Question On Councils

What is the official and/or historical Lutheran position on the seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church? I noticed that the three Ecumenical Creeds are included with the Confessions. Are the Councils considered authoritive in Lutheranism (in a similiar way that the Creeds are)? And if not, why (especially since the Creeds are authoritive)? I have not encounter anything in the Councils which a Lutheran could or should not hold. If they are considered authoritive, why aren't they included in the Confessions?

(I'll be gone for a week, but will check back as soon as I can.)

Thanks,
Judaica

They are considered authoritative, but not in the same way as the creeds are. The creeds are part of the Book of Concord, to which confessional Lutherans subscribe as correct expositions of Biblical teaching, and authoritative for that reason. The councils are evidence of what the church believed at certain points in history and thus aid in understanding how Scripture was then interpreted. They are authoritative to the extent they agree with Scripture.

The principle is, then, that Scripture (written by prophets and apostles (or those close to them)), is the measure. The creeds (and the rest of the BOC) are not authoritative because they are independently significant, but because they objectively agree with Scripture as traditionally understood.

I suppose the councils are not in the Book of Concord, because it was felt that there was no need to import baggage of the past into the controversies of the time. The creeds, on the other hand were and are free-standing foundational summaries of Scripture.

What about the regula fide ie the general concensus of faith? If something can be demonstrated to have been held by the Fathers, going back to Polycarp and Ignatius, and if it can be reasonably shown from Scripture, are Lutherans bound to this general consensus? Or are they free to disagree with the historic interpretation of Scripture and of the Fathers, in favor of their own interpretation of Scripture?

Case in point, it is typical of Lutherans in the LCMS to deny the harrowing of hell, on the basis of Scriptural "proofs" which are at variance with the early Church Fathers (and by early, I mean Polycarp early), and with the historic interpretation of Scripture.

One would think, that by virtue of the Confession's claim to not depart from the "church catholic" would insure the authority of the councils and general consensus, in Lutheranism. But what seems to be the case, is that whatever is not explicitedly taught in the Confessions is far game. Under such a viewpoint, one could seemingly reject the councils as authoritive, even though the Confessions quote the councils, because the Confessions do not include them in their entirety.

Judaica

judaica said:

Case in point, it is typical of Lutherans in the LCMS to deny the harrowing of hell, on the basis of Scriptural "proofs" which are at variance with the early Church Fathers (and by early, I mean Polycarp early), and with the historic interpretation of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Judaica, had you seen the comments in this blog? I think some (albeit a small number) of Lutherans do believe in the patristic understanding of the harrowing of hell. But, as you can also read, such belief would not necessarily pass doctrinal review in the LCMS today.

judaica said:

What about the regula fide ie the general concensus of faith? If something can be demonstrated to have been held by the Fathers, going back to Polycarp and Ignatius, and if it can be reasonably shown from Scripture, are Lutherans bound to this general consensus? Or are they free to disagree with the historic interpretation of Scripture and of the Fathers, in favor of their own interpretation of Scripture?

Case in point, it is typical of Lutherans in the LCMS to deny the harrowing of hell, on the basis of Scriptural "proofs" which are at variance with the early Church Fathers (and by early, I mean Polycarp early), and with the historic interpretation of Scripture.

One would think, that by virtue of the Confession's claim to not depart from the "church catholic" would insure the authority of the councils and general consensus, in Lutheranism. But what seems to be the case, is that whatever is not explicitedly taught in the Confessions is far game. Under such a viewpoint, one could seemingly reject the councils as authoritive, even though the Confessions quote the councils, because the Confessions do not include them in their entirety.

Judaica

Click to expand...

I recent stated as much on my blog.

me said:

"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..."
- AC, Abuses Corrected​

"...in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic."
- AC, Conclusion​

For the church to be " Una Sancta " (the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church), these statements are absolutely key and essential. " Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est " (that which has been believed everywhere, and always, and by all). If one insert new and novel doctrines, or eliminate that which has been believed from antiquity, that one is estranging himself (or herself) from the Church catholic, the Church orthodox.

Martin Luther's intent was not to create a new faith, but to eliminate the abuses that separated the Roman Church from the Church Catholic. Martin Chemnitz, David Chytraeus, Jakob Andrae, Martin Crusius, et al, carried on this noble torch. Holy Scripture even tells us how essential this " Catholic principle " is. Just read Jesus' High Priestly Prayer (specifically John 17: 20-23 "perfected in unity"), and Paul's repeated calls for us to be of one faith, one doctrine (Romans 16:17, Ephesians 4:4-6, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:3 etc.). This clearly refers to the eternal Church throughout all time... Each age, each "denomination" does not have the latitude to pick and choose what of the True and Ancient faith they want to believe. To pick and choose is the very meaning of the word heresy.

Click to expand...

I also sent the above in an email to my pastor, requesting his commentary, and if necessary, correction.

His only concern was "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est", and the fact that it can be so easily misunderstood. In fact, it was originally used to support Semi-Pelagianism by St. Vincent of Lerins. It seems worthy to note, however, that Prosper of Aquitaine turned Vincent's own argument against him with the argument, "ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" (the law of praying establishes the law of believing), and pointing to the Roman litany where the church prays for the conversion of unbelievers. Prosper explains that if we pray for their conversion, the work of conversion is entirely Gods, not the individuals.

If we look only to the fathers, councils, etc, we are in danger of taking them out of their Scriptural context, and doing what Rome did. On the other hand, if we look only at Scripture (nuda Scriptura), and not at the universal testimony and witness of the Church catholic, we run the danger of doing what Calvin, Zwingli, Vincent, Arius, and the rest of the heretics did, and effectively become our own popes. I think the Lutheran fathers did a wonderful job of keeping these in proper perspective. I do worry greatly about the Reformed, Pietistic, "liberal" and American Evangelical influences that are so pervasive in much of the modern Lutheran Church, each of which are at least as dangerous as Romanism ever was.

I confess that I'm underinformed on what you mean by the harrowing. It's confessed in the Apostles' Creed, so LCMS pastors would be bound to teach it, but I must be missing what you mean. I've not read much on the subject, but was taught as a catechumen that Jesus descended into hell to proclaim the Gospel there. The point was made that it was part of Christ's exhaltation (as opposed to humilation), but that's all I remember about it. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the controversy?

ricg said:

I confess that I'm underinformed on what you mean by the harrowing.

Click to expand...

Harrowing of Hell

ricg said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the controversy?

Click to expand...

Apparently (from the blog comments I referenced earlier) in the April edition of 2001 of the Lutheran Witness, there is an article denying that Christ descended into hell to free the Old Testament Saints but rather the descent to hell was solely to preach the gospel and declare His victory. The article said the "harrowing of hell" or this liberation of the OT saints from hell at that time did not occur. (I have not read this particular issue of LW...I am just summarizing the blog discussion.)

Of course, that Christ entered hell and liberated it's captives, the Old Testament saints, is a catholic understanding among the fathers of the Church. 10 LCMS pastors signed a letter to the editor of the Lutheran Witness to protest the article but the letter was rejected with LW saying it did not pass doctrinal review...meaning that the harrowing of hell is considered false doctrine in the LCMS.

I don't know that there is any controversy about this in the LCMS apart from the 10 pastors trying to publish a contrary opinion. I think some would see the rejection of the "harrowing of hell" as being contrary to the two confessional references quoted by the Protoevangel above. But it appears that this is not how the LCMS views things.

So what is LCMS's stance on the OT saints? Were are they? Sheol, were they are waiting for the comming of the Lord again? I don't understand. The LCMS refutes the harrowing but on the other hand gives no alternate explantion for the condition of OT saints?

What purpose did it serve for Jesus to desend into hell to proclaim the gospel and of his conquest over death if there wasn't some end to His means? In other words, if the gospel is proclaimed it's so someone can have the saving grace of God to go to heaven.

When I asked my grandfather (a retired Lutheran pastor) this question, here's essentially the answer I got...

Christ descended into hell. This Holy Scripture teaches, the Creed professes, and the church has embraced. There are several explainations for WHY He did that, but God did not say. Lutherans are okay with leaving unanswered questions


Lutherans are simple like that (that's a GREAT compliment - and one of the major reasons I've come to embrace Lutheranism)



Pax


- Josiah



.

Josiah,

It appears that your grandfather paraphrased the Confessions. The Formula of Concord:

IX. The Descent of Christ Into Hell.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy concerning This Article.
1] It has also been disputed among some theologians who have subscribed to the Augsburg Confession concerning this article: When and in what manner the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descended to hell: whether this was done before or after His death; also, whether it occurred according to the soul alone, or according to the divinity alone, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily; also, whether this article belongs to the passion or to the glorious victory and triumph of Christ. 2] But since this article, as also the preceding, cannot be comprehended by the senses or by our reason, but must be grasped by faith alone, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no disputation concerning it, but that it should be believed 3] and taught only in the simplest manner; according as Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, in his sermon at Torgau in the year 1533 has explained this article in an altogether Christian manner, separated from it all useless, unnecessary questions, and admonished all godly Christians to Christian simplicity of faith.4] For it is sufficient that we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.​

Click to expand...

The Solid Declaration:

IX. Christ's Descent To Hell.

1] And since even in the ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as in some among our teachers, dissimilar explanations of the article concerning the descent of Christ to hell are found, we abide in like manner by the simplicity of our Christian faith [comprised in the Creed], to which Dr. Luther in his sermon, which was delivered in the castle at Torgau in the year 1533, concerning the descent of Christ to hell, has pointed us, where we confess: I believe in the Lord Christ, God's Son, our Lord, dead, buried, and descended into hell. For in this[Confession] the burial and descent of Christ to hell are distinguished as different articles; 2] and we simply believe that the entire person, God and man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his might. 3] We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and acute thoughts as to how this occurred; for with our reason and our five senses this article can be comprehended as little as the preceding one, how Christ is placed at the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God; but we are simply to believe it and adhere to the Word [in such mysteries of faith]. Thus we retain the substance [sound doctrine] and [true] consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ.​

Click to expand...

ByzantineDixie said:

Judaica, had you seen the comments in this blog? I think some (albeit a small number) of Lutherans do believe in the patristic understanding of the harrowing of hell. But, as you can also read, such belief would not necessarily pass doctrinal review in the LCMS today.

Click to expand...

lol...yep...I (Cheryl) wrote some of them . I've just recently purchased, "The Church" by J Quenstedt. From the Concordia Publishing House website:

In an age of growing confusion concerning the nature of the Church, J. A. Quenstedt (1617-1688) offers clarity and a crucial exposition of the Lutheran understanding of the Body of Christ. Quenstedt's explanation of the marks of the Church, the attributes of the Church, the role of the Church councils, the visibility and invisibility of the Church, etc. are required reading in our age of 'mega' churches, 'meta' churches and the Church Growth Movement.
"There is no question that after Loci Theologici of Chemnitz and Gerhard (who was his uncle) the Systema of Quenstedt ranks as the greatest dogmatics book ever written by a Lutheran. ... One might say that Quenstedt's Systema killed systematic theology in the period of Lutheran orthodoxy as Michelanglo killed Renaissance art by the unexcelled quality of his work."

Hopefully it a will be a really informative book.

Judaica (Cheryl)

Protoevangel said:

I recent stated as much on my blog.


I also sent the above in an email to my pastor, requesting his commentary, and if necessary, correction.

His only concern was "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est", and the fact that it can be so easily misunderstood. In fact, it was originally used to support Semi-Pelagianism by St. Vincent of Lerins. It seems worthy to note, however, that Prosper of Aquitaine turned Vincent's own argument against him with the argument, "ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" (the law of praying establishes the law of believing), and pointing to the Roman litany where the church prays for the conversion of unbelievers. Prosper explains that if we pray for their conversion, the work of conversion is entirely Gods, not the individuals.

If we look only to the fathers, councils, etc, we are in danger of taking them out of their Scriptural context, and doing what Rome did. On the other hand, if we look only at Scripture (nuda Scriptura), and not at the universal testimony and witness of the Church catholic, we run the danger of doing what Calvin, Zwingli, Vincent, Arius, and the rest of the heretics did, and effectively become our own popes. I think the Lutheran fathers did a wonderful job of keeping these in proper perspective. I do worry greatly about the Reformed, Pietistic, "liberal" and American Evangelical influences that are so pervasive in much of the modern Lutheran Church, each of which are at least as dangerous as Romanism ever was.

Click to expand...

I'm still quite confused on the issue of "sola scriptura" in Lutheranism. I personally don't understand how it does not (at least on a practical level) lead to "nuda scriptura". But at the same time, I also feel that Rome has sunk into heresy as well (so their version of "scripture and tradition" obviously has not done them any good). I hate to champion the Eastern Orthodox cause, (since having criticized Lutheranism). But the issue of heresy has not reached the dogmatic levels that it has in the West. Even though there are kooks in the EO as in every church. And I've wondered for awhile now, why that was. Surely the Holy Spirit cannot be said to be leading them, but not us. So I've been thinking, and I think perhaps it may go back to what you just mentioned, "the law of praying establishes the law of believing". The EO have long been primarily a liturgical church (as opposed to confessional). And am wondering to what degree, systematic theology, and rationalism has actually created the enviroment in the Western church, where not only speculation (and innovation) has been allowed to thrive, but also to reach the level of dogmatic pronouncements.
But I also think we ought to be cautious to place tradition along side scripture. That only works if your "tradition" is pure. In fact I will go onto say, that that's half the trouble, and why we have so many denominations, because everyone brings their own "traditions" and preconceived notions to scripture, instead of merely letting scripture talk for itself.

Judaica

That still leaves open the questions of:

Whether a council has spoken on the question and (if not) whether that would have made a difference. I curious as to exactly what Polycarp & Co. said.​

Click to expand...

Judaica

Especially since he's a retired pastor, but God via the Scriptures does say.

Judaica

judaica said:

lol...yep...I (Cheryl) wrote some of them . I've just recently purchased, "The Church" by J Quenstedt.

Click to expand...

FANTASTIC! Now this place is REALLY gonna liven up! ABSOLUTELY GREAT to see you here. Lutherans, take care of this one...she is a goodie!

I have to admit I never got around to reading Quenstedt. I was headed in that direction but before I could locate a copy I tossed it all in and just jumped head first in the Bosphorus. I'll be anxious to hear your comments on it though...either here or on your blog.

Strictly speaking there are not 7 ecumenical councils, only 2. The Oriental Orthodox only accept the first three and the Assyrian church ony accepts the first two. So if the definition of a ecumenical council is that it gained world-wide acceptance by the whole church, then you can not talk about councils 3 through 7. They do not and have never been accepted by the whole church.

Back to the question. I, personally, accept the doctrinal creeds of the first 2 ecumenical councils, but not neccessarily the canon law. This belief is mirrored in other denominations, such as the EO, as can be seen by their teachings.

"The doctrinal definitions of the Councils possess an absolute and unalterable validity which Canons as such cannot claim; for doctrinal definitions deal with eternal truths, Canons with the earthly life of the Church, where conditions are constantly changing and individual situations are infinitely various." (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church)

"HOROI: were doctrinal formulations; they permanently express authentic Orthodox teaching and cannot be changed by subsequent councils.
CANONS: dealt with administrative matters and could be changed by later councils."
(stmichaelsgeneva.org/SevenEcumenicalCouncils.htm)

Please don't consider me as a Lutheran response though, as I'm not Luthern (yet.)

Symeon,

Strictly speaking, you're correct. But since the Oriental Churches do accept the doctrinal substance of the Councils (without accepting the Councils themselves), I consider them Ecumenical in practice.

I hope no one minds if I make a comment, I'm not sure why the question is even in this subforum.

The descent into hell is biblical though not a lot is said about it.

The harrowing of hell, really isn't in the way that people would understand it. We don't know too much about the Old Testament Saints except they were certainly not in the same place as the ungodly. If people's concept is that the saints and the ungodly were in the same place and Jesus released the saints. Well, that's just wrong.

And it should be noted that today's concepts of the harrowing of hell, likely have little to do with the early church fathers and more to do with the tales and apochryphal writing that have proliferated over the years, particularly the Middle Ages.

Anyway, we have only to look to the parable of Lazarus to see that Lazarus and the rich man were not in the same place. It would have been rather dishonest of God to tell that tale if Lazarus would have been languishing right next to the rich man begging for a drop of water until Christ came. Going to Abraham's bosom carries quite a different idea than hell.

We also have the example of Moses, we should note that Moses visited it appears from heaven, at least that's where Elijah was from who came with Moses. And Moses had died, but in any case, Moses was clearly not locked in hell waiting for release. So we know with great certainty that at least one saint who died was actually in heaven before Jesus' descent into hell.

Now what's the real significance in the Apostle's Creed of Jesus' descent into hell. I haven't dug up the original languages but one thing I have noticed is that our word hell is a really poor translation of almost any Greek word having anything to do with hell. The biggest significance is that Jesus truly died. If you read scripture that is very important, a huge deal, repeatedly told. What Jesus did while in the tomb, hardly mentioned, not that important.

It would seem strange to me indeed if the early church with the phrase decended into hell, was trying to emphasis what Jesus did while in the tomb. The real article of faith is that he truly died. Many are the people who say he didn't actually die, he was in a coma and it was all a conspiracy or as the Muslims later did that God assumed him into heaven. Surely the fact that Jesus truly died is an article of faith the rest people want to throw on that phrase, well, let's just say I don't find it too helpful.

That's my thoughts, thank you for letting me share them.

Marv

judaica said:

Symeon,

Strictly speaking, you're correct. But since the Oriental Churches do accept the doctrinal substance of the Councils (without accepting the Councils themselves), I consider them Ecumenical in practice.

Click to expand...

Hopefully I figured out that "quote reply" (still new.)

I would agree with that assesment when it comes to the Oriental Orthodox Churches. But that is not the case with the Assyrian Church of the East. They are a church which prides themself of an Apostolic origin. Yet, they only agree with the first 2 councils in confession and in practice. For instance, an Assyrain church does not contain or make use of any images in their services. This practice is quite contrary to the 7th council.