-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And now for the "why don't"s...
- Thread starter Deacon's Son
- Start date
Which presents another real problem. What did Luther mean? If everything Luther said was clear and obvious, why do we have three major Lutheran denominations that are sometimes working against each other (WELS, LCMS, and ELCA), as well as countless smaller break offs from those. If Luther truely restored the Church, as Lutherans believe, why don't Lutherans agree? In fact, I know that the LCMS, under former Pres. Al Berry, hardly treated the ELCA as Lutherans at all. In that sense, how do we know which Lutheran is closer to what Luther actually taught?
Furthermore, Luther was but a man, and man is fallible, as you so love to point out. And if man if fallible, Luther could be wrong. And if Luther could be wrong, and we disagree, that means we revert to our own interpretations of Scriptures (as is evidenced that there is not ONE Lutheran body, but many separated). And when we interpret Scripture differently and for ourselves, we are bound to make mistakes. For there can be only ONE Lutheran body that has it ALL correct. That makes the others wrong. Of course, you can say that "it doesn't matter to have everything PERFECTLY correct, as long as we get as close as we can," but if you say that, then there would be no reason to separate from other Lutheran brethren.
That was a lot of rambling, but it makes perfect since. Luther wanted to have "Solo Scriptura" so much that he took books out of the Bible, added a word, and called books of the Bible like James to be "epistles of straw." He conformed the Bible to meet his views. I simply cannot accept that.
I'd like to add something about Liturgy. A former LCMS pastor at our church has since broken off from the LCMS because the LCMS would NOT let him use his own liturgy. He had to use the prescribed liturgy or a variety of it.
Liturgy is extra-Biblical, and it is not for salvation, but the LCMS would rather make him form a new church than let him do liturgy his way.
Extra-Scriptural things obviously have importance.
Okay - Sir Ed. Then let me rephrase my question.
Why don't Lutherans who claim that Scripture is the "final authority" really use it as the final authority?
Why does the ELCA have to do a 5-year study on homosexual pastors and same-sex unions and marriage, when the "final authority" of scripture is clear?
Why do some Synods put the Lutheran Confessional documents in The Book of Concord above Scripture in defining doctrine?
Why use the words "Sola Sciptura" if you don't mean it?
Sola = Only
Sciptura = Scripture
Even my limited (3 years) of Latin covered the meaning of those simple words. So why use them?
Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide????
So why don't Lutherans just come up with some other term?
Carole
Hi Dojo Grant,
you wrote:
"Luther wanted to have "Solo Scriptura" so much that he took books out of the Bible, added a word, and called books of the Bible like James to be "epistles of straw"
I really don't know too much about Luther. I've read one biography and some basic history. I know he translated the Bible into German and there's been some question as to its accuracy.
My specific questions:
What did he add? What word? And where was it added? Do Lutherans prefer a particular translation of the Bible?
That should be simple
.
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
you wrote:
"Luther wanted to have "Solo Scriptura" so much that he took books out of the Bible, added a word, and called books of the Bible like James to be "epistles of straw"
I really don't know too much about Luther. I've read one biography and some basic history. I know he translated the Bible into German and there's been some question as to its accuracy.
My specific questions:
What did he add? What word? And where was it added? Do Lutherans prefer a particular translation of the Bible?
That should be simple
.Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
I don't know that there is one preferred translation (since there are a whole lot of Lutherans). I do know that Concordia Publishing House did publish a NIV Study Bible with a Lutheran slant. Basically they took the NIV Study Bible that is so popular and added comments by Luther to each of the Introductions and rewrote some of the footnotes to reflect the Lutheran (specifically Missouri Synod) theological slant.Originally posted by UncleRay:
Hi Dojo Grant,
you wrote:
"Luther wanted to have "Solo Scriptura" so much that he took books out of the Bible, added a word, and called books of the Bible like James to be "epistles of straw"
I really don't know too much about Luther. I've read one biography and some basic history. I know he translated the Bible into German and there's been some question as to its accuracy.
My specific questions:
What did he add? What word? And where was it added? Do Lutherans prefer a particular translation of the Bible?
That should be simple
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
I have seen the RSV, NKJV, NIV and NRSV in the various Lutheran churches I have attended.
As for the word Luther added. Luther translated Romans 3:28 as:
"man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the Law" (NASB)
He added the word "alone" to the verse.
Carole
T
tulpje
Guest
Carole that simply is not true. Luther did NOT Translate that versoin first of all and second of all taht is not what it says:Romans 3:28 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Listen to this
Romans 3
28 For (1) we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Bible GateWay http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=romans+3%3A28&version=NASB&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english
Listen to this
Romans 3
28 For (1) we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Bible GateWay http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=romans+3%3A28&version=NASB&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english
Hi,
I think you are missing what Carole is saying here. Of course Martin Luther didn't add anything to the NASB. This translation did not exist when Luther was living. Luther made his own translation (from latin) and it was in German, not English. Very few people use this translation anymore but it is available on line in various places. Here's one: Die Bibel (Luther trans.)
