Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

Ah! Dear PR - who made you the judge?
I am quite sure that there are many church pastors that fit your description, also many Roman Catholic priests I daresay. However, all of the pastors with whom I am acquainted (without exception) have had extensive training in Bible colleges, and the original languages, plus years of exposure to the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, to Which and to Whom they are answerable.

Protector.

Some denominations teach infant baptism; others reject it.

Both have had extensive training at Bible colleges and claim to be rightly dividing the Word of God as approved workmen under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Which of them is wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

Ah! Dear PR - who made you the judge?

Umm…we are commanded to judge, Protector.

All of us do. Anyone who walks around life without making a single judgement is…well, a vapid, vacuous simpleton.

I am quite sure that there are many church pastors that fit your description, also many Roman Catholic priests I daresay.

No Catholic priest is his own authority, Protector.

However, all of the pastors with whom I am acquainted (without exception) have had extensive training in Bible colleges, and the original languages,

I don’t doubt this. It’s irrelevant, but I don’t doubt it.

plus years of exposure to the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, to Which and to Whom they are answerable.

Protector.

Please walk me through this, Protector. How is a man answerable to a Holy Book?

How does that work?

How does the pastor of this little church, a church he founded when he disagreed with the interpretation his previous pastor had of a particular Bible verse (who had founded his church when he disagreed with his pastor…who had founded his church when he disagreed…etc etc etc) get “answerable” to a Holy Book?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12570720]
My post was responding to your comment that Lutheranism ‘always’ defers, for doctrine, to the Church and not to individual laity.

And mine was responding to your comment that follows:

it doesn’t seem like the whole thing about how Lutherans follow the doctrines of theichurch and are not allowed to establish doctrine independently bears out very well in the real world not hundreds of competing and doctrinally conflicting communions

Obviously, as my post proved, there are not “hundreds of competing and doctrinally conflicting communions.”

The very early history of the Reformation is extremely revealing and telling.

Lutheranism may NOW teach that doctrine is the responsibility of the Church, but that is not at all how Lutheranism began.

The very early history of the Lutheran tradition within the One Holy Church is rooted in the Augsburg Confession. To my knowledge, there is no article that affirms any form of personal judgement on doctrine. In fact, many of the articles are specific in their rejections of counter-positions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12569291]Is that what you are considering?

Or is it that the Orthodox are suffering from the same types of problems caused by private judgment that we see rampant among Protestants?

I don’t believe the Orthodox would consider this a possibility.

My opinion is that although the EO broke off from the Church 500 years before you, they cling VERY tightly to Sacred Tradition whereas Protestants, generally, do not (present company excepted, of course). This has slowed their fragmentation somewhat.

And see, here’s the problem. They would point to us, in the west, and say that the Reformation was a fragmentation of the See of Rome.

H

owever, you haven’t actually addressed the point of my previous post. If doctrine does develop legitimately, validly, etc., then the development of the papacy is legitimate and valid, also.

I think it very possible for us today to better understand doctrine, though I do not think the doctrine itself “develops”. Further, I think better understanding of doctrine, at some point, has to come under ecumenical formulations. For example, while no where near complete, there are Lutheran - Catholic dialogues that have I think helped both sides not only better understand the other’s view, but also the doctrine itself. For example:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

Of course, I would argue that universal jurisdiction was evident very early on, and only the outright denial of that fact has enabled the Orthodox to continue on their present path.

And of course, I would be surprised, even dismayed, if you did not argue from that perspective.

IOW, like Luther, the Orthodox have to explain away both scripture and the writings of the ECF’s in order to justify schism which they actually desire for reasons of ethnic and national pride and NOT on the basis of a true desire to follow the apostolic faith.

I think Catholic Church can better defend it stance on universal jurisdiction than by the claim that others must “explain away” scripture and the fathers. In fact, I’ve read you yourself do so in recent threads. But the fact is even Cardinal Ratzinger recognized that unity requires a more nuanced approach, particularly regarding Orthodoxy:

In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So the Lutheran synod would sanction an individual reforming Lutheran teaching today? He could be able to state that Lutheran Doctrine A is not historic Christian teaching and can depart from what Doctrine A professes?

No, but I think a single individual can bring to the Church abuses and errors, and expect to be heard on said, without fear. Were I still in the ELCA, would you not expect me to speak out on the errors regarding female ordination, or unscriptural, unconfessional policies regarding those who act on same gender attraction?

The Augsburg Confession states that it “might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.”

Now, we can discuss whether or not the Reformers’ view of Church doctrine was accurate, but I don’t believe it was simply a matter of wanting to change Church doctrine. There was more to it than that.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think it very possible for us today to better understand doctrine, though I do not think the doctrine itself “develops”. Further, I think better understanding of doctrine, at some point, has to come under ecumenical formulations. For example, while no where near complete, there are Lutheran - Catholic dialogues that have I think helped both sides not only better understand the other’s view, but also the doctrine itself. For example:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/upload/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life1.pdf

That’s the ELCA. Are you going to sign off on that?

 

[JonNC]

That’s the ELCA. Are you going to sign off on that?

The LCMS was a signator, as well.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Whatever church the individual thinks best represents or is compatible with the scriptures.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The LCMS was a signator, as well.

Jon

On the JDDJ as well?

 

[JonNC]

On the JDDJ as well?

No, though I think we should have been. I had a phone chat once with one of the LCMS dialogue members. I came away with the thought that we could have very easily issued a clarification document in the same way the CC did.
There is much good in the JDDJ.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No, but I think a single individual can bring to the Church abuses and errors, and expect to be heard on said, without fear.

So a Lutheran would NOT be able to do what Luther did.

Do you see why there is a cognitive dissonance for me, Jon?

What Luther claimed for himself, your synod denies for its members.

As Jimmy Akin says: All that “Here I stand, the Word of God compels me, I can do no other” stuff had to be interpreted narrowly. “I can do not other” meant “I can do no other.” It did not mean you could do something other if you felt the word of God were compelling you. You had to do what I said because I–the leader–was the one the Word of God had compelled, and thus the whole era of Protestant religious laws, and the era of the competing Protestant Magisteriums, was ushered in.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;12572398]So a Lutheran would NOT be able to do what Luther did.

Actually, yes, and with better results because he would not be in fear. It is what I would be doing if I were still in the ELCA.

What Luther claimed for himself, your synod denies for its members.

I think you misunderstood. For example, the historic teaching of the Church, including the Lutheran tradition, is that males are may be priests, but not females. when the ELCA and other Lutheran bodies say now females may be priests, one can call this development of doctrine if they want, but it is actually a rejection of doctrine. If I were in the ELCA, I would indeed stand up against this.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Hi Topper; buttin in again. You said of Luther-
“he actually taught that the interpretation of Scripture IS up to the individual.”

There is interpretation(understanding) and testifying/witnessing of such, and there is authoritatively telling others what to believe.

The best example we have of this is St. Peter. Perhaps there is no bigger interpretation/understanding other than who is Jesus, as in , “who do men say that I am”? The answer was quite personal even up to the individual. ***Why would Jesus ask individuals this most important question if it was not up to them, and not just to answer but give their opinion/belief as in “personal” ? ***Why would Jesus ask the most important question in the world if it were not discernable by even a child? This trumps any magisterium, church, parental, tradition, popular opinion “opinion” . It is all there in the Jesus/Peter discourse. Of course Peter had the right interpretation cause the Lord said so, and in a way we are to be like Peter. Not because he was “pope”/head but because Peter was right, as we can be right by an individual, personal revelation from the Father also. Peter is at best authoritative here by example.

So, it is my opinion, as maybe it was Luther’s as you suggest, also, that the individual can and is admonished to understand/interpret the times, even scripture, as led by the Father, at the very least (that is along with any church/magisterium/teacher/bishop/ parent etc.) Why else would many of the great saints such as Jerome and Augustine (I think Luther also) purport their "opinion/interpretation “of a thing” but then add, “see if it isn’t so for yourself” ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, though I think we should have been. I had a phone chat once with one of the LCMS dialogue members. I came away with the thought that we could have very easily issued a clarification document in the same way the CC did.
There is much good in the JDDJ.

