The Big Protestant Granfalloon!

[Tomster]

Well, I’d agree with you. *Protestants *tend to ignore much of what Luther wrote, especially regarding Sola Fide. Lutherans don’t consider ourselves protestant; we think we’re catholic.

You seem to be referring to Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, where he exasperatedly explains that all “sin boldly.” If I had a nickel for every time this letter has been misapplied and misunderstood… No where does he say, imply or indicate that we can sin, sin, sin simply because we have faith. The context is very important. The better way of understanding what he wrote is “Admit your sin boldly.” More info here: patheos.com/blogs/scriptorium/2009/08/sin-boldly/

No. Lutherans do not -ever- subscribe to decision theology; we believe only God does the saving, and our works on their own could never merit eternal life. It might be more accurate to say that Lutherans simply see good works as the necessary manifestations of saving faith - a definition that is much closer to Roman Catholicism than some used to acknowledge. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification may be a good read for you.

Your generalization about protestantism is not entirely unfounded; but, again, we Lutherans aren’t really protestants.

Interesting.

Back in the 19th century the chief organ of exclusive Lutheranism on the basis of the Formula of Concord was the “Gazette for Lutheran Theology,” edited by Guerike and Rudelbach. The gazette established by Harless in Munich, entitled “For Protestants and Church,” represented the interests of Lutheran Orthodoxy

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;11014217]Jon,

Would those errors you believe the current Catholic Church teaches be:

1) Communion under one kind
I think it is wrong for the Church to withhold the cup, as it is not in keeping with Christ’s call that we eat and drink. If, however, someone cannot drink alcohol, to receive under the host only I would not consider an error. Better that than substituting grape juice.

2) Celibacy
No. This is not doctrine, but a discipline. While I might not agree with it, I as a preacher’s kid, certainly understand it.

3) Private Masses
The reformers certainly opposed them. I don’t know what the modern Catholic practice is, so I would need more information to respond.

4) Compulsory confession
I think compulsion seems to undermine free will. OTOH, we lutherans could do with a dose of “strongly encourage” regarding private confession.

5) Fast and abstinence commandments
No. Nothing wrong with these.
EDIT: on rereading, I am uncomfortable with compulsion here, as well. Again, doses of strongly encourage would be ok.

6) Monastic vows
Again, I’d need more info on how the practices have evolved since the reformation era.

7) Episcopal power
Not necessarily.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

I think when we talk about Lutheranism being a correct continuation of the western Church, we are talking about the orthodox teachings, encompassed in, primarily, the Augsburg Confession, it’s Apology, and the Small Catechism. To the extent that some synods have drifted from those teachings would indicate if they are continuing those truths. You would probably say the same about groups such as Old Catholics.

And let’s be clear about this: no knowledgeable Lutheran would or should say anything about Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome as being anything but true Christians. Further, The Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome has word and sacrament, and while we believe teaches some errors mixed with primarily truth, Christ offers His grace and salvation through her.

Jon

Jon,

You mentioned Old Catholics which we both know are not in communion with the Pope Francis. Correct?

Forgive me Jon, but I am trying to gain an understanding of the theological teachings between what may be called the Old Lutherans and the New Lutherans and which body of teachings faithfully carry out the continuation of the Catholic Church.

Since roughly the 19th century, the New Lutherans, in contradistinction to the Old Lutherans, formed a party, if you will, without, however, agreeing among themselves. These New Lutherans indeed hold firmly to the justification theory of Luther, the “sola fides”; but with it they associated a sacramental church, with so-called ordination of the preacher, contrary to the Old Lutheran theory of the invisibility of the Church and of a priesthood common to all Christians. Some theologians of these views, Lohe for instance, describe the Lord’s Supper as the central point of all Christian worship, and place preaching on a much lower footing. Back in the day, many considered Vilmar, von Hoffman, Kahnis, Kliefoth, Goschel and Stahl as the most eminent men among the New Lutherans. It is my understanding the the differences between the Old Lutherans and the New Lutherans became so great at that time that the Old Lutherans decried the New as “German Puseyites, and as already standing quite near to the gates of Rome.”

So, back to my original question Jon, which of these different Lutheran teachings faithfully carries out the contention the Lutheran Church is the continuation of the Catholic Church?

 

[Tomster]

1) Communion under one kind
I think it is wrong for the Church to withhold the cup, as it is not in keeping with Christ’s call that we eat and drink. If, however, someone cannot drink alcohol, to receive under the host only I would not consider an error. Better that than substituting grape juice.

2) Celibacy
No. This is not doctrine, but a discipline. While I might not agree with it, I as a preacher’s kid, certainly understand it.

3) Private Masses
The reformers certainly opposed them. I don’t know what the modern Catholic practice is, so I would need more information to respond.

4) Compulsory confession
I think compulsion seems to undermine free will. OTOH, we lutherans could do with a dose of “strongly encourage” regarding private confession.

5) Fast and abstinence commandments
No. Nothing wrong with these.
EDIT: on rereading, I am uncomfortable with compulsion here, as well. Again, doses of strongly encourage would be ok.

6) Monastic vows
Again, I’d need more info on how the practices have evolved since the reformation era.

7) Episcopal power
Not necessarily.

Jon

Jon,

It is my understanding that the Augsburg Confession consists of two parts. The first twent-one articles treat of doctrine and the seven following articles follow the so-called abuses which I listed above.

Are you following your own traditions?

 

[steido01]

Jon,

It is my understanding that the Augsburg Confession consists of two parts. The first twent-one articles treat of doctrine and the seven following articles follow the so-called abuses which I listed above.

Are you following your own traditions?

What part of Jon’s response was in disagreement with the AC? He answered precisely as an educated Lutheran ought.

The abuses noted are not necessarily abuses when applied and used correctly, and the Confessions note this where ever possible. I mean, Lutherans were even clear about hoping to maintain the episcopacy (and the Pope with it!). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians, “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything."

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

You mentioned Old Catholics which we both know are not in communion with the Pope Francis. Correct?

Forgive me Jon, but I am trying to gain an understanding of the theological teachings between what may be called the Old Lutherans and the New Lutherans and which body of teachings faithfully carry out the continuation of the Catholic Church.

Since roughly the 19th century, the New Lutherans, in contradistinction to the Old Lutherans, formed a party, if you will, without, however, agreeing among themselves. These New Lutherans indeed hold firmly to the justification theory of Luther, the “sola fides”; but with it they associated a sacramental church, with so-called ordination of the preacher, contrary to the Old Lutheran theory of the invisibility of the Church and of a priesthood common to all Christians. Some theologians of these views, Lohe for instance, describe the Lord’s Supper as the central point of all Christian worship, and place preaching on a much lower footing. Back in the day, many considered Vilmar, von Hoffman, Kahnis, Kliefoth, Goschel and Stahl as the most eminent men among the New Lutherans. It is my understanding the the differences between the Old Lutherans and the New Lutherans became so great at that time that the Old Lutherans decried the New as “German Puseyites, and as already standing quite near to the gates of Rome.”

So, back to my original question Jon, which of these different Lutheran teachings faithfully carries out the contention the Lutheran Church is the continuation of the Catholic Church?

To be honest, Tomster, I am not particularly well versed on the forced union era in Germany that led to these developments… Perhaps hn or Steido know more. I do know that it was the old Lutherans who fought against the forced union decree that tried to force unity on Lutherans with the Reformed. The SELK is the church in Germany today that came from the Old Lutherans. Likewise, the LCMS seems to have resulted from the old Lutherans, or at least the neo lutherans, as well as other confessional Lutheran bodies around the world.
The way one knows the about Lutheran groups is to look at the confessions. Does a Lutheran group maintain what is taught there?
Is the Eucharist the center of Lutheran worship? Of course. The role of the Church is to preach the word AND administer the sacraments. Are we a sacramental church? Of course.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Interesting.

Back in the 19th century the chief organ of exclusive Lutheranism on the basis of the Formula of Concord was the “Gazette for Lutheran Theology,” edited by Guerike and Rudelbach. The gazette established by Harless in Munich, entitled “For Protestants and Church,” represented the interests of Lutheran Orthodoxy

Ok.

The meaning of the word ‘protestant’ has changed throughout the years, and the connotations it currently carries do not always reflect Lutheranism accurately. This thread discussed Lutheran/Anglican opposition to being labelled as protestant (particularly pages 2 and 3):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785979&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fanglicancleric.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F01%2Fanglicanism-protestant-or-catholic.html

 

[JonNC]

What part of Jon’s response was in disagreement with the AC? He answered precisely as an educated Lutheran ought.

The abuses noted are not necessarily abuses when applied and used correctly, and the Confessions note this where ever possible. I mean, Lutherans were even clear about hoping to maintain the episcopacy (and the Pope with it!). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians, “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything."

Thanks, Steido,
I thought I was pretty much in line with the UAC.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Jon,

You mentioned Old Catholics which we both know are not in communion with the Pope Francis. Correct?

…I am trying to gain an understanding of the theological teachings between what may be called the Old Lutherans and the New Lutherans and which body of teachings faithfully carry out the continuation of the Catholic Church.

I understand your confusion at these similar-sounding terms, but “Old Catholic” and “Old Lutheran” are not remotely analogous. “Old Catholics,” as we all know, are a schismatic group that left the Roman Catholic church. “Old Lutherans” is simply a term used to describe Lutherans who refused -at the threat of the sword- to join with the Prussian state church. There were good Lutherans who did join those state churches, and remained there in the hopes of bringing that body to a proper understanding of the Word (not unlike those faithful who remain in heterodox “Lutheran” churches today). Of course, there were also those who caved in to the Calvinistic Reformed churches on doctrinal issues; these I would not consider Lutheran, but Reformed.

So, back to my original question Jon, which of these different Lutheran teachings faithfully carries out the contention the Lutheran Church is the continuation of the Catholic Church?

There are not “different Lutheran teachings” - there is only Lutheranism according to the Confessions. Lutherans are identified by their subscription to the Confessions as they were intended. If you are trying to better understand Lutheranism, I would encourage you to use the Confessions as your basis.

 

[manualman]

Thanks Jon and Steido, my comprehension of Lutheran thought is admittedly cursory at best. The curious thing about your statements is that very few people I’ve met have wanted the label “protestant.” Everybody prefers alternate labels, but it gets rather absurd after a while when one needs at least 3 adjectives to be clear!

Would you care to elaborate on actual Lutheran views on free will vs. God’s sovereignty? That’s another one where protestants (forgive me) seem to be all over the board and us poor catholics generally can’t keep a straight scorecard as to who thinks what. In the past I’ve gotten the impression that Lutheran’s seem to give lip service to human free will, but that it essentially vanishes in the following explanation of sovereignty.

 

[JonNC]

=manualman;11015125]Thanks Jon and Steido, my comprehension of Lutheran thought is admittedly cursory at best. The curious thing about your statements is that very few people I’ve met have wanted the label “protestant.” Everybody prefers alternate labels, but it gets rather absurd after a while when one needs at least 3 adjectives to be clear!

You know, Lutherans were, historically, the first Protestants. It was the Lutherans who protested the ruling of the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529 where the government restricted religious freedom. The problem is now the term means everything from us, to Calvinists, to American evangelicals, and even non-trinitarian groups. I think that is why the balking at the term.

Would you care to elaborate on actual Lutheran views on free will vs. God’s sovereignty? That’s another one where protestants (forgive me) seem to be all over the board and us poor catholics generally can’t keep a straight scorecard as to who thinks what. In the past I’ve gotten the impression that Lutheran’s seem to give lip service to human free will, but that it essentially vanishes in the following explanation of sovereignty.

Here’s a start, from the Augsburg Confession:

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.

1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching “the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

This was approved by the Confutation.
bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php#article18

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There are not “different Lutheran teachings” - there is only Lutheranism according to the Confessions. Lutherans are identified by their subscription to the Confessions as they were intended. If you are trying to better understand Lutheranism, I would encourage you to use the Confessions as your basis.

So the ELCA is bound by the Confessions as well? And if not, will they separate? And is there a governing authority in Lutheranism (LWF?) to ex-communicate a body not in conformity to the Confessions?

Thanks,

 

[steido01]

So the ELCA is bound by the Confessions as well? And if not, will they separate?

I do not wish to speak uncharitably of our brothers and sisters in the ELCA, but any church body that identifies itself as “Lutheran” ought to bind itself to what Lutheranism professes - namely, the Confessions. When a church body does not apply the Confessions, that body is no longer acting as an orthodox Lutheran body. This has not gone unnoticed by other Lutherans; groups have already left from within the ELCA to form new bodies (LCMC, NALC, etc.) and several other churches that previously shared fellowship have ceased, as I mentioned earlier.

And is there a governing authority in Lutheranism (LWF?) to ex-communicate a body not in conformity to the Confessions?

There is no earthly power to keep a non-confessing church from calling itself “Lutheran,” just as there is nothing to keep various splinter groups from calling themselves “Catholic.” What we do have is doctrine; Lutherans can be identified by their adherence to the Confessions.

 

[manualman]

…
There is no earthly power to keep a non-confessing church from calling itself “Lutheran,” just as there is nothing to keep various splinter groups from calling themselves “Catholic.” What we do have is doctrine; Lutherans can be identified by their adherence to the Confessions.

On the second part, you’re only telling part of the story to the point of distortion. Sure any joker can CALL his group catholic, but any halfway educated catholic knows that all one needs to do to check the veracity of that claim is to verify it with the bishop. The validity of the bishop’s claim to apostolic succession in turn can be verified by Rome. In this day and age, this info is a couple clicks away.

That’s hardly the same as the various splintered Lutheran groups that all claim the name and one essentially needs to do a phd study in order to determine which ones have a valid claim and which don’t (and even then other learned and lettered men will disagree with you). You HAVE to admit that’s not the same thing at all, no? From the Lutheran perspective, it seems like it must be terribly disappointing that Jesus didn’t foresee the immense human potential for fractiousness and plan ahead better to address it when he put together the framework for the Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I do not wish to speak uncharitably of our brothers and sisters in the ELCA, but any church body that identifies itself as “Lutheran” ought to bind itself to what Lutheranism professes - namely, the Confessions. When a church body does not apply the Confessions, that body is no longer acting as an orthodox Lutheran body. This has not gone unnoticed by other Lutherans; groups have already left from within the ELCA to form new bodies (LCMC, NALC, etc.) and several other churches that previously shared fellowship have ceased, as I mentioned earlier.

