Lutheran Confessions - Infallible?

[Tomster]

May I, Tomster?

On 2, add …without grace.
On 3, add … to come to justifying faith, though free will does exist to reject it once regenerate.

I wouldn’t say that, or eternal condemnation would not exist, and we know it does.

Contradictory, since Christ is God.

Ok, which, incidentally, contradicts #5.

Ok, but we recognize this as impossible without grace. See # 6.

Absolutely not!! The sacraments are means of grace, and that is clearly their reason for existence. Baptism is regenerative. Remission of sins in confession/Holy Absolution is both declared and effected. The bread and wine do not remain as they are, but once consecrated are the body and blood of Christ. There is clearly a change, but we do not express it in metaphysical, Aristotelian terms. I am not familiar with the term companation, but assume it means something similar to impanation, which we reject.
Further, we also hold that neither the faith of the celebrant, nor the faith of the one receiving, determines Christ’s presence, or Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians is moot. Christ’s presence in the sacrament is by the power of the Holy Spirit, when the pastor speaks the verba, and those receiving receive for forgiveness of sins, or to their own condemnation if they do not discern the body and blood.

Not entirely. The confessions speak of the Church as the congregation of saints (believers), where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Administration of the sacraments requires a visible Church. We recognize Christ as the sole mediator between man and God the Father.

Indulgences - true.
Purgatory - in the sense of an intermediate state/place - true, but not in terms of the necessity of purgation/cleansing for entry into Heaven. And even this denial is more a result of what the Reformers viewed as abuses surrounding it - indulgences, private masses, etc.
Invocation of the saints - true, but only because there is no scriptural command, example or promise regarding it.
prayers for the dead - not true. Prayers for the dead are often found in Lutheran funeral rites.

Jon

Respectfully, no Jon. The questions were posed to Ben.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster, please keep in mind that a poor Lutheran at best, so I very well could be horribly wrong in my responses.

Jon, I really invite correction and would consider it a privilege to be set right!

Sounds good! I think we would tend to use other adjectives like Grace, but the idea is the same - Adam was complete and whole.

Lutherans are famous for our diminished view of free will - but I wouldn’t go this far. Even before knowing the grace of God, we are capable of good deeds that are beneath us. It would be entirely within our means to share our food with the starving for example. What theses good deeds would lack is Grace that comes from Faith and God.

Personally, I think God is more happy with those that sill do good, but I think that’s a private thought and not necessary for Lutherans to know.

I think (again, I could be wrong) that we would say Man will be held accountable for his un-repentant acts.

You’ve probably heard about Luther’s “dung piles covered with snow” analogy. In modern times, it would be easy to think that Luther is stating that humans are perpetually ‘dung’ - but in Luther’s time the dung pile was a symbol of a farmer doing well as it was stockpiled fertilizer. It was also understood to be dirty as well - so the analogy was that not only does Christ cover our sins, but that being ‘boastful’ was also one of those sins.

Lutheran’s tend to think of Christ acting upon us to cover and remove sin - we don’t think we purge our own sins. In time, we are regenerated into Christ - so it’s not just that Christ covers us and disguises us as well. A little of column A and a little of column B

It should probably be an axiom of logic that analogies involving dung eventually break down.

I’m not sure of the ‘penal substitution’ idea - I know we shy away from declaring the Father as wrath filled. Jesus Christ died for our sins, but I don’t think it was exclusively to balance out the justice of the Father, more of a atonement for our sins. This area is really beyond my merge knowledge! So I’m probably wrong!

I think we would say that there’s plenty of Grace within us if we cooperate - and it comes from God.

I’m not so sure we can even claim to have even marginally effected our Salvation. God not only lowers a rope to save us, but often times has to whack us over the head to get us to notice the rope, and even then, In my case, he had to tie the rope around my waist even as I tried to set fire to the rope and bite it with my teeth.

For us, this conclusion would be wrong - for because of our dim view of human nature, it makes the Sacraments even more important not less. Our view of the sacraments is penultimate - they impart the Grace that we can not give to ourselves.

We would claim we have Mass. The word ‘mass’ is a bitt odd as it’s a colloquialism from the Latin dismissal “ite missa est” so we tend to use the more formal world in similar fashion to the Eastern Orthodox. Our Mass is so good, Catholics even took the “And with your spirit” from our third setting.

I’m not sure we would say that Body and Blood is dependent on the faith of those present. For me, I would say it is present despite my doubts and fears.

(see next part)

Thanks for the honest admission Ben, that you may be wrong that is.

Backtracking, somewhat, why defer to Jon for corrections?

 

[MaryT777]

Thanks for the honest admission Ben, that you may be wrong that is.

Backtracking, somewhat, why defer to Jon for corrections?

I was curious about the same thing.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks for the honest admission Ben, that you may be wrong that is.

Backtracking, somewhat, why defer to Jon for corrections?

SImply put because Jon is not only more knowledgeable but also wiser. I’m a very recent agnostic, still young, and very prone to put my personal feelings over what is correct.

The questions you posed concern the core of the Lutheran ideas behind faith, sacraments, the law, and the Gospel. I really don’t want anyone to be led astray by my rambling.

I’m very glad he answered! And it’s his answers we should be looking to right now if we want to understand what Lutherans should be thinking and doing.

 

[Tomster]

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.

Ben,

In regards to # 9.

Free thought and free inquiry is a basic principle of Lutheranism. Having eliminated the authority of the Church and its infallible magisterium, Luther gave the believer the Bible, telling him that this is the sole source and the only rule of his faith. There is no intermediary between God and man; the believer goes to the sacred books, reads them, examines them freely, and draws from them the truth to be believed and the law to be observed. Historically speaking, Luther, very quickly became aware of the implicit danger in such a principle. When he saw opinions and tendencies multiply according to the individual choice of the faithful, he raised his voice to impose his creed, paying no heed to the incoherence of his action; even more, he had recourse to the secular arm of the princes. But liberty of thought, i.e., freedom of examination of the Scriptures, had taken over consciences and was producing its bitter fruits.

In matters of religion, this basic principle of Lutheranism of free though and free inquiry, has produced innumerable Protestant sects in a process of gradual decay and disintigration that nothing succeeds in arresting. An historical look at Lutheranism alone just in twentieth century bears this out.

“Liberty of though,” as explained, has no foundation in Holy Scripture: rather it is excluded by the institution of the teaching authority of the Church.

By appealling to Jon for help in critiquing my outline shows how far both of you have distanced yourselves from basic Lutheran teachings. You, for asking for Jon’s help (by Lutheran standards you should have been able to read the Scriptures and provided answers to my outline chapter and verse). And Jon, for not repecting your “right” to free thought and free inquiry and injecting his own opinions.)

(The space between these paragraphs is intentional. It is symbolic of the distance between your answers and basic Lutheran teachings)

A very, very interesting note to all of this is that neither of you ever gave scriptural references in your replies. Not a one! This forces me to dismiss your replies. If the both of you cannot stick to your own tradition of “the Bible and only the Bible” How can I take your replies seriously? The both of you gave me your opinions without biblical underpinnings.

 

[MaryT777]

I enjoy reading Jon’s posts, but in response to Ben’s post; there ARE INDEED other
LCMS posters on this forum that are very well versed in their Faith.

Mary.

 

[Tomster]

SImply put because Jon is not only more knowledgeable but also wiser. I’m a very recent agnostic, still young, and very prone to put my personal feelings over what is correct.

The questions you posed concern the core of the Lutheran ideas behind faith, sacraments, the law, and the Gospel. I really don’t want anyone to be led astray by my rambling.

I’m very glad he answered! And it’s his answers we should be looking to right now if we want to understand what Lutherans should be thinking and doing.

Are you serious? No slam on Jon either. But do you fully realize what you have just admitted to? Are you saying that Jon’s words are final for all Lutherans? Are you saying that your personal feelings have no bearing on your faith? Aren’t personal feelings supposed to be part and parcel of Luthean theology when one reads and interprets the Scriptures? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. believed they were all more knowledable and wiser than the Catholic Church. Are we to place Jon in this category? I thought that Luther got it all right at least as far as Lutherans were concerned. By appealing to Jon for answers to my outline, haven’t you just forfeited your right to private judgment and submitted to a fallible human being rather than infallible Scripture? I could go on and on . . . .

