Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Luther in his own wordshttp://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetic ... luther.htm

Do Lutherans accept these like they do  the "solas"?

I think there should be a space between words and http: in the above link.  I think that is the site to which you wanted us to go.  Assuming that is correct, I would answer your question as:

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) in its doctrinal documents of 1932 and 1973 state in part (for a much longer discussion on other topics see  http://www.lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition):

OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
We teach that the Holy Scriptures differ from all other books in the world in that they are the Word of God. They are the Word of God because the holy men of God who wrote the Scriptures wrote only that which the Holy Ghost communicated to them by inspiration, 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21. We teach also that the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is not a so-called "theological deduction," but that it is taught by direct statements of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3:16, John 10:35, Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 2:13. Since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, it goes without saying that they contain no errors or contradictions, but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth, also in those parts which treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters, John 10:35.

We furthermore teach regarding the Holy Scriptures that they are given by God to the Christian Church for the foundation of faith, Eph. 2:20. Hence the Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken and therefore, too, the sole rule and norm by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged. — With the Confessions of our Church we teach also that the "rule of faith" (analogia fidei) according to which the Holy Scriptures are to be understood are the clear passages of the Scriptures themselves which set forth the individual doctrines. (Apology. Triglot, p. 441, Paragraph 60; Mueller, p. 684). The rule of faith is not the man-made so-called "totality of Scripture" ("Ganzes der Schrift").

We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.

OF THE SYMBOLS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH
We accept as our confession all the symbols contained in the Book of Concord of the year 1580. — The symbols of the Lutheran Church are not a rule of faith beyond, and supplementary to, Scripture, but a confession of the doctrines of Scripture over against those who deny these doctrines.

Since the Christian Church cannot make doctrines, but can and should simply profess the doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture, the doctrinal decisions of the symbols are binding upon the conscience not because they are the outcome of doctrinal controversies, but only because they are the doctrinal decisions of Holy Scripture itself.

MY TAKE ON WHAT THIS MEANS
From my experience in the LCMS (the experience gained from reading a lot and discussions with several Pastors) I answer your question by saying:  Luther wrote a lot of good material.  His positions on matters evolved somewhat from early in his life to later, just like I expect yours and mine do.  Luther also wrote (or has been quoted on) a lot of stuff that I do not think the LCMS would say is in tune with Holy Scripture or the Book of Concord of 1580 which was written well after Luther's death (1546) and mostly written by Philip Melanchthon.  Thus, I would say all the various statements in the link you provided, unless specifically stated in HS or the BOC are not necessarily accepted.  As far as the 5 solas I mentioned earlier, I doubt those are foundational documents as such - they are statements widely endorsed, as I understand them, by many of the various groups involved in the protestant reformation, and the slogans of Scripture alone, Faith alone and Grace alone, Christ alone, and Glory be to God are in line with the concepts of HS and the BOC.  There has been tons of ink spilled on the topic you are raising.  I would summarize the Lutheran (LCMS) and Roman Catholic views of Scripture and its teachings as similar in the essential points and very different in a lot of the details or practices.  I think we are both definitely Christian, but like siblings, we tend to bicker within our Christian family.

... M

[Fred]

We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.

How could Christ and the apostles possibly have affirmed the New Testament to be "Holy Scripture" and the "Word of God"? It hadn't been written yet.

[Mountaineer]

We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.

How could Christ and the apostles possibly have affirmed the New Testament to be "Holy Scripture" and the "Word of God"? It hadn't been written yet.

I don't understand your comment.  The Scriptures that Christ had in physical presence were the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament.  However since Christ is God, are you saying you do not believe that He knew what the New Testament would say, since He is the one who had words written that He wanted to be written?  And since the NT is inspired by God, what is the issue here?  Are you putting limits on God and saying that man is "higher" than God?  Of course if you do not believe God's promises, I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think it makes much sense if you are a Christian and believe in God's promises.

... M

[Fred]

We reject the doctrine which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the Church of our day that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the Word of God and in part the word of man and hence does, or at least, might contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, set up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian Church and its faith.

