Who's in Charge Here? The Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, or Papal Canon Law?
Link #1 : Pontifications » Blog Archive » The Craw of Private Judgment Link #2 : Balaam’s Ass Link #3 : The Quia Catch Link #4 : Rejoinder to a Response » This may be a relatively heavy subject but I urge you to give it a go. The blog "Pontifications" and "Balaam's Ass" have been having a bit of a tussle as of recent. This might prove to you to be a fascinating discussion of the difference in doctrinal determination between Rome and the Missouri Synod. Here are the brief highlights of the opinions expressed (not all being accurate or shared by both authors and may be my false interpretation of their words. My comments are found below): 1) Rome says authority is found in the Majesterium, which found its origin in Jesus. Lutherans say authority lies in Jesus as given in scripture (the "church" may or may not be the revealer of the same... Lutherans see no guarantee of truth in the earthly institution.) 2) Canon law cannot be proven infallible by scripture as it is divinely inspired. The Lutheran Confessions could by proven wrong but haven't in a general sense. 3) Papal authority is divinely given and consequently what the Pope (and the Catholic church) says is always the proper exposition of scripture. Orthodox Lutheranism says that the Lutheran Confessions are a proper exposition of scripture but Jesus as revealed in scripture is the "norm that norms." In other words, the must always be reconciled against Scripture as the source of all doctrine. 4) Rome offers accommodation to those who may be "Christian" yet aren't a part of Catholic church. Lutheran's too offer accommodation as they don't see the church as Catholic but rather catholic (little 'c' simply meaning invisible, universal, and present through time.) Simply, it appears there is a significant bridge to cross. Roman Catholics desire to rest their faith in the institution founded by Peter, given to him by Christ (as origin of the church.) Lutherans see the origin as Christ and not given to man. As a consequence we are not cooperative in the church's preservation but are God's instruments. The preservation is God's work. Consequently talk of authority is foreign to us. Who's in charge here? Nobody but Christ. This topic dovetails nicely into the discussion of the LC-MS. Foreign to Rome is the concept of a association of churches... Perhaps not too foreign. I would describe the LC-MS more in terms like the Ecumenical Councils of which many early heresies were condemned or refuted and produced our Nicea-Constantinople Creed. We join in assent but we don't believe that we join in something which is the catholic church. (Just as Rome would join in council with the East.) The LC-MS is not a divinely mandated institution that one might describe as church. It was created by man to aid in the ministry of the Gospel. In much the same way, our "churches" really aren't churches at all but rather congregations of people, fellowships. Christ may be present and there is church. This is not the institution, the building, or the people, but Christ's presence and him doing his work. For this reason, we know that church may exist in heterodoxical denominations where individual congregations are faithful. Their association with the heterodox denomination may be questionable but does not negate Christ's presence working in that faithful congregation. To limit Christ's saving work to one or more institutions makes the church catholic a human limited institution amounting to a social club. In the end the folks at Pontification are indeed right in one regard. I think the biggest challenge of the Seminary is for me to reconcile the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions) against scripture. Is it a truthful exposition of God's Word? So far, so good. Ask me again in three years!
