Luther "would not have elevated them to dogma"--how could a priest elevate anything to a dogma?

[PRmerger]

Very true Alex, but JonNC can correct me if I am wrong. Luther even though a believer in these doctrines would not have elevated them to dogma as a requirement of belief on the faithful. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption would be totally up to the individual believer to discern it’s importance in their life, but both of these would be left outside the realm as a necessary belief for salvation.

How could a priest elevate anything to a dogma?

That would be a topic for another thread.

Go for it! I’ll meet you there if you let me know.

I will let you tackle that thread, since it’s an issue for you and not for me.

Interested in your thoughts on how Luther could have elevated anything to a dogma. He was a priest, not a bishop, yes?

So, Mikeoffaith, what say you?

 

[Geremia]

Interested in your thoughts on how Luther could have elevated anything to a dogma. He was a priest, not a bishop, yes?

This is an absurdity. Only a pope can elevate something to dogma, so the arch-heretic Luther must have thought he was effectively the pope. What a troubled soul!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Interested in your thoughts on how Luther could have elevated anything to a dogma. He was a priest, not a bishop, yes?

So, Mikeoffaith, what say you?

The answer is simple, either way you read, he would not have elevated it to Dogma. The fact of his bishopness is of no consequence, the end result is the same.

But let me ask you a question, can any bishop in the Roman Catholic Church elevate anything to dogma?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Sorry I forgot to thank you for putting this in another thread.

 

[mark_a]

The answer is simple, either way you read, he would not have elevated it to Dogma. The fact of his bishopness is of no consequence, the end result is the same.

But let me ask you a question, can any bishop in the Roman Catholic Church elevate anything to dogma?

Yes. Any bishop of Rome can elevate anything to dogma.

But seriously folks, dogma is a teaching that cannot be denied. The IC and Papal infallibility are really the only biggies that lots of Protestants deny, well except for that ban on contraception!

 

[Della]

Do Lutherans have dogmas? That’s the question. If not, then it’s a moot point. If they do, who decides what should be elevated to dogma? Certainly not a single minister or a single bishop since no bishop in the Lutheran Church holds such authority. These are the issues that matter, not what Luther would or wouldn’t have done. Since he isn’t here to tell us, how can we possibly know what, if he had a choice in the matter, he would have done? For all we know, from what we know about what he believed, he may have wanted to elevate certain doctrines to dogma, who’s to say?

 

[PRmerger]

The answer is simple, either way you read, he would not have elevated it to Dogma. The fact of his bishopness is of no consequence, the end result is the same.

Actually, my point is he, a man, COULD NOT elevate anything to a dogma. Thus, the statement you made: “Luther even though a believer in these doctrines would not have elevated them to dogma” is puzzling.

Why even make that statement? How could a man–he wasn’t even a bishop, right?–have the power to elevate anything to a dogma?

But let me ask you a question, can any bishop in the Roman Catholic Church elevate anything to dogma?

Sure can–he’s called the bishop of Rome.

 

[gcnuss]

I think a mountain is being formed from a molehill here.

I’m not a grammatical expert but I think there is a term for a statement that would say, in effect, “if I had the authority, I would (or, would not) do whatever.” Any of us can make such statements as a commentary on any action. It doesn’t mean that we have the authority to do so but simply that we agree (disagree) with whatever is being discussed. If applied to Luther, it is no different.

 

[PRmerger]

I think a mountain is being formed from a molehill here.

Fair enough. This is certainly not the hill (mole or otherwise) I want to die on.

However, the CAFs is big enough to discuss deep theological issues (questions on Christian existentialism vs anarchism) and rather mundane ones as well.

I’m not a grammatical expert but I think there is a term for a statement that would say, in effect, “if I had the authority, I would (or, would not) do whatever.” Any of us can make such statements as a commentary on any action. It doesn’t mean that we have the authority to do so but simply that we agree (disagree) with whatever is being discussed. If applied to Luther, it is no different.

I think the comment made by Mikeoffaith speaks volumes. It elevates a man, however knowledgeable, learned, and erudite, to the position of being able to declare a dogma.

Speaks volumes of how Luther is regarded by some.

 

[JonNC]

Fair enough. This is certainly not the hill (mole or otherwise) I want to die on.

However, the CAFs is big enough to discuss deep theological issues (questions on Christian existentialism vs anarchism) and rather mundane ones as well.

I think the comment made by Mikeoffaith speaks volumes. It elevates a man, however knowledgeable, learned, and erudite, to the position of being able to declare a dogma.

Speaks volumes of how Luther is regarded by some.

Honestly, PR, I didn’t take Mike’s original quote this way at all, though he can speak for himself. Lutherans who actually know something about Luther wouldn’t consider him in that light. We are, after all, sola scripturists, and therefore believe all teachers, including ML, are held accountable to scripture.

The Book of Concord has some of Luther’s writings in it, but not inconsequentially, the first section of the confessions is dedcated to the early creeds, placed even before Augsburg!!