How could Christ and the apostles possibly have affirmed the New Testament to be "Holy Scripture" and the "Word of God"? It hadn't been written yet.

I don't understand your comment.  The Scriptures that Christ had in physical presence were the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament.  However since Christ is God, are you saying you do not believe that He knew what the New Testament would say, since He is the one who had words written that He wanted to be written?  And since the NT is inspired by God, what is the issue here?  Are you putting limits on God and saying that man is "higher" than God?  Of course if you do not believe God's promises, I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think it makes much sense if you are a Christian and believe in God's promises.

... M

Your quote from LCMS said that Christ and the apostles confirmed Holy Scripture as the Word of God. I think it's a very good case that they did believe that, for sure. I am simply asking for a chapter and verse where they confirmed the New Testament as the Word of God since it hadn't been written. I find it hard to believe you don't really understand my comment.

[Mountaineer]

How could Christ and the apostles possibly have affirmed the New Testament to be "Holy Scripture" and the "Word of God"? It hadn't been written yet.

I don't understand your comment.  The Scriptures that Christ had in physical presence were the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament.  However since Christ is God, are you saying you do not believe that He knew what the New Testament would say, since He is the one who had words written that He wanted to be written?  And since the NT is inspired by God, what is the issue here?  Are you putting limits on God and saying that man is "higher" than God?  Of course if you do not believe God's promises, I understand what you are saying.  I just don't think it makes much sense if you are a Christian and believe in God's promises.

... M

Your quote from LCMS said that Christ and the apostles confirmed Holy Scripture as the Word of God. I think it's a very good case that they did believe that, for sure. I am simply asking for a chapter and verse where they confirmed the New Testament as the Word of God since it hadn't been written. I find it hard to believe you don't really understand my comment.

I guess I still don't understand.  The NT was written in large part by the apostles in order to record Jesus' teachings before those who had heard it died, written by those who heard Jesus' words directly, or "interviewed" those who had heard Him, plus the things God wanted written where the author is not known for sure (e.g. Hebrews).  So, how could the apostles possibly not think what they wrote was not the Word of God?  What am I missing?  Are you looking for chapter in verse in the Scriptures, and which Scriptures, for what, or do you not subscribe to the fact that the LCMS thinks the BOC is an accurate portrayal of what is in the Scriptures?  I'm confused.  Are you on another tangential quest, or is this a central matter in the Scriptures you disagree with? 

... M

[Fred]

And since the NT is inspired by God, what is the issue here? 

I think you already knew I didn't believe the NT is inspired by God.

If I might make another observation about you it is that I think when you read the Bible you read it through an LCMS lens and don't really think for yourself about what the text is saying. If you have a question about it you go talk to your LCMS pastor and he sets your thinking straight.

Consequently, I believe you see things that simply aren't there.

Go back to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. You call this "the fall" and read all kinds of things into it. You say it is the beginning of all human suffering, not only in this life but for all eternity in hell, but there is nothing in the text that actually says any of this. And then you tell yourself you are being faithful to the "Word of God" when what you are really doing is being faithful to the doctrinal teachings of your church.

[murphy_p_t]

How do the advocates of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide square the words of the Gospel, especially when considering that with Luther's doctrine he directly contradicts Christ, as illustrated below? Do Lutherans accept the passage from James below? Did Luther think these passages were corruptions inserted by Rome? If so, why didn't he delete them as he did other passages and even entire books of the Bible?

Christ taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven.”[20]

Christ taught (in the words of St. James) “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself.”[21] 

Luther teaches:  “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” – On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]

"Good works are bad and are sin like the rest." -[23]

“There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation." [24]

“He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar.”[25]

[Fred]

The NT was written in large part by the apostles in order to record Jesus' teachings before those who had heard it died, written by those who heard Jesus' words directly, or "interviewed" those who had heard Him, plus the things God wanted written where the author is not known for sure (e.g. Hebrews). 

When you make assertions like that it's hard to disagree because I don't know where to start. So much is already assumed to be true that I'm completely overwhelmed, which is probably the point.

