Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Topper17]

I think you’ll find that in recent years, particularly in morals, confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leaders than we are to our liberal Lutheran siblings.

First of all, I think that your definition of the term ‘confessional Lutherans’ might not exactly be one that all Lutherans would agree upon. As for your statement about the agreement between the LCMS and the Church on morals – it’s true, but only as far as it goes, which really isn’t all that far. As you know, the claim of the Church is that it teaches infallibly, at least on those matters which have been proclaimed as dogma. This includes issues of both faith and morals. Both are important.

While we might be mostly united on issues of morals, our differences on issues of faith are considerable. As a matter of fact, Pastor Martin R. Noland, the Director of the Concordia Historical Institute (LCMS) wrote a very revealing article about the subject: “What Does the LC-MS Teach about the Pope?”

“We need to first put the discussion about the papacy in the context of Lutheran-Roman Catholic relations. For those that join the show later, they need to hear points I - V.
Pope John Paul II has been exemplary as a political leader (e.g., opposition to communism and solidarity with the Poles) and as one who has resisted the liberalization of the Roman Catholic church (i.e., liberal higher criticism, liberal social issues, etc.). **The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines, thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation.
On the other hand, although John Paul II has invoked few of the extraordinary and unscriptural powers of the papacy, those powers are still claimed for the office by the Roman church. The papal office was not changed by Vatican II, only the church’s ecumenical and political stance.” **Noland

Personally Jon, I do not consider myself to be ‘ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines”, and quite frankly do not feel that I need to be ‘excused’ by anybody in the LCMS for my ‘errors’.

Noland goes on to a section which recognizes the differences between the LCMS and Catholics in a later section of his article:

“V. To Whom are LCMS Christians Closest in Theology and Practice?
Base on the priority of certain doctrines and the degree of differences (in order from “a” closest to “l” farthest):
a) “Book of Concord” Lutherans (e.g., WELS, ELS, LCC, members of the International Lutheran Council).
b) “Thirty-Nine Articles” Anglicans (e.g., The Reformed Episcopal Church in the US).
c) Bohemian and Moravian Brethren
d) “Westminster Confession” Calvinists (e.g., “Orthodox Presbyterians” with its two Westminster Seminaries and “Presbyterian Church in America” with its Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis)
e) Conservative Methodists (e.g., Wesleyan Church) and Evangelicals.
f) Anabaptists (e.g., Mennonites, Amish)
g) Russian Orthodox “Old Believers” (symbol is cross with three bars, bottom slanted) and Pre-Chalcedonian churches (e.g., Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, and Assyrian churches).
h) Eastern Orthodox
i) “Old Catholics,” including the “Polish National Catholic Church of America” (e.g., SS. Cyril and Methodius in St. Louis).
j) Roman Catholics
k) Pentecostals and Charismatics
l) Liberal Protestants, as long as they accept the messiahship and divinity of Jesus, otherwise they cannot claim to be Christian.” Noland

In other words Jon, Noland, is very honest and realistic about the fact the LCMS and Catholics are not at all ‘close’ in doctrine and practice. He sees the Amish as having a lot more in common with the LCMS that do Catholics. What I think is interesting about this list is the absolute disdain shown for “Liberal Protestants”, which in fact, are the result of Luther’s teaching on Sola Scriptura.

I guess my point is that your claim that the LCMS and Catholics are fairly ‘united’ in terms of beliefs about morals is a rather ‘incomplete’ and a potentially misleading representation of the situation.

Noland then goes on to document and explain the “LC-MS Official Position on the Papacy”, which I think will make for some interesting future posts.

 

[Tomyris]

I found it on line. People can compare what it actually says to what Topper says it says.

It is far more charitable than I was expecting after reading Topper’s post.

Salient here is how the anti-Christ is viewed here:

If “anti-christ” has to do with the claim of being a “lord” over church or state, then it can apply to anyone, and not just to the Pope, if they bear the marks. This is the position of the Lutheran Confessions and the LCMS. We should use the “marks of antichrist” to criticize our own churches and religious institutions, no matter what denomination we belong to. This certainly applies to the aspect of false doctrine, but also to polity and the powers of clergy. Religious ministers must be servants, not lords. When they lose proper accountability to the people, or when too much power is concentrated in one person, then “anti-christ is again rearing its ugly head.”

So anyone can be anti-christ! Opportunity knocks! I feel better already!

 

[Tomyris]

Personally Jon, I do not consider myself to be ‘ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines”, and quite frankly do not feel that I need to be ‘excused’ by anybody in the LCMS for my ‘errors’.

Personally, I will take any straw or excuse I can to obtain mercy, and I do not claim I have my act together.

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

 

[spedteacherita]

I found it on line. People can compare what it actually says to what Topper says it says.

It is far more charitable than I was expecting after reading Topper’s post.

Salient here is how the anti-Christ is viewed here:

So anyone can be anti-christ! Opportunity knocks! I feel better already!

Thanks, Tomi!

 

[commenter]

Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that every man is an interpretive island. It does NOT teach that Scripture is the only authority. It says that Scripture is the only infallible authority. There are lesser authorities, but they need to be always held up to Scripture as the superior authority.

It would seem that the infallibility of the content of Scripture is, from a human standpoint, dependent on the infallibility of the visible ecclesiastical authority that identified (and still identifies, present tense) these 27 books as the NT, and those other books as not in the NT. In other words, if the content of Scripture were the only infallibility, someone could reject a few of Paul’s epistles as “I don’t find that to be the Word of God”, and then quote back at you with the Gospel of Thomas, which they do find inspiring, and do include in* their* NT as the Word of God. In fact some Pauline epistles will almost certainly be missing from some bibles in 5 years. The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and others, have been getting incorporated for a couple years now; not in an appendix, but right in the actual NT.

This is not just a historical debate, some extreme liberal Protestant denominations are adding books to the NT right now. I don’t believe any Lutheran groups are - yet - and I hope they never do. In any event, present day Catholics and Lutherans will need cooperative relations to defend our NT canon as the only inspired one. I think part of that defense in 2015 will need to include a closer examination of how infallibility worked through a visible human agency in defining the canon, and whether that same human agency has infallibility in 2015 to defend the canon; and other things.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12847004]First of all, I think that your definition of the term ‘confessional Lutherans’ might not exactly be one that all Lutherans would agree upon. As for your statement about the agreement between the LCMS and the Church on morals – it’s true, but only as far as it goes, which really isn’t all that far. As you know, the claim of the Church is that it teaches infallibly, at least on those matters which have been proclaimed as dogma. This includes issues of both faith and morals. Both are important.

Indeed. Both are important, but my post to Commenter was specific to morals.

While we might be mostly united on issues of morals, our differences on issues of faith are considerable.

I don’t think I denied this anywhere in my post.

I guess my point is that your claim that the LCMS and Catholics are fairly ‘united’ in terms of beliefs about morals is a rather ‘incomplete’ and a potentially misleading representation of the situation.

Not misleading at all.
First, I don’t believe I said which you ascribe to me here. My post to Commenter was:
**I think you’ll find that in recent years, particularly in morals, confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leaders than we are to our liberal Lutheran siblings. **
Second, please note that my comment was a comparison. I was comparing our position on morals to two other groups; Catholics, and liberal Lutherans.
Three, lost perhaps in Commenter’s post was his modifier “unknowingly”, and my response of “knowingly”. He said:
** They are (unknowingly) closer to Catholicism than those who regard the Bible as a merely human collection of creativity and feelings; who regard Christianity as a kind of Sociology class; who regard ecumenism as an opportunity to rid ourselves of divisive dogmas; whose real religion is equality, not God. **
He is quite correct, except that I think confessional Lutherans who are aware of these things recognize our similarities knowingly, and that was the thrust of my response to him about morals.

The thread asks about present day Catholic-Lutheran relations. In light of the events in the United States in the last 6 years - ACA and the HHS mandate, the ELCA’s 2011 church-wide assembly, the growing acceptance of same-gender “marriage” - it is remarkably clear that my statement is true; confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leadership than we are to our more liberal Lutheran siblings.

Now about Martin Noland’s article. This section actually relates more closely to what Commenter said in his post.

III. How LCMS and Catholics Are Alike

1. Both are traditionalists, in the sense of a respect for traditional values, traditional morality, and continuity with spiritual fathers and mothers. This has changed for both churches with the American “baby-boomer” generation, which is for the most part anti-traditionalist.

1. Both churches would today be considered, in modern politics, “conservative.” The LCMS officially supports the traditional Christian definition of marriage, strongly discourages divorce, condemns fornication, is pro-life, supports a strong work ethic, defends the rights of private property, teaches that rulers and employers should take care of their subjects, and that citizens and employees should obey the laws and cooperate with authorities. Catholics would agree.

1. Both have preferred a traditional environment for worship, i.e., medieval or classical architecture for their church buildings, altar-centric worship space, medieval-origins liturgical texts, chant, use of the psalms, classical choral and organ music, pipe organs, vestments, clergy shirts, paraments, candles, stained glass, church art, etc. American “baby-boomer” churches, whether they are LCMS or Catholic, often reject these traditions.

1. Both have strong parochial school systems and a system of catechism classes for young and old.

1. Both are strongly sacramental in regards to Baptism, Lord’s Supper, and Confession, although LCMS rejects the Catholic idea that ordination, marriage, confirmation, and last rites are sacraments.

1. Both have common doctrines of: Revelation, Scripture, Historicity of Scripture, God, Trinity, Two Natures of Christ, Historic Fall, Divine Institute of the Pastoral Office, and the rejection of Millenialism.

I actually disagree with Noland in his list of who we are closest to. My personal view is we are far closer to Catholicism than many of the ones he places before it. Mine, like his and like yours, are merely opinions on the topic.

Jon

 

[Koineman]

It would seem that the infallibility of the content of Scripture is, from a human standpoint, dependent on the infallibility of the visible ecclesiastical authority that identified (and still identifies, present tense) these 27 books as the NT, and those other books as not in the NT.

There is another possibility: the infallibility of the content of Scripture is dependent on the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, with the church as the medium through which the canon of Scripture was identified.

When seen that way, the church does not have to be infallible and, therefore, of equal authority with Scripture.

The problem with your argument–which is popular among RC apologists–is that it goes essentially like this:

1. The Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to determine the canon of Scripture.
2. Any church that is guided by the Holy Spirit is itself infallible.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.

That doesn’t work, because #2 is flawed.

 

[pablope]

I found it on line. People can compare what it actually says to what Topper says it says.

It is far more charitable than I was expecting after reading Topper’s post.

Salient here is how the anti-Christ is viewed here:

So anyone can be anti-christ! Opportunity knocks! I feel better already!

Looks you missed this in the article:

“This business show overwhelmingly that the pope is the true end-times Antichrist (Endchrist or Widerchrist) who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ.” (sec. 10, p. 309).

(This book has been discredited…)
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs gives plenty of examples of Protestant tortures and executions that were “abominable and horrible.”

Thus the papacy has changed by giving up its former oppression and persecution of religious opponents, but has not changed its claim to be the sole dispensary of “full salvation.”…So the political status of the papacy in the world has changed, but its nature as examined by Scriptural teaching has not.
(in orther words…the papacy is still Ant-christ)

And the conclusion is an attempt to rationalize or make the teaching that the papacy is the very anti christ palatable…

 

[commenter]

First, I don’t believe I said which you ascribe to me here. My post to Commenter was:
**I think you’ll find that in recent years, particularly in morals, confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leaders than we are to our liberal Lutheran siblings. **
Second, please note that my comment was a comparison. I was comparing our position on morals to two other groups; Catholics, and liberal Lutherans.
Three, lost perhaps in Commenter’s post was his modifier “unknowingly”, and my response of “knowingly”. He said:
** They are (unknowingly) closer to Catholicism than those who regard the Bible as a merely human collection of creativity and feelings; who regard Christianity as a kind of Sociology class; who regard ecumenism as an opportunity to rid ourselves of divisive dogmas; whose real religion is equality, not God. **
He is quite correct, except that I think confessional Lutherans who are aware of these things recognize our similarities knowingly, and that was the thrust of my response to him about morals.

The thread asks about present day Catholic-Lutheran relations. In light of the events in the United States in the last 6 years - ACA and the HHS mandate, the ELCA’s 2011 church-wide assembly, the growing acceptance of same-gender “marriage” - it is remarkably clear that my statement is true; confessional Lutherans are knowingly far closer to our Catholic siblings and leadership than we are to our more liberal Lutheran siblings.
Jon

This goes back to what C. S. Lewis described as “Deep Church”: that the real difference among Christians is between - those who have a supernatural dimension that influences how they view dogma, worship, morals, and authority - as opposed to those who feel empowered to make it up as they go along. Only the first group are really open to ongoing conversion. They tend to agree on morals, with some distinctions on dogma, worship, and authority, but they all agree Christianity ought to convert people, not people convert it.

Catholics in union with the Magisterium, the LCMS, WELS, and many other groups of Christians are in the first group. In the second group would be Catholics who do not accept the Magisterium as an authority (though they may applaud papal quotes taken out of context); some members of the ELCA; and many others. The second group regards Christianity, or Christ, as a means to an end. That end may include inner peace, international peace, equality, or “spirituality”, which is regarded as a good in itself. For the second group “conversion” doesn’t mean dying to self, it means transforming society, and developing new spiritual insights. If people in the first group were more loving and caring, there would be fewer people in the second group.

 

[Denise1957]

Looks you missed this in the article:

“This business show overwhelmingly that the pope is the true end-times Antichrist (Endchrist or Widerchrist) who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ.” (sec. 10, p. 309).

(This book has been discredited…)
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs gives plenty of examples of Protestant tortures and executions that were “abominable and horrible.”

Thus the papacy has changed by giving up its former oppression and persecution of religious opponents, but has not changed its claim to be the sole dispensary of “full salvation.”…So the political status of the papacy in the world has changed, but its nature as examined by Scriptural teaching has not.

(in orther words…the papacy is still Ant-christ)

And the conclusion is an attempt to rationalize or make the teaching that the papacy is the very anti christ palatable…

I agree that the conclusion is an attempt to make palatable the (Lutheran) teaching that the papacy is the very anti-Christ. So much for charity!

Something else which the introduction to the Noland article mentions caught my eye (which Topper has already mentioned [thanks, Topper!] and commented on), and I’d like to comment on it, too. Noland writes:

“The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman Church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation”

It’s a comfort to know that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord.

Through the BoC excuses regular Catholics, what does it think of the hierarchy? The paragraph seems to assume that the Catholic hierarchy will not be saved.

I’m glad that Tomi posted a link to the article. It puts the comments of the Lutherans here (especially the LCMS) into context, in that they refuse to see any justification of the office of the papacy (and papal infallibility) either in scripture or tradition. Evidently, The Book of Concord won’t allow them to do so.

 

[pablope]

I agree that the conclusion is an attempt to make palatable the (Lutheran) teaching that the papacy is the very anti-Christ. So much for charity!

Something else which the introduction to the Noland article mentions caught my eye (which Topper has already mentioned [thanks, Topper!] and commented on), and I’d like to comment on it, too. Noland writes:

“The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman Church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation”

It’s a comfort to know that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord.

Through the BoC excuses regular Catholics, what does it think of the hierarchy? The paragraph seems to assume that the Catholic hierarchy will not be saved.

I’m glad that Tomi posted a link to the article. It puts the comments of the Lutherans here (especially the LCMS) into context, in that they refuse to see any justification of the office of the papacy (and papal infallibility) either in scripture or tradition. Evidently, The Book of Concord won’t allow them to do so.

One thing I noticed too…is this statement:“The Book of Concord (preface) recognizes that the common people in the Roman Church are ignorant and confused by the vast array of traditions and false doctrines thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation”

It looks like the BOC and the Lutherans who accept it are doing exactly what they accuse the pope of doing… thereby are excused for their errors, so long as they cling to Christ and his merits for salvation"…that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord

 

[commenter]

Stay on topic please

I wanted to echo what I think was the moderator’s advice.

The Thread is "Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations.
(Bolding added by me).

 

[MaryT777]

I wanted to echo what I think was the moderator’s advice.

The Thread is "Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations.
(Bolding added by me).

If you are referring to the BOC, it still applies today. Current Lutheran Catholic relations with confessional Lutherans are undoubtedly hindered by a Synod believing our Pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist.

Mary.

 

[commenter]

If you are referring to the BOC, it still applies today. Current Lutheran Catholic relations with confessional Lutherans are undoubtedly hindered by a Synod believing our Pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist.

Mary.

OK.
Besides historical documents that still have relevance, what else is going on in 2015, that might affect Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations?

Anyone have (name removed by moderator)ut from their local city, or a different twist on how Catholics and Lutherans are impacted by the current national governments, or how Catholic-Lutheran relations are both impacted by the secular media culture, or by other denominations?

 

[JonNC]

=Denise1957;12848069]
It’s a comfort to know that we ignorant and confused Catholics will still be saved (or merit salvation), according to the Book of Concord.

Hi Denise,
So let’s think about the term “ignorance”. What does the CC say is the way non-Catholics can be saved? Invincible ignorance. Should non-Catholics be offended by the claim that we have to not just ignorant, but invincibly ignorant of what the CC claims as the truth? The very statement says that by not being Catholic we must be ignorant.

Through the BoC excuses regular Catholics, what does it think of the hierarchy? The paragraph seems to assume that the Catholic hierarchy will not be saved.

Not true, though isn’t that the very claim of the CC regarding non-Catholics since they are not in communion with the Pope, only by invincible ignorance can we be saved?

I’m glad that Tomi posted a link to the article. It puts the comments of the Lutherans here (especially the LCMS) into context, in that they refuse to see any justification of the office of the papacy (and papal infallibility) either in scripture or tradition. Evidently, The Book of Concord won’t allow them to do so.

Again, not true. Lutherans of all stripes recognize the role of the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, as the western patriarch, even his historic primacy. What we question is supremacy and infallibility. In these two we are clearly not alone. Orthodox and Old Catholics also reject these claims not only scripturally, but in the historic Tradition of the Church.

My point is not to defend any of this, from either side, but merely to point out that it comes from both sides.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Koin,

Trent needs to be discarded. Of course, that’s not going to happen, but you asked.

At least this is a bold proposal. Of course the counterproposal would be that the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord and all of the other Lutheran Confessional documents be discarded. How about that?

If that doesn’t work for some reason, then how about a truly “ecumenical approach”:

How about if EVERYBODY throws out all of the Confessions and dogmas that have been established after Oct 30th, 1517. Trent, Augsburg, Smalcald, Westminster, Vatican I and II, and all the rest simply disappear and we ‘start over’. Then we could have a truly Ecumenical Council in which EVERYBODY gets to be equitably represented. This Council would of course pray to the Holy Spirit that it be guided such that it would be precluded from teaching error on matters of faith and morals.

Would the LCMS (and everybody else) be willing to abide by the guiding of the Holy Spirit and be a part of a UNIFIED CHRISTIANITY? Would the LCMS be willing to ‘sign on’ and commit to being a part of whatever the Council was led to teach and establish in terms of ecclesiastical ‘structure’?

OK, let’s say that everybody is ‘all in’. So how do we apportion representation and voting on a unified set of doctrines and a new “Church Structure”? It would seem that the best and most fair way would be on the basis of membership or population. So if there are 2,100,000,000 Christians worldwide, how about if we assign a delegate and a vote on the basis of a million members. That would mean that the Catholic Church gets 1,100 of the votes, and the LCMS gets 2. Does that seem fair, and if not, how would you like to see them apportioned out?

By the way, do you think that the LCMS will be able to easily determine which two of its leaders to send, or is that going to be a problem?

God Bless You Koin, Topper

 

[JonNC]

OK.
Besides historical documents that still have relevance, what else is going on in 2015, that might affect Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations?

Anyone have (name removed by moderator)ut from their local city, or a different twist on how Catholics and Lutherans are impacted by the current national governments, or how Catholic-Lutheran relations are both impacted by the secular media culture, or by other denominations?

I have regularly posted links to articles regarding the growing level of dialogue between the CC and the International Lutheran Council, as well as dialogue on the national level.

blogs.lcms.org/2014/ilc-talks-with-lwf-catholics

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/02/roman-catholics-and-confessional-lutherans-explore-deeper-ties

todayscatholicnews.org/2012/04/lutheran-church-missouri-synod-offers-solidarity-with-catholics-defending-religious-liberty/

youtube.com/watch?v=527spTZiwBU

Its Missouri Synod Lutherans who have sided with the Catholic Church on abortion, on the HHS Mandate, etc. Its LFL members who march with Catholics arm in arm against abortion.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12848929]

How about if EVERYBODY throws out all of the Confessions and dogmas that have been established after Oct 30th, 1517. Trent, Augsburg, Smalcald, Westminster, Vatican I and II, and all the rest simply disappear and we ‘start over’. Then we could have a truly Ecumenical Council in which EVERYBODY gets to be equitably represented. This Council would of course pray to the Holy Spirit that it be guided such that it would be precluded from teaching error on matters of faith and morals.

Even better. Let’s go back to the seventh ecumenical council as a starting point? Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, most Anglicans, and maybe some others will agree up to there.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Koin,

I don’t really think this is what Luther advocated. What you are disagreeing with is actually a radical view of sola scriptura, i.e., the belief that nobody needs teachers or leaders, and all we need is the Bible. For sure, there are radical Protestant groups who follow this view, such as some in the house church movement. However, it is incorrect to say that Luther held to such a view. Luther often referenced/quoted church fathers as support for what he taught, and you can see that in the Book of Concord, too. In addition, Lutheranism has a strong respect for church traditions and acknowledges some of the church councils of the past. If we really held to the view of SS you are criticizing, we would not value church traditions or councils.

Sola Scriptura does NOT teach that every man is an interpretive island. It does NOT teach that Scripture is the only authority. It says that Scripture is the only infallible authority. There are lesser authorities, but they need to be always held up to Scripture as the superior authority.

But then again, I could be wrong. Can you produce any quotes of Luther that clearly show he advocated the view of sola scriptura you are criticizing?

Again, this is false. If it’s true, you should provide some documentation.

Actually Koin, there is plenty of evidence that Luther taught that the individual had the right to interpret the Bible. He retreated from this radical position but for about the first 7 years of so of his ‘Reformation’ this is exactly what he taught. Noted Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath:

**“Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other or other centralized religious authorities. **For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots – from the laity. **Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly – seemingly irreversibly – been removed. **

**The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If each individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. **But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these “so-called” authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, p. 2-4

To be continued.

 

[Topper17]

This text is from Luther’s Sermon for Pentecost Tuesday, 1523.

*“IV. THE HEARERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE A SERMON.

1. In this text there are two thoughts worthy of note: the liberty of faith, and the power to judge. **You know that our soul-murderers have proposed to us that what the councils and the learned doctors decide and decree, that we should accept, and not judge for ourselves whether it is right or not. **They have become so certain of the infallibility of the councils and doctors that they have now established the edict, publicly seen, that if we do not accept what they say, we are put under the ban. Now, let us take a spear in hand and make a hole in their shield; yea, their resolutions shall be a spider’s web. And you should, moreover, use upon them the spear which, until now, they have used upon us, and hold before them its point.
2. Remember well that the sheep have to pass judgment upon that which is placed before them. They should say: We have Christ as our Lord and prefer his Word to the words of any man or to those of the angels of darkness. We want to examine and judge for ourselves whether the pope, the bishops and their followers do right or not. For Christ says here that the sheep judge and know which is the right voice and which is not. Now let them come along. Have they decreed anything? We will examine whether it is right, and according to our own judgment interpret that which is a private affair for each individual Christian, knowing that the authority to do this is not human, but divine. Even the real sheep flee from a stranger and hold to the voice of their shepherd.*

Here we see Luther preaching that the sheep have the authority to judge the teachings that are given to them and of course, presumably that would be His Teachings also. Luther makes it VERY clear that each individual Christian, according to our own judgment, which is a private affair,not human, but divine, MAY and in fact SHOULD pass judgment upon that which is placed before them. This of course, would include ANYONE’s teachings, OR ELSE, Luther really DID NOT MEAN THIS, in that it did NOT apply to people judging HIS Teachings. However, in order to withstand those who would rebuke His Teachings, it would be necessary for HIM to determine that those who do, are really NOT sheep at all, meaning that they are not REALLY Christian.

15. Therefore, be ye aroused by this passage of Scripture to hew to pieces and thrust through everything that is not in harmony with the Gospel, for it belongs to the sheep to judge, and not to the preachers. You have the authority and power to judge everything that is preached; that and nothing less. If we have not this power, then Christ vainly said to us in Mt 7, 15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” We could not beware if we had not the power to judge, but were obliged to accept everything they said and preached.”

Again, here Luther makes even more clear the contradiction associated with his “theology”. IF he really meant that ANY Christian had the “right” to judge what was and what was NOT in harmony with the Gospel, including the teachings of “preachers.” (like Him), then he certainly would have found it “necessary” to treat those whose “positions” were in opposition to His Own, with a certain “Christian Charity”, AND realize that he could not just “rebuke” them from HIS authority and unilaterally declare THEM to be wrong. However, as Luther PROVED time and time again, he didn’t REALLY mean all of these things at all. He HAD to proclaim them in order to establish HIS OWN authority, but then VERY quickly proclaimed HIMSELF to be “superior” to ALL those who disagreed with Him.

I recognize that Luther’s teaching of Sola Scriptura PLUS the 'Right of the Individual to Interpret" (SS+PI) does not ‘compute’ for modern day Lutherans, but it is exactly the doctrine he originally taught and it is the model of authority that he ‘used’ to break away from the Church.

There is a great deal of additional supporting evidence if you would like to see it.

God Bless You Koin, Topper