tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post2337766215201848028..comments2023-11-03T04:50:42.128-05:00Comments on Confessional Gadfly: Tradition and its decayRev. Eric J Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-66428971825423696052009-11-08T00:41:42.762-06:002009-11-08T00:41:42.762-06:00I think we've made one thing crystal clear: if...I think we've made one thing crystal clear: if the Synodical Conference is ever to be restored, it will not be on Eric's blog. (Sorry, Eric!)<br /><br />Nor on any blog, for that matter. It's too easy to talk past one another. It's too hard to respond to every point made in the 4,096 HTML characters each comment will permit. It's too easy to pontificate in front of a computer screen.<br /><br />The SC broke apart when WELS left, having seen for decades the growing seeds that eventually sprouted into Seminex. The vestiges of that remain in the fellowship (in "externals" ?!?) with heterodox church bodies that many in Missouri still practice.<br /><br />Are we really so far off from one another on church and ministry, on the roles of men and women, on the role of the Confessions, on fellowship in general?<br /><br />I don't know. I suspect we often talk past one another and create caricatures of one another's doctrine and practice, something that the Evil One is more than happy to encourage. I fear that, when there is not unity on these issues within one's own synod (be it LCMS or WELS), the discussion may prove futile.<br /><br />But I do know that, of all the churches in town, the (conservative) LCMS church, although we don't share altar or pulpit fellowship, is the only one I don't warn people against, if they're not interested in attending my WELS church. The LCMS pastor is the only one I've sent people back to who had left his church for sinful reasons seeking carnal refuge in mine, the only one I respect enough to sit down with over lunch and discuss ministry with. And it's only on a blog like this that the Lutheran Confessions can be discussed with such vigor and respect among Lutherans.<br /><br />So would I like to see us commit to the hard work of restoring what has been lost, to discuss the content of the Scriptures and our confession of them, rather than get bogged (blogged?) down with labels and superficial judgments?<br /><br />Yes. But it's probably going to have to start with Sheepshead. And cheese. (And possibly beer.)<br /><br />Pax Christi vobiscum sit.Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-15178062013551982182009-11-07T16:28:48.545-06:002009-11-07T16:28:48.545-06:00Dear Paul:
You write:
"It seems you have no...Dear Paul:<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />"It seems you have now become judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what makes up quatenus and what makes up quia."<br /><br />There are indeed Christians who are suffering under judges, juries, and executioners. Not us here in America.<br /><br />I'm one guy on a blog expressing my honest opinion. I'm no judge or hangman. You might be 100% right and I might be 100% wrong. I'm just making an honest observation.<br /><br />I think it is clear that we have rather different understandings about the Lutheran Confessions and what the word "quia" means.<br /><br />We are from different synods that are not in fellowship with each other. That's not a good thing, but it is a good thing that we're honest enough to see that we should not swap communion and clergy.<br /><br />Having said all that, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a faithful Christian and Lutheran, and I have no reason at all to think you are anything less than an exemplary Lutheran pastor and brother in the office.<br /><br />I wish you the Lord's richest blessings as you proclaim the Gospel to your flock and serve the Kingdom.<br /><br />Pax et bonum.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-32099604859481429512009-11-07T12:55:30.771-06:002009-11-07T12:55:30.771-06:00Fr. Hollywood,
So be it. Twist my words all you w...Fr. Hollywood,<br /><br />So be it. Twist my words all you wish. But I've already explained what I meant by Sola Scriptura. I've never met a Lutheran who believes that "sola" no longer means "sola." Distinguishing it from "nuda" is nothing more than scholastic gymnastics so that you can now add the Confessions into the "sola" of "sola Scriptura," which, by definition of the word "sola," is nonsense. If Luther had added works of love into his definition of faith in that manner, we would still be Roman Catholics.<br /><br />It seems you have now become judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what makes up quatenus and what makes up quia. I've said now, what, 100 times, that I believe the Confessions ARE an accurate explanation of what the Scriptures teach. You still haven't identified any teaching of the confessions that I disagree with, and I have never found any. And yet you lump me in with Baptists and ELCA because I won't agree with you that the Confessions teach something that they don't teach about the prayers of the saints, and that the Scriptures don't teach about the prayers of the saints? Now that's uncharitable.