Which Church??

[benhur]

Hi Jon

Thanks for your response.

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

good question. Maybe a church says only it can interpret so it can survive, as it thinks a church should be. For conformity. So Catholics remain “catholic”’ or Lutherans “Lutheran”’ Orthodox “orthodox. If Luther did indeed change his mind, maybe it was to preserve his way of thinking,preserve his interpretations
and image of what the “called out” are supposed to look like. If Akens is right Luther merely began acting"catholic”

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon

Thanks for your response.

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

To the extent that Luther’s writing are in agreement with the confessions, we accept his writings.
To the extent they do not, we reject them.
Luther supported Augsburg.
It is a fact that, throughout history, good Catholics went to the grave not believing things that were later declared articles of faith. If Luther after Augsburg taught things contrary to Augsburg, then he was wrong.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

Of course. He just isn’t orthodox Lutheran anymore. But if the Church drifts away from orthodox teaching, ISTM a member may dispute. I gave an example of that with the ELCA and female ordination. Even Catholics will say that Luther was right about some things being done in the name of the Church.
It is also true, AFAIK, that Catholics can personally interpret scripture, as long as doctrine is not the issue.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. He just isn’t orthodox Lutheran anymore. But if the Church drifts away from orthodox teaching, ISTM a member may dispute. I gave an example of that with the ELCA and female ordination. Even Catholics will say that Luther was right about some things being done in the name of the Church.
It is also true, AFAIK, that Catholics can personally interpret scripture, as long as doctrine is not the issue.

Jon

So just to be clear: a Lutheran may disagree with his synod on matters of doctrine, just like Luther disagreed with his synod on matters of doctrine?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

I think you could compare it to mixed martial arts, in the sense of universality. Here’s what I mean.

Mixed martial arts is an amalgam of fighting styles. There are a few rules and restrictions which prevent you from saying it’s an anything-goes no-rules free-for-all, but essentially, any form of fighting that qualifies as a recognized competitive fighting style is in bounds. In that sense, mixed martial arts is basically universal fighting. This is different from the marks of universality as defined by the CCC, but we are talking about something different here. We are talking about Protestants, and this is how they look at universality.

So this is the way it breaks down. You start with defining who should be recognized as a Christian. Generally, that boils down to being both trinitarian and monotheistic, so marginal Christians like JWs and Mormons and Christadelphians would not typically be recognized. “Marginal Christian” means we acknowledge your own assertion that you represent true restored Christianity while declaring us all apostates, but we don’t recognize you or agree with any of that. Neither of course would Muslims or Jews be included, despite being monotheistic. Trinitarianism is the other point, and you basically need to have both those things. Two points make a line.

Breaking it down a little bit further. Catholics are typically recognized as fellow Christians by informed Protestants, the more well informed the more likely they are to recognize them correctly. Less well informed Protestants may not recognize Catholics as really being Christians, typically because they don’t have a coherent way of delineating Christian from not. The two-point litmus test I just mentioned may be news to such a person, and basically, they exclude people-groups based on how much anger they feel toward them rather than any coherent reasoning. But for Protestants who are well-informed and fairly coherent, there is a fairly universal set of church families that are recognized very reliably- Catholics and Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, even if we know hardly anything about them or their history. Also Protestants, which is the people who hold to the five Solas and have a bit of variety between the mainline Protestants and the Evangelical Protestants of various types. Excluded with some regularity would be marginal Christianity- specifically, those who do not believe in the five Solas (and therefore lack the leading essential characteristic of Protestantism) but more importantly are also either non-Trinitarian or something other than monotheistic. The main point of difference on that last one is the question of whether a Mormon or JW can, individually, seek after the truth while staying affiliated with a problematic organization and be saved in spite of it. Opinions may vary and lead to some uncertainty on that point. In the larger sense, however, marginal Christianity is fairly well defined from an institutional standpoint and is categorized in this manner pretty reliably.

To answer your question, the Protestant concept of “the Church” consists of all Christians that are recognized as Christians- the chief marks being those of trinitarianism and monotheism. To us, this is the universal church, and our idea of universality is different from the Catholic idea of the same- ours is more akin to mixed martial arts, where there are many distinct fighting styles that are all encompassed by one sport. Are we aware of how much difference there is between these different groups of Christians? Yes, as a matter of fact, we are. And those differences are a key mark of something that’s truly universal and appropriately inclusive, just as mixed martial arts is defined as being fairly universal because it allows for basically every kind of fighting within the broader discipline. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be quite so universal now would it. Do we have a problem with all these differences? Not really, as long as everyone is fairly consistent with recognizing the same people as Christians and having consistent, coherent reasons for doing so.

We have one circle drawn around all sorts of groups recognized as Christians, and a bunch of smaller circles drawn around more specific faith-groups and traditions. It’s not our goal to eliminate all the smaller circles and present the world with a larger circle that’s been drawn over twice. That would be impractical and quite frankly not good for Christianity as a whole. Instead, we circle all of Christianity and try to make sure everyone is on the same page with where that circle should be. And that is the Protestant “church.”

 

[PRmerger]

We have one circle drawn around all sorts of groups recognized as Christians, and a bunch of smaller circles drawn around more specific faith-groups and traditions. It’s not our goal to eliminate all the smaller circles and present the world with a larger circle that’s been drawn over twice. That would be impractical and quite frankly not good for Christianity as a whole. Instead, we circle all of Christianity and try to make sure everyone is on the same page with where that circle should be. And that is the Protestant “church.”

What are the doctrines which are the boundaries for this circle of Protestant Christian churches? That is: what must be believed in order to be included in the inner circle?

And who determines what is excluded?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

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.

I hesitate to point this out as it might lead to a nasty tangent, but there are some practical limits on what you should and shouldn’t do when it comes to giving or denying permission for dissent. If you politely deny a request for change, that is one thing. But forcibly relocating someone, imprisoning them, restricting their freedom of speech (perhaps by burning their literature), killing or attempting to kill someone, or otherwise ignoring basic human rights in the name of saying “I do not permit” is all completely totally and wildly out of bounds. Denying permission is one thing, but religiously motivated coercion is quite another.

I feel the need to point this out because that place is right where the Catholic Church lived for most of its history. The Reformation eventually wound up being the cure for that, but it was a bitter pill and it took way too long to have a lasting effect.

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

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” ?

First of all ben, I have to comment that we seem to have a very different concept of what defines a Christian Saint.

good question.

Thanks. I thought it was a good question too. That’s why I asked it. Since it has not yet been answered, except in a completely generalized and non-specific manner, I will repost it.

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?

Maybe a church says only it can interpret so it can survive, as it thinks a church should be. For conformity. So Catholics remain “catholic”’ or Lutherans “Lutheran”’ Orthodox "orthodox. If Luther did indeed change his mind, maybe it was to preserve his way of thinking,preserve his interpretations and image of what the “called out” are supposed to look like. If Akens is right Luther merely began acting “catholic”

I agree to a certain extent ben. One of the reasons to teach that your church cannot be refuted doctrinally would be to make sure that your doctrines will not be corrupted. However, it seems to me to be extremely hypocritical to make such a pronouncement AFTER your version of Christianity has been founded on the basis of refuting/denying/condemning the doctrines of the Church from which it sprung. That is exactly what Luther did. If doctrine is the responsibility of the Church and the individual is not to refute/deny/condemn the doctrines of the Church, then specifically and exactly, how are we supposed to ‘excuse’ Luther his doctrinal Rebellion against HIS Church?

What is it specifically and exactly about his particular case which makes what he did acceptable?

Furthermore, if a particular denomination or communion is founded on the basis of defying the doctrines of the Church from which it sprung, then how can it have any credibility when it demands that its members are denied that very ‘right’?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[badnewsbarrett]

What are the doctrines which are the boundaries for this circle of Protestant Christian churches? That is: what must be believed in order to be included in the inner circle?

Short answer, the Five Solas. And it’s not really an “inner circle,” it’s just one of the smaller circles inside the big one. There technically is a center point of any circle, but there isn’t any one smaller circle that claims ownership of it. It’s a shared space, although I readily acknowledge that some circles are better at working with others and some are quite bad. And for some, it varies a bit.

 

[PRmerger]

Short answer, the Five Solas. And it’s not really an “inner circle,” it’s just one of the smaller circles inside the big one. There technically is a center point of any circle, but there isn’t any one smaller circle that claims ownership of it. It’s a shared space, although I readily acknowledge that some circles are better at working with others and some are quite bad. And for some, it varies a bit.

I get what you’re saying.

However, what gives Protestantism the authority to limn any kind of circle? How is it that one gets to say: *you *are part of the Big Circle…and *you *are not part of it when you reject doctrine A, B and C?

Where does this authority come from?

 

[PRmerger]

I hesitate to point this out as it might lead to a nasty tangent, but there are some practical limits on what you should and shouldn’t do when it comes to giving or denying permission for dissent. If you politely deny a request for change, that is one thing.

But in the Lutheran paradigm as professed by JonNC, is permission for dissent even being denied?

I cannot get a straight answer (in my mind) about this.

To me it seems that dissent must be permitted, for that is exactly what Fr. Luther did.

Yet it also sounds as if the synod is saying: you are not permitted to dissent. You must give your submission to the confessions.

But forcibly relocating someone, imprisoning them, restricting their freedom of speech (perhaps by burning their literature), killing or attempting to kill someone, or otherwise ignoring basic human rights in the name of saying “I do not permit” is all completely totally and wildly out of bounds. Denying permission is one thing, but religiously motivated coercion is quite another.

The above is the Catholic POV, to be sure.

I feel the need to point this out because that place is right where the Catholic Church lived for most of its history.

I think you are confusing bad Catholics with good Catholic teaching.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I get what you’re saying.

However, what gives Protestantism the authority to limn any kind of circle? How is it that one gets to say: *you *are part of the Big Circle…and *you *are not part of it when you reject doctrine A, B and C?

Where does this authority come from?

From our perspective, when you say “This person possesses the expertise necessary to know what he or she is talking about and demonstrate that to anyone,” that is basically the same as “This person has the authority to say thus and such and can reasonably expect people to listen.” To us, that’s the only authority that really means anything. If you have apostolic succession, it doesn’t hurt, but expertise and the fruits of your interactions with other experts is what moves the needle.

Expertise comes from scholarship, from education, and from hard work. Being recognized as an expert typically happens in the context of a university or seminary. It also comes from collaboration between other experts that dwell within all those different smaller circles. And as far as I can tell, the experts within the giant circle I’ve described have reached a pretty reliable consensus as to what’s included within Christianity, institutionally speaking. They may differ on how the word “church” ought to be used, but for us, we attach the word to a consensus that already exists among 2 billion Christians.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I think you are confusing bad Catholics with good Catholic teaching.

I’m talking about the normative way in which the Catholic Church responded to dissent for many centuries.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m talking about the normative way in which the Catholic Church responded to dissent for many centuries.

Again, you are confusing bad Catholics with what was actually taught.

Heteropraxy ought not be interpreted as orthodoxy.

That would be like judging Jesus’ disciples by what Judas did. Or judging the Apostles by Peter’s sins.

 

[steido01]

But in the Lutheran paradigm as professed by JonNC, is permission for dissent even being denied?

I cannot get a straight answer (in my mind) about this.

To me it seems that dissent must be permitted, for that is exactly what Fr. Luther did.

Yet it also sounds as if the synod is saying: you are not permitted to dissent. You must give your submission to the confessions.

It is rather simple: We are to submit to the teachings of the church. However, when the Faith (as professed by the Apostles, recorded in Holy Scripture, and reflected in the Confessions) is obscured by leaders of the Church, any among the faithful can, and should, object. See: St. Athanasius the Great, Jolly ol’ St. Nikolaos of Myra, Catherine of Sienna, etc.

Personal piety and devotion, or other matters that do not concern Faith (adiaphora) are left to the individual.

 

[Faithdancer]

Don’t think they do.
Don’t think this is accurate either. There are not 30,000 denominations today. This is propaganda like P’s who say C’s killed millions during inquisition and other moves.

And even if there were 30,000 denominations, BenHur, that would prove nothing.

 

[PRmerger]

From our perspective,

I need to stop you right here. Who is the “our” you are speaking of?

When it comes to Protestantism, which is a behemoth of tens of thousands of differing beliefs and denominations, there is no central authority to whom we can say, “What is your perspective?”

OTOH, when you want to know the Catholic perspective, we all know where to look: there is a central teaching authority who speaks for Catholicism.

when you say “This person possesses the expertise necessary to know what he or she is talking about and demonstrate that to anyone,” that is basically the same as “This person has the authority to say thus and such and can reasonably expect people to listen.” To us, that’s the only authority that really means anything. If you have apostolic succession, it doesn’t hurt, but expertise and the fruits of your interactions with other experts is what moves the needle.

Where does this belief come from?

It seems rather contrary to Scripture, which professes that there are going to be false teachers.

Expertise comes from scholarship, from education, and from hard work. Being recognized as an expert typically happens in the context of a university or seminary.

But these experts can’t really agree on doctrine. How do you know which experts to believe? The ones who say baptism is an ordinance? Or the ones who say baptism is a sacrament? The ones who say that the Eucharist is only symbolic? Or the ones who say that it is the Real Presence of Christ? The ones who say that women can be ordained? Or the ones who say ordination is reserved for men only?

How do you know which experts to follow?

 

[PRmerger]

It is rather simple: We are to submit to the teachings of the church.

Yet Fr. Martin did not?

 

[PRmerger]

And even if there were 30,000 denominations, BenHur, that would prove nothing.

It would prove that the Bible Alone cannot be the source of truth.

It would prove that the Bible Alone is actually the source of chaos and confusion.

 

[steido01]

Yet Fr. Martin did not?

Then neither did Athanasius, Nikolaos, or Catherine of Sienna.

Read the next sentence, too.