The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism

[pablope]

Of course not. I think my posts, even in this thread, have noted how appreciative I am of the contributions made by modern popes for the betterment of the church catholic. If you can’t tell, I’m particularly fond of B16.

That does not mean I necessarily condone the system in which they function.

So no matter what…the Anti-Christ mindset sets in…correct?

So then you view B16 as both a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde…a good Christian when he acts how you like it…and a bad Christian, when he acts like the Pope that he is…

 

[JonNC]

So no matter what…the Anti-Christ mindset sets in…correct?

So then you view B16 as both a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde…a good Christian when he acts how you like it…and a bad Christian, when he acts like the Pope that he is…

I don’t think so. Lutherans generally were and are very fond of Pope Benedict, as we were of Pope St. John Paul II, and numerous others of the recent past.

Again, only those harsh anti-Catholics within our midst speak and think in such a way. I would say that none of the current Lutherans here hold that kind of mind-set. We can and do speak of our disagreement regarding the supremacy of the pope without reference to that polemic.
As for Pope Benedict acting like a “bad Christian”, I’m perfectly happy to admire him as he has done so much for growing unity under grace.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

So, I was right that you already had your mind made up, that it wasn’t really a question?

Actually Jon, you were wrong. As I have stated here, numerous times, I take positions and challenge people to refute them. If a compelling argument and supporting evidence were to be offered up which disproves my position, I will alter or amend or abandon it. But what I am supposed to think when nobody offers up an alternative way of seeing things. For that matter, given that nobody even attempts to challenge what I offer, what are the readers here supposed to think?

If you think I should ‘change my mind’, then offer up something solid, something substantive which indicates that I am wrong.

So, did you pose your question at Wittenburg Trail?

This is not the first time that you have suggested that I ask about the 1920’s change in approach to the antilegomena on the Wittenberg Trail. Of course, I also have asked you for your opinions on several matters here on this thread.

That being said, I have an offer to make you. If you will respond to a recent post, I will ask about the 20’s change to the approach to the antilegomena on the Wittenberg Trail blog. I would like to get your reaction to the following:

We know that Lutheranism has copied Luther’s antilegomena, and that Luther placed Jude, James, and Revelation into his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena because, in part, he didn’t think they had been written by an Apostle. Given his faulty judgment, he (and thus Lutheranism) did not, and will not use these books to determine doctrine.

Luther was wrong about those 3 books. They WERE written by Apostles, which means that Luther was WRONG to place them in his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. Luther SHOULD have used those books to determine doctrine. Likewise, Lutheranism SHOULD have been using these books to determine doctrine, but has NOT now for almost 500 years. How can we presume that Lutheran doctrine and teachings are “Scriptural”, meaning that they are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, when the Scripture from which those doctrines were developed were not based on ALL of the NT canon, but only 23 of the 27 authentic books?

Jon, if you think that my line of reasoning is faulty here, or if you think that there is evidence that disproves my hypothesis, then it would be helpful if you would explain specifically and exactly why. The way I see it, everybody has the right to see both sides of an issue and make up their own mind which is the more viable.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Actually Jon, you were wrong. As I have stated here, numerous times, I take positions and challenge people to refute them. If a compelling argument and supporting evidence were to be offered up which disproves my position, I will alter or amend or abandon it. But what I am supposed to think when nobody offers up an alternative way of seeing things. For that matter, given that nobody even attempts to challenge what I offer, what are the readers here supposed to think?

If you think I should ‘change my mind’, then offer up something solid, something substantive which indicates that I am wrong.

This is not the first time that you have suggested that I ask about the 1920’s change in approach to the antilegomena on the Wittenberg Trail. Of course, I also have asked you for your opinions on several matters here on this thread.

That being said, I have an offer to make you. If you will respond to a recent post, I will ask about the 20’s change to the approach to the antilegomena on the Wittenberg Trail blog. I would like to get your reaction to the following:

We know that Lutheranism has copied Luther’s antilegomena, and that Luther placed Jude, James, and Revelation into his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena because, in part, he didn’t think they had been written by an Apostle. Given his faulty judgment, he (and thus Lutheranism) did not, and will not use these books to determine doctrine.