 

[benjohnson]

Tom, respectfully, you’re projecting what you think Lutheranism is on those that are Lutheran. Looking at my answers and looking at Jon’s answers - there’s a difference in stress, but not in message, at least as how I see it.

Free thought and free inquiry is a basic principle of Lutheranism.

Let us pause right here - we’re so sure of principles that we wrote them down and widely distributed them to the laity. Does that sound like we’re ‘free thinkers?’

Having eliminated the authority of the Church and its infallible magisterium,

Our church and it’s teaching are healthy despite the slings and arrows of history.

But liberty of thought, i.e., freedom of examination of the Scriptures, had taken over consciences and was producing its bitter fruits.

Perhaps for others, but not Lutherans.

In matters of religion, this basic principle of Lutheranism of free though and free inquiry, has produced innumerable Protestant sects in a process of gradual decay and disintigration that nothing succeeds in arresting. An historical look at Lutheranism alone just in twentieth century bears this out.

Tomster, I think you need to find a way to discern confessional Lutherans and those that are using the word Lutheran to justify their ways.

By appealling to Jon for help in critiquing my outline shows how far both of you have distanced yourselves from basic Lutheran teachings. You, for asking for Jon’s help (by Lutheran standards you should have been able to read the Scriptures and provided answers to my outline chapter and verse). And Jon, for not repecting your “right” to free thought and free inquiry and injecting his own opinions.)

Here’s where I’m getting grumpy. I’d ask that if my writing somehow frustrates you, please bare your emotions at me and not at Jon.

You’re placing your values on what you think Lutherans are against I (and I think Jon) are saying to you and then declaring that I’m a bad Lutheran.

The more logical conclusion is that your ideas of what confessional Lutherans profess to be amended.

(The space between these paragraphs is intentional. It is symbolic of the distance between your answers and basic Lutheran teachings)

If you could demonstrate with Lutheran theology written by confessional Lutherans, I’d be obliged for the correction.

A very, very interesting note to all of this is that neither of you ever gave scriptural references in your replies. Not a one!

Again, that my replies don’t measure up to your expectations should lead you to introspection and not accusations.

 

[MaryT777]

It does seem odd at best when a poster defers to another poster as a “final say” on doctrine and not official teaching.

 

[benjohnson]

Aren’t personal feelings supposed to be part and parcel of Luthean theology when one reads and interprets the Scriptures?

That’s a practice of the church, not the individual!

I thought that Luther got it all right at least as far as Lutherans were concerned.

Not by a longshot - Luther got many things wrong in the course of time. Go by our confessions if you want to understand us.

By appealing to Jon for answers to my outline, haven’t you just forfeited your right to private judgment and submitted to a fallible human being rather than infallible Scripture? I could go on and on . . . .

Let remember - this isn’t an eccumenical council. We’re a bunch of random people on the internet. So if Jon’s pastor or my pastor was here, I’d defer to him.

Frankly, I’m amused at the fuss my appeal to Jon’s wisdom created. The 7-year old boy in me want to pepper my replies with - “I may not be correct, so go read JonNC answer for a more correct answer of confessional Lutheran theology” just to witness the outcry.

 

[benjohnson]

It does seem odd at best when a poster defers to another poster as a “final say” on doctrine and not official teaching.

If I said, ‘final say’ then I was incorrect to do so without qualification. In my estimation, Jon is more likely to promulgate correct Lutheran thought than I.

If our pastors were here, I would defer to their answer. LCMS pastors tend to be very well trained.

 

[pablope]

SImply put because Jon is not only more knowledgeable but also wiser. I’m a very recent agnostic, still young, and very prone to put my personal feelings over what is correct.

.

But …is JohNC infallible?

 

[MaryT777]

If I said, ‘final say’ then I was incorrect to do so without qualification. In my estimation, Jon is more likely to promulgate correct Lutheran thought than I.

If our pastors were here, I would defer to their answer. LCMS pastors tend to be very well trained.

I agree my good friend is a LCMS Pastor and he has a Maser’s in exegesis, is a great preacher (law/gospel ). We’re good friends.

That said I believe lay persons can also be well trained and can speak for their faith without deferring to a clergy every time especially given an official doctrine for a profession of faith.

