Lutheran Confessions - Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steido01 said:
Scripture is infallible.
Click to expand...
Infallibility is the inability to teach error. The Bible is inerrant, not infallible. Those who read the Bible can certainly err in its interpretation; that’s why there are so many conflicting interpretations.
 
Erich said:
Infallibility is the inability to teach error. The Bible is inerrant, not infallible. Those who read the Bible can certainly err in its interpretation; that’s why there are so many conflicting interpretations.
Click to expand...
True, but in more modern usage, the two seem to have become somewhat synonymous.

Jon
 
Tomster said:
Ben,

I have come up with what I think to be a good outline of Lutheran doctrine. Read it over and critque it if you will. Add or subtract from it but please give us good reasons why.
  1. Original justice was connatural to Adam, like sight to the eyes.
  2. Original sin (loss of original justice) has, therefore, corrupted intrinsically human nature in such a way that man is no longer capable of doing any good at all.
  3. By original sin human reason has degenerated and free will no longer exists.
  4. Therefore, man is no longer responsible for his acts, especially since he is tyrannically dominated by concupiscence, which is intrinsically sinful even in its instinctive movements.
  5. Man, fallen through original sin, is incurable, so deeply that not even God can heal him anymore. Therefore the Redemption is entirely a work extrinsic to us, a work done by Christ, who substitutes Himself for us in order to pay the penalty of our sins to the divine justice (penal substitution). Human justification is done extrinsically - in a negative way, i.e., by covering up sin (not by removing it), and in a positive way, i.e., by attributing to us the holiness and the merits of Christ.
  6. There is no habitual grace in us; actual grace is not a power or a quality of the soul, but it is God Himself working in us.
  7. The only good act man can do is the act of fiducial faith or abandonment of self to God, by which he confides in His mercy and trusts that his sins have been pardoned.
  8. Consequently, the sacraments have no longer any raison d’etre: Luther keeps baptism, penance (by which the remission of sins is declared but not effected), and the Supper (which is no longer the Mass). The bread and wine in the Eucharist remain as they are, but Christ makes Himself present in them (companation), not through the consecration alone, but also by virtue of the faith of the faithful.
  9. The monarchical Church with its hierarchy is a human institution: there is no intermediary between the individual and God. The only source from which man can and must draw divine truth is the Bible, interpreted individually under the illumination of God (free thought and inquiry). Tradition has only a human value. The true Church of Christ is the invisible Church (influence of Wycliff and Huss).
  10. The denial of indulgences, of purgatory, of the invocation of the saints, of prayers for the dead.
Click to expand...
Steido,

In reference to #2 in my outline, by searching the Scriptures Martin Luther gave to Lutheranism one of its most cardinal principles, traditions if you will. Luther concluded that man’s nature was totally corrupt by the Fall. This cardinal principle led logically to most of his other theological innovations. Man’s nature is totally depraved and inclined to only to evil declared the German friar. Man is a sinner in whatever he does and all his actions are disgusting to God.

How could such a worthless creature be justified, be made pleasing to God? In an age when religion had become for all to many the mechanical performance of external devotions and Nominalism had undercut the orthodox positions of Thomism, Luther proclaimed his discovery of the truth that justification was by faith alone. Salvation is a free gift of God which man cannot merit. All is grace, pure grace.

Soon justification by faith became associated with three other principles not inherent in the original doctrine nor acceptable to the Church. These were the denial of free will, the doctrine of extrinsic justification, and the denunciation of all good works. Luther denied that man could co-operate with the actual graces God bestowed before justification. The Church, on the other hand, traditionally taught that man could reject God’s graces through the exercise of free will. By extrinsic justification the German Reformer taught that the act of justification is something entirely outside of man. Man remains a sinner, totally depraved, but God, so to speak, looks the other way. God covers man’s sins with a cloak but the sins remain. Justification never never touches the inherently sinful nature of man… The Catholic view is radically different.

Sanctifying grace alters the nature of the soul, blots out what is sinful, permits it to partake in the divine nature, makes it a dwelling place of the Holy Trinity, incorporates man in the Mystical Body of Christ, makes him a child of God and heir of heaven, and places him in a position to perform supernaturally good, meritorious works, that is, works that have the power to earn the beatific vision, the participation in God’s own unending blessedness.

Having said that, I can understand why you would want to shift attention from my outline to Lutheran Confessional statements. There are no biblical supports to underpin any of Luther’s traditions.
 
Tomster said:
Having said that, I can understand why you would want to shift attention from my outline to Lutheran Confessional statements. There are no biblical supports to underpin any of Luther’s traditions.
Click to expand...
Nice post.

I also notice many, not just Lutherans, will try to redirect a conversation when they cannot support a belief with Scripture. If one is Sola Scriptura and believe Scripture is the “end all debates” then should not one be able to provide verses to back up one’s position? 🤷
 
aidanbradypop said:
Nice post.

I also notice many, not just Lutherans, will try to redirect a conversation when they cannot support a belief with Scripture. If one is Sola Scriptura and believe Scripture is the “end all debates” then should not one be able to provide verses to back up one’s position? 🤷
Click to expand...
One would think so.
 
aidanbradypop said:
. If one is Sola Scriptura and believe Scripture is the “end all debates” then should not one be able to provide verses to back up one’s position? 🤷
Click to expand...
What you just described is not Lutheran Sola Scriptura. It may be someone else’s ‘Sola Scriptura’, but it has noting to do with us other than in name, and we don’t defend it.

I think it was in this debate where I gave a small list of things that Lutherans do/beleive that are not in Scripture, or at least are not clear to me in Scripture.
 
benjohnson said:
What you just described is not Lutheran Sola Scriptura. It may be someone else’s ‘Sola Scriptura’, but it has noting to do with us other than in name, and we don’t defend it.