Luther was wrong about those 3 books. They WERE written by Apostles, which means that Luther was WRONG to place them in his (and thus Lutheranism’s) antilegomena. Luther SHOULD have used those books to determine doctrine. Likewise, Lutheranism SHOULD have been using these books to determine doctrine, but has NOT now for almost 500 years. How can we presume that Lutheran doctrine and teachings are “Scriptural”, meaning that they are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, when the Scripture from which those doctrines were developed were not based on ALL of the NT canon, but only 23 of the 27 authentic books?

Jon, if you think that my line of reasoning is faulty here, or if you think that there is evidence that disproves my hypothesis, then it would be helpful if you would explain specifically and exactly why. The way I see it, everybody has the right to see both sides of an issue and make up their own mind which is the more viable.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Tim,
I’m not particularly interested in your offer, nor in discussing it with you.

But I pray His peace be with you.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. If nothing else it certainly puts your request that I ask my questions on the Wittenberg Trail site into perspective.

Tim,
I’m not particularly interested in your offer, nor in discussing it with you.

But I pray His peace be with you.

Jon

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Tim,

The LCMS is a church of beggars - they were forced to leave their home country to keep their faith. The alternative was to be killed.

I don’t thick the LCMS makes any clams other than it’s American easily history is nothing short of a disaster - their Bishop swindled them, they didn’t speak the language, they were incredibly poor, and early on their theology was both excellent and a mess at the same time.

I imagine their views of the bible suffered during this time, and probably reeked of church politics, scandal, and other ills. Frankly, you’d be hard pressed to find an LCMS member that would be surprised at whatever you could find, nor would you find one that would care one bit that their church is a mess.

For we preach Christ, and him Crucified - and we’ve long known that the Church suffers in this world under the sun.

The human history of the LCMS means little in terms of whether the LCMS (or Lutheranism) teaches the Gospel ‘correctly’. Whether the early history of the LCMS was a ‘disaster’ is not the point.

However, I would suggest that Lutherans SHOULD ‘care one bit that their church is a mess’. After all, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was ‘a mess’ (but not as much as some histories would have us believe). The greed, the simony, the sin, the incorrect ‘practices’ in the Church led to a level of dissatisfaction which paved the way for the ‘success’ of the Reformation. Those problems allowed for a popular revolt which divided Christ’s Church. Those problems today, in both our communions weaken us individually and as a whole.

As important as the holiness of the human side of the Church is, what is the MOST important is whether it is teaching God’s Absolute Truth uncorrupted.

It might be that the turmoil in the LCMS caused their “views of the Bible to suffer”, as you put it, but IF that turmoil, or anything else, has caused the LCMS to change the way that the Bible is viewed, or to change their approach to the canon, then THAT is a huge deal. That would indicate that either the LCMS was ‘using’ the Scriptures incorrectly then, or possibly that it is now.

This forces to the recognition that Lutheranism is not protected from teaching error. In fact, taking a faulty approach to the canon virtually assures that the result will be the teaching of false doctrines.

If you disagree, why?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

If you disagree, why?

God Bless You ben, Topper

Speaking for myself, I disagree with the entire premise that perfect salvation comes from a perfect church - we look to Christ and Him Crucified despite our imperfections and our struggles.

You could tell me that the LCMS leadership ate babies in the 1920’s and it wouldn’t shake my faith.

( Though I would be more apt to be more careful to make sure any of my children didn’t accidentally spill any condiments on themselves before going to church. )

His blessings upon you too.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. If nothing else it certainly puts your request that I ask my questions on the Wittenberg Trail site into perspective.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

As well it should, Tim. Perhaps a quick review.

In the OP, you referenced an article in “The Christian News”, to which I offered a couple of resources. Additionally, Don gave you some pointed information about your source.

In post #5, I told you I was not particularly interested in discussing it with you, for reasons which are evident there.

Recently, I linked to an article by Francis Pieper who is, perhaps, the single most important systematic theologian in the history of the LCMS. His “Christian Dogmatics”, AFAIK, is still THE main text at LCMS seminaries. The text was written around 1920.
The article I linked a few posts ago, are related to that text, and in it, he references Walther, who quotes Chemnitz. It, specifically, talks about our use of the Antilegomena

Now, unless you have an LCMS source that says the approach to the Antilegomena has changed, I’m rather inclined to accept Pieper as the authoritative source, since no other legitimate source has been provided. If you have an official LCMS source that contradicts Pieper, please let me know.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since it took the Catholic Church over a thousand years to develop the papacy into what it is today. We should give the Lutherans the same courtesy and allow them… Say… About 500 more years to get it squared away?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Since it took the Catholic Church over a thousand years to develop the papacy into what it is today. We should give the Lutherans the same courtesy and allow them… Say… About 500 more years to get it squared away?

I dunno if 500 years will be enough! Alternatively, after another 500 years there may not be any left

The Wind blows wherever He wills - He may just huff and puff and blow our house down.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response,

As well it should, Tim. Perhaps a quick review.

In the OP, you referenced an article in “The Christian News”, to which I offered a couple of resources. Additionally, Don gave you some pointed information about your source.

In post #5, I told you I was not particularly interested in discussing it with you, for reasons which are evident there.

Recently, I linked to an article by Francis Pieper who is, perhaps, the single most important systematic theologian in the history of the LCMS. His “Christian Dogmatics”, AFAIK, is still THE main text at LCMS seminaries. The text was written around 1920.
The article I linked a few posts ago, are related to that text, and in it, he references Walther, who quotes Chemnitz. It, specifically, talks about our use of the Antilegomena

Now, unless you have an LCMS source that says the approach to the Antilegomena has changed, I’m rather inclined to accept Pieper as the authoritative source, since no other legitimate source has been provided. If you have an official LCMS source that contradicts Pieper, please let me know.

Jon

I very much appreciate your quick review. However, I am not exactly sure what point or points you would like to offer from those documents. After all, you did not actually quote or make arguments from any of them. Although I know that you disagree with what I have been saying (generally), I don’t know the specifics of your disagreement.

Please understand - if you have a specific point or points to make on the basis comments made in those linked to articles, I would be happy to respond.

I think though that part of our disagreement has to do with what LCMS Pastor Moeller has said about the Lutheran approach to Scripture. Possibly a quick review of his actual comments will help us focus on the important aspects of the matter. Moeller’s comments in black and red, my brief comments afterward in blue.

“In formalized statements of faith the historical Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the modern Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have never articulated a complete doctrine of Scripture as set forth in Scripture. This lack has permitted, as will be demonstrated, an incomplete statement with a frequently-occurring erroneous, extra-Scriptural and therefore anti-Scriptural, doctrinal addition. Consequently the Missouri Synod now experiences the tragic division in its midst………

….how can one be really a “scientific” Bible scholar and still uphold the authority of Scripture within the confessional context of membership in a conservative Lutheran church body’? Answer: by simply holding to an inspired, inerrant Bible, which in the New Testament is inspired regardless of who wrote the individual books.
**
Meanwhile the Missouri Synod scholar and clergyman who has arrived at this same point in his “scholarly” Biblical views is still bound by his oath of office and by the confessional paragraph of his church’s constitution **to the Inspired characters and complete authority of the Scriptures. How to solve the problem now? Answer: an inspired erring Scripture, which is however authoritative and “inerrant” in achieving its purpose; namely, to make wise unto salvation. The Holy Spirit supposedly leads one to believe the “Gospel,” and one uses historical-critical scholarship to pick out of the Scripture that which the Holy Spirit intends one to believe as content of the Gospel. It comes as no surprise, then, that it becomes difficult and finally sometimes impossible for such a Missouri Synod Lutheran to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism; for obviously “the Holy Spirit” has supposedly led all sorts of scholars to all sorts of other conclusions as to what is the Gospel and as to what Scripture clearly states. ”