We also have Pastor Gary here who I assume is well trained as well albeit
he professes his faith in the ELCA.

I like all the posters I don’t need clergy on every forum.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

But …is JohNC infallible?

What???

 

[steido01]

It does seem odd at best when a poster defers to another poster as a “final say” on doctrine and not official teaching.

I’m can’t speak for Ben, but I don’t see where he has deferred to Jon as “final say” in any of his posts. He’s simply acknowledging that Jon is more familiar with Lutheran theology. If seeking the wisdom of a more learned individual is to be admonished, then what should we make of this entire forum and all who use it? Is there something inherently wrong with seeking a spiritual teacher? Do we not respectfully refer to our pastors and priests as “father” for this very reason?

@Ben, you seem to be coming along very well in your understanding of Confessional Lutheranism. It wouldn’t hurt to respond more often with Scripture or quotes from the Confessions.

 

[Tomster]

Tom, respectfully, you’re projecting what you think Lutheranism is on those that are Lutheran. Looking at my answers and looking at Jon’s answers - there’s a difference in stress, but not in message, at least as how I see it.

Let us pause right here - we’re so sure of principles that we wrote them down and widely distributed them to the laity. Does that sound like we’re ‘free thinkers?’

Our church and it’s teaching are healthy despite the slings and arrows of history.

Perhaps for others, but not Lutherans.

Tomster, I think you need to find a way to discern confessional Lutherans and those that are using the word Lutheran to justify their ways.

Here’s where I’m getting grumpy. I’d ask that if my writing somehow frustrates you, please bare your emotions at me and not at Jon.

You’re placing your values on what you think Lutherans are against I (and I think Jon) are saying to you and then declaring that I’m a bad Lutheran.

The more logical conclusion is that your ideas of what confessional Lutherans profess to be amended.

If you could demonstrate with Lutheran theology written by confessional Lutherans, I’d be obliged for the correction.

Again, that my replies don’t measure up to your expectations should lead you to introspection and not accusations.

Simply put Ben, give us the chapters and verses to back up your traditions. I’m discussing these topics according to Lutheran tradition. I’m giving you that much. Stick to judging my outline via Sola Scriptura and you really should be able to refute each portion of my outline. But, please, when sticking to Lutheran tradition, do not appeal to anyone and/or anything else. If you so, you will be violating your own tradition. We are looking for your own personal interpretations or, if you will, private judgments which should be based on the Bible and the Bible alone.

 

[MaryT777]

Heck there’s nothing wrong to deferring to authority, I’m Catholic after all.
My best thought is if a poster can’t or doesn’t want to answer a question they should
should not.
Jon is on here quite a bit and he always shows up.
It just adds to the volume of posts to always say well “Jon correct me if I’m wrong”
etc.

That said, the more posts the merrier right?

 

[MaryT777]

Ben,
I’d love to hear more direct quotes from the big “book of rules” as I’ve heard you call the
Concord book
Peace in Christ,
Mary.

 

[Tomster]

I’m can’t speak for Ben, but I don’t see where he has deferred to Jon as “final say” in any of his posts. He’s simply acknowledging that Jon is more familiar with Lutheran theology. If seeking the wisdom of a more learned individual is to be admonished, then what should we make of this entire forum and all who use it? Is there something inherently wrong with seeking a spiritual teacher? Do we not respectfully refer to our pastors and priests as “father” for this very reason?

@Ben, you seem to be coming along very well in your understanding of Confessional Lutheranism. It wouldn’t hurt to respond more often with Scripture or quotes from the Confessions.

He, Ben, has deferred to a source other than the Bible, Jon. When you get right down to it the inferred wisdom of a more learned individual should have nothing to do Ben’s ability to search the Scripture, alone. That is how Dr. Luther wanted it.

 

[steido01]

But, please, when sticking to Lutheran tradition, do not appeal to anyone and/or anything else. If you so, you will be violating your own tradition. We are looking for your own personal interpretations or, if you will, private judgments which should be based on the Bible and the Bible alone.

Aren’t you asking a loaded question? Lutherans follow the Lutheran Confessions because they are a right reflection of the Scriptures; they do not follow individual private judgments or interpretations. It seems like you’re creating a definition of Lutheran tradition that is contrary to what we profess and expecting us to follow your rules.