Here's Luther's translation of Romans 3:28...
So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.
Here's an english translation of the german translation of latin:
Thus we hold now, that the person is made righteous without the
works of the law, alone through faith.
It's the addition of the word "allein" or "alone" (Click here for a German-English Dictionary) that is in question.
Carole might not have been very exact in her post but I don't think she was being dishonest. She put the word "alone" in brackets to show what Luther had added.
Hope that helps clear things up!
Hi,
I think you are missing what Carole is saying here. Of course Martin Luther didn't add anything to the NASB. This translation did not exist when Luther was living. Luther made his own translation (from latin) and it was in German, not English. Very few people use this translation anymore but it is available on line in various places. Here's one: Die Bibel (Luther trans.)
Here's Luther's translation of Romans 3:28...
So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht wird ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.
Here's an english translation of the german translation of latin:
Thus we hold now, that the person is made righteous without the
works of the law, alone through faith.
It's the addition of the word "allein" or "alone" (Click here for a German-English Dictionary) that is in question.
Carole might not have been very exact in her post but I don't think she was being dishonest. She put the word "alone" in brackets to show what Luther had added.
Hope that helps clear things up!</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for clarifying that for me.
Remove the word in brackets and you have the current usage. However, in the Luther Bible (circa the 16th Century) the text includes the word alone.
Using brackets to show where the word was added, by the way Jeanie, is a common literary device used in term papers and textbooks.
Sorry to have confused you.
Carole
tulpje, Carole is correct on that point.
Carol asked:
[ March 08, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]
Carol asked:
We do.
I don't know. Why do any of us do the sinful things we do?
Thats news to me. Name one.
We do. Let me give you an example. The U. S. Constitution is the sole authority in the same way Scripture is. That doesn't mean we don't have court decisions, statutes, etc to guide us.
[ March 08, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]
We do. Let me give you an example. The U. S. Constitution is the sole authority in the same way Scripture is. That doesn't mean we don't have court decisions, statutes, etc to guide us.</font>[/QUOTE]Amazing. Did you know that in more than one instance, that is the EXACT thing a Catholic apologist has used to defend the CATHOLIC position? And here, you are approving of it. Yes, the Bible is everything, but in the same respect, it is nothing if we cannot properly interpret the way the writers, through God Himself, intended for us to do so. God isn't vague; he's specific and exacting. It's man that pulls vagueness from His Word. The Catholic Church has the magistrate (the Bishops of the world) to hold fast to traditions (interpretations) of the Word of God. Welcome to the club, and thanks for agreeing with us!
I hope that this has sufficiently answered your questions. You too, Uncle Ray!
Anyway, again, look up Luther in relation to nominalistic thinking; it heavily influenced him in the wrong way.
T
tulpje
Guest
We do.
I don't know. Why do any of us do the sinful things we do?
Thats news to me. Name one.
We do. Let me give you an example. The U. S. Constitution is the sole authority in the same way Scripture is. That doesn't mean we don't have court decisions, statutes, etc to guide us.</font>[/QUOTE]ELCA hardly counts. They are barely considered Christian, never mind Lutheran. You should know that Carole. Furthermore, Scripture is the sole authority, the confessions are based entirely on scrcripture. From the WELS "This We Believe":
http://www.wels.net/sab/frm-bel.html
We believe that the Bible is fully sufficient, clearly teaching people all they need to know to get to heaven. It makes them "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15), and it equips them for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). Since God's plan of salvation has been fully revealed in the canonical books of the Bible, we need and expect no other revelations (Hebrews 1:1,2). The church is built on the teachings of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
We believe and accept the Bible on its own terms, accepting as factual history what it presents as history and recognizing as figurative speech what is evident as such. We believe that Scripture must interpret Scripture, clear passages throwing light on those less easily understood. We believe that no authority--whether it is human reason, science, or scholarship--may stand in judgment over Scripture. Sound scholarship will faithfully search out the true meaning of Scripture without presuming to pass judgment on it.
We believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life. Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be in harmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.
______________________________________________
If you WANT Carole, I CAN get into an argument about how the ELCA rejects scripture and the confessions. Unfortunately, 2/3 of all Lutherans are represented by this hetrodox church body. ELCA is not the church that Martin Luther founded or intended. It is a sad, true reality.
In fact, Carole, you are like the two faces of Eve. Last I knew, before you became a Muslim, you adhered to the historical-critical method of interpreting scripture and denied that the only way of salvation was through Christ alone. Isn't this what the Catholic church teaches also?
[ March 09, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: tulpje ]
T
tulpje
Guest
Which presents another real problem. What did Luther mean? If everything Luther said was clear and obvious, why do we have three major Lutheran denominations that are sometimes working against each other (WELS, LCMS, and ELCA), as well as countless smaller break offs from those. If Luther truely restored the Church, as Lutherans believe, why don't Lutherans agree? In fact, I know that the LCMS, under former Pres. Al Berry, hardly treated the ELCA as Lutherans at all. In that sense, how do we know which Lutheran is closer to what Luther actually taught?
