07 February 2008

Old Lutheran Quote of the Day

"In the former [Reformed Protestantism], Scripture is regarded more exclusively as the sole source; in the latter [Lutheran Protestantism], more as the norm of a doctrine which is evolved from the analogy of faith, and to which, consequently, the pure exegetical and confessional tradition of the Church possesses more value." - Krauth, *The Conservative Reformation* p. 123


orrologion said...

Lutherans aren't Protestants. :)

William Weedon said...

Don't tell Krauth that.

orthodoxy hunter said...

I don't understand it when people say that Lutheran's aren't Protestants. Weren't the 95 theses practices of the RC that Luther protested?

Can you elaborate on this quote for me. I'm not sure I follow what is being said.

Did you get my last email?

William Weedon said...


When Lutherans nowadays reject the word "Protestant" they're rejecting what the word has come to mean. Most "protestants" don't believe that baptism saves, that the bread and wine in the Supper are our Savior's body and blood, that the office of the ministry is a divine institution, and so on. If that's what "protestant" is, we aren't.

But, as everyone knows, we WERE the original protestants, so the word itself isn't problematic, in my estimate. It's just that we're the only ones who should use it! :)

What he's saying is that the Lutherans as opposed to the Reformed tended to think of and use the Scripture as a norm that critiqued the tradition of the Church: whatever wasn't contrary to the Scriptures, Lutherans freely maintained. The Reformed tended to run it the other way: if it wasn't explicitly mandated in the Scriptures it had to go.

About the last email. Yikes. I don't remember! Could you resend it just to make sure. I've got a ridiculous 662 messages in the inbox at the moment that I have sorted through yet and I thought I answered stuff as it came in, but I may have overlooked something. Thanks!

orthodoxy hunter said...

Thanks. Got it.

I resent it... to both addresses. I can never remember which one is the right address to use.

L P Cruz said...


I guess Krauth should not be told that because he will disagree...

I read that Walther also did not like to be called 'catholic' or 'Catholic".

At any rate, Pr. Will knows my bias ---I happen to be a paleo-Prot. ;-)


Past Elder said...

It helps me about this topic to remember that in the time and place where the Reformation came about, it wasn't like there would then be the Lutheran parish on one corner and the Catholic one on another -- like for example the LCMS parish I belong to and the RC parish that, having been baptised by a Catholic priest, I am "supposed" to belong to -- but rather about what was going to be the case in the local parish, would it follow Rome or the Reformation, and would either way be recognised by the state as valid. The original "protest" was against a decree to go back to the original decree that only those churches which continued under Roman ways were valid rather than continue in the direction that Roman or Lutheran parishes were equally valid and anything else is not valid. A situation unlike our times at all, at least in most places, and, ironically, one in which what "Protestant" generally means to-day was accorded no place at all either way!

So neither the word nor the circumstances in which it arose correspond to our times at all -- which is why the care about what one now means by the word. In its original meaning and context, we are Protestants and no-one else is; in its general modern meaning and context, we are not Protestants, as most of what goes under the term now derives from the Reformed tradition which is at points as radically at odds with Lutheranism as Rome. And in no case will it be about how things are done at St Pius X parish (the neighbourhood parish), as before or Lutheran style, and the other contenders are non starters.

L P Cruz said...


the Reformed tradition which is at points as radically at odds with Lutheranism

Whoever taught you that must have taught you by propaganda. Radical is a strong word. If you look at the history of the Reformed, they did dip theology, they dipped into Lutheran theology so they are not radically different.

They do not differ in JBFA as such, but to a small degree they have confused language on the Sacraments.

I can prove to you from at least my reading on the Apology that the Calvinists got their idea of "obedience to the Gospel" through it, through the Apology of Augsburg.

Calvin follows the Lutherans in most places and at the core of JBFA they talk the same. In the periphery, yes I agree, slight changes there.

Between Reformed and Rome, the Reform is closer to us than Rome is closer to Lutheran.

If you encounter European Calvinists, they are heaps closer to Lutheran.

Also they have high respect towards Luther than the Roman curia do.