Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[steido01]

Topper, beginning with the first of your 300-some posts, you have engaged in what seems to be a rather single-minded critique of Luther and, at times, comes across as unnecessary Luther-bashing. Your intense focus on the little German monk has piqued my curiosity - is there a cause for this obsession? What do you mean to contribute to ecumenical efforts or mutual understanding by turning any thread concerning Lutheranism (the movement) into a discussion of Luther (the man)? Is this intended to evangelize Lutherans? If so, more pleasant and pastoral means exist.

If this stems from a terrible experience in a Lutheran church, or some other reason, I sincerely pray you find peace.

God bless,

 

[Annie39]

Topper, beginning with the first of your 300-some posts, you have engaged in what seems to be a rather single-minded critique of Luther and, at times, comes across as unnecessary Luther-bashing. Your intense focus on the little German monk has piqued my curiosity - is there a cause for this obsession? What do you mean to contribute to ecumenical efforts or mutual understanding by turning any thread concerning Lutheranism (the movement) into a discussion of Luther (the man)? Is this intended to evangelize Lutherans? If so, more pleasant and pastoral means exist.

If this stems from a terrible experience in a Lutheran church, or some other reason, I sincerely pray you find peace.

God bless,

You ARE joking, right?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Yes off topic Jon. Agreed. What you have proven to me is that you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

Annie

Ok, Annie.

Luther btw believed in sola Luther’s scriptura. I alread know why he said that he added the word but Jon if he ADDED the word. I can’t imagine any christian being okay with that.

You already know, but you chose not to provide that part of the letter.

By this model you have to accuse every translator into every language of “adding words”. A transliteration often would make no sense. Differing grammatical organization, word differences, etc.

But again, we’re drifting off the topic.

His peace, Annie.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes off topic Jon. Agreed. What you have proven to me is that you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Luther btw believed in sola Luther’s scriptura. I alread know why he said that he added the word but Jon if he ADDED the word. I can’t imagine any christian being okay with that.

Annie

Actually many Christians, including Catholics are okay with it. And many early church fathers agreed.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

 

[Annie39]

Actually many Christians, including Catholics are okay with it. And many early church fathers agreed.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

HH I don’t have time to trace all those references. It is best to qoute one or two at a time it is tedious otherwise. I did look up St. John Chrysostom when he mentions “works” it is the works of the law. That is the Mosaic Law. Those is what Romans says that is what Catholics say and always have said.

 

[Annie39]

Ok, Annie.

You already know, but you chose not to provide that part of the letter.

By this model you have to accuse every translator into every language of “adding words”. A transliteration often would make no sense. Differing grammatical organization, word differences, etc.

But again, we’re drifting off the topic.

His peace, Annie.

Jon

But it doesn’t matter why he says that he did it. It matters THAT he did it. He changed the meaning to suit his nouveau “gospel”. If a friend of mine who lives in New Market, England were to visit me and needed directions to my house from an airport (actually we would pick her up but bear with me) when giving them to her I might mention that she would come to a “round about” on the way because that is what they call it there but if my friend in Corona, CA was about to visit I might tell her that she would encounter a “traffic circle” on the way. I would not tell either of them that they would come across an open field with grazing cows on their way.

Can you give an example of translations with differing grammatical organizations that say essentially opposite ideas

Pax et bonum
Annie

 

[JonNC]

But it doesn’t matter why he says that he did it. It matters THAT he did it. He changed the meaning to suit his nouveau “gospel”. If a friend of mine who lives in New Market, England were to visit me and needed directions to my house from an airport (actually we would pick her up but bear with me) when giving them to her I might mention that she would come to a “round about” on the way because that is what they call it there but if my friend in Corona, CA was about to visit I might tell her that she would encounter a “traffic circle” on the way. I would not tell either of them that they would come across an open field with grazing cows on their way.

Can you give an example of translations with differing grammatical organizations that say essentially opposite ideas

Pax et bonum
Annie

Annie
You’re asking me to defend a premise I do not accept. I don’t believe Luther’s translation alters the meaning of the text, as evidenced by the fact that no English Bible I own has “alone” in Romans 3:38. And I don’t speak German.

I take Paul’s meaning in light of all scripture. We can of course discuss that.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

In another question from my last post which you did not get around to, I asked the following question on this matter:

Honestly, I would not have near the problem that I have, except that for the fact of the capitol ‘C’. By that capitalization, you are using a proper noun that refers to the Catholic Church, a Church that your Confessions consider to be NOT the Church. If you were to refer to yourselves as “Evangelical catholics”, with the lower case ‘c’, that would not be as objectionable.

