Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Topper

Your statement “the devil is in the details” is so important to consider and reflect upon.

We have the ELCA Lutherans that subscribe to Sola Scriptura defending gay marriage and a woman’s right to murder a child all in the name of the Bible alone.

Surely this is not a doctrine from God.

That is precisely the point. Nobody practices Sola Scriptura, meaning the Bible Only. Everybody adds the interpretation of their communion, or their own self. The problem is that Luther’s Sola Scriptura actually allows people to decide for themselves what that thing is that is going to be added.

We often hear about how the Lutheran Confessions ‘protect’ Lutheranism from doctrinal error. That would be plausible EXCEPT for the fact that they clearly have not.

I fully understand the ‘concern’ that the ‘more conservative’ Lutherans have for their ELCA brethren. In fact the health insurance that they provide for their employees provides for payment for abortions. As the father of four adopted children, whose birth mothers chose LIFE, I cannot begin to express how strongly I feel about that kind of thing. Paying for abortions, as a Lutheran communion, is somehow ‘acceptable’ while still adhering to the Augsburg Confession. This simply points out that the Confession too can apparently be interpreted however one chooses to.

Even the most ‘conservative’ of American Lutheran communions (WELS) are not in communion with the second most ‘conservative’, the LCMS. I applaud their positions on life, but recognize that they will not be able to hold their members to their teachings. The precedent of Luther’s disobedience is far to present for all of those who wish to decide these kinds of matters for themselves. In reality, the idea that it is the ‘church that decides’ works only as long as the church agrees with the ultimate authority – the self.

Christ could not have founded his Church on a ‘principal’ that has caused as much doctrinal dissension and confusion as has Sola Scriptura. The fact that it was unknown for the first 1500 years SHOULD cause people to question their belief in SS.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Of course I read them.

But Jon, the one of the reasons that I post them is to get the responses that I continue to ask you for.

the point of this responds to what I asked you long ago. The Lutheran practice of SS precedes what other communions claim to use

I don’t understand your point here. Could you expand on:

“The Lutheran practice of SS precedes what other communions claim to use”

Are you saying that the Lutheran ‘practice’ of SS is the first ever practice of SS, and if so, what is the significance of that fact?

You’ve never heard of “take it to the Church?”

OK, so what happens if their decision doesn’t ‘go your way’? Isn’t your last alternative to pick up your ball and go somewhere else? After all, that is exactly what Luther did when the Church didn’t sign on to his wholesale doctrinal innovations.

Luther wasn’t / isn’t the Lutheran tradition. The question of the thread is how Lutherans use SS, not what Luther did personally.

I think you give Luther FAR too little ‘credit’ for Lutheran Theology.

Have you read Robert Kolb’s book”, “Martin Luther, as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”?

Kolb does not ‘skip ahead’ to the Formula of Concord, but documents the progression of Authority in Lutheranism. He discusses Luther’s early authority within Lutheranism and then how the authority morphed’ from Luther personally to the Confessions. He relates how the writers of your Formulas viewed Luther’s authority, and in fact, how those Confessional documents, in a roundabout way, are actually very much based on Luther’s individual (and self-proclaimed) authority. Again, I ask - have you read this Lutheran Professor’s book?

And you know this how? Which of the Fathers lived at the time of the Reformation? None of councils support universal jurisdiction, either, but you can should me quotes from the Fathers that sound like they do, and I can show you quotes that sound a lot like SS. So what?

First of all, I noticed how you don’t claim here that the any of the Fathers supported SS, only that you can provide quotes which ‘sound a lot like SS’.

As for how I know this - I can demonstrate how I know it if you would like, with your cooperation.

That you would ask it this way very much supports my position, that NONE of the Fathers supported anything close to Sola Scriptura. You say that you can show me quotes that sound a lot like SS. That might be true. There are a LOT of Sola Scriptura websites that provide a dozen and a half or so quotes from various Fathers, which, as you put it ‘sound a lot like SS’. However, Jon, those quotes, in their actual context, don’t do anything but prove that those Fathers taught against SS. That context is the ‘other quotes’ from those same Fathers that speak very directly against anything even closely resembling SS. Those quotes are not to be found on those pro-SS websites.