QB]</font>[/QUOTE]At one point in time, not too long ago in the distant past, the LCMS and the WELS were in fellowship with one another. The predisesors or the ELCA were always consididered moderate in their confessionalism. If you grew up a lutheran you should know all of this. The LCMS has moved away from the old Synodlical Confrence in it's confessionalism and is not a moderate confessional church while the ELCA is out right heterodox. The WELS has stayed confessional and very orthodox. These synods, the LCMS and the ELCA, have moved away from what the scriptures and henceforth, what the confessions teach.
Hoew misguided and prejudiced you are. First, Carole already said that she did NOT become Muslim (way to listen), and is not even Catholic yet (not until 2003).
And again, you choose to close your ears and listen half-heartedly to what we say. Christ alone saves us; if you've heard otherwise, you've been reading what you want to read and not what we've been saying. I'm ashamed.
Which presents another real problem. What did Luther mean? If everything Luther said was clear and obvious, why do we have three major Lutheran denominations that are sometimes working against each other (WELS, LCMS, and ELCA), as well as countless smaller break offs from those. If Luther truely restored the Church, as Lutherans believe, why don't Lutherans agree? In fact, I know that the LCMS, under former Pres. Al Berry, hardly treated the ELCA as Lutherans at all. In that sense, how do we know which Lutheran is closer to what Luther actually taught?
QB]</font>[/QUOTE]At one point in time, not too long ago in the distant past, the LCMS and the WELS were in fellowship with one another. The predisesors or the ELCA were always consididered moderate in their confessionalism. If you grew up a lutheran you should know all of this. The LCMS has moved away from the old Synodlical Confrence in it's confessionalism and is not a moderate confessional church while the ELCA is out right heterodox. The WELS has stayed confessional and very orthodox. These synods, the LCMS and the ELCA, have moved away from what the scriptures and henceforth, what the confessions teach.</font>[/QUOTE]Which goes to show that you are following the WELS church because of how they follow what Luther taught. Luther isn't the Bible, and was just as fallible as you and I. To follow the exact teachings of but one of MANY reformers, you are just picking one interpretation over the other, putting faith in one man's doctrine over another. You can deny that all you want, but it's the truth.
In other words, it is impossible for you to say that "The Bible is the sole/final authority," because it's not. The Lutheran Confessions are your final authority. If you wish to remain WELS, you can spend all the time searching Scriptures that you want, but in the end, you're going to have to accept with the Lutheran Confessions say about those Scriptures. Therefore, the Bible is an authority, but the Confessions are the final authority. Otherwise, in confirmation we would have been reading Scripture the whole time, not learning/memorizing the Small Catechism.
T
tulpje
Guest
We believe that the Bible is fully sufficient, clearly teaching people all they need to know to get to heaven. It makes them "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15), and it equips them for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). Since God's plan of salvation has been fully revealed in the canonical books of the Bible, we need and expect no other revelations (Hebrews 1:1,2). The church is built on the teachings of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
_______________________________________________
You have probably never even been in a WELS church so you do not know the incredible value that is placed on scripture.
Furthermore, the creeds and the confessions are fully based on scripture. The Catholic church themselves uses the creeds.
My third point is that there is a man here called the Barbarian whom is Catholic whom I had an argument over a)the inerrancey of scripture and b)the only way to salvation is through Christ alone. He adhered to the historical-critical method of interpretaion and thought that you could be a muslim and jew and still get to heaven like Carole does. Please see "After 9/11" in the political forum.
T
tulpje
Guest
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=32&t=000259&p=
This is what good Catholics in 2002 belive.
This is what good Catholics in 2002 belive.
We believe that the Bible is fully sufficient, clearly teaching people all they need to know to get to heaven. It makes them "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15), and it equips them for "every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). Since God's plan of salvation has been fully revealed in the canonical books of the Bible, we need and expect no other revelations (Hebrews 1:1,2). The church is built on the teachings of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
_______________________________________________
You have probably never even been in a WELS church so you do not know the incredible value that is placed on scripture.
Furthermore, the creeds and the confessions are fully based on scripture. The Catholic church themselves uses the creeds.
My third point is that there is a man here called the Barbarian whom is Catholic whom I had an argument over a)the inerrancey of scripture and b)the only way to salvation is through Christ alone. He adhered to the historical-critical method of interpretaion and thought that you could be a muslim and jew and still get to heaven like Carole does. Please see "After 9/11" in the political forum.</font>[/QUOTE]Try studying Lutheranism more. You'll see that the early Lutheran Church "made no pronouncement over the OT Canon." The Lutheran Confessions were created in unison with the duetero-canical books of the Bible. In fact, Lutherans are allowed to believe that these books are inspired. Therefore, when II Maccabees says that praying for the dead is good, as Lutheran, I'm allowed to believe this to be true...I simply do not have to. How wishy-washy is that?