[Mountaineer]

And since the NT is inspired by God, what is the issue here? 

I think you already knew I didn't believe the NT is inspired by God.

If I might make another observation about you it is that I think when you read the Bible you read it through an LCMS lens and don't really think for yourself about what the text is saying. If you have a question about it you go talk to your LCMS pastor and he sets your thinking straight.

Consequently, I believe you see things that simply aren't there.

Go back to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. You call this "the fall" and read all kinds of things into it. You say it is the beginning of all human suffering, not only in this life but for all eternity in hell, but there is nothing in the text that actually says any of this. And then you tell yourself you are being faithful to the "Word of God" when what you are really doing is being faithful to the doctrinal teachings of your church.

Fair enough if you do not believe.  So then why do you care what I believe, or what manner of Scripture interpretation I use?  And why do you care if the LCMS doctrine is the same as the doctrine presented in Scripture if you do not believe Scripture?    If I believe Leprechauns eat pickles on Saturday afternoon under a 10 foot tall mushroom while singing Dixie, why would that matter to you if you do not believe in Leprechauns? 

Deuteronomy 29:3-5
3 the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. 5 I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. 

If the Lord has not given you the ability to understand, see or hear, there is little I can say that would matter in the least to you.  I thought I'd quote from the OT since you do not believe the NT.

Peace brother, there is always hope. 

... M

[Fred]

How do the advocates of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide square the words of the Gospel, especially when considering that with Luther's doctrine he directly contradicts Christ, as illustrated below? Do Lutherans accept the passage from James below? Did Luther think these passages were corruptions inserted by Rome? If so, why didn't he delete them as he did other passages and even entire books of the Bible?

Christ taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven.”[20]

Christ taught (in the words of St. James) “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself.”[21] 

Luther teaches:  “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” – On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]

"Good works are bad and are sin like the rest." -[23]

“There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation." [24]

“He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar.”[25]

You can have at it with Mountaineer for a while.

I spent a good bit of time with the Catholic arguments against Protestantism before becoming an atheist and I thought a lot of them were very good.

[Fred]

Fair enough if you do not believe.  So then why do you care what I believe, or what manner of Scripture interpretation I use?

Yes, fair enough. I'll stop posting in this forum if you will. Otherwise, when I get bored and have nothing better to do I can't resist the temptation to post a response to what I believe are your nonsensical, authoritative, religious, dogmatic assertions.

[MediumTex]

The NT was written in large part by the apostles in order to record Jesus' teachings before those who had heard it died, written by those who heard Jesus' words directly, or "interviewed" those who had heard Him, plus the things God wanted written where the author is not known for sure (e.g. Hebrews). 

When you make assertions like that it's hard to disagree because I don't know where to start. So much is already assumed to be true that I'm completely overwhelmed, which is probably the point.

If you believe that the Gospels were simply a precise transcription several decades after the fact of events exactly as they occurred, with all of the appropriate editorial decisions made, then it's not a big deal to believe that the apostles "pre-approved" the New Testament before it was actually written.

It would be like a believer saying: "God's going to oversee its writing?  Okay, then yeah, I approve of whatever it is, or might someday be."

[Mountaineer]

How do the advocates of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide square the words of the Gospel, especially when considering that with Luther's doctrine he directly contradicts Christ, as illustrated below? Do Lutherans accept the passage from James below? Did Luther think these passages were corruptions inserted by Rome? If so, why didn't he delete them as he did other passages and even entire books of the Bible?

Christ taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven.”[20]

Christ taught (in the words of St. James) “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself.”[21] 

Luther teaches:  “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” – On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]

"Good works are bad and are sin like the rest." -[23]

“There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation." [24]

“He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar.”[25]

My guess (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you do not endorse Article IV of the Augsburg Confession, one of the documents in the Book of Concord:

Article IV: Of Justification.
1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

Basically and very simplistically, LCMS Lutherans would probably say:  I am saved solely because of what Christ did on the cross (saved by the freely given grace of God).  I am so thankful for what He did to save me and believe in His promises which are totally truthful, that I want to help my neighbor (good works) as Christ helped me.  Good works are very important to benefit your neighbor, they just don't save you.

