The Role of Luther in the Lutheran Church

[Belcanto]

Hi,

Another question for the Lutherans (or anyone else who can answer the question): What role do Martin Luther’s writings play in the Lutheran Church? I know that they don’t consider the man himself to be infallible, but it’s my understanding that a certain amount of deference is shown to his works. Is this correct? Thanks in advance.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi,
Another question for the Lutherans (or anyone else who can answer the question): What role do Martin Luther’s writings play in the Lutheran Church? I know that they don’t consider the man himself to be infallible, but it’s my understanding that a certain amount of deference is shown to his works. Is this correct? Thanks in advance.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

The original Lutherans compiled a set of documents of what they believed and this became known as the Book of Concord.
As far as I know Luther was both a writer of parts of the BoC in works such as Luther’s Small Catechism and Luther’s Large Catechism, for the other documents where he couldnt be with the Lutherans physcally he was consulted, for others documents he wasnt consulted at all.
As for some explicit references to Luther’s writings in the Book of Concord the Lutheran elders wrote this in the Book of Concord in the document “Epitome of the Formula of Concord”:
5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
Pretty bold thing for a protestant to say wouldnt you think?

 

[Belcanto]

The original Lutherans compiled a set of documents of what they believed and this became known as the Book of Concord.
As far as I know Luther was both a writer of parts of the BoC in works such as Luther’s Small Catechism and Luther’s Large Catechism, for the other documents where he couldnt be with the Lutherans physcally he was consulted, for others documents he wasnt consulted at all.
As for some explicit references to Luther’s writings in the Book of Concord the Lutheran elders wrote this in the Book of Concord in the document “Epitome of the Formula of Concord”:
5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
Pretty bold thing for a protestant to say wouldnt you think?

Yes. To be fair though, I think what this is saying is that the teachings are necessary for salvation since they’re in accordance with scriptures, not simply because they’re Luther’s.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[lak611]

By the way, a few years ago, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church ELCA agreed upon justification by faith! :yup:

 

[Syele]

By the way, a few years ago, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church ELCA agreed upon justification by faith! :yup:

Can you cite a source for this, so that I might see exactly what they agreed upon?

 

[JimmyJeff]

Can you cite a source for this, so that I might see exactly what they agreed upon?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[Contarini]

Hi,

Another question for the Lutherans (or anyone else who can answer the question): What role do Martin Luther’s writings play in the Lutheran Church? I know that they don’t consider the man himself to be infallible, but it’s my understanding that a certain amount of deference is shown to his works. Is this correct? Thanks in advance.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

I’d say that his place is somewhere between the place of St. Thomas Aquinas in Catholicism as a whole, and the place of St. Thomas Aquinas among those who identify themselves as Thomist theologians. Strict confessional Lutherans are pretty close to the latter, but many other Lutherans would be closer to the former.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I tend to view Luther’s call for reforms in a way similar to the ride of Jehu within the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, even as a Catholic, I am certain that Luther was truly called by God to reform the Church.

Luther wasn’t just making stuff up about the corruption he saw within some parts of the Catholic heirarchy. Even other contemporary Catholics saw this-- and the Counter-Reformation which happened mere generations later did attempt to address some of the very same things that Luther became infuriated with within his own lifetime (and those generations before him).

Having said this, however, at least on a theological level, just like Jehu did so long ago, Luther went so much further than God had authentically called him-- essentially placing himself outside the loop in his desire to carry out God’s will for genuine Spirit-led reforms from within the Church herself.

That’s how I see it anyway.

 

[Sixtus]

Corruption in the Catholic Church?

That was also the age of the Great Saints. Many achieved great things, founded religious orders and achieved reformation from within. Arguably, Luther however, went further than God had intended.

He did not however ‘found a church’. Christ founded a church. There is but ONE Church. Any group outside from The Church is not another Church, but ‘A community of discenting believers’!

Ok, some may be very devout. But that STILL does not make them ‘a church’. Jesus did not say ‘You are Peter and on the 33-000 churches and 78,000 interpretations of Scriptures I will build my Church’!

Timothy did not say ‘the 33,000 churches are the pillar of truth’, no he said ‘THE Church …] is the pillar of truth’.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Corruption in the Catholic Church?

I didn’t mean any offense. It just seemd that there were indeed troubling things going on within the Church during Luther’s era.

Luther, looking at the history from his own limited perspective seemed to have concluded that this corruption was persistent problem within the church and felt that the Catholic institution was itself beyond redemption because of this.

I obviously don’t agree with Luther’s view concerning the Church, especially since I am Catholic. But I also don’t think we should diminish or gloss over those times when the some within the Church may not have acted as rightly as they should have either.

That was also the age of the Great Saints. Many achieved great things, founded religious orders and achieved reformation from within.

Yes. I know.

That’s why I said this before…

Even other contemporary* Catholics saw this-- and the Counter-Reformation which happened mere generations later did attempt to address some of the very same things that Luther became infuriated with within his own lifetime (and those generations before him).

*Please note that contemporary means that these saints would been around during Luther’s time.

Arguably, Luther however, went further than God had intended.

He did not however ‘found a church’. Christ founded a church. There is but ONE Church. Any group outside from The Church is not another Church, but ‘A community of discenting believers’!

Ok, some may be very devout. But that STILL does not make them ‘a church’. Jesus did not say ‘You are Peter and on the 33-000 churches and 78,000 interpretations of Scriptures I will build my Church’!

Timothy did not say ‘the 33,000 churches are the pillar of truth’, no he said ‘THE Church …] is the pillar of truth’.