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Honestly, PR, I didn’t take Mike’s original quote this way at all, though he can speak for himself. Lutherans who actually know something about Luther wouldn’t consider him in that light. We are, after all, sola scripturists, and therefore believe all teachers, including ML, are held accountable to scripture.

Again, this is fair. Most Lutherans would not give Fr. Luther this authority do declare something a dogma.

Which is why I found the comment curious. And I questioned it in the original thread.

And, I still don’t know what Mikeoffaith’s point was?
*
“Luther even though a believer in these doctrines would not have elevated them to dogma.” *

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Augsburg Confession and the basic tenets of Lutheranism–Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. Sola Gratia, are all dogmas that one needs to accept to be a good Lutheran. I don’t think it’s fair to call Luther a wannabe pope. Luther wasn’t enthusiastic about building a church. He was an enthusiast for reform of the first one. Luther actually wasn’t much of a church-builder. Melancthon, Chemnitz, and so many other divines of Lutheranism built the church’s structures and governance and polity over what Luther ever contributed. Luther was a great theologian and biblical scholar and he laid the groundwork.

Protestantism’s weakness was that in their quest to retreat from the hard and fast dogmas of the Catholic Church, so much chaos ensued in the arguments between guys like Zwingli and Luther. Lutheranism has never been dogmatic but they have high standards of faith. Lutheran groups like LCMS Lutherans and WELS Lutherans practice closed communion and a catechesis that requires a belief in the real presence among many other orthodox Christian beliefs in conjunction with sola scriptura, the definite dogma of Luther!

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes. Any bishop of Rome can elevate anything to dogma.

You dearly nearly got me here. I was about to yell, “What …!”, until I realise, oh ya, the Bishop of Rome.

But seriously folks, dogma is a teaching that cannot be denied. The IC and Papal infallibility are really the only biggies that lots of Protestants deny, well except for that ban on contraception!

Could it be the reason that the Lutherans and the Orthodox do not have nay new dogmas after the reformation and the schism respectively since they do not have any Pope? If that is so, at least they honor the papal office which only can declare a dogma.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or perhaps they don’t need to make new dogmas because Christ’s revealed Word and all the dogmas set up in council are sufficient. Innovating dogmas every ten years isn’t necessarily a good thing

Could it be the reason that the Lutherans and the Orthodox do not have nay new dogmas after the reformation and the schism respectively since they do not have any Pope? If that is so, at least they honor the papal office which only can declare a dogma.

 

[pablope]

Interested in your thoughts on how Luther could have elevated anything to a dogma. He was a priest, not a bishop, yes?

So, Mikeoffaith, what say you?

On the Journey Home yesterday, guest was former Calvinist David Anders. He discussed a variety of topics from viewer calls and emails. One of the topics was Luther’s Sola Scriptura. This is what I can recall he stated ( I will have to watch it again to clarify): Luther did not really define the dogma of SS, he just asserted it.

I wonder what our Lutheran brethen’s take on this? ( If it is off topic, please state so, I do not want to derail this thread)…Did Luther elevate anything to dogma, if ever?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I watched a bit of that episode. Wow, that guy was THE most boring speaker in history. I’d love to have him in my house on those sleepless nights to aid in my insomnia. Sheesh!

On the Journey Home yesterday, guest was former Calvinist David Anders. He discussed a variety of topics from viewer calls and emails. One of the topics was Luther’s Sola Scriptura. This is what I can recall he stated ( I will have to watch it again to clarify): Luther did not really define the dogma of SS, he just asserted it.

I wonder what our Lutheran brethen’s take on this? ( If it is off topic, please state so, I do not want to derail this thread)…Did Luther elevate anything to dogma, if ever?

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder what our Lutheran brethen’s take on this? ( If it is off topic, please state so, I do not want to derail this thread)…Did Luther elevate anything to dogma, if ever?

No need to apologize for taking this thread on a tangent. shaw: I rather like it when conversations diverge naturally. It mimics real-life discussions–it’s like we’re *really *sitting at a coffee house talking about religion and the conversation naturally progresses into other topics.

 

[Della]

Or perhaps they don’t need to make new dogmas because Christ’s revealed Word and all the dogmas set up in council are sufficient. Innovating dogmas every ten years isn’t necessarily a good thing

Let’s not employ such hyperbole here. The last doctrine to be elevated to dogma was the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII on May 1, 1946–sixty-four years ago. Hardly the “ten years” ago you stated, making it appear (deliberately or not) that such elevations are frivolous. No doctrine is elevated to dogma without careful consideration and much prayer. To suggest otherwise is not only untrue but reckless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well just call me ole’ Hyperbole and reckless!

Let’s not employ such hyperbole here. The last doctrine to be elevated to dogma was the Assumption of Mary by Pope Pius XII on May 1, 1946–sixty-four years ago. Hardly the “ten years” ago you stated, making it appear (deliberately or not) that such elevations are frivolous. No doctrine is elevated to dogma without careful consideration and much prayer. To suggest otherwise is not only untrue but reckless.

 

[Della]

Well just call me ole’ Hyperbole and reckless!

I certainly will if it’s indicative of a general lassitude of attitude. :bounce: