Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Per_Crucem]

I maintain that Lutheran’s such as yourself do not believe in SS you believe in Scripture and tradition. I think that this may have to do with that Hilary quote you put on the bottom of your posts right. If so, do you think that that would be on topic here to discuss?

Annie

What Jon and I believe is right here, from the Book of Concord, Epitome.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

4] 3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.

5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.

6] To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.

7] In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.

8] But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned].

 

[Annie39]

What Jon and I believe is right here, from the Book of Concord, Epitome.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

4] 3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.

5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.

6] To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.

7] In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.

8] But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned].

By “In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.” Do you mean the Scriptures as interpreted by Luther?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

By “In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.” Do you mean the Scriptures as interpreted by Luther?

Annie

Not at all. Even Luther falls under sola scriptura. Remember, like you, we preach Christ and Him crucified.
The Augsburg Confession says:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak,** in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. **For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Not at all. Even Luther falls under sola scriptura. Remember, like you, we preach Christ and Him crucified.
The Augsburg Confession says:

Jon

Well, since your interpretation differs from the Calvinists and the Baptists and the Catholics and… How is it that you believe the folks that wrote the Confessions? These are extra-biblical. I know of no protestant who would say that they are misinterpreting scripture. You spell your name Jon like the Norwegians are you indeed Norwegian or descended from same? Or maybe another people from around the same area. I realize that is a personal question so don’t answer it if you don’t care to. I’m an American of Irish ancestry. My wonderful great-grandfather came from Cork. We don’t know where his wife came from but we do know that it was somewhere in Ulster.

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;12155644]Well, since your interpretation differs from the Calvinists and the Baptists and the Catholics and… How is it that you believe the folks that wrote the Confessions? These are extra-biblical. I know of no protestant who would say that they are misinterpreting scripture

Nor a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It depends on what doctrines you speak of. There a re significant numbers of doctrines we agree on with much of Christendom, much we agree on with Catholics, with Orthodox, with Anglicans, etc.
Lutherans believe that the Confessions, while not infallible, are a right reflection of scripture. Only scripture is inerrant, so even our confessions are subject to SS. So, we recognize that they are extra-biblical, as are the councils and creeds.

You spell your name Jon like the Norwegians are you indeed Norwegian or descended from same? Or maybe another people from around the same area. I realize that is a personal question so don’t answer it if you don’t care to. I’m an American of Irish ancestry. My wonderful great-grandfather came from Cork. We don’t know where his wife came from but we do know that it was somewhere in Ulster.

Short for Jonathan, and of German decent, with a bit of Irish.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Nor a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. It depends on what doctrines you speak of. There a re significant numbers of doctrines we agree on with much of Christendom, much we agree on with Catholics, with Orthodox, with Anglicans, etc.
Lutherans believe that the Confessions, while not infallible, are a right reflection of scripture. Only scripture is inerrant, so even our confessions are subject to SS. So, we recognize that they are extra-biblical, as are the councils and creeds.

Short for Jonathan, and of German decent, with a bit of Irish.

Jon

In other words you don’t really know if your interpretation is correct. You believe as my siblings that the interpretation of Scripture is a matter of opinion. Luther was an Augustinian Monk. He was Catholic at the time that bible he coopted was a Catholic Book or should I say were Catholic books so I guess you just cross your fingers and hope that Luther was right. If not, can you tell me where Luther got the authority to leave the Church with our bible tucked into his pocket?

 

[benjohnson]

If not, can you tell me where Luther got the authority to leave the Church with our bible tucked into his pocket?

If viewed in that light - Lutherans would have to joint the Catholic church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Immediately.

But, alas for your argument, we don’t view it that way - that we have never left the church catholic.

Of course, you’re free to disagree!

 

[JonNC]

In other words you don’t really know if your interpretation is correct. You believe as my siblings that the interpretation of Scripture is a matter of opinion. Luther was an Augustinian Monk. He was Catholic at the time that bible he coopted was a Catholic Book or should I say were Catholic books so I guess you just cross your fingers and hope that Luther was right. If not, can you tell me where Luther got the authority to leave the Church with our bible tucked into his pocket?

Oh, no. We are certain it is correct. Being correct does not necessarily require infallibility or inerrancy.
Isn’t it an Orthodox book, as well?
Again, it isn’t “what Luther thinks”, or if Luther was right. Luther is a teacher. All teachers are accountable to scripture.

The issue authority is the elephant in the room for all western Christians. For us, it is how can we stand outside communion with the western patriarch. For Rome, it is how can the Bishop of Rome claim for himself universal jurisdiction not granted to him in the councils of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Oh, no. We are certain it is correct. Being correct does not necessarily require infallibility or inerrancy.
Isn’t it an Orthodox book, as well?
Again, it isn’t “what Luther thinks”, or if Luther was right. Luther is a teacher. All teachers are accountable to scripture.

The issue authority is the elephant in the room for all western Christians. For us, it is how can we stand outside communion with the western patriarch. For Rome, it is how can the Bishop of Rome claim for himself universal jurisdiction not granted to him in the councils of the early Church.

Jon

Hi Jon,

You: Oh, no. We are certain it is correct. Being correct does not necessarily require infallibility or inerrancy.

Me: I wonder how you know that the Confessions are correct if you have no assurance of their veracity. Do you believe that Scripture is inerrant?

You The issue authority is the elephant in the room for all western Christians. For us, it is how can we stand outside communion with the western patriarch. For Rome, it is how can the Bishop of Rome claim for himself universal jurisdiction not granted to him in the councils of the early Church.

Me: IMHO the elephant in the room is also for all Eastern Christians. I noticed that you qualified your question “not granted to him in the councils”. Have you read enough Church History to see that the Bishop of Rome actually has that authority but that maybe the councils didn’t address this? I ask this because if that is so, why do you need to read in any council about the BoR if that isn’t the issue at hand?

Annie

 

[benjohnson]

Have you read enough Church History to see that the Bishop of Rome actually has that authority but that maybe the councils didn’t address this?

My observation is that if Bishop of Rome had such authority from the beginning, then the councils wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.

 

[benjohnson]

I reread my posts and realize that I did come across as being very rude. I apologize.

No worries at all!

I see you as a person who is engaged, and on fire, for God and the Catholic faith. Our world needs more awesome Catholics. We Lutherans are stronger when out Catholic friends are strong.

 

[Annie39]

My observation is that if Bishop of Rome had such authority from the beginning, then the councils wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.

Why is that and what evidence would you like to see?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

No worries at all!

I see you as a person who is engaged, and on fire, for God and the Catholic faith. Our world needs more awesome Catholics. We Lutherans are stronger when out Catholic friends are strong.

Thank you much and please read my next post to Jon.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Hi Jon below is some evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. I have more if you would like.

Annie

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

 

[benjohnson]

Why is that and what evidence would you like to see?

Annie

The reasoning goes like this: Modern Popes claim to be able (guided by the Holy Spirit) to pronounce dogma ex cathedra. This charism would have been quite useful in the early church when we had trouble even getting the Trinity correct.

Instead, we had feuds and councils and heretics. So if the Pope had such a charism all this time, why was he hiding it under a bushel?

…

Lutherans acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and from our Confession we would certainly be in communion with him if he ‘tempered’ a few of the more (what we think of as) recent claims.

Frankly, popes have used his gifts of the Ex Cathedra pronouncements judiciously - from where I sit, there are legitimate reasons to not be in communion with him, but as the secular world pounds as the church, I could see the need for unity increasingly.

If the Catholic church would ‘clarify’ some of the things we object to in the same manor asi ‘extra ecclesiam nulla sales’ has been been tempered, we’d be much closer together.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

What it actually means is that Scripture is the alone infallible revelation that the church possesses and is, therefore, the highest form of authority we possess, as it is God’s word. All other forms of authority in the church are non revelatory, fallible, and subject to the prophetic and apostolic writings.

We don’t care how non-Lutherans define SS, as we are not them.

That is how I as an Anglican would understand it as well. SS does NOT mean we ignore the Tradition of the church, only that Scripture is the primary and highest authority and all other is secondary

 

[Annie39]

That is how I as an Anglican would understand it as well. SS does NOT mean we ignore the Tradition of the church, only that Scripture is the primary and highest authority and all other is secondary

Hi thanks for posting. Some of what I post here may be interesting to you.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

The reasoning goes like this: Modern Popes claim to be able (guided by the Holy Spirit) to pronounce dogma ex cathedra. This charism would have been quite useful in the early church when we had trouble even getting the Trinity correct.

Instead, we had feuds and councils and heretics. So if the Pope had such a charism all this time, why was he hiding it under a bushel?

…

Lutherans acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and from our Confession we would certainly be in communion with him if he ‘tempered’ a few of the more (what we think of as) recent claims.

Frankly, popes have used his gifts of the Ex Cathedra pronouncements judiciously - from where I sit, there are legitimate reasons to not be in communion with him, but as the secular world pounds as the church, I could see the need for unity increasingly.

If the Catholic church would ‘clarify’ some of the things we object to in the same manor asi ‘extra ecclesiam nulla sales’ has been been tempered, we’d be much closer together.

Ben I don’t quite understand “This charism would have been quite useful in the early church when we had trouble even getting the Trinity correct. “

It might help me to understand if you tell me who you refer to when you say “we” would you name some names?

Annie

 

[benjohnson]

Ben I don’t quite understand “This charism would have been quite useful in the early church when we had trouble even getting the Trinity correct. “

It might help me to understand if you tell me who you refer to when you say “we” would you name some names?

Annie

We… ‘we’ being the early church. There were many councils/argument that could have been stopped if the early Bishop of Rome acted on their charism that they claim to have.

As for naming names - there’re plenty of saints and sinners that took part in those councils. It would be a long list, but sadly most of the names are lost to human history.

 

[Annie39]

We… ‘we’ being the early church. There were many councils/argument that could have been stopped if the early Bishop of Rome acted on their charism that they claim to have.

As for naming names - there’re plenty of saints and sinners that took part in those councils. It would be a long list, but sadly most of the names are lost to human history.

To which councils do you refer that dealt with the Trinity? I do have the names of the Papal legates at the council of Nicea and other Bishops who attended.

Annie