

[benjohnson]

Do you think St. Peter denied Jesus because he didn’t know that he shouldn’t?

It’s not just St. Peter - the apostles were hiding in the upper room for days after the crucifixion. Some didn’t even recognize Him when he was resurrected. We also have Judas’ (the treasurer of the Apostles) betrayal.

The point I was trying to make is that the old-Adam in us rebels even in the face of God. So much so, that even if your were to develop the perfect way of promulgating the faith, we should expect rebellion.

 

[benjohnson]

Topper’s statement wasn’t one of “feelings,” ben. It was a logical deduction, and a valid one at that. It can’t really be addressed by how one “feels.”

Good point!

My faith compels me in both mind and soul, as (I’m certain) your Catholic faith compels you and Topper.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

When I said ‘sinner’ I was probably being too coy. It’s a fair critique that some Lutheran churches have railed against same-sex sexual behavior almost exclusively - this is dangerous for two reasons; That it can drive away those that need Christ’s message, and can give those that don’t suffer from those sins a false sense of superiority.

Maybe the reason that you misunderstood me is because I might have misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about those ‘other Lutherans’ and how they could basically turn their back on your Confessions. That is what I thought you meant by ‘sinners’. I don’t know how we got from there to ‘same-sexual behavior’. So I guess that brings us back to whether you think that it is a ‘sin’ for Lutherans to turn their backs on your Confessions. Do you?

I don’t know if that’s possible - even when God walked with us in the flesh even the his Apostles betrayed and denied Him.

It seems that you say that God’s Absolute Truth cannot necessarily be known, yet in order to be a Lutheran, at least in some of the Lutheran communions, and in order to be a Lutheran Minister, you **must **declare that you believe and will teach the Lutheran Confessions. Obviously Lutheranism in general believes that God’s Absolute Truth CAN be known (as is best known in the Lutheran Confessions). Here we find a contradiction, as pointed out by Alister McGrath:

“We have already noted the fundamentally democratic nature of Protestant theology; it is an enterprise that may be undertaken by any person, on the basis of a publicly available resource – the Bible. There is no question of any one interpretation being “privileged” or of any secret additional sources of divine knowledge that are accessible only to the initiated and upon which salvation ultimately depends. Nor is there any idea of a spiritual elite: no group of believers has the right to impose its views, whether on account of academic qualifications (the German Lutheran writer Martin Kahler described this as “a papacy of the professors”) or institutional seniority…Protestantism is adamant that the officeholders of the church are accountable to the church’s members for the interpretations of the Bible they offer in their preaching and teaching and that they may be challenged and corrected on it’s basis.

This approach is subversive to the authority of individual preachers and theologians, no matter how venerable, in that it insists that their views must be judged in light of the Bible. Protestantism ultimately grounds itself in the Bible alone, not in any specific interpretation of the Bible. **Perhaps anxious that some might come to regard Martin Luther as an infallible guide to Christian, Lutherans drafted the “Formula of Concord” (1577), which insists that no interpretation of Scripture can be defined as normative.” **…

So how can any Protestant claim to speak with “authority” when Protestantism subverts that claim by insisting that all Christians are priests and that no case can be made for the present existence or future emergence of any kind of “spiritual elite” who are placed above others? …**This would seem to lead to the conclusion that Protestantism is a democratic faith: because the views of every believer are of equal value, it is impossible for authority figures to emerge.
**

**That logic may be sound, but the reality is somewhat different. In practice, authority figures play an important role in Protestantism.” ** Alister McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” pg. 232-233

For a Catholic, this is a ‘target rich environment’, but for now let’s focus on the section in red.

Part two to follow

 

[Topper17]

Part two:

The Formula of Concord is “held to be a faithful interpretation of Lutheranism and the Bible”. Here we see another contradiction, actually two. Lutheranism denies that any one interpretation or representation of Scripture is more valid than another, yet one cannot be a Lutheran “preacher” if one “teaches” doctrines that run counter to the Confessions. In addition, the writing of the Formula was accomplished by a Lutheran Council and since Luther claimed that Councils could err, obviously that Council (and all others) have no authority to proclaim anything as being “normative”. Clearly though that Lutheran “Council” had every intention of imposing it’s views on others, and to some degree, has been able to do so.

I point all of this out because it appears to me that you don’t have the same level of ‘confidence’ that your denomination displays in regards to whether God’s Absolute Truth can be known with certainty. Have I misunderstood again?

As you’ve defined SS, I would agree. As the Lutheran church practices SS, I don’t see your definition matches.

I have not really defined SS other than to say that it is a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. All SS communions ‘add’ something to Scripture in order to interpret it ‘correctly’. Lutherans add their Confessions. Some add other Confessions, but again, there is absolutely no agreement among the SS denominations as to what it is that should be ‘added’ to Scripture. Furthermore, neither the Lutherans nor any of the other SS denominations can offer a rational as to why it is that their ‘addition’ should be viewed as being authoritative over and above the rest. Except for those rather weak arguments about how ‘ours is Scriptural’, which of course is what everyone says. If you see the Lutheran practice of SS being somehow different than the rest, I would love to understand why.

It’s good that you feel that way, otherwise you’d be Lutheran. Personally, I don’t see it that way - if I did, I’d be Catholic.

As FKB said, this is not a matter of feelings. If God wants us to know His Absolute Truth, which I think He does, then you would think that He must have devised a ‘means’ to know it, a means by which, when compared to the other competing ‘means’, should clearly appeal more to logic, reason, Christian history, AND Scripture.

Obviously, SS has failed in this respect. The ‘Catholic means’ does NOT ‘use’ Sola Scriptura.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Contarini]

Part two:

The Formula of Concord is “held to be a faithful interpretation of Lutheranism and the Bible”. Here we see another contradiction, actually two. Lutheranism denies that any one interpretation or representation of Scripture is more valid than another

It does? How? Where? I think we’ve drifted off into the Parallel Catholic-Apologist Universe here.

Just because Lutherans deny ecclesial infallibility does not mean that they don’t think some interpretations are more faithful to Scripture than others. In fact they have always insisted that theirs are–quite understandably. Your claim makes no sense at all.

yet one cannot be a Lutheran “preacher” if one “teaches” doctrines that run counter to the Confessions. In addition, the writing of the Formula was accomplished by a Lutheran Council and since Luther claimed that Councils could err, obviously that Council (and all others) have no authority to proclaim anything as being “normative”

Could doesn’t mean did, obviously.

.

I have not really defined SS other than to say that it is a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. All SS communions ‘add’ something to Scripture in order to interpret it ‘correctly’. Lutherans add their Confessions. Some add other Confessions, but again, there is absolutely no agreement among the SS denominations as to what it is that should be ‘added’ to Scripture. Furthermore, neither the Lutherans nor any of the other SS denominations can offer a rational as to why it is that their ‘addition’ should be viewed as being authoritative over and above the rest.

Really? Have you examined the Lutheran arguments carefully, or are you just dismissing them out of hand simply because other arguments exist, which is a frivolous objection. It’s like those silly atheists who say “since there are so many religions, none of them is true.” If your argument is correct, surely theirs is too?

There is no escaping the problem here: the argument you use against Protestants redounds against you, because on your own principles you cannot explain why the claims of the Church should be accepted in the first place. (And no, the “spiral argument” does not solve this problem at all.)

As a matter of fact, I don’t think Lutherans have a convincing case over against Catholicism. I think they do have a convincing case over against other Protestants, but mostly because they are closer to Catholicism. But the arguments have to be addressed in particular, not simply thrown out of court by a “praescriptio” as you are attempting to do.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

So I guess that brings us back to whether you think that it is a ‘sin’ for Lutherans to turn their backs on your Confessions. Do you?

Let me preface that Lutherans hold that the Confessions are a reflection of scripture - so if a Lutheran intentionally ‘misunderstands’ the confessions, they are indeed not following God’s word.

It seems that you say that God’s Absolute Truth cannot necessarily be known, yet in order to be a Lutheran, at least in some of the Lutheran communions, and in order to be a Lutheran Minister, you **must **declare that you believe and will teach the Lutheran Confessions. Obviously Lutheranism in general believes that God’s Absolute Truth CAN be known (as is best known in the Lutheran Confessions).

Certainly, I do think God’s truth can be known. My contention is that there probably isn’t a sure way of promulgating that truth in all cases given the sin-filled nature of man.

Here we find a contradiction, as pointed out by Alister McGrath:
“We have already noted the fundamentally democratic nature of Protestant theology; it is an enterprise that may be undertaken by any person, on the basis of a publicly available resource – the Bible.

There is where we Lutherans would say the McGrath isn’t speaking for us - we have the church to teach us theology.

Perhaps anxious that some might come to regard Martin Luther as an infallible guide to Christian, Lutherans drafted the “Formula of Concord” (1577), which insists that no interpretation of Scripture can be defined as normative.”

It’s hard for me to see how McGrath could come to that conclusion, as the Formula of Concord itself a book of various ‘thesis’ that describe settled theology.

For a Catholic, this is a ‘target rich environment’, but for now let’s focus on the section in red.

Good! If a protestant isn’t being lead to the Gospel and isn’t receiving the Sacraments then I encourage your efforts!

 

[benjohnson]

The Formula of Concord is “held to be a faithful interpretation of Lutheranism and the Bible”. Here we see another contradiction, actually two. Lutheranism denies that any one interpretation or representation of Scripture is more valid than another.

That’s where I think we’re perhaps talking past each other - Lutherans certainly do rank various interpretations, with the church having the correct one.

Some add other Confessions, but again, there is absolutely no agreement among the SS denominations as to what it is that should be ‘added’ to Scripture.

Then they’re not Lutheran And we certainly don’t day that the Confessions add anything to Scripture, but only that they reflect it.

If you see the Lutheran practice of SS being somehow different than the rest, I would love to understand why.

I do se Lutheran SS being drastically different than what I perceive I see in other protestant communions, in that Lutheran SS is a practice of the church.

 

[Contarini]

Topper, I apologize–I should have read the preceding posts. I see that you were quoting McGrath. It still doesn’t make sense, at least as you’re quoting it. I’ll look it up in context. I had a lot of problems with Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Topper, I apologize–I should have read the preceding posts. I see that you were quoting McGrath. It still doesn’t make sense, at least as you’re quoting it. I’ll look it up in context. I had a lot of problems with Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.

No problem and God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Let me preface that Lutherans hold that the Confessions are a reflection of scripture - so if a Lutheran intentionally ‘misunderstands’ the confessions, they are indeed not following God’s word.

With all due respect Ben, and it is considerable, ALL SS communions hold that their beliefs are a valid ‘reflection’ of Scripture. The fact of all of those competing and conflicting ‘reflections’ indicate that there is something wrong with the method used to declare what is and what is not a valid ‘reflection’.

Certainly, I do think God’s truth can be known. My contention is that there probably isn’t a sure way of promulgating that truth in all cases given the sin-filled nature of man.

I’m glad to hear that, but surely Christ recognized that man is fallen, so it makes sense that He would have devised a ‘means’ by which EVEN fallen man could know His Absolute Truth with certainty.

There is where we Lutherans would say the McGrath isn’t speaking for us - we have the church to teach us theology. It’s hard for me to see how McGrath could come to that conclusion, as the Formula of Concord itself a book of various ‘thesis’ that describe settled theology.

To me it seems that McGrath could be speaking here of the Private Interpretation ‘brand’ of Protestantism, but we should remember that that is the ‘version’ of Christianity that Luther believed and taught for the first 5-7 years or so of his ‘reformation’. I would suggest that your understanding of Lutheranism is better than that of McGrath. If you would like I will post the rest of the quote and you can provide your analysis.

That’s where I think we’re perhaps talking past each other - Lutherans certainly do rank various interpretations, with the church having the correct one.

We agree that the Church has teaching aurhority, but of course we probably disagree on what it is, specifically and exactly, that constitutes the authoritative teaching Church. That definition of ‘Church’ cannot apply equally to different communions that teach different doctrines.

Then they’re not Lutheran And we certainly don’t say that the Confessions add anything to Scripture, but only that they reflect it.

Which of course begs the question as to who defines who is and who is not Lutheran. How do you make that definition?

I do see Lutheran SS being drastically different than what I perceive I see in other protestant communions, in that Lutheran SS is a practice of the church.

OK, how then do you see Lutheran SS as being drastically different than other non-Lutheran Protestant Confessional communions? Again, it must be pointed out that prior to the development of the Lutheran Confessions or even the establishment of the Lutheran denomination, there WAS a far different‘model of authority’ that was used by Luther to forge his ‘reformation’ and refute the teaching authority of His Church.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

With all due respect Ben, and it is considerable, ALL SS communions hold that their beliefs are a valid ‘reflection’ of Scripture. The fact of all of those competing and conflicting ‘reflections’ indicate that there is something wrong with the method used to declare what is and what is not a valid ‘reflection’.

Remember, Lutherans accept tradition and other authorities - SS in the Lutheran confession has only been used a few times to ponder the validity of certain (what we felt were novel) practices in the church.

I’m glad to hear that, but surely Christ recognized that man is fallen, so it makes sense that He would have devised a ‘means’ by which EVEN fallen man could know His Absolute Truth with certainty.

I’m not quite certain that all of us are blessed to know with certainty - I know for myself that doubt is part of my own faith.

To me it seems that McGrath could be speaking here of the Private Interpretation ‘brand’ of Protestantism, but we should remember that that is the ‘version’ of Christianity that Luther believed and taught for the first 5-7 years or so of his ‘reformation’. I would suggest that your understanding of Lutheranism is better than that of McGrath. If you would like I will post the rest of the quote and you can provide your analysis.

If I have to guess, McGrath make the mistake that Protestants are a homogenous group.

Luther did all sorts of stupid stuff and he was wrong many many times - Lutherans however are bound to the confessions, scripture, and the church.

We agree that the Church has teaching aurhority, but of course we probably disagree on what it is, specifically and exactly, that constitutes the authoritative teaching Church. That definition of ‘Church’ cannot apply equally to different communions that teach different doctrines.

Agreed!

Which of course begs the question as to who defines who is and who is not Lutheran. How do you make that definition?

Sadly there a many that have the name Lutheran that don’t follow the confessions, scripture, the historic church or even the creeds.

OK, how then do you see Lutheran SS as being drastically different than other non-Lutheran Protestant Confessional communions?

The only other group of Protestants that seem confessional are some Anglicans - their three-leggd stool theory seems reasonable at first glance, but I’m not at all versed in the nuances.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

His Blessing on you as well!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Sadly there a many that have the name Lutheran that don’t follow the confessions, scripture, the historic church or even the creeds.

Can you identify for Topper and me what Lutherans have the name but don’t follow the confessions, scripture, the historic church or even the creeds?

 

[mackbrislawn]

L
Certainly, I do think God’s truth can be known. My contention is that there probably isn’t a sure way of promulgating that truth in all cases given the sin-filled nature of man.

But God used sinful men to prophesy and also to write scripture, so truth was nevertheless promulgated.

I hate to think that there is no sure way of getting the truth out.

 

[benjohnson]

Can you identify for Topper and me what Lutherans have the name but don’t follow the confessions, scripture, the historic church or even the creeds?

Only because you asked, godess worship: herchurch.org