If you believe you actually can provide a Father which ‘sound a lot like SS’, then please quote him along with your interpretation of what he is saying. Then we will see how it turns out when his ‘other quotes’ are revealed. It seems that you have made an issue of the idea that you could provide an ‘SS sounding Father’. What would it mean to you if that Father didn’t support SS at all?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13132713]
I don’t understand your point here. Could you expand on:

“The Lutheran practice of SS precedes what other communions claim to use”

Are you saying that the Lutheran ‘practice’ of SS is the first ever practice of SS, and if so, what is the significance of that fact

This was the original challenge you made to me, Topper, about the Lutheran practice of SS compared to later versions.

OK, so what happens if their decision doesn’t ‘go your way’? Isn’t your last alternative to pick up your ball and go somewhere else? After all, that is exactly what Luther did when the Church didn’t sign on to his wholesale doctrinal innovations.

It already went against my view. BTW, aren’t you one who transferred membership from one communion to another? Did you not pick up your ball and go elsewhere?
Please focus on the topic. If you want to start a thread on this, ok.

I

you give Luther FAR too little ‘credit’ for Lutheran Theology.

Have you read Robert Kolb’s book”, “Martin Luther, as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”?

Kolb does not ‘skip ahead’ to the Formula of Concord, but documents the progression of Authority in Lutheranism. He discusses Luther’s early authority within Lutheranism and then how the authority morphed’ from Luther personally to the Confessions

.
i didn’t go immediately to the FoC either. If one is talking about what Lutherans do, not what Luther thought, particularly if they differ, then one starts with the Augsburg Confession. This is especially true in a forum where a question has been asked. The question is not about Luther, but what Lutherans do.

First of all, I noticed how you don’t claim here that the any of the Fathers supported SS, only that you can provide quotes which ‘sound a lot like SS

Exactly. That was my point, in both directions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Without a papacy, no one can officially say what constitutes “conservative Lutheranism” in 2015. Doesn’t ELCA justify everything quoting old documents? Commitment to the Magisterium takes free will. If a Baptist, or even a nun, choose not to commit to the Magisterium, that doesn’t undermine it. (I haven’t been able to follow my doctor’s counsel on healthy weight. So I am seeking new weight charts where 240 is the “new normal”). My doctor’s counsel is still valid. The validity of the Magisterium is not affected, whether 1% or 99% unite with it. I agree. The role of the Magisterium is clearer to me now than in the 1960s. This is partly from watching at a distance mainline Protestantism , but also from seeing close up the fruits of some Catholics drifting away from the Magisterium. I see nothing good come out of that drifting, and much harm to catechesis, ministry, evangelism, community, and fidelity to Truth, and even Reason. I also see much good now, but only where there is fidelity to the Magisterium.

I am confident older conservative Lutherans and Anglicans will maintain fidelity to what I consider Truth, no matter how their denominations respond to the secular tidal wave hitting us all. Just because they could do it, without the Magisterium, doesn’t mean their grandchildren, or mine, will be able to. They won’t.

Thanks, Commenter. A couple of thoughts:
“Commitment to the Magisterium takes free will.”
I agree. And I would say the same about the confessions, and more liberal Lutherans who seem to have drifted from orthodoxy.
Regarding your final comment about older Lutherans and Anglicans, I’m afraid you might be right.
Jon

 

[commenter]

,I fully understand the ‘concern’ that the ‘more conservative’ Lutherans have for their ELCA brethren. In fact the health insurance that they provide for their employees provides for payment for abortions. As the father of four adopted children, whose birth mothers chose LIFE, I cannot begin to express how strongly I feel about that kind of thing…

.
Tops, I didn’t know that fact. Actually I am retired County Child Welfare. More importantly I am prolife, and am very much aware of the crucial role of adoptive parents. Thank you for opening your home and heart!

 

[JonNC]

.
Tops, I didn’t know that fact. Actually I am retired County Child Welfare. More importantly I am prolife, and am very much aware of the crucial role of adoptive parents. Thank you for opening your home and heart!

Jon

 

[Topper17]

This was the original challenge you made to me, Topper, about the Lutheran practice of SS compared to later versions.