... M
 

[Mountaineer]

Fair enough if you do not believe.  So then why do you care what I believe, or what manner of Scripture interpretation I use?

Yes, fair enough. I'll stop posting in this forum if you will. Otherwise, when I get bored and have nothing better to do I can't resist the temptation to post a response to what I believe are your nonsensical, authoritative, religious, dogmatic assertions.

No deal.  I think you should do what you feel and think you have to do.  Blessings, Dude!  God loves you regardless and will save you if you turn back to God and His Word.

... M

[Fred]

Fair enough if you do not believe.  So then why do you care what I believe, or what manner of Scripture interpretation I use?

Yes, fair enough. I'll stop posting in this forum if you will. Otherwise, when I get bored and have nothing better to do I can't resist the temptation to post a response to what I believe are your nonsensical, authoritative, religious, dogmatic assertions.

No deal.  I think you should do what you feel and think you have to do.  Blessings, Dude!  God loves you regardless and will save you if you turn back to God and His Word.

... M

My last post on this thread no matter how drunk I am. Promise.

If you want to inject religion on other threads as you are wont to do, all bets are off, maybe.

[Mountaineer]

Yes, fair enough. I'll stop posting in this forum if you will. Otherwise, when I get bored and have nothing better to do I can't resist the temptation to post a response to what I believe are your nonsensical, authoritative, religious, dogmatic assertions.

No deal.  I think you should do what you feel and think you have to do.  Blessings, Dude!  God loves you regardless and will save you if you turn back to God and His Word.

... M

My last post on this thread no matter how drunk I am. Promise.

If you want to inject religion on other threads as you are wont to do, all bets are off, maybe.

Don't promise that, just abstain for a while if you wish, but don't promise.  It will not be the same with out you.  You are God's gift to this thread to help keep the believers strong in their faith and strengthen their beliefs and the unbelievers thinking they are right  .... not to mention you seem like a pretty nice person - seriously.

Blessings and best wishes regardless of your decision,

P.S. What is your beverage of choice?  Mine is Glenfidich 12 with a splash of water.

... M

[Xan]

How do the advocates of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide square the words of the Gospel, especially when considering that with Luther's doctrine he directly contradicts Christ, as illustrated below? Do Lutherans accept the passage from James below? Did Luther think these passages were corruptions inserted by Rome? If so, why didn't he delete them as he did other passages and even entire books of the Bible?

Murphy,

It's nice to have the Roman Catholic perspective represented!  Sometimes between me and Mountaineer, the conversation leans Lutheran an awful lot.  Ad O pops up with some Eastern Orthodoxy every now and again.

Let me first say that we don't believe that everything Luther ever wrote is worthwhile, and nothing he ever wrote is at the level of Scripture.  We certainly don't worship Luther, nor was he an aspotle or anything.  The Reformation was far bigger than one man, and it acquired his name through no wish of his own (in fact "Lutheran" was a derogatory term at first).  So it's certainly possible to dig up and find things that he wrote at some point which are weird or off or whatever.  You wouldn't say that everything St Paul EVER wrote in his life was Scripture, would you?

If you're looking to attack the theology of the Lutheran Reformation, then you'll need to target the Book of Concord.  Discussions about that set of texts, which we believe to be a faithful summary of Scripture, are likely to be much more fruitful than picking sentences out of a single man's lifetime of writings.

On the dig about deleting books from the Bible: the official Roman declaration of which books make up the New Testament was not made until after the Reformation, at the Council of Trent.  So having a discussion about what books belong and what books don't was not particularly out of bounds.  The Romans had that discussion a few decades later at Trent, right?

Christ taught, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven.”[20]

Good works do glorify God, no doubt.  But that doesn't mean they effect your salvation.

Christ taught (in the words of St. James) “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? So faith also, if it have not works is dead in itself.”[21]

Faith will necessarily bear fruit in the form of good works towards one's neighbor.  One of the huge themes of the New Testament is being grafted onto the True Vine, and how a branch on a good vine can't help but bear good fruit, while a branch on a bad vine can't help but bear bad fruit.  If there's a "faith" with no fruit, then it's faith in the wrong thing.

Luther teaches:  “For we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law.” – On Translation and on the Intercession of the Saints

Is St Paul contradicting Christ in Romans 3:28?  "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law."  You can quibble about whether including "alone" is a good translation or not, but that seems to be clearly implied by the "without the works of the law" part.

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]

If your salvation depends on your works, then you're pretty inevitably going to be falsely "puffed up" about how well you're doing at this whole love thing.  Or, if you have a realistic picture of how you're fulfilling the commandments, you'll be in complete despair.  Matthew 6:3: "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing".  In other words, guard against good works!

"Good works are bad and are sin like the rest." -[23]

Now it's Isaiah's turn to "contradict Christ", in Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."

“There is no scandal greater, more dangerous, more venomous, than a good outward life, manifested by good works and a pious mode of life. That is the grand portal, the highway that leads to damnation." [24]

Jesus didn't come to save people who don't need Him; who've got it all figured out on their own.  Luke 5:32: "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners."

“He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar.”[25]

The Gospel, literally "good news", is that Christ has atoned for our sins, and made available his gifts of life and salvation in the form of Baptism, Absolution, and in the eating and drinking of his true Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar.  Through those, we are grafted onto the True Vine and justified before God, and are set free to do good works.

A different gospel would be something like: "come get charged up with supernatural powers that enable you to earn your righteousness through works of the Law".  That's better than ginning it up all on your own, but it isn't that far off.

It was only at Trent that the Roman Catholics anathematized the true Gospel.  Up until then, it was possible for faithful Roman Catholics to believe that Christ actually worked their salvation.

Here's how I see good works: a good work is one done for the benefit of another with no expectation of reward.  You can do a lot of works without reward in this life, but if your plan is to go to God and say "Look at all these good works I did!  Now give me my reward." then were they really done for your neighbor's benefit, or for your own?

That's why I used the phrase "free to do good works" earlier.  If good works are required in order to be saved, then there is no such thing as a good work.  But if I have been freed from the law, then any works that I do are purely for my neighbor's benefit and for no other reason.  THOSE are good works.

Back to Luther: he was certainly not against good works in any way.  I'm thinking particularly of the "Invocavit" sermons he preached immediately after returning to Wittenberg after being in protective custody for a year at Wartburg Castle.  He castigated the people for receiving God's gifts in the Sacraments but then failing to turn around and treat their neighbors with the same love and grace which they had been given.

Also, Luther was a staunch defender of things that you would hold dear against the "Radical Reformation", things both theological and of outward form: the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper, Baptism being effective rather than symbolic, crucifixes, vestments, creeds, etc.

[murphy_p_t]

Thank you for extensive reply Xan.

On the dig about deleting books from the Bible: the official Roman declaration of which books make up the New Testament was not made until after the Reformation, at the Council of Trent.  So having a discussion about what books belong and what books don't was not particularly out of bounds.  The Romans had that discussion a few decades later at Trent, right?

While it is true that the canon was officially codified at Trent, in response to the Protestant movement, the canon had already been established and accepted much earlier. "The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442"

"The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

"The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546)
This ecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers, Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Now I quote a less reliable site:
"By what authority do you base your Old Testament canon?  Do you base it on the academic opinions of doctors and theologians?  Or do you base it on the apostolic authority of the apostles and bishops of the early Church?  My question is, if the Septuagint (Deuterocanon) was good enough for the apostles and early Church, with its additional seven books and all, then why is it not good enough for us today?"
http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013 ... books.html

[Mountaineer]

Murphy and others,

You may like this episode of "Boars in the Vineyard".  After the introduction where Pastor Tim and Pastor Lewis are talking about pork brains  , they quickly get into a discussion of confessional Lutheranism and the Roman Catholic tradition, and later a discussion about if you do not believe the confession that is being taught and do not believe it is true, then you should go to some other Christian tradition that you believe preaches and teaches the truth.  The episode, in my opinion, discusses the recent conversations on this thread.

http://boarsinthevineyard.libsyn.com/ep ... an-tagteam

... M

[murphy_p_t]

Mountaineer...I listened to 30 minutes or so of the link...they mentioned some of the ancient church councils, (which implies the councils prior to xxxx are valid and a point of reference?)

Also, I understand that the Missouri Synod accepts the Nicene creed?

There are things in these councils / creeds which are not found in scripture, such as: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

Please explain how the Missouri Synod insists upon Sola Scriptura, yet adheres to (and recites?) the Nicene creed. My perception is that the more conservative Lutherans don't really adhere to Sola Scriptura as do the Calvinistic religions/denominations. And that they do incorporate some Tradition of the catholic Church.

Also, I find it ironic looking at some protestant ministers wearing Roman collars! http://blogs.lcms.org/2016/confessional ... raw-closer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer...I listened to 30 minutes or so of the link...they mentioned some of the ancient church councils, (1. which implies the councils prior to xxxx are valid and a point of reference?)

2. Also, I understand that the Missouri Synod accepts the Nicene creed?

3. There are things in these councils / creeds which are not found in scripture, such as: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

4. Please explain how the Missouri Synod insists upon Sola Scriptura, yet adheres to (and recites?) the Nicene creed. My perception is that the more conservative Lutherans don't really adhere to Sola Scriptura as do the Calvinistic religions/denominations. And that they do incorporate some Tradition of the catholic Church.

5. Also, I find it ironic looking at some protestant ministers wearing Roman collars! http://blogs.lcms.org/2016/confessional ... raw-closer

Murphy,

I am numbering the comments/questions in your post for ease of my response.  Thanks for taking the time to listen to the program and ask your questions; it is an interesting discussion.

1. It is my understanding there are many writings of the pre and post Nicene Church Fathers that are utilized in the LCMS, they just are not necessarily salvific or basis for doctrine but are valuable for study.  We say the same thing about the Apocryphal Books that were discussed previously.  We sometimes discuss some of the writings in our Adult study classes (a.k.a. Sunday School, Adult Bible Study).  We think that only the Holy Scriptures (and the Lutheran Confessions - a.k.a. Book of Concord - which accurately reflect the teaching in Scripture) are normative for doctrine.  Thus, the term Sola Scriptura.  You did not ask the question "If it is Sola Scriptura" how can you also say "Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Sola Christus?"  My answer would be these Solas are included in Scripture, e.g. Eph 2:8.

See  http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#creeds  for more details on LCMS doctrine if you are interested.

2. Yes, we recite either the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed at almost every weekly Divine Service.  We also accept the Anathasian Creed but do not recite it very often.

3. Yes, such as the filioque which is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox church if my understanding is correct and was one of the reasons for the schism of 1054AD

4. See answer 1.  As for tradition, yes we think it is important, just not of equal weight with Scripture and not necessarily salvific.

5. Minor point but Lutherans do not consider themselves protestants.  We are of the Lutheran tradition.  Generally, the our view is several of the protestant denominations/traditions went "too far" after the Lutheran reformation - e.g. getting rid of icons and art, infant baptism, not accepting Christ's body and blood are truly present at the Lord's Table, decision theology.  Yes, almost all Lutheran Pastors that I am aware of wear the collar much of the time and almost always in a full Divine Service.  To the best of my knowledge, Martin Luther never had the desire to split from the catholic church; he just wanted to reform the corruption that had crept in and were not Scriptural, e.g. indulgences - forbidden marriage of pastors, and get back to what the earlier church was like in its focus on Jesus and Scripture, both first and second testaments being about Jesus.  I do not believe Luther had any desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater as some of the later "protestent denominations/traditions" did.  I don't know if you have ever been to an traditional confessional LCMS Divine Service, but I expect you would find the liturgy similar to that which is practiced in Roman Catholic churchs (unlike some ELCA, progressive protestant, or progressive RC congregations that lean toward the happy clappy style of worship  ).

What did you think of the linked program that you mentioned in your post?  Was it consistent with your view of Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism? 