Jon

Wow. I didn’t know that.

I was under the impression from something I read in these forums that the LCMS rejected the JDDJ and didn’t want anything to do with anything the ELCA is involved with. IOW, if the ELCA is in agreement with Catholic Church, then it CAN’T be good.

 

[JonNC]

Wow. I didn’t know that.

I was under the impression from something I read in these forums that the LCMS rejected the JDDJ and didn’t want anything to do with anything the ELCA is involved with. IOW, if the ELCA is in agreement with Catholic Church, then it CAN’T be good.

Well, there is some of that, and that sometimes parochial animosity goes both ways. I actually sometimes trust Catholic theologians more than ELCA/LWF theologians, but there is so much that we hold in common (without wanting to admit it ), that a document such as Hope of Eternal Life jumps out from our common heritage. And if one reads the document, one finds how remarkably similar Lutheran (both ELCA and LCMS) and Catholic views of after death cleansing / purgation are.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, there is some of that, and that sometimes parochial animosity goes both ways. I actually sometimes trust Catholic theologians more than ELCA/LWF theologians, but there is so much that we hold in common (without wanting to admit it ), that a document such as Hope of Eternal Life jumps out from our common heritage. And if one reads the document, one finds how remarkably similar Lutheran (both ELCA and LCMS) and Catholic views of after death cleansing / purgation are.

Jon

Well, if you are happy with anything that suggests progress in terms of reunification, I’m happy, too.

 

[dronald]

A lot of Protestant churches say they follow the bible alone right?

All of them say they are inspired by the Holy Spirit right?

But if you were to ask the church, not the member who hardly foes to the church, but if you look at what that church teaches, if you ask 4 churches about abortion for example you will get 4 different answers.

God is not that confused, something’s gotta give. Either these churches are lying, or God is so confused.

I’m pretty sure the question of abortion can only lead to two different answers.

So again I ask why you must exaggerate everything.

 

[JonNC]

I’m pretty sure the question of abortion can only lead to two different answers.

So again I ask why you must exaggerate everything.

Some answers might be nuanced by circumstance - abortion is wrong except when…

But I might respond to Chero by mentioning that Catholics and EO’s have differing views on contraception. The same kind of confusion. But the obvious answer is it is not God who is confused, but us. All of us. Catholics, too.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, yes, and with better results because he would not be in fear.

I don’t understand, Jon.

Is a Lutheran permitted personal interpretation of Scripture which divorces itself from the teaching of the Church?

That is what Luther did.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon

Thanks for your response.

The very early history of the Lutheran tradition within the One Holy Church is rooted in the Augsburg Confession. To my knowledge, there is no article that affirms any form of personal judgement on doctrine. In fact, many of the articles are specific in their rejections of counter-positions.

I’m glad that you are also interested in the early history of the Lutheran tradition.

As for the “One Holy Church”, there are several non-conflicting definitions of the term. In one definition, in fact the loosest, Lutheranism is included in the OHC. In others it is not. After all, the OHC cannot teach conflicting doctrines. Catholicism and Lutheranism teach conflicting doctrines. Only one could be teaching the True Gospel. In this more important aspect, Lutheranism and Catholicism are not together in the “One Holy Church”.

Jon, as you know, for the first several years both before and after his excommunication, Luther taught that the individual had the right to interpret Scripture privately and personally. That is an established fact. As you point out, it is also an established fact that Lutheranism denies that ‘Right’ to the individual and teaches that it is the church that is responsible for determining doctrine.

What interests me is the ‘transition’ from Luther teaching Private Interpretation to Lutheranism, the communion that actually bears his name, teaching the exact opposite. This leads to a simple but very important question:

Why was it necessary for the Lutheran church to reject Luther’s early Reformation teaching on Private Interpretation in favor of the concept that it is the church that is responsible for doctrine?

In other words, specifically and exactly why the change in such an important doctrine? More importantly which do you think was right and which was wrong, Luther or Lutheranism?

God Bless You Jon, Topper