I have no idea what your point is here. But I will say this though:

Clearly the Lutheran Confessions have not been capable of keeping a Lutheran communion from establishing a policy about paying for the abortions of their employees. That being said, why would we look at the Lutheran ‘practice of SS’ as being any better or more ‘authentic’ than those of any other non-Lutheran communion?

It already went against my view. BTW, aren’t you one who transferred membership from one communion to another? Did you not pick up your ball and go elsewhere?

OK, so what was the issue? What was your viewpoint and what did the LCMS decide? Are you going to allow the ‘church to decide’ or are you going to do what Luther did, which is contend that you know better than the whole church?

As for me picking up my ball…I did so leaving a tradition where that is the norm (Protestantism), and fled to a tradition in which it NEVER has been, where the concept of ‘the Church decides’ actually means something. One of the reasons I did is because of that fact. You too have picked up your ball and I think might again.

Please focus on the topic. If you want to start a thread on this, ok.

Sola Scriptura is ultimately an issue over authority. Sola Scriptura was Luther’s justification for his disobedience, for his doctrinal Revolt. I am very much on topic. I think that the Luther’s disobedience and his teachings are very revealing. It appears that you agree.

i didn’t go immediately to the FoC either. If one is talking about what Lutherans do, not what Luther thought, particularly if they differ, then one starts with the Augsburg Confession. This is especially true in a forum where a question has been asked. The question is not about Luther, but what Lutherans do.

This is as if Lutheranism just simply ‘appeared’ out of thin air in 1530, as if Luther’s Revolt had nothing to do with the Augsburg Confession or later Lutheran Confessions and Theology. Again, I think that you give Luther far too little ‘credit’. Maybe we could continue using the FoC in that it represents the teaching of Lutheranism on Sola Scriptura - well, some of Lutheranism at least.

Exactly. That was my point, in both directions.

Actually you made a statement that I claimed you could not support. Rather than meet my challenge you simply restate your claim. The fact is Jon, that it does NOT work in ‘both directions’ because you cannot demonstrate it by quoting a father. For the record, again, not one Father can be quoted as ‘or defend your position.

I said that you could not back up your claim about any of the Fathers and offered you the opportunity to make your point by quoting one of them. You declined.

As for the opening post:

So the question is, can the early church fathers play any role in that debate, or must scripture by itself be the only way to prove an interpretation is correct?

…….can the Lutheran look to the early church fathers and say, “I know my interpretation is correct because the church has always properly interpreted this teaching the correct way”? Or is that a violation of the sola scriptura principle?

If Sola Scriptura is the bedrock foundational doctrine of Protestantism, and it simply cannot be found in the Fathers, how can Lutheranism defend it and still claim that the teachings of the Fathers are important?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13134565]I have no idea what your point is here.
…
That being said, why would we look at the Lutheran ‘practice of SS’ as being any better or more ‘authentic’ than those of any other non-Lutheran communion?

This was, essentially, the question you had many posts ago, that I was responding to.
I think, over many posts since, I answered the question.

OK, so what was the issue? What was your viewpoint and what did the LCMS decide? Are you going to allow the ‘church to decide’ or are you going to do what Luther did, which is contend that you know better than the whole church?

Considering your follow up question, which represents well the way you approach dialogue, the chances of me sharing the issue with you is nil.

As for me picking up my ball…I did so leaving a tradition where that is the norm (Protestantism), and fled to a tradition in which it NEVER has been, where the concept of ‘the Church decides’ actually means something. One of the reasons I did is because of that fact. You too have picked up your ball and I think might again.

So, you acted like a protestant (whatever that means) in order to become a Catholic.

Sola Scriptura is ultimately an issue over authority. Sola Scriptura was Luther’s justification for his disobedience, for his doctrinal Revolt. I am very much on topic. I think that the Luther’s disobedience and his teachings are very revealing. It appears that you agree.

Actually, you’re off topic. the question was what do Lutherans and Reformed do.

This is as if Lutheranism just simply ‘appeared’ out of thin air in 1530

Who said this? The OP’s question was not about what Luther did. It is about what Lutherans and Reformed do. I can’t speak for Reformed Christians, but if one wants to talk about what Lutherans do, one looks to, first, the Augsburg Confession, which is clearly the foundational document of the Lutheran tradition within the One Holy Church.
Of course one could back, look at the events that lead up to the Lutheran Reformation, even back to the Great Schism and the issues there, but that wasn’t the OP’s question.