<br /><br />Do I "put the Confessions in the same category as Luther and tradition"? No, not in general, and I said that many times, too. Luther has erred in some of his writings, and tradition is full of myths and heresy. The Confessions do not err.<br /><br />But I don't believe in the Trinity because the Nicene Creed tells me to. I believe in the Trinity because it is a doctrine clearly taught in Scripture. I use the Nicede Creed because it is an accurate and useful summary of Scripture's teaching. The same is true regarding the Confessions.<br /><br />And when someone asks me why I believe what I believe about God, about faith, about the afterlife, about justification, sanctification, and any other divine teaching, I will never ever tell them that I believe what I do because the Confessions or Luther or tradition say so. I will always tell them I believe it because the Scriptures say so. They ARE in a category by themselves. The Scriptures remain the only foundation for what we are to believe about God. That's why sola remains sola.<br /><br />I, too, will bow out of this discussion, thankful to Eric for the forum, and hopeful that not all LCMS pastors and members would be so quick to throw around the quatenus label.Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-9532803269011147952009-11-07T11:39:44.224-06:002009-11-07T11:39:44.224-06:00Dear Paul:
Just to clarify, I did not conclude yo...Dear Paul:<br /><br />Just to clarify, I did not conclude you hold a quatenus view because of your translation of the subjunctive. Rather, I drew that conclusion from your own statement: "This is why I am glad I believe in Sola Scriptura and not Scriptura et Lutero et traditione et confessionibus Luteranis."<br /><br />To put the Confessions in the same category as Luther and tradition (which all Lutherans uphold in a quatenus manner) is, by definition, a quatenus subscription. Some Lutherans confess the BOC in a quatenus way, others in a quia way. If the confessions are in the same category as the others, what other conclusion can be drawn?<br /><br />And our difference in hermeneutics of the Concordia Pia explains our different views of the faith itself - which may explain the significant differences between our synods that impair fellowship.<br /><br />The tricky part is what we mean by "sola" in "sola scriptura." <br /><br />A Baptist would say exactly the same thing as you have - though he means something different by "sola" than quia-confessing Lutherans do.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Lutheranism has largely been influenced by Reformed and Baptist theology - including a subtle shift away from quia toward quatenus - an observation lamented by many including CFW Walther. Another way to look at this shift is a move from "sola" to "nuda" scriptura. <br /><br />But I explained all of this before to no avail.<br /><br />Besides, I think this discussion has reached the typical Lutheran point of acrimony, and any further discussion will not only be unfruitful but spiritually unhealthy. I appreciate our hosts patience.<br /><br />So I'm going to bow out.<br /><br />Pax et laissez les bons temps rouler!Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-7926038407066353162009-11-06T17:03:20.469-06:002009-11-06T17:03:20.469-06:00Luther on the subject might of interest as well. ...Luther on the subject might of interest as well. He was expositing John 17 when he wrote:<br /><br />For who can harm or injure a man who has this confidence, who knows that heaven and earth, and all the angels and the saints will cry to God when the smallest suffering befalls him? -- Blessed Martin Luther (Sermon on John XVII)<br /><br />"I in them, thou in me, we in them..." "If one member suffers, all suffer..."William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-90855079784265767052009-11-06T14:45:15.386-06:002009-11-06T14:45:15.386-06:00So as to not offend the Tiber River enthusiasts, h...So as to not offend the Tiber River enthusiasts, here's <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2782/4080993894_1dd1ca5d19.jpg" rel="nofollow">a t-shirt for them</a>... in colors that will go with their Mariological waterwings.Carl Vehsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348831096001668813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-84060068774652250152009-11-06T14:29:18.604-06:002009-11-06T14:29:18.604-06:00Rev Weedon,
I might be able to find such a commen...Rev Weedon,<br /><br />I might be able to find such a commentary, but I have very little care to, because as a rule of thumb exegetes are to me what lukewarm Christians are to Christ a la Rev. 3 -- they make me want to vomit >=o)<br /><br />However, I suppose there would be such commentators there who do so - anyone who believes that James is the brother of Jesus through Mary would thus identify the Mary of Mark 16 as the mother of our Lord.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-41177946664413680052009-11-06T10:23:37.460-06:002009-11-06T10:23:37.460-06:00Fr. H,
One last post, then I'm closing Intern...Fr. H,<br /><br />One last post, then I'm closing Internet Explorer, lest the sermon suffer.<br /><br /><b> Subjunctive in indirect statements and attributed thoughts. The subjunctive is sometimes found embedded in indirect statement (as in relative clauses that are part of indirect statement), or in direct statements of thoughts attributed to someone other than the speaker/writer. This becomes increasingly common in the Middle Ages, when you will regularly find the subjunctive used in indirect statement introduced by “quod.” </b><br /><br />This matter of the angels and saints interceding for the church was the statement and thought being promulgated by the RC’s. It’s not the Lutheran Confessors’ confession in the Apology. It was a thought they were unwilling to condemn. It was a statement and thought they were willing to GRANT (more on that in a second).<br /><br /><i> The same subjunctive (orent) is also used in Ap XXI:8: "Praeterea et hoc largimur, quod angeli orent pro nobis." (Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us). The word "largimur" is also concessive ("We grant..."). But notice that this is in no way saying we're only accepting this conditionally just for the sake of argument. To the contrary, we are saying that we *believe* it! There is even a proof text cited (Zech 1:2)! </i><br /><br />The point you’re missing here, among others, is a rather important hermeneutical one. No passage in Scripture says the angels DO (on a regular basis) pray for the church, and therefore, no one can know, with the certainty of faith, that they do. One passage in Scripture tells of an instance when one angel DID pray for the church (“the angel of the LORD,” who, many theologians believe, was the preincarnate Christ himself, hardly any old angel). On the basis of this certain example, the Confessors were more than willing to GRANT that the angels MAY WELL pray for us still (although we have no way of knowing, or therefore believing or confessing, because the Scriptures do not tell us).<br /><br />They use the exact same argument regarding the saints. We know for certain that they pray for the church while alive (Scripture directs us to do this, and we do it all the time). Therefore, we concede the possibility that they pray for the church in heaven, although we cannot know it for certain (or therefore believe or confess it as truth) because there is no Scripture passage that says they do, as Ap. XXI:9 says.<br /><br />As Eric wisely pointed out a long time ago, there is a huge difference between grant/concede and confess. We grant/concede that which is POSSIBLE, but uncertain (Ap. XXI:8-9,27), in order that we may not get hung up on things that are not truly the issue at hand.<br /><br />We grant/concede things, for the sake of getting at the real argument, things that other people are saying, as long as they can be understood correctly (Ap. V:105 (Of love and the fulfilling of the law). The Lutherans didn’t want to make the point that love is the “chief virtue.” The Catholics were making that point to put love above faith. But the Lutherans were willing to call love “the chief virtue,” because it can be understood correctly, according to Scripture, although not as the Catholics were defining it. Then they moved on to the real issue at hand.)<br /><br />We CONFESS that which is solid and true. In SA XII:1, Luther was not even willing to grant the Papists the POSSIBLITY that “they are the church.” Not even for the sake of argument.<br /><br /><i> unless you're equally willing to insert "may" in Ap XXI:8 as well. </i><br /><br />Yes, I would be happy to insert “may” in XXI:8. “We grant that the angels *may* pray for us.” Or, if you prefer, "We stipulate that the angels pray for us." Or if that still bugs you, "We grant [the possibility that] the angels *do* pray for us.” No, the word "possibilitas" is not there. It's included in the word "grant."<br /><br />We grant that which is possible. We confess that which is certain.Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-30496098299527533532009-11-06T08:18:06.890-06:002009-11-06T08:18:06.890-06:00I must admit that "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy On...I must admit that "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones" is one of the exceptions I make to my general policy against modern hymns. We sang it again on All Saints' Feast. And regarding the Magnificat, it continues to be a treasure that is all too neglected among us. That will be the case as long as it isn't prayed every day in all our churches and schools. The Ordinary of the Church's liturgy ought to be an ordinary part of our lives. And that leads me to a quick thought about the proper of the liturgy, namely, if we were to celebrate the marian feasts more solemnly and consistently, that in itself would improve the health of our Church's view of the Blessed Virgin.Dcn Latif Haki Gaba SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13032212390625343868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-86510982838151878602009-11-06T08:18:02.096-06:002009-11-06T08:18:02.096-06:00Eric,
Thank you for providing the forum for such ...Eric,<br /><br />Thank you for providing the forum for such a fascinating and scholarly discussion. I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the discussion - I'd forgotten about it after my drive-by comment.<br /><br />Just to question: can you find any commentator who identifies the woman in Mark 16 as the Theotokos? <br /><br />Dr. Strickert,<br /><br />Your snide accusation of Tiber snorkelers is unworthy of you; its simply uncharitable and untrue.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-4523023359799810422009-11-06T08:04:29.293-06:002009-11-06T08:04:29.293-06:00Fr. H,
Gotta get to the sermon here, so don't...Fr. H,<br /><br />Gotta get to the sermon here, so don't have time to go through the Latin quotes at the moment.<br /><br />Here's what's frustrating me to no end. You keep setting up a straw man and beating him to a pulp.<br /><br />I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't deny something just because it's not the Bible. Can you please stop saying that?<br /><br />And you're just twisting my words when you say I don't believe in the Confessions. In context, I said that I hold to a sola scriptura hermeneutical principle, not a hermeneutic that also turns Luther, tradition and the cofessions into SOURCES of doctrine that are to be believed by "good Lutherans."<br /><br />When we started this discussion, all you wanted was not to be hanged (or considered "less Lutheran") for thinking that Mary was semper virgo. That seems to have evolved into a rather "more Lutheran, more quia than thou" attitude on your part toward those of us who do not hold to such things.<br /><br />Now is that very nice?Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-71562762971665335892009-11-06T02:04:52.004-06:002009-11-06T02:04:52.004-06:00Dear Latif:
We also sing "Ye Watchers And Ye...Dear Latif:<br /><br />We also sing "Ye Watchers And Ye Holy Ones" in our churches (LSB 670).<br /><br />In stanza 2, we laud Blessed Mary and address her as follows:<br /><br />"O higher than the cherubim,<br />More glorious than the seraphim"<br /><br />And we implore her to: <br /><br />"Lead their praises:<br />Thou bearer of the eternal Word<br />Most gracious, magnify the Lord."<br /><br />None of the proof texts on the bottom of the page address the issue of Mary's status as being higher than cherubs and more glorious than seraphs, nor the question as to whether or not we should be singing to her at all. The hymn is actually a version of an ancient eastern liturgical prayer, adapted to English in 1906. As a hymn sung in our churches, it has become part of our tradition, confession, and proclamation.<br /><br />And yet, even upholding the unique place of God's Word ("sola scriptura") as being above all other authority in the church, we still sing this hymn, even with its "Marian devotion," in our churches. If there are Lutherans who object to this hymn, I have not heard from them. Perhaps there are.<br /><br />I don't think praising the Lord's mother is demonic. I do think it is idolatry to pray to her and turn her into a goddess. But we are doing no such thing in LSB 670, nor when we grant that blessed Mary prays for the church, nor when we acknowledge her uniqueness as being the only human parent who did not pass along original sin to her Child. I don't find it at all unreasonable or unscriptural when Luther opines that the Lord Jesus mystically and miraculously sanctified Mary even before He was conceived.<br /><br />He's God. He can do things like that. <br /><br />As Prof. Marquart pointed out, Mary is exceptional. She is a unique case in human history. The normal rules and norms don't apply. She is God's mom, after all. And her status as the "holy mother of God" (per our confessions) is indeed by grace alone, even as we confess with St. Luke that she is "plena gratia."<br /><br />May we all heed Blessed Mary's imperative to "do whatever He tells you" and pray the Magnificat with her, praising "God my Savior."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-76565979612662919852009-11-06T01:48:13.553-06:002009-11-06T01:48:13.553-06:00To Fr. Hollywood's fine comments about the rel...To Fr. Hollywood's fine comments about the relation of scripture with the confessions, and Luther, etc., I would like to add another thought. Namely, Paul, when you say, "I believe in Sola Scriptura," there is something very sloppy here at best, unhealthy at worst. For "Sola Scriptura," even understood at its best, is not something "to believe in." It is, rather, an approach, a concept. Even if I were to say that I agree with "sola scriptura," which I would only say after we agreed on the definition of terms, I would never say, nor should any theologian, than "I believe in sola scriptura." I believe in Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.Dcn Latif Haki Gaba SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13032212390625343868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-89284543401045696692009-11-06T01:34:32.074-06:002009-11-06T01:34:32.074-06:00Paul:
You answered my Luther quote on Mary's ...Paul:<br /><br />You answered my Luther quote on Mary's immac. concep. with one that you suppose denies it. Your quote, from 1532, clearly teaches that Mary is kept free of all sin, even though it does display a slightly modified concept of exactly when her soul was cleansed of sin. An important factor to keep in mind here is that the immaculate conception has never been defined precisely, except for the definition for the Roman Catholic dogma, defined as late as 1854. I don't see Luther contradicting himself here as much as I see him, in many and various ways & writings and in virtually all segments of his career, teaching that Mary was without sin, and that her virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ was kept inviolate. <br /><br />In the Personal Prayerbook Luther has many amazing things to say about the Mother of God, including this: "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil." The Personal Prayerbook cannot be dismissed as "early Luther," since, while he wrote it in 1522, it was printed many times during his lifetime, with his knowledge and permission, and continued to be published long after his death. <br /><br />The same year he wrote the Smalcald Articles, Luther preached this on the feast of the Visitation, "No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity."<br /><br />On the clauso utero, which in my view implies the perpetual virginity, Luther in the Church Postil, which he prepared precisely for preachers to learn what and how to preach, and which he considered "the best of all his books," has this for Christmas Day, "Mary's experience was not different from that of other women, so that the birth of Christ was a real natural birth, Mary being his natural mother and he being her natural son. Therefore her body performed its functions of giving birth, which naturally belonged to it, except that she brought forth without sin, without shame, without pain, and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve did not come on her."<br /><br />I don't bring these (and others could also be brought up) because I believe in scripture plus Luther. I bring them up because if you hold such marian devotion to be against the scriptures, and demonic, then you must be willing to say the same things of Luther himself.Dcn Latif Haki Gaba SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13032212390625343868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-38842563551213489122009-11-06T01:23:47.220-06:002009-11-06T01:23:47.220-06:00Dear Paul:
You write:
"Sorry, but the Sola ...Dear Paul:<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />"Sorry, but the Sola Scriptura principle does not include the Confessions. It never has. I hate to point out the obvious, but the Confessions weren't written yet when Luther stood on Scripture alone. And even after they were written, they did not supplement the "sola." It's still "sola."<br /><br /><br />You don't have to apologize, Paul.<br /><br />Part of the confessions were most certainly extant when Luther defended Scripture: the first three Symbols in the Book of Concord. Unlike the radical reformers, Luther did not toss out the creeds. In fact, his defense of infant baptism in the Large Catechism is an argument from tradition alone. Luther does not cite a single proof text.<br /><br />The same argument you are making (Luther and the Bible predate the confessions) can be made *against* Scripture. For when the Apostles were preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, the New Testament had not yet been written. And yet, this in no way invalidates sola scriptura, properly understood.<br /><br />My point is that "sola" does not mean "nuda." There is indeed truth outside of Scripture. We are not fundamentalists. We do not jettison the creeds. We do not believe the world is flat. Nor do we deny that 2+2=4 because it is not in the Bible.<br /><br />"Sola scriptura" rather means that only the Bible speaks with the authority of God's Word and is inerrant. Just because "popes and councils have erred" does not mean that they are necessarily in error. The Nicene Creed is not in error. Can one even be a Christian and deny the Nicene Creed?<br /><br />That is not what "sola" means - at least not in the way I confess it. I am not afraid to say that I believe in the ecumenical creeds and the rest of the Lutheran confessions. I could never say, as you have, that I only believe in the Bible and I do not believe in the Confessions.<br /><br />I do not see it as an either/or, but rather as a both/and. And that is only possible with a quia subscription.<br /><br />The Book of Concord is not a cafeteria.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-52582918663188001882009-11-06T01:11:31.270-06:002009-11-06T01:11:31.270-06:00Dear Paul:
That's a nice theory, but here is ...Dear Paul:<br /><br />That's a nice theory, but here is why you need to go back to the drawing board:<br /><br />The same subjunctive (orent) is also used in Ap XXI:8: "Praeterea et hoc largimur, quod angeli orent pro nobis." (Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us). The word "largimur" is also concessive ("We grant..."). But notice that this is in no way saying we're only accepting this conditionally just for the sake of argument. To the contrary, we are saying that we *believe* it! There is even a proof text cited (Zech 1:2)! <br /><br />Rather, Melanchthon is pointing out that Eck, in the typical slippery fashion of his Pontifical Confutation, is muddying the waters. Melanchthon constantly has to focus on what the controversy really is and throw out the red herrings.<br /><br />So, we grant (largimur - Ap. XXI:8) that the angels pray for us, we concede (concedimus - Ap XXI:9) that the saints pray for us, and we grant (largiamur!) that blessed Mary prays for the church (Ap XXI:27). The same concessive verb (largior - in the subjunctive resulting from "ut") is used for Mary (which has no proof text) as is used for the angels (which has a proof text). The same subjuctive verb (orent) is used of the angels (Ap XXI:8) as is used (oret) of Mary (Ap XXI:27). <br /><br />You can't eat your cake and have it. <br /><br />If the "largiamur" and "oret" mean we don't really believe it but are merely conceding for the sake of argument alone, than the passage concerning the angels makes no sense.<br /><br />Of course this whole passage is "concessive." <br /><br />In fact, the "et" in Ap XXI:8 means all of the previous points were also concessive ("Besides, we also grant..."). Far from being concessions for the sake of argument, Melanchthon is pointing out (paragraphs 3-7) what was confessed in the Augustana. <br /><br />Eck's 404 Articles (which the Augustana refuted) were previously citing things we did not dispute and claimed that these were disagreements among us. This is why after the Augustana was read, Duke William of Bavaria was shocked at what the "Lutherans" had confessed. Eck had lied about what Lutherans believe, tar-brushing them with everyone else.<br /><br />So we concede the point that the saints pray for us. We grant that the angels pray for us. We grant that blessed Mary does as well. These points are not controverted. The point that is, in fact, under controversy is the question as to whether or not we should pray to the saints. *That* is the problem - not the fact that they pray for us. <br /><br />In fact, we concede it, repeatedly! We don't concede and grant things that we don't believe in. Which is why Luther said "nequaquam largimur" in SA XII:1. <br /><br />And I agree that the English does not catch all of the nuances of the subjunctive - which is why your facile insertion of "may" in your translation reflects a bias on your reading that you are imposing on the text - unless you're equally willing to insert "may" in Ap XXI:8 as well. <br /><br />Again, Paul, it amazes me that it does not give you pause that no-one else inserts "may" into their translations before the word "pray."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-35642734053666579012009-11-06T00:14:06.525-06:002009-11-06T00:14:06.525-06:00Fr. H,
Do you really think I would be this picky ...Fr. H,<br /><br />Do you really think I would be this picky about Latin moods if I held to a quatenus subscription? If that were the case, I would simply say, "Yeah, well, I don't agree with that paragraph of the Confessions." Instead, I'm trying to point out where you're reading some confessions into the Confessions that were never there in the first place.<br /><br />Sorry, but the Sola Scriptura principle does not include the Confessions. It never has. I hate to point out the obvious, but the Confessions weren't written yet when Luther stood on Scripture alone. And even after they were written, they did not supplement the "sola." It's still "sola."<br /><br />This doesn't mean that "anything other than the Bible is false." Who's claiming that? Not I! I don't disbelieve anything that's (actually) written in the Confessions. Sola Scriptura means I don't stand upon the Confessions. I stand upon Scripture alone. I stand <i> with </i> the Confessions because they are a correct exposition of God's Word. 100%. I stand with all the many correct things Luther wrote in other places, and I stand apart from the relatively few things he wrote that contradict Scripture (like the on-again-off-again belief in the immaculate conception).Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-1655068277250958532009-11-05T23:48:49.286-06:002009-11-05T23:48:49.286-06:00Dear Carl:
"...but one not likely to be worn...Dear Carl:<br /><br />"...but one not likely to be worn by those snorkeling in the Tiber. ;-) "<br /><br />Of course, this comment excludes everyone posting on this thread, right? I would not say that anyone who has commented here is "snorking in the Tiber." You agree, right?<br /><br />Ironically, I think a lot of Roman Catholics would have no problem saying that they too do not believe in the Bible + Luther + Tradition + the Lutheran Confessions.<br /><br />Actually, I've never met a Roman Catholic who *does* believe in the Lutheran Confessions, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. ;-)Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-9792911107765501432009-11-05T23:46:44.592-06:002009-11-05T23:46:44.592-06:00Fr. H,
There's nothing at all simple about th...Fr. H,<br /><br />There's nothing at all simple about the subjunctive (teachers, breathe a sigh of relief!). Actually, I was a Latin professor for awhile, so I was always thankful for the job security provided by the subjunctive.<br /><br />I think you've misunderstood the use of "ita" in result clauses.<br /><br />It may introduce a result clause, but it may not. When it does, it is followed by "ut" and the subjunctive:<br /><br />Hoc ita tibi feci ut gauderes: I did this for you in such a way that you were happy or I did this for you in such a way so as to make you happy.<br /><br />The same holds true in your "tantus...ut" example.<br /><br />In the case of XXI:9, it's simple indirect discourse introduced by "quod." The "ita" serves as a simple adverb. Sicut...ita. No subjunctive called for.<br /><br />Here's an example of that from Aquinus:<br /><br />Sicut enim maius est illuminare quam lucere solum, ita maius est contemplata aliis tradere quam solum contemplari. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2-2, ques. 188, art. 6)<br /><br />Can I help it if English translations don't catch the nuances of this particular subjunctive? As I said before, the German of the Confessors caught it just fine with the "mögen."<br /><br />Did I ever say that "even if" is the only possible translation of "ut" in every instance? "Ut miser qui" and "ruber ut rosa" are not "ut" clauses, but use "ut" as an adverb. "Ut unum sit" is a purpose clause. "So that" works nicely. "Ut" only means "like" or "as" when it's used as an adverb and doesn't introduce a clause of its own.<br /><br />"Ut largiamur" is not a purpose or result clause ("So that we may grant..."). It's a concessive clause, like the German equivalent.<br /><br />Class dismissed. ;)Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-79496180197242984172009-11-05T23:40:16.366-06:002009-11-05T23:40:16.366-06:00From the University of Notre Dame Latin Dictionary...From the <a href="http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=ut&ending=" rel="nofollow">University of Notre Dame Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid</a>: <br /><br />"ut or uti ... <b>(2) with subjunctive: in indirect questions, [how]; in wishes, [o that]; concessive, [granted that]</b>; consecutive, [so that], often preceded by ita, tam, etc.; explaining or defining, [namely that]; final, [in order that] (neg. ne or ut ne); in indirect command, [that, to]; after verbs of fearing (= ne non), [that...not]." [Emphasis added]<br /><br /><i>"I am glad I believe in Sola Scriptura and not Scriptura et Lutero et traditione et confessionibus Luteranis."</i><br /><br />A great Lutheran slogan for a t-shirt, Rev. Rydecki, but one not likely to be worn by those snorkeling in the Tiber. ;-)Carl Vehsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348831096001668813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-71523829983260526032009-11-05T23:30:21.763-06:002009-11-05T23:30:21.763-06:00Dear Paul:
I think your statement: "This is ...Dear Paul:<br /><br />I think your statement: "This is why I am glad I believe in Sola Scriptura and not Scriptura et Lutero et traditione et confessionibus Luteranis" explains our disagreements.<br /><br />I believe in Scripture (*because* it *is* God's Word). I believe in Luther and tradition *insofar as* they *agree* with God's Word. I believe in the Lutheran Confessions *because* they *are a correct exposition* of God's Word.<br /><br />By contrast, when you place the Lutheran Confessions on the same shelf as Luther and tradition, you are showing that your view of the Book of Concord is that you believe in it "insofar as" it agrees with Scripture.<br /><br />In other words, you are using "sola" to exclude the Book of Concord. The *sola* in *sola scriptura* doesn't mean we disbelieve all other witnesses than Scripture. Rather, the *sola* confesses Scriptures unique position of supreme authority as God's Word. Scripture is *sola* as a divine witness that cannot be tainted with error of any kind. But it is not *sola* in the sense that anything other than the Bible is false. That's not what *sola* means.<br /><br />This is why I don't feel free to excise teachings from the Concordia that conflict with modern Protestantism. My approach to the Confessions is that they are indeed a correct exposition of Scripture. And in accordance with the principle that the Reformation was not a revolution, that we accept tradition so long as it does not contradict Scripture, I submit to the confessions, as Walther put it "without reservation."<br /><br />I don't do so because the Symbols are God's Word. I do so because (quia) they are a correct exposition of God's Word, and therefore reliable. I do not feel qualified to stand in scornful judgment of my Lutheran fathers, or even mock them and hurl ugly labels at them they way some have done. <br /><br />I have to be careful not to say this in Boston, but I am indeed a "quia" guy. :-)Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-69327365920232203812009-11-05T23:02:03.666-06:002009-11-05T23:02:03.666-06:00Latif:
Here is your quote for the day from BML: &...Latif:<br /><i> Here is your quote for the day from BML: "in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin." </i><br /><br />And here is your quote for the day from BML:<br /><br />"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we are. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are....For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy, pure fruit, at once true God and truly man, in one person." -- House Postils 3:291 (sermon from 1532)<br /><br />Martin Luther contradicted himself at times. Martin Luther erred at times. I find it amazing, not that Luther still held to some of the impious myths circulated by worshipers of Mary, but that having grown up in an era of church-sponsored myths, he held to so few.<br /><br />This is why I am glad I believe in Sola Scriptura and not Scriptura et Lutero et traditione et confessionibus Luteranis.Paul Rydeckinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-25530209920063713392009-11-05T22:51:34.018-06:002009-11-05T22:51:34.018-06:00Dear Paul:
You write:
"And in XXI:27, "...Dear Paul:<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />"And in XXI:27, "ut" clauses in general use a subjunctive (largiamur) because of the uncertainty of them. "Ut" does not equal "since." Every Latin dictionary I've seen has "even if" as a meaning for it."<br /><br />And you also write: <br /><br />""Regarding saints, even if we concede that, just as they pray for the universal church in general while they are alive, so in heaven they may (subjunctive) pray for the church in general..." "Orent" does not have to be subjunctive with concedimus. It could have been indicative, but it's subjunctive because it's only a possibility."<br /><br /><br /><br />You're way overgeneralizing on the subjunctive mood. It isn't as simple as plugging "may" whenever you see the subjunctive. That would make Latin way too easy and would put a lot of teachers out of work. In the case of Ap XXI:9, "orant" follows "sicut," while "orent" follows the "ita." <br /><br />It's actually called a "result clause." I have a particular textbook that has a great example in both English and Latin. Consider this English sentence: "There was so much smoke that they couldn't find the door." Starting with "that" we have a result clause. In Latin, this would read: "Tantus fumus erat ut ianuam invenire non possent ("possent" is subjunctive by virtue of the result clause!). The result clause often follows words like ita (!), sic, talis, tam, tantus, and tot. <br /><br />And the proof is in the pudding. <br /><br />Other than your English translation above, there doesn't seem to be any others that translate "orent" as "*may* also pray in heaven."<br /><br />The Triglot renders it as "they pray." Tappert: "the saints in heaven pray." McCain: "they pray." Kolb: "they pray." No translation (other than yours) inserts "may," interpreting the subjunctive as an "uncertainty."<br /><br />I don't think this is quite what Dr. Sasse had in mind when he spoke of "the lonely way."<br /><br />As far as "ut" goes, in my Traupmann, "even if" does not appear in the definition of "ut." But there is an example: "ut miser qui..." which is rendered as "how pitiful is the man who...." It is not translated as "how pitiful would be the man who..." or "even if the man were pitiful."<br /><br />Also, our Lord's prayer "ut unum sint" come to mind. In this case, he is not saying "*even if* they may be one" - but rather, he is praying "*that* they may be one." Also, another common use of "ut" springs to mind, as in this example: "ruber ut rosa" ("red as a rose" or "red like a rose"). It doesn't mean "red even if a rose." "Ut" quite often simply means "like" or "as."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-64856678513718252632009-11-05T21:55:02.118-06:002009-11-05T21:55:02.118-06:00Fr. Brown:
I not only don't know of any other...Fr. Brown:<br /><br />I not only don't know of any other virgins who were later married, I don't even know of any other virgins in Mary's day by name. That doesn't mean we don't of their existence. We know of Mary's name because she was a rather famous virgin. Most virgins are called to not only virginity, but also a humbly anonymous life. <br /><br />One of the problems with modern Lutherans trying to get their minds around this whole issue is that we need to get past the contemporary baggage with which we have clothed certain terms, like 'brother,' and like 'marriage.' Even today, however, we must admit there are many Christian marriages that are not entered into with the expectation of bearing children. There are no doubt even pastors reading this who have married couples who are in love and want to live a life of companionship, but for this reason or that will never have children.<br /><br />You say virginal marriage seems far fetched to you. Okay, but please consider that it evidently wasn't far fetched to the early church, even in the second century.Dcn Latif Haki Gaba SSPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13032212390625343868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3847211149012008703.post-32673051813902704412009-11-05T21:31:53.583-06:002009-11-05T21:31:53.583-06:00Latif,
I have never heard of any former temple vi...Latif,<br /><br />I have never heard of any former temple virgin being married and yet expecting to maintain virginity. Can you cite any other example of this practice from anywhere? It seems. . . far fetched to me.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.com