“One final thing. While it is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that the battle is being fought, no Christian is free from its implications. **Either the reader must place himself completely under the authority of a New Testament that was written or commended by apostles, and of an Old Testament that was approved by the testimony of such a New Testament, both Old and New Testaments being the inspired and utterly trustworthy Word of God. or, he must begin to choose on the basis of his own scholarship or that of others such truths as he thinks the Holy Spirit (is there really a Holy Spirit, or is He the creation of the second century Christian community?) is leading him to believe. There is no middle ground of “substantial trustworthiness of Scripture” with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up of these kind of untrustworthy books? **Does the “Gospel” really come to us from God, or from man?
**
A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by. What the Christian church had in the first place is the only resource available to fallen man to answer the human need with truth and hope.” **Pastor Elmer J, Moeller, “Missoui’s Critical Issue”, 1974

Jon, as you know, these brutally honest comments come not from a Catholic or non-Lutheran Protestant opponent, but are actually the words of an LCMS Pastor. This is a very specific criticism from WITHIN the LCMS. I fully recognize that Moeller is a little “off the reservation here”, but what is or should be the LCMS response to specifically what he has said?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

For those interested in reading the article in the OP, it can be found here.

Using the site’s search engine, one can find other articles regarding the Lutheran use of the NT antilegomena…

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response,

I very much appreciate your quick review. However, I am not exactly sure what point or points you would like to offer from those documents. After all, you did not actually quote or make arguments from any of them. Although I know that you disagree with what I have been saying (generally), I don’t know the specifics of your disagreement.

Please understand - if you have a specific point or points to make on the basis comments made in those linked to articles, I would be happy to respond.

I think though that part of our disagreement has to do with what LCMS Pastor Moeller has said about the Lutheran approach to Scripture. Possibly a quick review of his actual comments will help us focus on the important aspects of the matter. Moeller’s comments in black and red, my brief comments afterward in blue.

“In formalized statements of faith the historical Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the modern Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, have never articulated a complete doctrine of Scripture as set forth in Scripture. This lack has permitted, as will be demonstrated, an incomplete statement with a frequently-occurring erroneous, extra-Scriptural and therefore anti-Scriptural, doctrinal addition. Consequently the Missouri Synod now experiences the tragic division in its midst………

….how can one be really a “scientific” Bible scholar and still uphold the authority of Scripture within the confessional context of membership in a conservative Lutheran church body’? Answer: by simply holding to an inspired, inerrant Bible, which in the New Testament is inspired regardless of who wrote the individual books.
**
Meanwhile the Missouri Synod scholar and clergyman who has arrived at this same point in his “scholarly” Biblical views is still bound by his oath of office and by the confessional paragraph of his church’s constitution **to the Inspired characters and complete authority of the Scriptures. How to solve the problem now? Answer: an inspired erring Scripture, which is however authoritative and “inerrant” in achieving its purpose; namely, to make wise unto salvation. The Holy Spirit supposedly leads one to believe the “Gospel,” and one uses historical-critical scholarship to pick out of the Scripture that which the Holy Spirit intends one to believe as content of the Gospel. It comes as no surprise, then, that it becomes difficult and finally sometimes impossible for such a Missouri Synod Lutheran to uphold the distinctive Scriptural doctrines of Lutheranism; for obviously “the Holy Spirit” has supposedly led all sorts of scholars to all sorts of other conclusions as to what is the Gospel and as to what Scripture clearly states. ”

“One final thing. While it is in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that the battle is being fought, no Christian is free from its implications. Either the reader must place himself completely under the authority of a New Testament that was written or commended by apostles, and of an Old Testament that was approved by the testimony of such a New Testament, both Old and New Testaments being the inspired and utterly trustworthy Word of God. or, he must begin to choose on the basis of his own scholarship or that of others such truths as he thinks the Holy Spirit (is there really a Holy Spirit, or is He the creation of the second century Christian community?) is leading him to believe. There is no middle ground of “substantial trustworthiness of Scripture” with an admixture of untrustworthy elements. Who decides where the trustworthiness ends? Who can tell for sure what is the Christian Gospel, if the Scriptures are actually made up of these kind of untrustworthy books? Does the “Gospel” really come to us from God, or from man?
**
A theology which thus leaves seekers after God and His Truth hanging in mid-air does not have what it takes to give modern man something solid to live and die by. What the Christian church had in the first place is the only resource available to fallen man to answer the human need with truth and hope.” **Pastor Elmer J, Moeller, “Missoui’s Critical Issue”, 1974

Jon, as you know, these brutally honest comments come not from a Catholic or non-Lutheran Protestant opponent, but are actually the words of an LCMS Pastor. This is a very specific criticism from WITHIN the LCMS. I fully recognize that Moeller is a little “off the reservation here”, but what is or should be the LCMS response to specifically what he has said?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

To read what the synod says, of course.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

To read what the synod says, of course.

Jon

OK, I’ll bite. Could you please post whatever it is in the documents of your synod that you think would be an effective response to Moeller’s criticisms? After all, his comments seem pretty pointed and reasonable, which would suggest that that response should be detailed, specific, and appeal to both logic and reason.

My guess is that there probably is some sort of response to what Moeller has said, but just to state that there is, (or might or should be one), is hardly compelling in comparison to his very specific comments. Personally I think it would be helpful for everyone here to be able to see that defense so that they can determine for themselves whether Moeller’s criticisms are valid.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Speaking for myself, I disagree with the entire premise that perfect salvation comes from a perfect church - we look to Christ and Him Crucified despite our imperfections and our struggles.

THere is no separation between Christ and His One Body, the Church.

The Church is Holy because of her divine elements - her Head is perfect, and her Soul, the Holy Spirit is perfect.

Salvation is not “from” the Church as much as it is THROUGH the Church.

"and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known **through the church **to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,… Eph 3:10

You could tell me that the LCMS leadership ate babies in the 1920’s and it wouldn’t shake my faith.

That’s pretty scary.

 

[guanophore]

I dunno if 500 years will be enough! Alternatively, after another 500 years there may not be any left

The Wind blows wherever He wills - He may just huff and puff and blow our house down.

We have plenty of spare rooms with your names on them!

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

OK, I’ll bite. Could you please post whatever it is in the documents of your synod that you think would be an effective response to Moeller’s criticisms? After all, his comments seem pretty pointed and reasonable, which would suggest that that response should be detailed, specific, and appeal to both logic and reason.

My guess is that there probably is some sort of response to what Moeller has said, but just to state that there is, (or might or should be one), is hardly compelling in comparison to his very specific comments. Personally I think it would be helpful for everyone here to be able to see that defense so that they can determine for themselves whether Moeller’s criticisms are valid.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Remember what Moeller’s criticism is: that because of the use of English language Bibles, particularly the KJV, replacing the German Bibles, the historic distinction within the NT canon between Homologoumena and Antilegomena is lost among the laity and clergy. Again, AFAIK, Pieper’s “Christian Dogmatics” is still THE text. And the bottom line from the article is:

Walther adds (Baier-Walther, I, 153): “The same position is taken by A. Osiander (d. 1617), Aeg. Hunnius, Hafenreffer, C. Dietrich, F. Balduin, Th. Thummius, and others.”

It has been stated that this distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena has been dropped by the later Lutheran dogmaticians. Philippi (Glaubenslehre I, 108) mentions particularly Gerhard, whom he pronounces the “most renowned dogmatician” of the Lutheran Church after Chemnitz. True, in one form or another the later dogmaticians state that the Church today (hodie) observes no distinction between the various books of the New Testament.6 As for Gerhard, he makes the statement that he believes the Apocalypse to be canonical. However, he adds this remark: “In the meantime, however, because there was at times doubt in the primitive Church on the part of some about the author of this book, we for this reason refer it to the canonical books of the second rank; not indeed detracting from its canonical authority, still not simply and in all respects classifying it with the rest of the canonical books about which there never was any doubt; and by the fairest right we demand that the interpretation of such a book in no manner conflict with the canonical books of the first rank.”7 This, however, as a matter of fact, amounts to the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena. As we cannot speak in the doctrine of God of a Godhead of the second rank (as old and modern subordinationists indeed do), so we cannot, without a certain self-contradiction, speak of deutero-canonical writings in the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which are God’s inviolable Word.