There is no earthly power to keep a non-confessing church from calling itself “Lutheran,” just as there is nothing to keep various splinter groups from calling themselves “Catholic.” What we do have is doctrine; Lutherans can be identified by their adherence to the Confessions.

I understand the principles you speak of, Don. But at some point, you need to draw a line and take earthly action and excommunicate those who remain in heresy by their obstinate behavior.

 

[steido01]

That’s hardly the same as the various splintered Lutheran groups that all claim the name and one essentially needs to do a phd study in order to determine which ones have a valid claim and which don’t (and even then other learned and lettered men will disagree with you).

The Confessions are rather straightforward; countless resources exist to help any layperson understand them - particularly if they are well-catechized. Sure, Lutherans may disagree on matters of adiaphora and even on some church-dividing issues, but we still acknowledge Lutherans to be Lutherans (when they are Lutheran) just as we acknowledge Roman Catholics to be our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. A united Magisterium is not necessary to form consensus.

From the Lutheran perspective, it seems like it must be terribly disappointing that Jesus didn’t foresee the immense human potential for fractiousness and plan ahead better to address it when he put together the framework for the Church.

Ah, yes. The classic “Don’t you Lutherans wish you had a Pope?” question. I’ve encountered this essential query several times here on CAF, and it’s both frustratingly amusing and offensive. What kind of answer do you expect?

 

[steido01]

I understand the principles you speak of, Don. But at some point, you need to draw a line and take earthly action and excommunicate those who remain in heresy by their obstinate behavior.

Certainly, Jose. Sorry if my answer left too much “gray area.” I agree with what you said 100%. I am thankful that my church body is vigilant against heresy, and would instantly defrock a pastor who would teach something not in accordance with Holy Scripture and the Confessions. I am also thankful that both we, and our Roman Catholic bothers and sisters, hold very high standards for shared fellowship.

 

[manualman]

1. The Confessions are rather straightforward; countless resources exist to help any layperson understand them - particularly if they are well-catechized. Sure, Lutherans may disagree on matters of adiaphora and even on some church-dividing issues, but we still acknowledge Lutherans to be Lutherans (when they are Lutheran) just as we acknowledge Roman Catholics to be our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. A united Magisterium is not necessary to form consensus.
2. Ah, yes. The classic “Don’t you Lutherans wish you had a Pope?” question. I’ve encountered this essential query several times here on CAF, and it’s both frustratingly amusing and offensive. What kind of answer do you expect?

1. The facts on the ground suggest that consensus is harder to achieve than you assert here. That’s not snark, it’s just a sad truth about the human condition. Good intentions and hard work rarely seem to be enough to overcome divisions. It would be a cop-out to accuse all who disagree with oneself of mere bad faith or gross ignorance. There’s been too much of that between catholics and protestants over the years. I can only imagine that the same temptation arises in internal squabbles (it certainly does on our side of the fence).
2. Something playful to make CAF a more fun place to visit! If you can’t give friends a playful poke in a soft spot once in a while life is far too grim. You’re free to ask playfully tough questions too!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Certainly, Jose. Sorry if my answer left too much “gray area.” I agree with what you said 100%. I am thankful that my church body is vigilant against heresy, and would instantly defrock a pastor who would teach something not in accordance with Holy Scripture and the Confessions. I am also thankful that both we, and our Roman Catholic bothers and sisters, hold very high standards for shared fellowship.

Correct! Unity without respect is hypocrisy.

 

[steido01]

1. The facts on the ground suggest that consensus is harder to achieve than you assert here. That’s not snark, it’s just a sad truth about the human condition. Good intentions and hard work rarely seem to be enough to overcome divisions. It would be a cop-out to accuse all who disagree with oneself of mere bad faith or gross ignorance. There’s been too much of that between catholics and protestants over the years. I can only imagine that the same temptation arises in internal squabbles (it certainly does on our side of the fence).

You are correct - consensus is difficult to achieve. I guess we Lutherans allow for a bit more “sway” when it comes to disagreement. That’s why I, as an LCMS member, can honestly say that the WELS, ELS, Mekane Yesus, etc., while varying enough to not share pulpit and altar fellowship, are still Lutheran.

1. Something playful to make CAF a more fun place to visit! If you can’t give friends a playful poke in a soft spot once in a while life is far too grim. You’re free to ask playfully tough questions too!

Well, I did literally lol when I read it… I’ll return the favor some day.