You claim that the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ is an ‘oft-used historical term’ used by Lutherans. I would like to better understand that ‘historical usage by’ Lutherans. Jon, just how long have Lutherans been referring to themselves with this term? In addition, which Lutheran ‘groups’ use that term?

I don’t know about the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’, since Lutheranism is not my area of expertise, but the Lutherans’ use of the Creeds suggests that they have been claiming the title ‘Catholic’ since the sixteenth century.

 

[Annie39]

Annie
You’re asking me to defend a premise I do not accept. I don’t believe Luther’s translation alters the meaning of the text, as evidenced by the fact that no English Bible I own has “alone” in Romans 3:38. And I don’t speak German.

I take Paul’s meaning in light of all scripture. We can of course discuss that.

Jon

Jon this is a quote from you “By this model you have to accuse every translator into every language of “adding words”. A transliteration often would make no sense. Differing grammatical organization, word differences, etc”

But the Greek doesn’t say “alone”. It also contradicts many other parts of the bible James being most often referenced of course. There is more. May I ask what translation you use?

Pax et bonum,

Annie

 

[benjohnson]

HH I don’t have time to trace all those references. It is best to qoute one or two at a time it is tedious otherwise. I did look up St. John Chrysostom when he mentions “works” it is the works of the law. That is the Mosaic Law. Those is what Romans says that is what Catholics say and always have said.

You don’t have enough time to examine the evidence, but you have enough time to reflexively dismiss it with provision that you don’t have enough time.

I have to admit, tis a curious debating strategy.

 

[Contarini]

Jon this is a quote from you “By this model you have to accuse every translator into every language of “adding words”. A transliteration often would make no sense. Differing grammatical organization, word differences, etc”

But the Greek doesn’t say “alone”.

Of course not. “Alone” isn’t a Greek word. Neither is it a German word. So it’s irrelevant here.

To engage in this argument, you need to tell me what the Greek word is you think ought to have been used to justify Luther’s translation “allein durch den glauben.”

Edwin

 

[steido01]

Hi Annie,

I just want to get something straight.

But it doesn’t matter why he says that he did it. It matters THAT he did it.

In these two sentences you state that you don’t care about the “why,” dismissing any grammatical or linguistic reason Luther had. That’s a little rigid, legalistic and unreasonable for my tastes, but at least it stems from a logical premise that ‘rules is rules.’

He changed the meaning to suit his nouveau “gospel”.

Yet in this sentence, you impose your very own reason for “why.” :whacky: Doesn’t that seem a teensy bit hypocritical to you? The logic here is broken; if you won’t listen to the “why,” then you can’t very well presume to offer your own reason for “why.” That sort of hypocritical gaming doesn’t make for a very fair discussion.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie,

I just want to get something straight.

I
Yet in this sentence, you impose your very own reason for “why.” :whacky: Doesn’t that seem a teensy bit hypocritical to you? The logic here is broken; if you won’t listen to the “why,” then you can’t very well presume to offer your own reason for “why.” That sort of hypocritical gaming doesn’t make for a very fair discussion.

My grandchild just put on his swimming trunks. I don’t have to ask him why I know that his reason is that he wants to go in the pool.

 

[JonNC]

My grandchild just put on his swimming trunks. I don’t have to ask him why I know that his reason is that he wants to go in the pool.

Is it your position that Luther could only have had one reason, his stated reason notwithstanding?

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

My grandchild just put on his swimming trunks. I don’t have to ask him why I know that his reason is that he wants to go in the pool.

I think we’re reaching the point of exhaustingly repeated polemics rather than any kind of meaningful and intelligible debate or conversation…

 

[SyroMalankara]

At least the Lutherans on here have the sense to claim Catholicity; many protestants, in an effort to distance themselves, no longer realize that Catholicity is an essential characteristic of ecclesiality. Most don’t even know the meaning of the word, or obscure it by rewording with “universal” or some such.

 

[Novocastrian]

At least the Lutherans on here have the sense to claim Catholicity; many protestants, in an effort to distance themselves, no longer realize that Catholicity is an essential characteristic of ecclesiality. Most don’t even know the meaning of the word, or obscure it by rewording with “universal” or some such.

Amen to that!

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by **SyroMalankara **
At least the Lutherans on here have the sense to claim Catholicity; many protestants, in an effort to distance themselves, no longer realize that Catholicity is an essential characteristic of ecclesiality. Most don’t even know the meaning of the word, or obscure it by rewording with “universal” or some such.

Amen to that!

I second the Amen, and thank you Syro, for your kind words.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

An interesting dialogue article.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

The question I asked was very specific and it was made because of your claim that ‘most Lutherans would not reject the primacy of the See of Rome’. That question again was as follows:

“If most Lutherans accept the primacy of the Pope, how is that reflected in the Lutheran Church today? In what way, specifically and exactly, (of course), do Lutheran bishops and clergy acknowledge that primacy of the Bishop of Rome?”

It seems that you believe that there is an answer to my specific question somewhere in the 28 page document that you posted this link to. Could you please quote the section that you think provides this answer?

I have posted the official LCMS position in this thread and others, and they say without a doubt that the charge is against no individual holder of the office, personally. This is off the topic of the thread, but I will be happy to send the link to you again by PM if you wish.

As you know, the Lutheran Confessions refer to the pope as the antichrist, making no reference to only the ‘office’ AS IF that would lessen the offense. As a matter of fact, the LCMS is a relative late comer to Lutheranism (at less than 170 years old), and it of course holds to the Lutheran Confessions. It would seem that the LCMS is making a distinction that is not made in the Confessions, and is in fact not what the Confessions say at all.

As to the comment about being off topic – It is my experience that when people want to take a conversation private, it is because they don’t want to see it take place in public. Generally it has seemed to me that this request comes when the one side making the request is taking it on the chin (so to speak).

As the term Evangelical Catholic is a title, it can be capitalized, as I and others have done.

If you wish to converse about the term, which is off the topic of the thread, you are welcome to PM me about it, or start a new thread.

Jon, remember that you claimed that the term ‘Evangelical Catholic is an historic usage for Lutherans. Please also remember that I have asked for some sort of documentation as to that historic usage. I am willing to learn something here but suspect that this historic usage is younger even that the LCMS.

There’s that request to not publically discuss the subject again.

Jon, if someone came up to you and asked for directions to a “Catholic Church”, where would you send them?

 

[Topper17]

I have admitted no such thing.

I suggested that Luther practiced a rather extreme form of Private Interpretation during the time when he initiated his Revolt against the Church. You seem to disagree. **How would you put it, specifically and exactly? On what other than his personal and private interpretation of Scripture did Luther base his ‘reformation’? **

No. They aren’t.

OK, so prove me wrong by actually dealing with them, specifically and exactly of course. The ones I am specifically interested in are the ones in bold.

The topic of the thread that Annie began was a related to her statement that, when Lutheran, she in her parish felt no need to refer to the Confessions. I responded that this was poor catechesis on the part of the parish. If you have a question about that, I will be happy to respond to it.

**Jon, Annie titled this thread “Not practicing SS in Lutheran Churches” and you are claiming that you don’t want to change the topic of the thread and answer my question about Martin Luther’s use of SS and PI? **

I give Luther a lot of credit, but not Luther alone. Further, I feel no need to defend Luther in areas that I disagree with him. To the extent that he did or did not practice personal interpretation is irrelevant to me at this point. This is an important point for you and your apologia, I understand. It isn’t to mine. And the condescending nature of your statement here won’t change my response to it.

**How can Luther’s use (or not) of personal interpretation be irrelevant to you? As you have mentioned , Lutheranism teaches that NOBODY is to use their personal interpretation to formulate doctrine, so why do you not care if that is exactly what Luther used to formulate the doctrines that he used to Revolt against the Church, HIS Church? **

In a post to Annie, #88, you posted what I believe was a document of some sort of LCMS Commission speaking of how the LCMS could possibly someday cease to consider the pope to be the anti-christ:

“At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith’) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.”

You followed this up by stating that: “This Lutheran is not asking the CC to change its teachings, but even Rome recognizes its place to develop new understandings of its doctrines and teachings, and adjust practices accordingly. We here have that flexibility on this side of the Elbe as well.”

Jon, it seems to me that you actually ARE suggesting the exact same thing that that LCMS Commission said – that there could be agreement IF the Catholic Church ‘revises’ the position it established at Trent. You say that you have (on your side of the Elbe) flexibility as well, but you also often claim that Lutherans can never go against your Confessions, while at the same time admitting that many Lutheran communions actually have.

God Bless You Jon, Topper