Some have argued that since there are antilegomena, we cannot determine exactly the extent of the canon and hence cannot know exactly what is the principium cognoscendi and norma of the Christian doctrine, but such have got their accounts mixed. We know that the Church of the New Testament possesses a fixed and firm canon, with no uncertainty attaching to it. For when Christ asks us (John 8:31-32; 17:20; and Eph.2:20) to continue in His and His Apostles’ doctrine, He presupposes the continued existence and possession of this doctrinal basis.

In this connection the question has been asked whether the distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena has any “sweeping dogmatical significance.” We for our part answer No, assuming that the meaning is that he who regards and treats the antilegomena as canonical thereby obtains more and other doctrines. On the one hand we observe the distinction made by the ancient Church between the writings of the New Testament; on the other hand we are convinced that the antilegomena, even when taken by themselves, neither contain false doctrine nor yet a doctrine which goes beyond the doctrine contained in the books that have the unanimous testimony of the ecclesia primitiva. We are convinced that Rome and certain sectarians misuse the Epistle of James when they make it the protector of their doctrine of work-righteousness. We must simply keep in mind that James is speaking of faith not insofar as it justifies before God, but insofar as we are, according to God’s will and ordinance, to evidence our faith to men, which can be done only by works. James is addressing not so much the new man as the old man in the Christian. And the Apocalypse does not contain an inkling of that chiliasm with which old and modern chiliasts have disturbed and plagued the Church. …

All this talk about the number of the Christian doctrines increasing with the number of the Biblical books is nonsense. It has been correctly pointed out that the single Gospel according to Matthew contains the entire Christian doctrine and that missionaries among the heathen for years got along, or rather had to get along, with a translation of this one Gospel and from it taught all the articles of the Christian faith. Anyone can convince himself that the Gospel according to Matthew contains the revelation of all doctrines that our Lutheran Church confesses in the Book of Concord. At the same time we thank the Lord for the fuller exposition of the saving doctrine which He gave us in the remaining books of the New Testament. What was written of the Old Testament: “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4), applies also to the New Testament, and we praise God’s grace and providence in having the saving doctrine recorded for us by so many divinely appointed witnesses. Having this manifold testimony, the Christians dwell “as in a paradise,” and their assurance is mightily strengthened. Paul writes to the Philippians (3:1): “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.”

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

THere is no separation between Christ and His One Body, the Church.

The Church is Holy because of her divine elements - her Head is perfect, and her Soul, the Holy Spirit is perfect.

That works exceptionally well when you have a perfect church - but once you find a flaw, then logically you have to examine the idea that Christ is flawed.

For some, the flaws can be dismissed as “just a member of the church behaving badly”, for others that cant make that separation, it can shatter their faith.

In my not so humble opinion, I think this is one place where Lutherans “get it right” - Lutherans expect the church to suffer, and that strengthens our need to look to Christ and the world to come.

Of course, this view exposes me to the charge that I’m making excuses for not having the perfect church.

 

[benjohnson]

That’s pretty scary.

How so? I know my church has done rotten things and will continue to do rotten things. Is the answer to become Catholic, but only as long as I don’t see a flaw?

 

[guanophore]

That works exceptionally well when you have a perfect church - but once you find a flaw, then logically you have to examine the idea that Christ is flawed.

No, we do not. Christ cannot be flawed. Any flaws belong to the human elements of the Church.

For some, the flaws can be dismissed as “just a member of the church behaving badly”, for others that cant make that separation, it can shatter their faith.

There is bad behavior and there is sin. Sin always can place a stumbling block before the faithful. Woe unto those who do so! But no amount of sins of men can destroy the Holiness of God.

In my not so humble opinion, I think this is one place where Lutherans “get it right” - Lutherans expect the church to suffer, and that strengthens our need to look to Christ and the world to come.

It seems to me that the Lutheran communion has retained the vast majority of the Apostolic faith. The deficient definition of the Church is not one of those elements. But I agree, the Church will suffer until the end of the age.

Of course, this view exposes me to the charge that I'm making excuses for not having the perfect church.

There is only One Church, and all who belong to Christ are members of her. There are no excuses pro or con that you can make that will change the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible.