Protestants, At What Point Does It Become Not The Body?

[JacktheCatholic]

Are women not part of the Family of God? Of course they are. Thus by your line of reasoning (that one must not be a Jewish male because Gentiles were added to the Family of God) women are also of the Family of God and thus they are appropriate matter for ordination.

Male an Female are created different.

Females carry the child and the Male provides the seed. Two different types, though both human and created equal and yet different.

Your argument is akin to stating that milk is a drink, as is water, and thus one can baptize with milk. It lacks logic and cohesion and is a simple correlation that fails to make a valid comparison.

Stop trying to make a nut into a bolt. Leave things as God created them.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually, I think a better question might be, 'How can a created being, having no authority over God, have the audacity to believe he has the power to pull Jesus from His throne to be offered up again?'

I see the logical protestant mindset is at work yet again. You try and turn the Sacrament of the Altar into a work that we do; it is not. It is what God does. No person pulls anything from anywhere. It is a miracle. As a Christian we read Scripture and miracles seem to be quite common place; today many Christians question why miracles have stopped, some go so far as to say that because of our sin we have no miracles because we no longer deserve them. Such is not the case, miracles occur each time the Eucharist is celebrated, each time someone is baptized, each time one's sins are forgiven.

I'm afraid that until you can get your head around the concept of an almighty, Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and omnipresent God that it will be impossible for you to believe the words of Scripture and accept the fact that in the Eucharist, God (not man) transcends time and space. The Church militant and Church triumphant meet, praying and celebrating together whenever the Mass is celebrated. How this happens is a profound mystery; Scripture tells us it does happen; and it happens despite our unbelief.

 

[Ignatius21]

I see the logical protestant mindset is at work yet again. You try and turn the Sacrament of the Altar into a work that we do; it is not. It is what God does. No person pulls anything from anywhere. It is a miracle. As a Christian we read Scripture and miracles seem to be quite common place; today many Christians question why miracles have stopped, some go so far as to say that because of our sin we have no miracles because we no longer deserve them. Such is not the case, miracles occur each time the Eucharist is celebrated, each time someone is baptized, each time one's sins are forgiven.

I'm afraid that until you can get your head around the concept of an almighty, Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and omnipresent God that it will be impossible for you to believe the words of Scripture and accept the fact that in the Eucharist, God (not man) transcends time and space. The Church militant and Church triumphant meet, praying and celebrating together whenever the Mass is celebrated. How this happens is a profound mystery; Scripture tells us it does happen; and it happens despite our unbelief.

Nicely phrased

It seems Lutherans (Confessional ones ) have largely retained what I would call the sacramental understanding (and underpinning) of Christian worship and life. The sacredness of time, space and matter.

 

[Ignatius21]

More the use of improper interpretive standards; Confessional Lutheran Synods use a pure approach to Sola Scriptura.

I'm bristling with questions at this point, but I think they'd be way off topic in this already somewhat meandering thread. Perhaps we can discuss in another thread? I spent the better part of a year in discussion with my elders/pastors in a Reformed church, about "sola scriptura" and the like, on my way out of Protestantism. But I do confess to not knowing much about Lutheranism. The only exposure I had was the liberal variety, or one LCMS parish that had generally gone in a "pop evangelical" direction to try and increase its outreach.

Now with respect to the bolded portion above...I find it curious and nigh unto bewildering. Such questions as "If one must properly interpret scripture to derive a proper interpretive standard" and one needs the proper interpretive standard to properly interpret scritpure...well, chicken-egg, etc.

And I'm dying to know what a "pure" approch to sola scritpura is

It's not that they have lost the Holy Spirit, but that our sinful nature can cause misinterpretation. We would not consider these Churches and denominations as heretical, but again as heterodox.

Back at ya

Does it follow, then, that only Lutherans have interpreted Scritpure without sin? The confessional standards in that case are beginning to sound much like an infallible magisterium....

One of the Orthodox posters (may even have been you) posted that with regards to mysteries, they can say we don't know; Lutherans can and do accept Divine mystery as well. We do not have a need to justify theology with logic, we do not believe that the application of Scripture changes with the times. With regard to the Eucharist, Luther wrote that "it is what it is".

.

Well that's refreshing. Again I'd be happy to discuss this more with you. I just don't want to derail the thread. I suspect we have much in common. the more I learn about Lutheranism, the more I think I may have wandered in that direction from Reformed churches...maybe sojourned a while on my way to Orthodoxy

 

[Rick Otto]

Stop trying to make a nut into a bolt. Leave things as God created them

You're interpretation of how God created things is a seperate issue apart from your confusion of things themselves. Women are already priests by virtue of the fact of their memership in the priesthood of believers.
That they could function differently as appropriate to their sex is respectful of both their difference & their equality.

I see the logical protestant mindset is at work yet again.

Versus the irrational Catholic mindset?

You try and turn the Sacrament of the Altar into a work that we do; it is not.

It is irrational to not acknowlege your active part in it.

It is what God does.

I don't, haven't, & don't need to deny that God responds to our actions.

No person pulls anything from anywhere.

So you say, even though you require not only a person to perform, but that person must be male, ordained, etc. & they use special language to perform it. You're cognitive dissonance has your mindset held hostage.

It is a miracle. As a Christian we read Scripture and miracles seem to be quite common place; today many Christians question why miracles have stopped, some go so far as to say that because of our sin we have no miracles because we no longer deserve them. Such is not the case, miracles occur each time the Eucharist is celebrated, each time someone is baptized, each time one's sins are forgiven.

You play upon a presumed sense of guilt for not appreciating what's miraculous, to sell me your easy equation of the eucharist metaphor with the spectacular miracles (mostly of healing) thruoghout the gospels.

By your assertion of free will, you try & turn what is a work of God into an act of your own will. ...And you have the pluck to accuse a "logical protestant mindset".
lol, smh

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nicely phrased

It seems Lutherans (Confessional ones ) have largely retained what I would call the sacramental understanding (and underpinning) of Christian worship and life. The sacredness of time, space and matter.

Thank you; indeed we do; as do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches

If you are interested, this is a great book: Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service, by Arthur Just. Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service

Great book written and compiled by a Lutheran, but looks at liturgical worship from both an east and western perspective. My opinion; while written with a "Lutheran" perspective, this is one of those books that transcends individual confessions.

 

[Metal Minister]

I see the logical protestant mindset is at work yet again. You try and turn the Sacrament of the Altar into a work that we do; it is not. It is what God does. No person pulls anything from anywhere. It is a miracle. As a Christian we read Scripture and miracles seem to be quite common place; today many Christians question why miracles have stopped, some go so far as to say that because of our sin we have no miracles because we no longer deserve them. Such is not the case, miracles occur each time the Eucharist is celebrated, each time someone is baptized, each time one's sins are forgiven.

I'm afraid that until you can get your head around the concept of an almighty, Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and omnipresent God that it will be impossible for you to believe the words of Scripture and accept the fact that in the Eucharist, God (not man) transcends time and space. The Church militant and Church triumphant meet, praying and celebrating together whenever the Mass is celebrated. How this happens is a profound mystery; Scripture tells us it does happen; and it happens despite our unbelief.

Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

"It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ the Eternal and Omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

"Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ; he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially found of applying to the priest is that of 'alter Christus.' For the priest is and should be another Christ" (Faith of Millions, John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269, "nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne).

"The priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, he has to say it for the validity of the consecration. Meum! But it is not he who says these words; his voice indeed we hear, but he is only the instrument of the Sovereign Priest: our Lord speaks through His minister. The glory of this minister consists precisely in disappearing, in allowing Jesus to act through his personality: Sacerdos alter Christus. This Christ now offering Himself to God by the hands of the priest is the same Christ who is in heaven. Same happiness, same power, same majesty. He is performing the same acts, offering the same adorations, the same thanksgiving, the same prayers. He, the object of the beatitude of the elect, is now in the hands of the priest: Agnoscite quod agitis. But if really the priest causes our Lord to be present on the altar, if he offers Him, whilst Jesus is now in heaven, have we not to conclude that it is from the very bosom of the Father that the priest draws this divine Victim? Agnoscite quod agitis". (Our Priesthood, Rev.Joseph Bruneau, S.D.D., 149-151, "nihil obstat" by M.F. Dinneen, S.S.,D.D. -Censor deputatus, "imprimatur" by James Cardinal Gibbons -Archbishop of Baltimore, "Re-Imprimatur" by Michael J. Curley -Archbishop of Baltimore).

"...we find in the obediance to the words of his priests --- Hoc est Corpus Meum ---God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. 'Oh, how very great is their power!'-The Dignity of the Priesthood by Ligouri p. 26,27


Shall I go on?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm bristling with questions at this point,<snip>

And I'm dying to know what a "pure" approch to sola scritpura is

Eliminating, as much as possible, the "human" factor; as our humanity bears the stain of original sin; so we look only to Scripture to interpret Scripture; and look only to Scripture to give context to Scripture.

Back at ya

Does it follow, then, that only Lutherans have interpreted Scritpure without sin? The confessional standards in that case are beginning to sound much like an infallible magisterium....

No, we are not perfect, but we strive for perfection.

Well that's refreshing. Again I'd be happy to discuss this more with you. I just don't want to derail the thread. I suspect we have much in common. the more I learn about Lutheranism, the more I think I may have wandered in that direction from Reformed churches...maybe sojourned a while on my way to Orthodoxy

Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

"It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ the Eternal and Omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

"Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ; he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially found of applying to the priest is that of 'alter Christus.' For the priest is and should be another Christ" (Faith of Millions, John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269, "nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne).

"The priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, he has to say it for the validity of the consecration. Meum! But it is not he who says these words; his voice indeed we hear, but he is only the instrument of the Sovereign Priest: our Lord speaks through His minister. The glory of this minister consists precisely in disappearing, in allowing Jesus to act through his personality: Sacerdos alter Christus. This Christ now offering Himself to God by the hands of the priest is the same Christ who is in heaven. Same happiness, same power, same majesty. He is performing the same acts, offering the same adorations, the same thanksgiving, the same prayers. He, the object of the beatitude of the elect, is now in the hands of the priest: Agnoscite quod agitis. But if really the priest causes our Lord to be present on the altar, if he offers Him, whilst Jesus is now in heaven, have we not to conclude that it is from the very bosom of the Father that the priest draws this divine Victim? Agnoscite quod agitis". (Our Priesthood, Rev.Joseph Bruneau, S.D.D., 149-151, "nihil obstat" by M.F. Dinneen, S.S.,D.D. -Censor deputatus, "imprimatur" by James Cardinal Gibbons -Archbishop of Baltimore, "Re-Imprimatur" by Michael J. Curley -Archbishop of Baltimore).

"...we find in the obediance to the words of his priests --- Hoc est Corpus Meum ---God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. 'Oh, how very great is their power!'-The Dignity of the Priesthood by Ligouri p. 26,27


Shall I go on?

You can go on all you want; you are quoting Catholic theologians, I'm speaking about the Confessional Lutheran position. In Catholic theology, the Mass is a work conditional on a Priest; in Lutheran theology, It's only conditional on God. So, if what you posted above was meant to discredit me; all you have done is draw attention to one of the doctrinal issues which was dealt with, from our perspective through Scripture, and explained in our Confessions. They are too many to post, so go read them here: Welcome to the Book of Concord

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You're interpretation of how God created things is a seperate issue apart from your confusion of things themselves. Women are already priests by virtue of the fact of their memership in the priesthood of believers.
That they could function differently as appropriate to their sex is respectful of both their difference & their equality.



Versus the irrational Catholic mindset?

It is irrational to not acknowlege your active part in it.

I don't, haven't, & don't need to deny that God responds to our actions.


So you say, even though you require not only a person to perform, but that person must be male, ordained, etc. & they use special language to perform it. You're cognitive dissonance has your mindset held hostage.


You play upon a presumed sense of guilt for not appreciating what's miraculous, to sell me your easy equation of the eucharist metaphor with the spectacular miracles (mostly of healing) thruoghout the gospels.

By your assertion of free will, you try & turn what is a work of God into an act of your own will. ...And you have the pluck to accuse a "logical protestant mindset".
lol, smh

I'm not big on testimonials, but I can attest to both the spiritual and physical healing conveyed through the Eucharist. If you're interested, send me a PM.

 

[Metal Minister]

You can go on all you want; you are quoting Catholic theologians, I'm speaking about the Confessional Lutheran position. In Catholic theology, the Mass is a work conditional on a Priest; in Lutheran theology, It's only conditional on God. So, if what you posted above was meant to discredit me; all you have done is draw attention to one of the doctrinal issues which was dealt with, from our perspective through Scripture, and explained in our Confessions. They are too many to post, so go read them here: Welcome to the Book of Concord

My apologies, I'm using the phone app right now, and can't see faith icons.
I'll look at your link in a bit, when I can get back on a computer.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My apologies, I'm using the phone app right now, and can't see faith icons.
I'll look at your link in a bit, when I can get back on a computer.

Thanks MM.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Male an Female are created different.

Females carry the child and the Male provides the seed. Two different types, though both human and created equal and yet different.

Your argument is akin to stating that milk is a drink, as is water, and thus one can baptize with milk. It lacks logic and cohesion and is a simple correlation that fails to make a valid comparison.

Stop trying to make a nut into a bolt. Leave things as God created them.

It is your argument that fails so far as logic is concerned. You claim that Jesus only chose men thus women are not appropriate matter for the sacrament. My response was that Jesus only chose Jewish men from Palestine but the RCC doesn't limit the Bishopric to Jewish men from Palestine. When questioned about this you claimed that it isn't limited to Jewish men because Gentiles were also brought into the family of God. When I pointed out that women are also part of the Family of God you decide the argument is invalid when in fact it is a valid refutation. Either women are fit matter for the sacrament or non-Jewish, non-Palestinian men are not. By the way women do not have to stop being women to be ordained thus there is no "making a nut into a bolt." If you think about it that is a pretty sexist comment.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It is your argument that fails so far as logic is concerned. You claim that Jesus only chose men thus women are not appropriate matter for the sacrament. My response was that Jesus only chose Jewish men from Palestine but the RCC doesn't limit the Bishopric to Jewish men from Palestine. When questioned about this you claimed that it isn't limited to Jewish men because Gentiles were also brought into the family of God. When I pointed out that women are also part of the Family of God you decide the argument is invalid when in fact it is a valid refutation. Either women are fit matter for the sacrament or non-Jewish, non-Palestinian men are not. By the way women do not have to stop being women to be ordained thus there is no "making a nut into a bolt." If you think about it that is a pretty sexist comment.

You really cannot see the lack of cohesion with your argument? You are asking about the Jewish males and then, in some incomprehensible way, try to add woman to the scenario??? The only logical thing is to ask why are gentile men able to be a bishop or priest. But, you want to magically add woman with out any rhyme or reason.

You have no argument.

 

[Ignatius21]

Eliminating, as much as possible, the "human" factor; as our humanity bears the stain of original sin; so we look only to Scripture to interpret Scripture; and look only to Scripture to give context to Scripture.

How does one eliminate the "human" factor from interpreting scripture, when it's being interpreted by humans? Surely you know that every Protestant group claims to be doing exactly this, and it's everyone else who is being too rational, too irrational, too logical, too emotional, too Catholic, too philosophical, too Greek, too Western, too Eastern, too...well, take your pick.

You have said above somewhere that the Reformed try to force too much logic and rational thought onto Scripture. They in turn say Lutherans try to keep too much human tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. Round and round we go.

I was told once that the Reformed and Lutherans even have different understandings of the canon of Scripture, although they have the same books. How exactly does one decide between the two, when each claims that very canon as its sole rule of truth?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How does one eliminate the "human" factor from interpreting scripture, when it's being interpreted by humans? Surely you know that every Protestant group claims to be doing exactly this, and it's everyone else who is being too rational, too irrational, too logical, too emotional, too Catholic, too philosophical, too Greek, too Western, too Eastern, too...well, take your pick.

The human factor can never be completely eliminated. However, when logic is used to explain away something as plainly obvious as the Bibles teaching on the real presence; when we see churches condoning abortion because of the writings of St. Paul regarding freedom from the law; when we see churches condoning same sex unions because secular society says it's OK and Scripture calls it an abominations it's time, in my opinion, to re-assess one's interpretive standards.

You have said above somewhere that the Reformed try to force too much logic and rational thought onto Scripture. They in turn say Lutherans try to keep too much human tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. Round and round we go.

Yea, Catholics say we reject tradition; reformed protestants do often say we keep to much. Truth is that Confessional Lutherans have this little thing called Adiaphora; things of indifference. So, regarding tradition, practice, and pious belief; if these things neither conflict with, nor are forbidden by Scripture, they may be retained. For example, most of our Clergy have retained the use of either Latin or Gothic vestments, many Lutherans hold the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, many Lutherans also commemorate the Dormation/Assumption of Mary, those who don't commemorate her feast day anyway. None of these are found in Scripture, some have been traditions, some have been handed down from the very beginning of the Church. None of the above are forbidden by or conflict with Scripture.

I was told once that the Reformed and Lutherans even have different understandings of the canon of Scripture, although they have the same books. How exactly does one decide between the two, when each claims that very canon as its sole rule of truth?

Well, sort of... The Apocrypha or pseudepigrapha have been retained by Confessional Lutherans, but following Luther's lead, they are placed between the old and the new testaments. English speaking Lutherans did lose them for a while (in the Bibles we read but not in the Liturgies we used), because the only English translations readily available were the protestant KJV.

Certainly many of the more fundamentalist congregations put a great deal of emphasis on the OT and the law, and are very legalistic. Some put so much emphasis on the Gospel that the law is almost forgotten (OSAS) because once they are saved, they can no longer sin.

Even if I were not a Lutheran, I would be hard pressed to find some of what has been claimed to be taken from Scripture; and could not, in good conscience ignore what many have claimed is not there.

Right or wrong; I think our Churches are doing pretty good despite the stain of original sin that we all carry.

 

[Ignatius21]

The human factor can never be completely eliminated. However, when logic is used to explain away something as plainly obvious as the Bibles teaching on the real presence; when we see churches condoning abortion because of the writings of St. Paul regarding freedom from the law; when we see churches condoning same sex unions because secular society says it's OK and Scripture calls it an abominations it's time, in my opinion, to re-assess one's interpretive standards.

Yeah, there's some wacky stuff out there for sure. No "denomination" is free from it. I often wonder "If you don't believe any of what your church has taught for centuries, why are you so insistent on coming back and trying to undermine the whole thing? Why not go start The Church of Anything Goes and leave us old-fashioned types to our confessions and creeds?"

Now, you use the phrase "plainly obvious." Which has always troubled me, and did greatly as a Protestant, because many divisions arise over what one group swears is plainly obvious, and the other group says it isn't. Calvinists say it's plainly obvious that God unconditionally elects. Arminians say it's obvious he elects based on foreknowledge. Both can point to scriptures that appear to plainly state what they say. Just one among probably hundreds of examples. It seems to me that all the presuppositions that go into interpreting Scripture, are themselves traditions that arise within certain groups that then gel into new denominations over time. How much logic should be used to reconcile seemingly divergent statements in the text? How much weight should be given to traditions that can't be plainly proven from Scripture? Which books should be included in the canon? Of those books, which should be given priority in interpreting the others? When and where is allegory acceptable? Is there really one and only one meaning for any given text, or are there really layers of meaning (historical, allegorical, spiritual, etc.)?

Everyone seeks to "use only Scripture" to get out from under "human traditions," yet all the devices by which one does this...and the books one uses as scripture...are all traditions...

When I was leaving the Reformed tradition (and i use that word very deliberately), I kept questioning the beginnings of the Westminster Confession, which starts by simply laying out which books are Scripture, which are not, and how one is to interpret them. It then goes on to derive everything else in its scope, from Scripture references. But what about that first chapter? Where did all these assumptions come from? Poof! Here it is! Now we can move on.

I have not read Lutheran confessions so perhaps they don't have this self-referential element, I don't know. But for other groups I have studied, eventually it all seems to boil down to "Trust us, we're right. We have the Holy Spirit and just use the Bible."

Yea, Catholics say we reject tradition; reformed protestants do often say we keep to much. Truth is that Confessional Lutherans have this little thing called Adiaphora; things of indifference. So, regarding tradition, practice, and pious belief; if these things neither conflict with, nor are forbidden by Scripture, they may be retained. For example, most of our Clergy have retained the use of either Latin or Gothic vestments, many Lutherans hold the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, many Lutherans also commemorate the Dormation/Assumption of Mary, those who don't commemorate her feast day anyway. None of these are found in Scripture, some have been traditions, some have been handed down from the very beginning of the Church. None of the above are forbidden by or conflict with Scripture.

Yes, Orthodox have the same concept. Essentially theological opinions that one can hold without really affecting the core of the faith. Although of course the Dormition is one of our 12 great feast days, so I guess it's more than private opinion here

Well, sort of... The Apocrypha or pseudepigrapha have been retained by Confessional Lutherans, but following Luther's lead, they are placed between the old and the new testaments. English speaking Lutherans did lose them for a while (in the Bibles we read but not in the Liturgies we used), because the only English translations readily available were the protestant KJV.

Makes sense. I was more referring to a statement I read once, "Lutherans believe there is a canon within the canon," basically interpretation begins with the four gospels, then spirals out to the NT, and then the OT is all interpreted in light of this. Or something to that effect...does any of that sound familiar? I'll go dig for the quote.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sorry it took me a while to reply, I had one ready and was about to hit the post button the other day, and the power went out... gone; I forgot all about it until I found it again today.

Yeah, there's some wacky stuff out there for sure. No "denomination" is free from it. I often wonder "If you don't believe any of what your church has taught for centuries, why are you so insistent on coming back and trying to undermine the whole thing? Why not go start The Church of Anything Goes and leave us old-fashioned types to our confessions and creeds?"

Well, they do, there are one or two new Congregations which start up in our small city every year; there are about that many which close too. Those who start these, are break-a-ways from other Churches.

Now, you use the phrase "plainly obvious." Which has always troubled me, and did greatly as a Protestant, because many divisions arise over what one group swears is plainly obvious, and the other group says it isn't. Calvinists say it's plainly obvious that God unconditionally elects. Arminians say it's obvious he elects based on foreknowledge. Both can point to scriptures that appear to plainly state what they say. Just one among probably hundreds of examples. It seems to me that all the presuppositions that go into interpreting Scripture, are themselves traditions that arise within certain groups that then gel into new denominations over time. How much logic should be used to reconcile seemingly divergent statements in the text? How much weight should be given to traditions that can't be plainly proven from Scripture? Which books should be included in the canon? Of those books, which should be given priority in interpreting the others? When and where is allegory acceptable? Is there really one and only one meaning for any given text, or are there really layers of meaning (historical, allegorical, spiritual, etc.)?

Everyone seeks to "use only Scripture" to get out from under "human traditions," yet all the devices by which one does this...and the books one uses as scripture...are all traditions...

"Plainly obvious" to us. Yes, you are right though, the mode of interpretation is always traditional.

When I was leaving the Reformed tradition (and i use that word very deliberately), I kept questioning the beginnings of the Westminster Confession, which starts by simply laying out which books are Scripture, which are not, and how one is to interpret them. It then goes on to derive everything else in its scope, from Scripture references. But what about that first chapter? Where did all these assumptions come from? Poof! Here it is! Now we can move on.

In our confessions, there is no list of books in the Biblical Canon... in effect one could say that the Canon remains open.

I have not read Lutheran confessions so perhaps they don't have this self-referential element, I don't know. But for other groups I have studied, eventually it all seems to boil down to "Trust us, we're right. We have the Holy Spirit and just use the Bible."

Actually the first three entries in the Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. They are followed by the Augsburg Confession (AC), which was intended to be a starting point leading to reform and reconcile Rome and Wittenburg. Rome responded with a refutation which was read verbally but not published until only a few years ago; however when it was read, Lutheran scholars wrote down transcripts. Rome intended it to be a reprimand and were not open to discussion. Lutheran theologians then responded with the Appology (explanation) of the AC. As time went on, hearts hardend on both sides, and the rest of the documents establish unity and concord within the Lutheran Church.

Yes, Orthodox have the same concept. Essentially theological opinions that one can hold without really affecting the core of the faith. Although of course the Dormition is one of our 12 great feast days, so I guess it's more than private opinion here

For quite a number of Lutherans, it is too; in our parish the feast day is "The Dormation of Mary Mother of our Lord".

Makes sense. I was more referring to a statement I read once, "Lutherans believe there is a canon within the canon," basically interpretation begins with the four gospels, then spirals out to the NT, and then the OT is all interpreted in light of this. Or something to that effect...does any of that sound familiar? I'll go dig for the quote.

Yup, here is a quote from this article;
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view:

1. A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
2. Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.

Good article, short and to the point!

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm not big on testimonials, but I can attest to both the spiritual and physical healing conveyed through the Eucharist. If you're interested, send me a PM.

lol,... just ignore me altogether.
Offering to talk to me about a different subject is kinda... wierd,

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>
You play upon a presumed sense of guilt for not appreciating what's miraculous, to sell me your easy equation of the eucharist metaphor with the spectacular miracles (mostly of healing) thruoghout the gospels.
<snip>

I'm not big on testimonials, but I can attest to both the spiritual and physical healing conveyed through the Eucharist. If you're interested, send me a PM.

lol,... just ignore me altogether.
Offering to talk to me about a different subject is kinda... wierd,

Seems to me that we were discussing the real presence and the efficacy of the Eucharist. You were the one who brought up miracles. Miracles are miracles; those we read about in Scripture and those performed daily by the omnipresent hand of God through His omnipotent will. These miracles did not end with the writing of Scripture; they continue in the the sacraments which promise the real and present forgiveness of sins, and yes, even physical healing.

To deny that such miracles continue today is being very presumptuous, and ultimately set's limits on God.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Transubstantiation or Real Presence in the eucharist is the only alleged physical miracle that occurs without any physical evidence.
As miracles go, it is unlike any of those you refer to.

So to imply I'm denying miracles occur is a mistake.
What I'm denying is the claim of the bread & wine changing in any way except it's miraculous meaning.

So in that way, it is you who are denying the truly miraculous in favor of a sensationalist/literalist interpretation of mere metaphor.