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Murphy,

The Lutheran Reformation was and is known as the "conservative Reformation".  It is defined just as importantly, I would say more importantly, by what it retained than by what it overturned.  Rejection of error does not mean that you now have the truth; the truth must be carefully preserved.

The Lutheran church sees herself as not a new church, but as the current expression of the true church going all the way back, including the Roman Catholic church before the Reformation.  So yes, the ecumenical councils are accepted, as are the Creeds (we say the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday, as Mountaineer alluded to), clerical collars, vestments, crucifixes, and all the small-c catholic doctrine like the Real Presence, efficacious Baptism, etc.

I think you're confusing Sola Scriptura with "Nuda Scriptura".  Sola Scriptura says that everything that we teach, confess, and practice must not contradict Scripture.  Nuda Scriptura says that nothing other than Scripture is valid or useful in any way and must be thrown out.

We DO incorporate catholic tradition, absolutely.  The only thing is that our tradition is not a source of new doctrine.  It's a contradiction in terms for tradition to be a source of doctrine.

[murphy_p_t]

I think you're confusing Sola Scriptura with "Nuda Scriptura".  Sola Scriptura says that everything that we teach, confess, and practice must not contradict Scripture.  Nuda Scriptura says that nothing other than Scripture is valid or useful in any way and must be thrown out.

We DO incorporate catholic tradition, absolutely.  The only thing is that our tradition is not a source of new doctrine.  It's a contradiction in terms for tradition to be a source of doctrine.

Paragraph one helps greatly in my understanding of the Lutheran meaning to Sola Scriptura.

Regards paragraph 2...perhaps you would say that tradition develops doctrine? Rather than being a source of new doctrine?

[murphy_p_t]

  I don't know if you have ever been to an traditional confessional LCMS Divine Service, but I expect you would find the liturgy similar to that which is practiced in Roman Catholic churchs

I did when I was in college (1990s) as my best HS friend was visiting campus...you are right, without knowing the Catholic novus ordo mass, the Lutheran service was nearly indistinguishable, in appearances. Yet it is something completely different from the sacrifice of the mass, which occurs on Catholic altars. Catholics believe that each mass is the presentation of the sacrifice of calvary. The validly ordained priest has the power to confer this sacrifice, due to his ordination.

The novus ordo came into being following the Vatican II council and has had some minor revisions since then...

I'm very interested to know about the Lutheran liturgy, however. When did the LCMS service I witnessed come into being? Is the liturgy as practiced today then same which Luther did? As you probably know, the mass in the Latin Rite (western Church) before Vatican II  is completely different from the Novus Ordo.

What did you think of the linked program that you mentioned in your post?  Was it consistent with your view of Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism? 

Most of what I took away (I was doing chores while listening) was the preachers lamenting congregants not adhering completely to Lutheran doctrines. To the point of recommending congregants leave for popery if they think its true!@

Contrasting with In Finnegan’s Wake,  James Joyce suggests that the Catholic Church can be described as “Here comes everybody.”

Yet, people witnessing a Catholic mass should not receive the Eucharist if they are not "in communion" in that the accept what the Church teaches infallibly.

More recently, I witnessed an Anglican service in Asia...which was nearly indistinguishable from the novus ordo.

[murphy_p_t]

In the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Churches) we have apostolic succession, meaning, in part, that the ordination of each individual bishop is traced back to one of the apostles. And every priest is ordained by one of these bishops. This is referenced in the Nicene creed as a defining characteristic of the catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic).

Anglican ministers appeared that they might also have apostolic succession, and this was examined by the Catholic Church in the late 1800s. The verdict, by Pope Leo XIII, is that their orders are "absolutely null and utterly void." As my cousin referred to the leader of the Anglicans as the "Arch-layman of Canterbury". As I recall, the issue is that the bishops in the Anglican religion cannot trace their ordinations back to the apostles.

Do Lutherans (LCMS or otherwise) claim to have bishops who can trace their ordinations back to the apostles thru the laying of hands? I think in the Teutonic lands of northern Europe, there are Lutherans who claim to be bishops, but I dont' know that they claim apostolic succession.