Although I thnk the 33,000 part is an exaggeration, I actually generally agree with you.

That’s why I respect those denominations outside the church as being separated brethren who are nonethless oepn to the Holy Spirit’s call in part, groups who have some elements of our Catholic faith within them even if they do not agree with Catholicism as a whole.

In other words, they are indirectly a part of the Catholic Church even if they don’t know it or believe it. It’s their separated nature, however, that limits God’s grace from fully manifesting within them. In order to have the fullness of grace and truth, they need to return to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

That’s how I see it anyway.

 

[lak611]

Can you cite a source for this, so that I might see exactly what they agreed upon?

Here’s a couple links:

religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=155
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=441

 

[Syele]

Jimmy Jeff and lak611 Thanks for the links

 

[Steadfast]

I think Edwin described it very well.

As for the quote about the catechism being the Bible for laypeople, Belcanto has explained that well also, but I’ll hi-lite it from a Lutheran perspective.

We believe the Small Catechism to be a distillation, or an essential abridgement of Biblical doctrine. Luther isn’t saying his catechism is inspired by God but that, inasmuch as it is a true and faithful representation of Biblical doctrine, it shares with the Bible that same authority we believe resides in the administration of the Sacraments and the preaching of the Word.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

We believe the Small Catechism to be a distillation, or an essential abridgement of Biblical doctrine. Luther isn’t saying his catechism is inspired by God but that, inasmuch as it is a true and faithful representation of Biblical doctrine, it shares with the Bible that same authority we believe resides in the administration of the Sacraments and the preaching of the Word.

Hmmm…

What’s the difference?

 

[Steadfast]

Hmmm…

What’s the difference?

The difference is that the authority inheres not in the catechism but in the Word of God the catechism distills and relates.

The same would be true of a sermon, for example, or any presentation of the Gospel. The message is itself powerful and is what drives the efficacy of the vehicle. The catechism is the package, the Word of God is the content distilled and focussed.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The difference is that the authority inheres not in the catechism but in the Word of God the catechism distills and relates.

The same would be true of a sermon, for example, or any presentation of the Gospel. The message is itself powerful and is what drives the efficacy of the vehicle. The catechism is the package, the Word of God is the content distilled and focussed.

So then Lutheranism is claiming an infalliable understanding of God’s word?

 

[Steadfast]

No, it’s claiming that God’s Word is infallible and it believes its understanding of that Word especially as enshrined in its confessional documents to be true, accurate and faithful to the same.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We believe the Small Catechism to be a distillation, or an essential abridgement of Biblical doctrine. Luther isn’t saying his catechism is inspired by God but that, inasmuch as it is a true and faithful representation of Biblical doctrine, it shares with the Bible that same authority we believe resides in the administration of the Sacraments and the preaching of the Word.

While its not illogical to make these claims, I was simply pointing out how ironic it is, because when Catholics talk like this in regards to our Catechism you should see their jaws hit the floor. Especially when we read stuff like “such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther” if something concerns salvation of souls it had better be infallibly backed.

No, it’s claiming that God’s Word is infallible and it believes its understanding of that Word especially as enshrined in its confessional documents to be true, accurate and faithful to the same.

Thats why I have pointed out in the past that Luther never really believed in what is commonly called “Sola Scriptura”, it was a smokescreen from day one, it was used to discredit the notion of an infallible interpreter that the Catholic Church claimed. The fact is there was a self appointed Lutheran Magisterium incharge of their own infallible interpretations which went down as the Book of Concord.

 

[Contarini]

While its not illogical to make these claims, I was simply pointing out how ironic it is, because when Catholics talk like this in regards to our Catechism you should see their jaws hit the floor.

Whose jaws? Lutherans’ jaws?

Especially when we read stuff like “such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther” if something concerns salvation of souls it had better be infallibly backed.

The problem here is that “infallible” can mean a lot of things. It seems to me that Catholics often use it simply to mean “true.” Protestants (and, arguably, Orthodox) deny that any particular church body is infallible in advance–i.e., that if you follow proper procedure the right answer will follow. That does not mean that all doctrinal positions are up for grabs. A community can say–as confessional Lutherans have said–that they are committed to a certain understanding of the Faith as the correct, Scriptural one.

You don’t need an infallible Church to get it right. You just need to get it right.

Epistemology and Church authority are two different issues and shouldn’t be confused. No one has yet come up with a satisfactory account of how we know that we know what we know. It’s a futile quest from the beginning. An “infallible Church” is not the answer to the questions of modern epistemology.

Thats why I have pointed out in the past that Luther never really believed in what is commonly called “Sola Scriptura”,

What is that? Did he claim to believe in it?

it was a smokescreen from day one, it was used to discredit the notion of an infallible interpreter that the Catholic Church claimed. The fact is there was a self appointed Lutheran Magisterium incharge of their own infallible interpretations which went down as the Book of Concord.

Again, you’re using “infallible” sloppily. Saying that something is true–or that you know that it is true–is not the same thing as saying that it is infallible.

The difference between the decrees of Trent and the Formula of Concord is that Catholics say that the Fathers of Trent couldn’t err because they were a valid Council, while Lutherans say that the framers of the Council could have erred but didn’t.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, it’s claiming that God’s Word is infallible and it believes its understanding of that Word especially as enshrined in its confessional documents to be true, accurate and faithful to the same.

So then Lutheranism is claiming to have the infalliable interpretation/understanding of the Scriptures/Tradition-- just like every other denomination, including Catholicism.

What’s the difference?