Protestant Council to Determine Canonicity

[steido01]

Which goes back to my original query…if as you say Lutheranism is a valid continuation of the western church…and as you and others have said, you rely on early church tradition…which always had patriarches and had connections to the Apostles…how can Lutheranism be a valid continuation is it has none of these?

The early church elected its local bishops by vote of the laity. Today, the RCC’s hierarchy appoints bishops. Is either necessarily more right or wrong than the other? History seems to say that the Power of the Keys is not dependent on polity or certain rites of hierarchy (after all, Arius was a bishop…). Christ certainly granted the Power of the Keys to the Apostles, and we respect their teachings just as our Roman Catholic brothers do. We simply do not accept that that power was granted exclusively to Peter.

And even call the patriarch of the west the anti-Christ?

‘Patriarch of the West’ - didn’t the Pope Emeritus discontinue the use of that title?

I’ll try to keep this brief because this can of worms has been opened in many-a-thread. Lutherans view the office of pope to be acting as anti-Christ (not the Antichrist) only insofar as he claims Universal Jurisdiction by divine right (rather than by human) and Infallibility. If he were to renounce his claims to these (or in the terms of Melanchthon, “allow the Gospel”) I am confident that Lutherans would immediately see no need to retain this view. While we see a wide variation of polity in Lutheran bodies, we are not averse to having an episcopal polity - so long as it is recognized to be of human need for order. We wouldn’t mind having a Pope again.

And why still dispute the DC or question their canonicity?

We don’t, necessarily; we just don’t see ourselves as having the authority to define a canon in general. Leaving us free to dispute them or not, just as the ECFs did and just as some Roman Catholics did before Trent. Obviously, Lutherans don’t view Trent as a truly ecumenical council (we’re still “waiting for Mantua,” if you will), so we are not bound to its decisions.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

The early church elected its local bishops by vote of the laity. Today, the RCC’s hierarchy appoints bishops. Is either necessarily more right or wrong than the other? History seems to say that the Power of the Keys is not dependent on polity or certain rites of hierarchy (after all, Arius was a bishop…). Christ certainly granted the Power of the Keys to the Apostles, and we respect their teachings just as our Roman Catholic brothers do. We simply do not accept that that power was granted exclusively to Peter.

‘Patriarch of the West’ - didn’t the Pope Emeritus discontinue the use of that title?

I’ll try to keep this brief because this can of worms has been opened in many-a-thread. Lutherans view the office of pope to be acting as anti-Christ (not the Antichrist) only insofar as he claims Universal Jurisdiction by divine right (rather than by human) and Infallibility. If he were to renounce his claims to these (or in the terms of Melanchthon, “allow the Gospel”) I am confident that Lutherans would immediately see no need to retain this view. While we see a wide variation of polity in Lutheran bodies, we are not averse to having an episcopal polity - so long as it is recognized to be of human need for order. We wouldn’t mind having a Pope again.

We don’t, necessarily; we just don’t see ourselves as having the authority to define a canon in general. Leaving us free to dispute them or not, just as the ECFs did and just as some Roman Catholics did before Trent. Obviously, Lutherans don’t view Trent as a truly ecumenical council (we’re still “waiting for Mantua,” if you will), so we are not bound to its decisions.

One clarification - do not Lutherans also make the claim to Divine Right?

 

[steido01]

One clarification - do not Lutherans also make the claim to Divine Right?

Not in my understanding; though I’m wondering if we’re using the same definition?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Not in my understanding; though I’m wondering if we’re using the same definition?

How else could anyone make the claim as to what was/is divinely inspired, and what is not? Or, similarly, which Churches are truly Christian and which are not? Or that the Confessions rightly reflect God? These proclamations would be meaningless if the underlying authority was mankind, no? Therefore, there must be a Divine Right given to the Lutherans, perhaps through the Holy Spirit (?), such that they are able to see these truths, while others are blind to it.

 

[benjohnson]

How else could anyone make the claim as to what was/is divinely inspired, and what is not? Or, similarly, which Churches are truly Christian and which are not? Or that the Confessions rightly reflect God? These proclamations would be meaningless if the underlying authority was mankind, no? Therefore, there must be a Divine Right given to the Lutherans, perhaps through the Holy Spirit (?), such that they are able to see these truths, while others are blind to it.

What you are describing is noting I’ve experienced in the Lutheran church - we don’t triumphantly insist we embody the Truth, instead we evangelize the Gospel. In as much as other Christians proclaim the Gospel, we are in agreement with them.

The reality of the world that we cling to is Christ on the Cross - if anything, that is the truth.

In another post, you had a hierarchy of categories of people in agreement with Lutheran doctrine - that makes me deeply uncomfortable. There is God, and there are his adopted children who need him: fundamentally we are all in the later category.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

What you are describing is noting I’ve experienced in the Lutheran church - we don’t triumphantly insist we embody the Truth, instead we evangelize the Gospel. In as much as other Christians proclaim the Gospel, we are in agreement with them.

The reality of the world that we cling to is Christ on the Cross - if anything, that is the truth.

In another post, you had a hierarchy of categories of people in agreement with Lutheran doctrine - that makes me deeply uncomfortable. There is God, and there are his adopted children who need him: fundamentally we are all in the later category.

It was certainly not my intent to make you uncomfortable – but it is my intent to explore this issue of authority. The devil is in the details, as the maxim goes. I thought the differences among the Christian sects (for lack of a better term) was determining “Who” is this Christ on the Cross? You mentioned poor ministers of Christ earlier – I understood that to mean “those minister who are not getting the Person of Christ quite right (according to Lutheran standards).” Have I misunderstood?

 

[MaryT777]

It was certainly not my intent to make you uncomfortable – but it is my intent to explore this issue of authority. The devil is in the details, as the maxim goes. I thought the differences among the Christian sects (for lack of a better term) was determining “Who” is this Christ on the Cross? You mentioned poor ministers of Christ earlier – I understood that to mean “those minister who are not getting the Person of Christ quite right (according to Lutheran standards).” Have I misunderstood?

Yes, that’s the same sort of “order” of determining the truth I understood from some posts.

There has to be some…of course obviously Lutherans will feel the LCMS Pastors that rightly preach and teach in accordance with the Scriptures and Confessions have the most truth , over say a Roman Catholic priest.

Mary.
Maybe I misunderstood too.

 

[steido01]

How else could anyone make the claim as to what was/is divinely inspired, and what is not?

Well, let’s start with the purpose of the Bible. To Lutherans, the purpose of the Bible is not simply to have a Bible; it is to develop a rule for understanding Christ’s teachings of Law and Gospel - I cannot stress that distinction enough. So where do we look to form this rule while Christ prepares for His second coming? Lucky for us, He left the Apostles to share (and write!) His message. When the Apostles died, the ECFs looked to 1)Old Testament books that we know Christ Himself read, taught and quoted from, and 2)New Testament books that were written by the Apostles or their close associates (we call these books homolegomena, the Greek term used for books that were commonly-accepted in the early church). From that base, Lutherans are content to allow the teachings of Christ, as recorded by the Apostles in Scripture, to interpret and define Scripture. This is how Lutherans define apostolic teaching.

Or, similarly, which Churches are truly Christian and which are not? Or that the Confessions rightly reflect God? These proclamations would be meaningless if the underlying authority was mankind, no? Therefore, there must be a Divine Right given to the Lutherans, perhaps through the Holy Spirit (?), such that they are able to see these truths, while others are blind to it.

Such proclamations would indeed be meaningless if the underlying authority was mankind. It was that very truth that sparked the Reformation. The Holy Spirit certainly guides the church catholic, but we Lutherans do not claim any special, hidden revelation.

I hope this has helped some… though I think I may have exhausted my usefulness in this discussion. As I’ve said from the beginning of this thread, you’re asking a question that does not compute to Lutherans, and I fear my meager explanations are effectually (ineffectually?) talking past you. Lutherans simply don’t see the need to define the canon in the same way Roman Catholics or protestants do. We did not exchange a living pope for a thousand little popes or for a single paper pope - we simply relied on the Living Word alone, as I addressed in post #146.

Peace be with you,

 

[PRmerger]

And the claim made by Lutherans (and no doubt others) is that Christ is indeed the head of the Lutheran Church, and therefore are endowed with authority in matters of Christianity (i.e., who may be rightly excluded from Christianity, which books are divinely inspired, etc.).

What I find curious about this is that none of the denominations, save the Catholic one, claims to be infallible. How can you have Christ as the head of your church yet not believe that your church is infallible?

 

[benjohnson]

It was certainly not my intent to make you uncomfortable – but it is my intent to explore this issue of authority. The devil is in the details, as the maxim goes. I thought the differences among the Christian sects (for lack of a better term) was determining “Who” is this Christ on the Cross? You mentioned poor ministers of Christ earlier – I understood that to mean “those minister who are not getting the Person of Christ quite right (according to Lutheran standards).” Have I misunderstood?

A goodly minister reflect the Gospel: He preaches Christ crucified and administers the sacraments.

I’ll admit that we Lutherans have an amazing ability frustrate those that would like to pin us down - we seem to be comfortable with leaving things a mystery or undetermined. I’ve been told that dialog with us is akin to trying to nail down jello.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

What I find curious about this is that none of the denominations, save the Catholic one, claims to be infallible. How can you have Christ as the head of your church yet not believe that your church is infallible?

Yes - this is a more eloquent (and succinct) manner of expressing my confusion, particularly with regard to authority. I understand that Catholics make certain claims that protestants find objectionable (authority, infallibility, etc.); but what I see going on at the same time are the same claims within protestantism. For example:

Q: “How do you know the deuterocanonical scriptures are not inspired?”
A: “Because the confessions, the synods, our church, etc.” [depending on who is responding]
Q: “What is their authority for making a determination?”
A: “Christ is the head of our church.”

To make a claim that Christ is the head of your church, you must make some sort of claim to divine authority. To make a claim that certain books are not “God-breathed” (as it were), one must know what God’s breath looks like, sounds like, feels like, etc. Furthermore, one must be sure that these claims are True, and therefore without error, otherwise, what would be the point?

Please understand, I am not saying that I disagree with Lutherans, or Protestants, and I am not saying that I agree with Catholics. What I am saying is that Catholics are quite honest about their claims, and there is no equivocation. What I hear on the other side is: “We possess the Truth of Christianity. But, there is perhaps a small probability that we might be wrong about this Truth.”

It would be akin to Jesus proudly handing Peter the Keys to Heaven, while cautioning Peter that he was not quite sure which Key actually opened the gates.

 

[benjohnson]

How can you have Christ as the head of your church yet not believe that your church is infallible?

My answer: because the church is a home for sinners, and while we listen to the Holy Spirit we often times don’t accept.

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Well, let’s start with the purpose of the Bible. To Lutherans, the purpose of the Bible is not simply to have a Bible; it is to develop a rule for understanding Christ’s teachings of Law and Gospel - I cannot stress that distinction enough. So where do we look to form this rule while Christ prepares for His second coming? Lucky for us, He left the Apostles to share (and write!) His message. When the Apostles died, the ECFs looked to 1)Old Testament books that we know Christ Himself read, taught and quoted from, and 2)New Testament books that were written by the Apostles or their close associates (we call these books homolegomena, the Greek term used for books that were commonly-accepted in the early church). From that base, Lutherans are content to allow the teachings of Christ, as recorded by the Apostles in Scripture, to interpret and define Scripture. This is how Lutherans define apostolic teaching.

Such proclamations would indeed be meaningless if the underlying authority was mankind. It was that very truth that sparked the Reformation. The Holy Spirit certainly guides the church catholic, but we Lutherans do not claim any special, hidden revelation.

I hope this has helped some… though I think I may have exhausted my usefulness in this discussion. As I’ve said from the beginning of this thread, you’re asking a question that does not compute to Lutherans, and I fear my meager explanations are effectually (ineffectually?) talking past you. Lutherans simply don’t see the need to define the canon in the same way Roman Catholics or protestants do. We did not exchange a living pope for a thousand little popes or for a single paper pope - we simply relied on the Living Word alone, as I addressed in post #146.

Peace be with you,

With regard to the Reformation - would this not be an example of someone exercising divine (infallible) authority? (Admittedly I am no expert on the Reformation).

 

[PRmerger]

My answer: because the church is a home for sinners, and while we listen to the Holy Spirit we often times don’t accept.

True–the church* is* a hospital for sinners.

However, if you listen to the church, knowing that it’s fallible, how do you know when it’s correct and when it’s not. So, for example, if your church declares, “Jesus had 2 sisters and 1 brother”, and you say, “I don’t accept this. And I don’t have to because this is a time when they are in error”…what is the canon you use for discerning whether it’s correct or in error?

 

[PRmerger]

and I am not saying that I agree with Catholics.

Where lies your disagreement with Catholicism?

What I am saying is that Catholics are quite honest about their claims, and there is no equivocation.

What I hear on the other side is: “We possess the Truth of Christianity. But, there is perhaps a small probability that we might be wrong about this Truth.”

It does appear to be an untenable position. :sad_yes:

 

[benjohnson]

True–the church* is* a hospital for sinners.

However, if you listen to the church, knowing that it’s fallible, how do you know when it’s correct and when it’s not. So, for example, if your church declares, “Jesus had 2 sisters and 1 brother”, and you say, “I don’t accept this. And I don’t have to because this is a time when they are in error”…what is the canon you use for discerning whether it’s correct or in error?

It doesn’t have to be perfectly correct to point me to Christ on the Cross. My goal isn’t perfection of myself, but the perfection in Christ.

That said, if my church were to be a stumbling block, then it would not be the church.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t have to be perfectly correct to point me to Christ on the Cross. My goal isn’t perfection of myself, but the perfection in Christ.

That said, if my church were to be a stumbling block, then it would not be the church.

But that didn’t answer my question, friend.

How do you know when the church is correct or in error? And if it’s erroneous, are you still bound to submit to your church’s authority?

 

[SextusEmpiricus]

Where lies your disagreement with Catholicism?

It does appear to be an untenable position. :sad_yes:

It’s not that I necessarily “disagree” with Catholicism (or Lutherans for that matter), because I think that term (disagreement) presumes a high degree of knowledge.

 

[benjohnson]

. What I hear on the other side is: “We possess the Truth of Christianity. But, there is perhaps a small probability that we might be wrong about this Truth.”

There’s a possibility that we’re wrong in promulgating God’s truth. What perhaps you need to understand about us we know that God doesn’t demand perfect understanding of Christ for salvation - for we will never fully understand Him.

Chist message to us is clear - Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

We’re doing that as best we can, and frankly I would say from personal experience, that triumphalism gets in the way.

Edit: I’m not accusing anybody of triumphalism. I speak only for my own failures.

 

[MaryT777]

It’s not that I necessarily “disagree” with Catholicism (or Lutherans for that matter), because I think that term (disagreement) presumes a high degree of knowledge.

SextusEmpiricus:
By the way…Welcome to the forums!
Mary.
(40 posts I know but I just thought of welcoming you now !