Monday, January 29, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
As soon as any attempt is made to answer any of these questions – a creed (an “I believe”) has been formulated. That creed may fall in line with the ancient and historic creeds, what has been believed, taught, and confessed by others for a long time; or it may be something new and original that no one else in the history of the whole world to the present time has believed, taught, or confessed. Whatever the case, some formulation of a creed or confession accompanies the Bible to explain and apply what the Bible says.
Perhaps those who use the phrase “no creed but the Bible” really intend to say that the historic creeds and confessions are not biblical. I have frequently heard that my communion fellowship, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is not biblical, because that particular phrase does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Response: If this is how we are to understand what it means to be biblical, then the only biblically mentioned church (still in existence) to which a person may belong is the one mentioned in Romans 1:7.
The historic creeds and confessions are not found word-for-word in the Bible, yet this fact alone does not make them “unbiblical". A different question must be asked to determine whether such creeds and confessions are biblical, whether they are a faithful exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, whether they teach and confess the same Faith handed down by the holy prophets and apostles in the sacred writings.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
(#4) in the series:
What implications or applications may be drawn
Monday, January 15, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
(#3) in the series:
What implications or applications may be drawn
Thursday, January 11, 2007
I may be remembering this incorrectly, but early on in my studies of the Book of Concord, I was told that the division of the Articles of the Augsburg Confession (with the headings) was somewhat similar to the division of chapters (together with editorial headings) in the Bible: These divisions were not in the original. However, one may see that the article divisions and headings were included in the 1580 Book of Concord by looking here. Perhaps this piece of information was referencing the Augsburg Confession as it was presented in 1530?
What I do remember with some certainty was the understanding that the divisions fall more naturally after each condemnation. It works like this: Article I. ends with a condemnation. Article II. ends with a condemnation. When you arrive at Article III., you do not see a condemnation until the end of Article V., so that Articles III. to V. should all be considered together with regard to the censured teachings of the Anabaptists and others, "who teach that we receive the Holy Spirit in consequence of our own preparation, our thoughts and works, without the external word of the Gospel."
Any thoughts on this? (Or correction of my memory in remembering these things?)
Friday, January 05, 2007
If one makes a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, etc.
We teach, that since the fall of Adam all men who are naturally engendered, are conceived and born in sin; that is, that they all are from their mother’s womb, full of evil desires and propensities, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God; and that this innate disease, or original sin, is truly sin, which brings all those under the eternal wrath of God, who are not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit.
Hence, we condemn the Pelagians and others, who deny that original corruption is sin, whereby they assert, to the disparagement of the merits and sufferings of Christ, that piety is the result of our natural powers.
Reading this, I am reminded of a section of the "Flood Prayer" from Luther's Baptismal Booklet: "we ask for the sake of this very same boundless mercy of yours that you would look graciously upon N. and bless him with true faith in the Holy Spirit so that through this same saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and whatever he has added thereto may be drowned in him and sink, etc." (The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds., Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p.374; emphasis added.) It is perhaps worth noting that Article II explicitly makes a connection to Baptism.
(1) Those who assert that "piety is the result of our natural powers" - that we might somehow naturally have or achieve true fear of God or true faith in God - bring into question what exactly it was that Christ came to do.
(2) When I hear questions pressed against this Article, dissent is often expressed with regard to infants. Infants look innocent. Infants can't *do* anything, can't *hurt* anyone, cannot think - let alone harbor malicious thoughts or ill-will toward anyone. Response?
(3) Believing that infants are conceived and born in sin, the implication is that from infancy we need the grace and promises of God which are given and applied in Holy Baptism, that we might also escape "the eternal wrath of God". (In the Large Catechism, Luther says more about Infant Baptism here.)
(4) There are also in this article - if all men can "have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God" - implications for evangelism, etc. Would anyone care to elaborate? (Perhaps with reference to Articles III-V?)
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Examples (or questions to get the ball rolling...) :
(1) What significance does the word "unanimous" have for church fellowship for us today, when AC I states that our churches unanimously hold and teach that God is "only one Divine Essence" in which "there are three persons"? Are those who wish to subscribe quia to this article (as part of a quia subscription to the entire Book of Concord) permitted to remain in a fellowship that is not unanimous in confessing the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity in the Undivided Unity?
(2) A related question: Is one who wishes to make a quia subscription to the Confessions bound only to attach himself to a fellowship that is unanimous in rejecting the heresies that are condemned in this article? (For example, should the churches in our fellowship likewise be unanimous in denying the statement of some that the god of the "Mahometans" is also the "true God"?)
(3) What application might be drawn from the teaching that is confessed in this article? Aside from the crassly pagan invocation of "the Mother (Earth), Daughter, and Wisdom" (which without doubt ought to be forbidden among Christians,) what other formulas of divine invocation ought to be censured among quia subscribers?
(4) How does our confession of what is taught about God in this article affect our prayers, either their manner or their words?
(5) Is there any significance to the fact that not one single Bible passage is cited in this article (although passages such as Nehemiah 9:6, Matthew 28:19, Titus 3:10-11 could certainly have been cited), yet an explicit nod is given to both the Council of Nicaea and the Fathers?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
If one makes a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, what are the implications of this subscription (or what applications might be made) with particular regard to: