Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[benjohnson]

And, hence, a fallible, Lutheran magisiterium. Thank you very much

Yes fallible! But correct!

The catch-all Lutheran response to someone pointing out our weakness is that “it is a mercy that God drives us to our knees!”

That you have pointed out our weakness should not give us grief, but rejoicing.

(yes… we’re weird)

 

[Tomster]

Yes fallible! But correct!

The catch-all Lutheran response to someone pointing out our weakness is that “it is a mercy that God drives us to our knees!”

That you have pointed out our weakness should not give us grief, but rejoicing.

(yes… we’re weird)

In matters of faith and morals, I take it then, that Lutheranism teaches it is just fine to be fallibly correct? It seems to me that if one is just “fallibly” correct in matters of faith and morals that one’s own pastor would be a little more tolerant and less rigid and dogmatic. No?

 

[benjohnson]

Sounds like your immediate pastor has quite a lot of authority over you. Interesting that you have jettisoned the authority of Father Martin

Yes! As I have seen, LCMS pastors are generally really well educated, trustworthy, and understand their own limitations. It is a blessing to have them!

I wouldn’t say we have removed Father Martin authority, for he never had it. We have a high regard for his work - but we also know that plenty of weird stuff came out of his mouth. The truly important thing about him is to watch his hands and where they are pointing - to the Cross.

 

[Tomster]

Yes fallible! But correct!

The catch-all Lutheran response to someone pointing out our weakness is that “it is a mercy that God drives us to our knees!”

That you have pointed out our weakness should not give us grief, but rejoicing.

(yes… we’re weird)

Of what use would a fallible magisterium be? I mean, how could you trust it’s teachings to be absolutely true when it come to interpreting Scriptures?

I think we both know the answer.

 

[benjohnson]

In matters of faith and morals, I take it then, that Lutheranism teaches it is just fine to be fallibly correct? It seems to me that if one is just “fallibly” correct in matters of faith and morals that one’s own pastor would be a little more tolerant and less rigid and dogmatic. No?

I think it would be fair to say that the correctness of pointing to the Cross is of penultimate importance.

We’re pretty rigid and dogmatic - at least that’s what our detractors say. I prefer the idea that we’re focused.

Where ‘tolerance’ play into a bit of a difference is the role our pastor plays in granting people a reprieve for the law they are breaking and continue to break in order to point the person back to the cross. That divorced people who remarry are often granted peace in church would be an indication of that.

I’m at the limits of my all-to-poor knowledge, so if Jon steps in and says otherwise, please trust in him.

 

[Tomster]

Yes! As I have seen, LCMS pastors are generally really well educated, trustworthy, and understand their own limitations. It is a blessing to have them!

I wouldn’t say we have removed Father Martin authority, for he never had it. We have a high regard for his work - but we also know that plenty of weird stuff came out of his mouth. The truly important thing about him is to watch his hands and where they are pointing - to the Cross.

All well and good. But they still exercise authority over you.

In regards to Father Martin, he did claim authority, especially over the Bible, and in a very vigorous way. So much so, in fact, that he threw out some things that were in the Bible. A Bible, btw, whose Canon was established by the Catholic Church some 1200 years prior. Now that’s guts. I’ll give him that.

 

[Tomster]

I think it would be fair to say that the correctness of pointing to the Cross is of penultimate importance.

We’re pretty rigid and dogmatic - at least that’s what our detractors say. I prefer the idea that we’re focused.

Where ‘tolerance’ play into a bit of a difference is the role our pastor plays in granting people a reprieve for the law they are breaking and continue to break in order to point the person back to the cross. That divorced people who remarry are often granted peace in church would be an indication of that.

I’m at the limits of my all-to-poor knowledge, so if Jon steps in and says otherwise, please trust in him.

“Lift High the Cross.” One of my favorite hymns.

As an aside from our conversation, I often wondered why Protestant Churches, not Lutheran, but Protestant Churches :tiphat:, have crosses in their churches while we have crucifixes? Don’t they preach “Christ crucified”?

 

[benjohnson]

Of what use would a fallible magisterium be?

In my case, it is of infinite use, for it has brought me and my family to the Cross.

I mean, how could you trust it’s teachings to be absolutely true when it come to interpreting Scriptures? I think we both know the answer.

I trust completely, for it hasn’t betrayed my trust and had brought me to the precipice of salvation.

Perhaps this is a difference between us - that I don’t require a claim of perfection could very well be a fault of mine. If I’m trapped in the greatest and most devious swindle of my life, then I still am content - for the cross is before me.

 

[sennincatholic]

All well and good. But they still exercise authority over you.

In regards to Father Martin, he did claim authority, especially over the Bible, and in a very vigorous way. So much so, in fact, that he threw out some things that were in the Bible. A Bible, btw, whose Canon was established by the Catholic Church some 1200 years prior. Now that’s guts. I’ll give him that.

:sad_yes:

 

[benjohnson]

often wondered why Protestant Churches (…) have crosses in their churches while we have crucifixes?

I wonder too… perhaps they lack good wood-carving skills?

From my own experience, I think the crucifix doesn’t fit well for those that focus on the triumph of God. We need to understand where that triumph, for God’s triumph came from Him redeeming the execution of his Son - that he turned the worst crime done to the most perfect victim into salvation for us is a joy that our world needs to hear.

 

[benjohnson]

. So much so, in fact, that he threw out some things that were in the Bible.

Now you’ve got me curious! What did Martin Luther’s bible lack? Keep in mind that his German bible is actually a bit longer that the Catholic Bible formalized in Trent - it included The Prayer of Manasses.

You may very rightly claim that American Lutherans have woefully adopted the 66 book version because of inexpensive British publishers following the Westminster Confession, and I would agree - but to be fair, we’re well on our way to rectify that problem!

 

[steido01]

In regards to Father Martin, he did claim authority, especially over the Bible, and in a very vigorous way. So much so, in fact, that he threw out some things that were in the Bible. A Bible, btw, whose Canon was established by the Catholic Church some 1200 years prior. Now that’s guts. I’ll give him that.

Aw, come now, Tomster. I’ve seen many of your posts, and I know you to be more knowledgeable of Christian history than that. Dr. Martin never “threw out” anything. The current Catholic cannon wasn’t even official until Trent - up to that point, even some of Luther’s Catholic adversaries openly disputed whether the deuterocannonical books were on par with the rest of Scripture. Even so, Luther always deemed the books “useful and good to read,” and the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a cannon - the issue was open to scholarly debate, just as it was in the Catholic Church pre-Trent. Sadly, American Lutherans (and their Catholic friends) sometimes forget this because we’re surrounded by more Protestant/Reformed influences. My Lutheran Study Bible isn’t missing anything!

 

[steido01]

I often wondered why Protestant Churches, not Lutheran, but Protestant Churches :tiphat:, have crosses in their churches while we have crucifixes? Don’t they preach “Christ crucified”?

Maybe it’s a …stumbling block… to them?

In all seriousness, I sometimes think that Protestant churches try too hard to make Christianity easy to swallow. Conveniently removing the suffering man in front often precipitates/accompanies an ignorance of the Law in favor of an empty, out-of-context Gospel. They miss the magnitude of the sacrifice that was made for them; without the pain of the crucifix, the cross has no glory.

(Thanks, by the way, for your sensitivity to the Lutheran-Protestant difference, good sir. :tiphat

 

[pablope]

Aw, come now, Tomster. I’ve seen many of your posts, and I know you to be more knowledgeable of Christian history than that. Dr. Martin never “threw out” anything. The current Catholic cannon wasn’t even official until Trent - up to that point, even some of Luther’s Catholic adversaries

openly disputed whether the deuterocannonical books were on par with the rest of Scripture.

True…but it did not rise to the point of disobedience, or them saying this is the canon of the Bible from now on.

If fact, what is often missed, when citing Jerome and some of them, is Jerome, in particular, stated that he dutifully submits to the judgement of the Church and even considered the disputation of the books…sinful.

Sadly, American Lutherans (and their Catholic friends) sometimes forget this because we’re surrounded by more Protestant/Reformed influences. My Lutheran Study Bible

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;10653119]Thanks for clearing one point up for us Jon. That point being Lutheran confessional statements are fallible (translated: subject to error).

Well, yes. I’ve said that. We view only scripture to be inerrant. What I also pointed out is what Krauth implies: the confessions can be wrong, but are not. That said, that is why we rely on scripture as the final norm. Look at the creeds, they are not specific in scripture, but we know they are correct.

That being said, is it no wonder, then, that there are so many differing interpretations of belief within Lutheranism itself?

Sounds like world-wide Lutheranism should gather together in some sort of “Lutheran Ecumenical Council” and sort things out. But, then again, that process would still be a fallible exercise. Just forget that I brought that point up.

The problem some Lutherans have is they believe that, in some areas they are too influenced by culture, so they will say that the limit on the ministerial priesthood to males is a cultural thing (flaw?), in both the confessions and scripture. The contention of confessional Lutherans is that this approach of their’s is cultural and flawed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“I don’t know.” - Jon

C’mon Jon. You should know this one.

I didn’t mean “I don’t” in that sense. But whatever Luther may have said about private judgement is his opinion, and is not the practice of Lutheranism. Remember, we are hld to scripture and the confessions, not Luther.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;10653454]Jon,

You must know that the Catholic Church teaches that no one Catholic bishop, by himself, exclusively, is infallible, ex cathedra or otherwise except, of course, the Bishop of Rome.

Tomster,
Doesn’t the exception you state make my statement correct? And not even the EO believes this to be the case, not even about any of their own bishops.