I think it was in this debate where I gave a small list of things that Lutherans do/beleive that are not in Scripture, or at least are not clear to me in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. So why proclaim Sola Scriptura if one is not going to abide by it 100%? That is the confussing part to me. If one is truly Scripture Alone, then one would not need a CCC, BoC…etc.
 
benjohnson said:
What you just described is not Lutheran Sola Scriptura. It may be someone else’s ‘Sola Scriptura’, but it has noting to do with us other than in name, and we don’t defend it.

I think it was in this debate where I gave a small list of things that Lutherans do/beleive that are not in Scripture, or at least are not clear to me in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Well, Ben, what does it have to do with?

Sola Scriptura with an admixture of man made traditions?

Or, Sola Scriptura with an admixture of Sacred Traditions?

Where does private judgment enter into all of this and where does the pastor’s authority fit in?

How much influence does the Universal Priesthood canonized in the Smalcald Articles fit in with all of this?

Please, Ben, untangle all of this for us basing your answers on Scriptures, naturally.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Fair enough. So why proclaim Sola Scriptura if one is not going to abide by it 100%? That is the confussing part to me. If one is truly Scripture Alone, then one would not need a CCC, BoC…etc.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what sola Scriptura is, however. SS doesn’t exclude creeds, confessions, councils, etc. It holds them accountable to scripture. The “sola” refers to s scripture as the “alone” final norm. In short, the difference between our practice and yours is we consider tradition a witness to scripture instead of equal to it.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
That isn’t what sola Scriptura is, however. SS doesn’t exclude creeds, confessions, councils, etc. It holds them accountable to scripture. The “sola” refers to s scripture as the “alone” final norm. In short, the difference between our practice and yours is we consider tradition a witness to scripture instead of equal to it.

Jon
Click to expand...
So where in Scripture do you find that tradition, creeds, confessions…etc are a witness to Scripture? If the confessions witness or proclaim the Gospel, then we should be about to see where in Scripture it states as much. Right? Scripture Alone is very clear. One should leave by and practice what Scripture speaks and nothing more. If a practice or tradition cannot be backed up by Scripture, then one should find that practice, doctrine or tradition to be invalid. Right?

There are groups that “live” by Scripture and nothing else. Well at least their view of certain Scriptures. IMHO, and please do not take it beyond that lol, The Lutheran faith seems to proclaim Sola Scriptura but the very belief cannot be backed up with the Scriptures they give sole authority to. 🤷

See how I get confused? I admit that I have not read all the way through the BoC. Am I missing something?:confused:
 
JonNC said:
In short, the difference between our practice and yours is we consider tradition a witness to scripture instead of equal to it.

Jon
Click to expand...
Ah but witnesses is too minimal, my friend.

There is a term in the criminal justice system called Material Witness, which basically is a person who apparently has information about the subject matter which is significant enough to affect the outcome of the case or trial. Thus, the court must make every reasonable effort to allow such a witness to testify.

Scriptures are the Word of God, as such we don’t just need witnesses, but Material Witnesses to make sure we have the correct Scriptures. There can be no error here. It has to be an infallible decree.

The problem with that is that Church Tradition is also God’s designated Court on Earth to determine matters for the faithful.

In this case there is no other Court on Earth able to determine what is and isn’t Scriptures. These material witnesses belong to this same body.

The fullness of the faith was delivered once and for all to the Church! The Church in its fullness testifies to Herself guided by Her Head and Groom: Jesus Christ.
 
aidanbradypop said:
So where in Scripture do you find that tradition, creeds, confessions…etc are a witness to Scripture? If the confessions witness or proclaim the Gospel, then we should be about to see where in Scripture it states as much. Right?
Click to expand...
Are you implying that the Ecumenical Creeds are not grounded in Scripture? It seems like you are suggesting that the Church ‘made them up’ or ‘added them on.’

Sidebar: this is why I thought going through the Confessions article by article might have been helpful; we could note the Scriptural foundation for each portion.
The Lutheran faith seems to proclaim Sola Scriptura but the very belief cannot be backed up with the Scriptures they give sole authority to. 🤷
Click to expand...
The Confessions quote and reference Scripture at every point of doctrine. The Ap and LC, in particular, are bursting with direct references. Since you’re reading the BoC, I’m sure you’ll find that out pretty quickly! 🙂
 
Oh! Yes, Tomster, I’ll get around to responding. I’ve been out of town and “off-board” the past few days. Couldn’t miss my niece’s confirmation. 😃
 
steido01 said:
Are you implying that the Ecumenical Creeds are not grounded in Scripture? It seems like you are suggesting that the Church ‘made them up’ or ‘added them on.’
Click to expand...
Not at all 😉

I am asking that if one is SS, why does one need creeds, confessions…etc? Wouldn’t Scripture and Scripture alone give one all the practices one should abide by?
steido01 said:
Oh! Yes, Tomster, I’ll get around to responding. I’ve been out of town and “off-board” the past few days. Couldn’t miss my niece’s confirmation. 😃
Click to expand...
I was out of town this past weekend for my son’s birthday. You are excused lol
 
aidanbradypop said:
Fair enough. So why proclaim Sola Scriptura if one is not going to abide by it 100%? That is the confussing part to me. If one is truly Scripture Alone, then one would not need a CCC, BoC…etc.
Click to expand...
Awesome question! Sola Scriptura is a bombastic phrase to put it mildly - it’s a catch phrase for a practice of the church to determine if other authorities are going against the Word of God.

Sadly, sometimes slogans have a life of their own and others took it at it’s face value and inappropriately applied what that thought it meant. God help them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top