I am not sure that this statement actually says all that much...
It only makes sense if those who have followed Luther have done something "different" or "developed" something "different" to what Luther taught.
Name me one corollary where this statement would make sense otherwise: "Augustinian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Augustine"; "Athanasian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Athanasius"; "Barthian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Barth."
If it isn't nonsensical, and if it isn't trying to say (at least in part) what I said in my first statement, I really wonder what point is attempting to be made.
Does Lutheran doctrine "depart" in some way (and if so, in what way?) from what Luther wrote and taught?
Yes, Bryce, it does. I can think of a couple. The doctrine of election put forward in the Formula differs from Luther's as found in "On the Bondage of the Will." Similarly, Luther's teaching on the office of the ministry differs from the teaching of the Lutheran Church as found in AC, Ap, Tractatus in that the latter never derive the Office from the priesthood of all the baptized.
How can one consider it to be "Lutheran theology" if it is not in agreement with theology of the person from which the theology gets its name? When does it become inappropriate to call it Lutheran theology?
Lutheran theology is that confessed in the Book of Concord; not the private writings of Luther or any other. Well did Krauth say "Her faith is not to be brought to the touchstone of Luther's private opinion, but his private opinion is to be tested by her confessed faith, when the question is, What is genuinely Lutheran?" CR 265
It would have been better to have named the church after the confessions than Luther, as Bryce's confusion is common. And the validity of the Reformation does not depend on defending everything Luther ever said.
6 comments:
I am not sure that this statement actually says all that much...
It only makes sense if those who have followed Luther have done something "different" or "developed" something "different" to what Luther taught.
Name me one corollary where this statement would make sense otherwise: "Augustinian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Augustine"; "Athanasian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Athanasius"; "Barthian doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of Barth."
If it isn't nonsensical, and if it isn't trying to say (at least in part) what I said in my first statement, I really wonder what point is attempting to be made.
Does Lutheran doctrine "depart" in some way (and if so, in what way?) from what Luther wrote and taught?
Yes, Bryce, it does. I can think of a couple. The doctrine of election put forward in the Formula differs from Luther's as found in "On the Bondage of the Will." Similarly, Luther's teaching on the office of the ministry differs from the teaching of the Lutheran Church as found in AC, Ap, Tractatus in that the latter never derive the Office from the priesthood of all the baptized.
Allow me to be boring...
How can one consider it to be "Lutheran theology" if it is not in agreement with theology of the person from which the theology gets its name? When does it become inappropriate to call it Lutheran theology?
Bryce,
Lutheran theology is that confessed in the Book of Concord; not the private writings of Luther or any other. Well did Krauth say "Her faith is not to be brought to the touchstone of Luther's private opinion, but his private opinion is to be tested by her confessed faith, when the question is, What is genuinely Lutheran?" CR 265
It would have been better to have named the church after the confessions than Luther, as Bryce's confusion is common. And the validity of the Reformation does not depend on defending everything Luther ever said.
It would have been better to have named the church after the confessions...
Ebenezer Lutheran Church; I see what you mean.
Post a Comment