Actually you made a statement that I claimed you could not support. Rather than meet my challenge you simply restate your claim. The fact is Jon, that it does NOT work in ‘both directions’ because you cannot demonstrate it by quoting a father. For the record, again, not one Father can be quoted as ‘or defend your position.

And you cannot find one Father who contradicts the Lutheran position, because none existed at that time. You also can’t find one Father, much less one early council, that supports papal infallibility, or universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. In both instances, you have to take their quotes,either out of context, or infer a meaning they to defend one’s position, on both sides, that they would have had no knowledge of. Now, it is Catholics who regularly speak of “development of doctrine”. But again, this is off the topic of the thread.

If Sola Scriptura is the bedrock foundational doctrine of Protestantism

I don’t recall saying this. I can’t speak for protestants from other communions and traditions, because I am not part of them. As a Lutheran, our bedrock foundational doctrine is Christ crucified. Sola scriptura is, instead, a hermeneutical priniciple; that being, all doctrines and teachings are held accountable to scripture as the final norm.

and it simply cannot be found in the Fathers,

anymore than universal jurisdiction can…

how can Lutheranism defend it and still claim that the teachings of the Fathers are important?

Do the Fathers speak to all of the practices used within the Church? If we eliminate all of the principles and practices of the Church not mentioned or specified by the Fathers, the Church would look vastly different than it does. Further, the Fathers are of great value i our understanding of the faith, but even Catholics state that they are not infallible.

Jon

 

[commenter]

Topper,
I’m not sure how to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it is applied very differently by Christians, varies a lot from century to century, so I don’t know what it meant to Luther and Calvin, for instance. So I don’t try to refute it, since I don’t know which of the many SS versions my listener follows.

The meaning of the Magisterium (in Scripture-Tradition sequence) is something solid, to defend or refute. There was “development” at Vatican I, but this made more manifest what was implicit for centuries. I don’t have much direct documentation how it operated in very early centuries. Obviously some specific hierarchy authority - not the famous horizontal “Christian community” of modern songs - must have pulled together the NT canon, must have identified one list of “Early Church Fathers” and a separate list of “Heretics”; and must have “canonized” 1% of Christian traditions as “Tradition”.

How do I know a hierarchy did this? Because I worked in public and private agencies. I was on countless committees for work, church, etc, was in parishes, prayer groups, and many kinds of structures, or non-structured groups. I know the kind of results a non-hierarchy would produce, like a 300 book NT canon.

Given the ancient emphasis on Apostolic Succession it’s unlikely the reliable Magisterium in place during the development of the NT canon would have dissolved itself, and watched an unreliable Magisterium take over, without making any comments.

Rather than trying to refute this or that one of the 99 versions of Sola Scriptura, try a different strategy. Most Protestants believe that the definition of 2 lists - “*these *guys are Early Church Fathers, those guys are heretics” was from an anonymous authoritative donor. Gently lead them to see who that anonymous list-definer was, and if that authority was reliable then, it still exists, and might still be reliable. Then your listener may give up SS, because you showed them something more tenable; more tenable for them, in 2015.

 

[MaryT777]

Topper,
I’m not sure how to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it is applied very differently by Christians, varies a lot from century to century, so I don’t know what it meant to Luther and Calvin, for instance. So I don’t try to refute it, since I don’t know which of the many SS versions my listener follows.

The meaning of the Magisterium (in Scripture-Tradition sequence) is something solid, to defend or refute. There was “development” at Vatican I, but this made more manifest what was implicit for centuries. I don’t have much direct documentation how it operated in very early centuries. Obviously some specific hierarchy authority - not the famous horizontal “Christian community” of modern songs - must have pulled together the NT canon, must have identified one list of “Early Church Fathers” and a separate list of “Heretics”; and must have “canonized” 1% of Christian traditions as “Tradition”.

How do I know a hierarchy did this? Because I worked in public and private agencies. I was on countless committees for work, church, etc, was in parishes, prayer groups, and many kinds of structures, or non-structured groups. I know the kind of results a non-hierarchy would produce, like a 300 book NT canon.

Given the ancient emphasis on Apostolic Succession it’s unlikely the reliable Magisterium in place during the development of the NT canon would have dissolved itself, and watched an unreliable Magisterium take over, without making any comments.

Rather than trying to refute this or that one of the 99 versions of Sola Scriptura, try a different strategy. Most Protestants believe that the definition of 2 lists - “*these *guys are Early Church Fathers, those guys are heretics” was from an anonymous authoritative donor. Gently lead them to see who that anonymous list-definer was, and if that authority was reliable then, it still exists, and might still be reliable. Then your listener may give up SS, because you showed them something more tenable; more tenable for them, in 2015.

Actually, the title of this topic and thread is Sola Scriptura aimed at Lutherans

Mary.

 

[commenter]

Actually, the title of this topic and thread is Sola Scriptura aimed at Lutherans

Mary.

I’m off topic again? Actually that’s one of my milder issues.

 

[Topper17]

Hi comm,

Thanks for your response.

Topper,
I’m not sure how to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it is applied very differently by Christians, varies a lot from century to century, so I don’t know what it meant to Luther and Calvin, for instance. So I don’t try to refute it, since I don’t know which of the many SS versions my listener follows.

OK, you are not sure how to argue against SS. You mention that it is applied very differently by Christians. That is exactly the point. It would be one thing if Protestantism had broken off from the Church 500 years ago, and had maintained some sort of agreement amongst themselves on doctrinal issues. But just the OPPOSITE is true. They can’t even agree on a definition of Sola Scriptura, or how Scripture is to be ‘used’. Each and every group maintains that they ‘do Scripture’ better than all the rest. That alone should be viewed by all as proof that SS is a failure.

For all that we hear about Lutheranism, it is hardly unified doctrinally but mirrors the doctrinal dissension and confusion that we see in Protestantism overall.

You might not know how to argue against SS, but I say you attack it at it’s source.

It seems that a lot of people would prefer that we not recognize the ‘source’ of Sola Scriptura and would prefer that we not discuss how damaging it has been to Christian Unity. That Unity was called for by Christ, the Apostles, and by Scripture. Since the 16th century invention of Sola Scriptura, there have been tens of thousands of competing and conflicting doctrinally independent denominations ALL of whom teach some variation of SOULD inform thinking Christians that Sola Scriptura is NOT a teaching of Christ, the Apostles, OR Scripture. It was the justification of one man, a man who used Sola Scriptura to rationalize his doctrinal Revolt.

I agree that it is practically impossible to refute SS to everyone if you think it should be done by refuting each and every possible ‘variation’. I have done that in the past and have heard in response I am not rejecting the ‘real SS’. But when I try to get someone to explain, specifically and exactly what SS means to them, I don’t get much of an answer. So………………I chose to attack it at its source, and point to the fact that it has been SO damaging. I believe that the historical facts of the earliest years of the “Reformation” hold the key to determining which side was ‘right’. It appears that others do as well.

As for how to refute SS, it must be done with specifics, with historical facts, and with well reasoned arguments. As you will note, the defenses of SS that we see here are not of the same nature.

God Bless You comm, Topper

 

[commenter]

Hi comm,

OK, you are not sure how to argue against SS. …
You might not know how to argue against SS, but I say you attack it at it’s source.

I have never given up an idea, no matter how irrational, because someone attacked it. Occasionally I choose to give up an idea when someone showed me something better.
Of course, I never credit that person, I credit my own keen insight.

… So………………I chose to attack it at its source, and point to the fact that it has been SO damaging. I believe that the historical facts of the earliest years of the “Reformation” hold the key to determining which side was ‘right’. It appears that others do as well.

As for how to refute SS, it must be done with specifics, with historical facts, and with well reasoned arguments. As you will note, the defenses of SS that we see here are not of the same nature.

God Bless You comm, Topper

“Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle.” G. K. Chesterton.
I know a lot more about the Magisterium than I know about its various alternatives, including SS. So I affirm what I know. Many, including Catholics, have limited understanding of what the Magisterium is, and why it’s needed. This ignorance causes many to leave the Catholic Church, or not enter it, even when attracted. So I look for ways to affirm it. I affirm the Magisterium, in the Non Catholics Forum, in the CAF Gardening forum, in the Auto Repair Hints forum, and even some places where it doesn’t exactly fit.
Pity my poor wife, a captive audience to my rants.
If you win your listener’s heart, they will see your facts, your reasoned arguments. Only then.
I try hard to understand different viewpoints on the internet and in real life, which I have not totally abandoned. Yet. My goal is not for readers to come closer to my POV, but to come closer to God. If hearing and rejecting my ideas helps that happen, ok. If they come closer to God than I am, more than ok.

 

[Topper17]

Considering your follow up question, which represents well the way you approach dialogue, the chances of me sharing the issue with you is nil.

Ok, but why can’t I get a simple answer as to whether you have read a particular book? I asked you if you have read two books, but failed to get an answer:

“There We Stood, Here We Stand”, by Timothy Drake, and “Martin Luther, as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, by Robert Kolb.

I can’t imagine why you would not want me to know whether you have read them or not.

All that being said, will the issue between you and the LCMS be one over which you separate? In other words, when the chips are down, and I mean really down, will you allow the ‘church to decide’, or will you leave?

As for our ‘dialogue’, I am certain that we do not define the term in the same way.

So, you acted like a protestant (whatever that means) in order to become a Catholic.

I abandoned a ‘tradition’ which was founded on disobedience to the authority of the Church that Christ established for ALL MEN. The Church actually does not allow people to decide matters of doctrine on the basis of their own personal interpretations.

Who said this? The OP’s question was not about what Luther did. It is about what Lutherans and Reformed do. I can’t speak for Reformed Christians, but if one wants to talk about what Lutherans do, one looks to, first, the Augsburg Confession, which is clearly the foundational document of the Lutheran tradition within the One Holy Church.

Of course one could back, look at the events that lead up to the Lutheran Reformation, even back to the Great Schism and the issues there, but that wasn’t the OP’s question.

It appears to me that it is appropriate to discuss things from the early 15th century, and things from 1530 and on, but it is NOT appropriate to discuss things that took place from 1517 until 1530. In fact those things that took place in that 13 year period paved the way for the Augsburg Confession. I don’t think that these discussions should be ‘unnaturally restrained’.

You say that we should look to the Augsburg Confession, but I think that first of all, we should examine the basis for the authority of the Augsburg Confession. Where did the authors of that Confession obtain the authority to write what was considered to be authoritative thereafter?

And you cannot find one Father who contradicts the Lutheran position, because none existed at that time. You also can’t find one Father, much less one early council, that supports papal infallibility, or universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. In both instances, you have to take their quotes, either out of context, or infer a meaning they to defend one’s position, on both sides, that they would have had no knowledge of. Now, it is Catholics who regularly speak of “development of doctrine”. But again, this is off the topic of the thread.

Jon, ALL of the Fathers would be opposed to Lutheranism, which was formed in disobedience of the authority of the Catholic Church. In fact, much of what they wrote was AGAINST the heretical and schismatic movements of their time. As for papal infallibility, please don’t claim that we should honor the topic of the OP, but that we SHOULD discuss Papal Infallibility, which of course is not mentioned at all in the OP. That is unless you think you would like to start a new thread. Then it would of course be appropriate, but only in that ‘other thread’ of course.

You virtually admit that the best that can be done is to provide some quotes from some Fathers which ‘sound a lot like SS’. Just for the record though, the writings of the Fathers are absolutely littered with quotes which are FAR more supportive of Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction than they are of schisms or heresies.

The Opening Post mentions that:

“Obviously one criticism of sola scripture is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.”

I think that possibly a few comments from Luther himself would be appropriate, especially in that in his later years, he seems to have come to the conclusion that MAYBE his teachings on the Scriptures were not working all that well in practice. But then rather than accusing him of this or that, I am just going to post Luther’s actual quotes.

“With how much pain and labor did I scarcely justify my conscience that I alone should proceed against the Pope, hold him for the Antichrist and the bishops for his apostles. How often did my heart punish me and reproach me with this strong argument: ‘**Are you alone wise?’ Could all the others err and have erred for a long time? How if thou errest and leadest into error so many people who would be damned forever?” **Martin Luther, letter to the Augustinians in Wittenberg, Nov 25, 1521.

If Martin Luther, one of the most self-reliant and self-confident Theologians of all time, could question as to whether he was leading people to error and possible damnation, then wouldn’t it make sense if his followers today were to consider that possibility?

 

[KjetilK]

Hi Gab,

Luther was correct to complain about the abuses that were occurring at the time within the Church, but that was no cause to condemn and reject over 50 important Church doctrines, and all even before his excommunication. Had he concentrated on those abuses, he could have been a huge positive force within the Church. However, he challenged the entire authority of the Church, replaced it with his Own Authority, and ultimately created his own church. That church that he founded, has splintered into an uncountable number of competing and conflicting sects.

Luther did not found my Church. My particular Church, the Church of Norway, was founded in 995, by king Olav Tryggvason and the bishops who accompanied him. In 1537 there was a reform in Norway, but it was not led by Luther. In fact Luther had no direct authority in the Church of Norway at all. He was, and still is, seen as a theologian, as a ‘church father.’

The term ‘Lutheran’ was made by the Roman Catholic Church, and it stuck, probably the same way people tend to embrace derogatory terms as a sign of strenght. But the name Lutheran is not any official name. The Church of Norway is not called the Lutheran Church of Norway. It is simply ‘the Church of Norway,’ as it has been since 995.

 

[Stilldreamn]

“Humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle.” G. K. Chesterton.
I know a lot more about the Magisterium than I know about its various alternatives, including SS. So I affirm what I know. Many, including Catholics, have limited understanding of what the Magisterium is, and why it’s needed. This ignorance causes many to leave the Catholic Church, or not enter it, even when attracted. So I look for ways to affirm it. I affirm the Magisterium, in the Non Catholics Forum, in the CAF Gardening forum, in the Auto Repair Hints forum, and even some places where it doesn’t exactly fit.
Pity my poor wife, a captive audience to my rants.
If you win your listener’s heart, they will see your facts, your reasoned arguments. Only then.
I try hard to understand different viewpoints on the internet and in real life, which I have not totally abandoned. Yet. My goal is not for readers to come closer to my POV, but to come closer to God. If hearing and rejecting my ideas helps that happen, ok. If they come closer to God than I am, more than ok.

From watching recent developments in the LCMS, it appears that there is increasing support for a magisterium of sorts in our Lutheran synod. Certainly, one with sharper teeth and more authority than our current system. It is not without a sense of irony that I reflect that perhaps, just perhaps, this is the practical framework that Christ’s church on earth NEEDS in order to last from generation to generation.

 

[PRmerger]

From watching recent developments in the LCMS, it appears that there is increasing support for a magisterium of sorts in our Lutheran synod. Certainly, one with sharper teeth and more authority than our current system. It is not without a sense of irony that I reflect that perhaps, just perhaps, this is the practical framework that Christ’s church on earth NEEDS in order to last from generation to generation.

:sad_yes:

If indeed it does come to pass that the LCMS does develop a magisterium, it would not claim the charism of infallibility, I’m assuming.

And that would mean that Lutherans could not be certain that their magisterium’s decisions were correct.

Now, of course, infallibility is not a requirement for any of us to follow a legitimate authority.

I am just proposing this thought as we all muse together about the possibility of a Lutheran magisterium.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13139217]
I can’t imagine why you would not want me to know whether you have read them or not.

All that being said, will the issue between you and the LCMS be one over which you separate? In other words, when the chips are down, and I mean really down, will you allow the ‘church to decide’, or will you leave?

As for our ‘dialogue’,** I am certain that we do not define the term in the same way**.

Or the intent of dialogue, which should answer your questions above.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From watching recent developments in the LCMS, it appears that there is increasing support for a magisterium of sorts in our Lutheran synod. Certainly, one with sharper teeth and more authority than our current system. It is not without a sense of irony that I reflect that perhaps, just perhaps, this is the practical framework that Christ’s church on earth NEEDS in order to last from generation to generation.

Agreed! And I hope the Synod does. The congregationalism that currently prevails within the Synod is leading to serious problems, IMO. That said, any kind of ministerium formulated will, of course, continue to use the principle of sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Luther was -]permitted to divorce himself/-] excommunicated from the Church…

FTFY