BTW - Since, in your opinion, there have only been seven ecumenical councils and, in your opinion, “it is in keeping with the early Church that required ecumenical councils”, and, in your opinion, you believe that the Lutheran Church is a continuation of the Catholic Church, why hasn’t the Lutheran Church called an Ecumenical Council all on their own? Is there anyone in authority within world-wide Lutheranism capable of calling a Council together and what would be the likelihood of all the participants of such a Council signing off as de fide (to be believed) on the matters discussed at such a Council?

If we call it all on our own, it would not be ecumenical, by definition. Further, it isn’t the ecclesiastical approach of Lutherans. My own opinion is that for an ecumenical council to be held, one must have the patriarchates - all of them - including the Bishop of Rome.

To my knowledge, world-wide Lutheranism has never even attempted to call an Ecumenical Council together. Why is that Jon? Being a continuation of the Catholic Church one would think that they had the authority to so wouldn’t one?

Not on their own, just like I don’t think the Bishop of Rome has that authority.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;10654539]

True…but it did not rise to the point of disobedience, or them saying this is the canon of the Bible from now on.

Disobedience how? Perhaps by openly translating (even though it was a oft-used guide for Catholic translators that followed him). Luther, if he said, “this is the canon from now on”, didn’t have the authority to do so, as the fact that the Lutheran confessions makes no such statement points out.

If fact, what is often missed, when citing Jerome and some of them, is Jerome, in particular, stated that he dutifully submits to the judgement of the Church and even considered the disputation of the books…sinful.

What’s curious is that a variance in the number of books in the canon has always, long before Luther, been a fact, and a dispute.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

Tomster,
Doesn’t the exception you state make my statement correct? And not even the EO believes this to be the case, not even about any of their own bishops.

If we call it all on our own, it would not be ecumenical, by definition. Further, it isn’t the ecclesiastical approach of Lutherans. My own opinion is that for an ecumenical council to be held, one must have the patriarchates - all of them - including the Bishop of Rome.

Not on their own, just like I don’t think the Bishop of Rome has that authority.

Jon

Well, Jon, that’s not necessarily the case. Back in the day, so to speak, the body of Lutherans did submit themselves in the Augsburg Confession to the judgment of a General Council with no mention being made for the participation of the Orthodox Church.

For you see, Jon, that the difficulty in condemning the doctrine of the Church was pressing, and this was the reason that the Lutherans dared not acknowledge that their confession of faith was opposite to the Church of Rome, or that they had withdrawn themselves from her. They endeavored to have it believed that they were not distinguished but by certain rites and slight observances. And, moreover, to show they always pretended to make one body with her, they openly submited to her council.

This appears in the preface of the Confession of Augsburg, addressed to Charles the V.

“Your imperial majesty has declared, that you could determine nothing in this affair, wherein religion was concerned, but would have recourse to the Pope, to procure the convention of an universal council. You repeated the same declaration in the last year in the diet held at Spire, and manifested that you persisted in the resolution of procuring this assembly of a general council: adding that the affairs between you and the Pope being concluded (no mention of the Orthodox Church here), you believed he might easily be induced to call a general council.”

By this it is seen what council it was, of which there was question. It was a general council, to be assembled by the Pope, and the Lutherans submitted themselves to it in these terms: “If matters of religion cannot be amicably arranged with our parties, we offer in all obedience to your imperial majesty, to appear and plead our own cause before such a general, free, and Christian council.”

And, finally, “It is to this general council, and to your imperial majesty conjointly, that we have and do appeal, and we adhere to this appeal.”

When they spoke in this manner, it was not their intention to give the emperor authority to pronounce on the articles of faith: but upon appealing to the council, they also named the emperor in their appeal as the person who was to procure the convocation of this holy assembly, and whom they solicited to retain in the meantime all things in suspense.

So solemn a declaration will remain for ever upon the record in the most authentic act the Lutherans have ever made, and in the very front of the Augsburg Confession, in testimony against them, and in acknowledgement of the inviolable authority of the Church.

All then submitted to it, and whatever might be done before her decision arrived, was all provisional. But, after the horror of schism had diminished and the party had gained strength by treaties and leagues, the Church was forgotten and all they said of her holy authority vanished like a dream, and the title " of a free and Christian Council," used by them, became a pretext to render their calling for a council illusionary.

 

[Tomster]

Aw, come now, Tomster. I’ve seen many of your posts, and I know you to be more knowledgeable of Christian history than that. Dr. Martin never “threw out” anything. The current Catholic cannon wasn’t even official until Trent - up to that point, even some of Luther’s Catholic adversaries openly disputed whether the deuterocannonical books were on par with the rest of Scripture. Even so, Luther always deemed the books “useful and good to read,” and the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a cannon - the issue was open to scholarly debate, just as it was in the Catholic Church pre-Trent. Sadly, American Lutherans (and their Catholic friends) sometimes forget this because we’re surrounded by more Protestant/Reformed influences. My Lutheran Study Bible isn’t missing anything!

Actually, steido, read the findings and declarations of the Council Of Rome, circa 300A.D.

In them you will find how the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scriptures. Trent just restated and emphasized what The Council of Rome had already declared.