DOCSLIB.ORG

Lutheran Forum Vol. 43, No. 2, Summer 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lutheran Forum Vol. 43, No. 2, Summer 2009 LEX OR A NDI LEX CREDENDI ADI A PHOR A , MA ND A T A , DA MN ab ILI A Oliver K. Olson A Brief History of Adiaphora distinguish between those who permit pipe organs and those who do not. Organs, it is explained, are not men- Someone who talks about pastoring a church is Baptist. tioned in the Bible. Someone who writes about congregants is probably Jewish. The same viewpoint stimulated Lutherans in the second Anyone who reads this journal uses the word adiaphora. adiaphora controversy (the history of dogma distinguishes Adiaphora is a classy word and antedates the English two adiaphora controversies). About 1681 a new opera language by a long time. Twenty-five hundred years ago house was talked about in Hamburg, and some local theo- the philosophical sect of the Sophists talked about adia- logians, followers of Pietist fathers Spener and Francke, phora, and the Cynics did it before them. Diapherein in denounced as sin not only the opera but also dancing, Greek means to separate, to make a difference. Add the smoking, and card-playing. Orthodox Lutheran pastors, letter alpha (an alpha privative) and it becomes adiapherein. on the contrary, looked on the controversial practices as Thus, adiaphora means things that do not make a differ- adiaphora. ence. Or it can mean things that are neither good nor evil. Our use of the word “adiaphora” today is a legacy of That makes the term a bit too static for good theological the first adiaphora controversy. The burning question then use. More useful and religiously interesting is the relation- was whether to obey or to resist the imperial law of 1548, ship of freedom and law in St. Paul’s paradox. the “Augsburg Interim.” It regulated religious matters after the military defeat of the Lutheran princes. A contempo- “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are rary description of the situation for English speakers passed helpful. “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be a negative judgment on the situation. enslaved by anything.” (I Corinthians 6:12) “All things are lawful,” but not all things are help- Interim is a booke whiche was at ye Emperoures ful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Maiesties commaundment printed and put forth Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his about the beginning of June, in this yere of our Sav- neighbor. (I Corinthians 10:23-24) iours birthe 1548, wherein is commanded that al the cities in Dutchlande that have receaved the worde of In The Freedom of a Christian Man, Luther, too, offered a god, and made a change of ceremonyes according paradox: “A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, to the word shal reforme their churches agayne, and subject to all. A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, sub- turne to the olde popische ordinaunces as a dog dothe ject to none.” to that he hath spued out, or a washen swine of the Nevertheless, the non-biblical term had been introduced, myre.1 and it had to be dealt with. The Puritan sourcebook, The Fortress of Fathers, explained that an adiaphoron is “a thing The “olde popische ordinaunces” were the invocation of whereof is made no matter, whether a man kepe hit or do saints, prayers for souls in purgatory, processions, festivals, not kepe hit.” Their definition agreed with the usage of the consecrations, vestments, seven sacraments, votive masses, Lutherans, who talked about Mitteldinge, indifferent things. and private masses (communicants, it was explained, were Puritans, however, were not fond either of adiaphora or not necessary but merely “useful”). paradox. They eventually decided just to exclude everything The punishment for disobedience was fearful. Imperial not specifically mentioned in the New Testament. A mod- soldiers enforced the Roman liturgy with guns. Predictably, ern continuation of that attitude (and a diverting footnote the majority chose conformity. In any case, many liturgi- to American church history) is the contrast one hears about cal practices were indifferent. Into the controversy Philipp between organic and non-organic branches of the Camp- Melanchthon introduced the word “adiaphora.” bellite tradition. The adjectives are not agricultural; they 22 SPRING 2010 Although the prince might reach ormation altogether, they attempted a scandali: “In the situation in which a a decision which I cannot accept, little mitigation. Extreme unction was confession is required or which causes I shall nevertheless commit to reintroduced not as a sacrament but scandal, nothing is an indifferent mat- no seditious act, but will either “according to apostolic command” ter.”11 The article is not to be under- remain silent, go into exile, or (Mark 6:13, James 5:14) for the treat- stood as the basic Lutheran statement else bear the consequences. For ment of the sick, an interpretation about the liturgy—as is sometimes the I also previously bore an almost that the Roman Catholic church has case. Article X is a political statement. deformed servitude at times recently adopted. Fasts were required Following the old principle of lex orandi when Luther heeded his own but as a matter of secular law. Author- lex credendi, Flacius insisted that “cult temperament, in which there ity for excommunication was trans- and doctrine cohere together and are was much polemical zeal, just as ferred to government consistories, connected.” “It is true, more than true, there are misfortunes of storms, but government of the church was that confession is in the adiaphora.”12 so there are some faults in the entrusted generally to the bishops and Stephan Skalweit suggests that, government which must be strin- the pope—with the wistful provision “[p]robably for the first time in the gently endured and concealed by that they would not persecute sound history of Lutheranism,” Flacius saw the moderate.2 doctrine. clearly the inner connection between Melanchthon was ready to cooper- doctrine and liturgy.13 “The devil is Compromise, as Melanchthon ex- ate since, typical of his time, he did especially interested in the liturgy,” plained, was better than suffering the not believe in the separation of church Flacius wrote, for “when he has it, he bitter fate of South Germany. The and state. “Christ determines the doc- has everything.” “Liturgical changes situation was nothing new: the church trine,” he wrote, “the government the will be the window through which the had always had to endure servitude.3 church order.”5 “Ecclesiastical tradi- wolf will enter the evangelical fold.”14 The Saxon government was also tions are civil laws, and their enforce- The defiant party thus ended up ready to compromise. Its own religion ment in no way pertains to spiritual making a contribution to the history law, the “Leipzig Interim,” was crafted government.”6 “Just as the father of of political resistance, even revolution. to make the emperor’s law tolerable in a family is a minister and executor of The Formulators of Concord had the a Lutheran land. A preliminary con- the church in his family, so is the mag- almost impossible task of siding with sultation was held from November 16 istrate minister and executor of the political resistance and at the same to 22, 1548, with Melanchthon partic- church in the republic.”7 “The magis- time convincing greater and lesser ipating. The guiding rule for the con- trate should be the protector not only lords to approve it. For Article X they sultants was “to introduce everything of the second table, but of the first.”8 came up with the clever term, “oppo- not opposed to God’s word and that By contrast, Matthias Flacius nents of the gospel.”15 And the lords can be done with a good conscience.”4 wrote that “the state is the protector all signed it—three princes elector Their recommendation, nicknamed of both tables. But in secular office.”9 of the Holy Roman Empire, sixteen As a battle ensign he adopted a flow- assorted other princes and thirty- “In the situation in ing, flapping, persuasive, unavoidable eight cities—even though they feared symbol—the surplice. “Whoever puts revolution. which a confession on a surplice,” Flacius wrote, “denies Christ’s teaching.” At the same time, The Lost Words Flacius explained for those who might is required or which and the Consequences not understand, “it is not true that we causes scandal, condemn the surplice itself.” What The permanent effect of the many made it unacceptable was coercion. Reformation quarrels corresponds nothing is an The surplice had to be resisted because in general to how noisy they were— the government had commanded it. and the first adiaphora controversy indifferent matter.” In the end, it was the resisters who was very noisy. “What kind of word won the confessional battle. Article X is ‘adiaphora’?” one weary German the “Celle Interim” by the resisters, of the Formula—“We believe, teach, said. “I think the accursed devil him- accepted almost all the ordo romanus: and confess that in a time of persecu- self invented it. Now everything is baptismal chrism, confirmation as a tion, when an unequivocal confession adiaphora, whether one prays to God sacrament, canonical hours, the Latin of the faith is demanded of us, we dare or the devil.”16 The crucial difficulty language, candles, vessels, chants, not yield to the opponents in such indif- is that equally important words have and the breaking of bread at com- ferent matters”10—is a recasting of the been forgotten. Those other words munion. Since the participants were famous statement of Matthias Flacius, are mandata (things required) and not quite ready to abandon the Ref- Nihil est adiaphoron in casu confessionis et damnabilia (things forbidden).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Xerox University Microfilms
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits Upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon1 Bernard J
    THE LIMITS UPON ADIAPHORISTIC FREEDOM: LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON1 BERNARD J. VERKAMP Vincennes University, Indiana HEN LUTHER and his principal spokesman, Philip Melanchthon, Wlaunched their attack against the many ecclesiastical laws and regulations which had cropped up over the centuries, it was not so much a matter of attacking the traditions in themselves as it was an attempt to restore the doctrine of solafideism, which in their opinion the traditions had severely jeopardized. Once that doctrine was fully appreciated, Luther wrote, the Christian would "easily and safely find his way through those myriad mandates and precepts of popes, bishops, monas­ teries, churches, princes, and magistrates."2 As it turned out, that way, according to both Luther and Melanchthon, was an adiaphoristic via media. But whether such a path was as "easily and safely" to be discerned as Luther thought, may be doubted; for, as a matter of fact, the adiaphoristic freedom championed by the two Wittenberg Reformers was closely circumscribed by "limits" from without and within, which, because of their subtlety and complexity, could be and not infrequently were overlooked. In what follows, it will be my intention to show exactly what those limits are. I will begin by trying to establish the outer boundaries, or, in other words, the precise locus of the adiaphorism proffered by Luther and Melanchthon. At its sixth session the Council of Trent declared: "Si quis dixerit, nihil praeceptum esse in Evangelio praeter fidem, cetera esse indifferentia, ñeque praecepta,
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Views of Original Sin and Associated Arguments and Meanings
    CHAPTER TWO COMPETING VIEWS OF ORIGINAL SIN AND ASSOCIATED ARGUMENTS AND MEANINGS The dispute over the definition of original sin, or more precisely, Matthias Flacius Illyricus’s1 controversial explanation of this doctrine, originated at the University of Jena in 1560 among the highest levels of the Lutheran academic world. It did not enter the territory of Mansfeld until a decade later. There it first claimed the attention of those clerics who operated in intellectual circles that went beyond the territory’s borders. But divisions within this ecclesiastical leadership soon spread throughout the territory’s entire pastorate. It may seem strange to begin a discussion of lay religiosity with elite theologians debating abstract points of doctrine in ivory towers. But in order to understand why the laity of Mansfeld became deeply involved in the controversy, it is important to start at the beginning with the central intellectual premise, and work outward to the various meanings and connotations it came to encompass. Only then can the laity’s association with one side or the other begin to make sense. The assumption here is that a purely intellectual weighing of the validity of the two definitions of original sin was not the only aspect of the debate 1 Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575) was born in Croatia, but studied in Venice, Basel, and Tübingen, before matriculating in Wittenberg in 1541. He eventu- ally became a professor of Hebrew there, where he was influenced by both Luther and Melanchthon, the former particularly with regard to pastoral care, the latter with regard to theology. After Emperor Charles V’s defeat of the Lutheran princes in the Schmalkald War (1547), as Melanchthon was urging a conciliatory policy, Flacius took up the banner of complete resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Melanchthon Versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle
    CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 44, Numbers 2-3 --- - - - JULY 1980 Can the Lutheran Confessions Have Any Meaning 450 Years Later?.................... Robert D. Preus 104 Augustana VII and the Eclipse of Ecumenism ....................................... Sieg bert W. Becker 108 Melancht hon versus Luther: The Contemporary Struggle ......................... Bengt Hagglund 123 In-. Response to Bengt Hagglund: The importance of Epistemology for Luther's and Melanchthon's Theology .............. Wilbert H. Rosin 134 Did Luther and Melanchthon Agree on the Real Presence?.. ....................................... David P. Scaer 14 1 Luther and Melanchthon in America ................................................ C. George Fry 148 Luther's Contribution to the Augsburg Confession .............................................. Eugene F. Klug 155 Fanaticism as a Theological Category in the Lutheran Confessions ............................... Paul L. Maier 173 Homiletical Studies 182 Melanchthon versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle Bengt Hagglund Luther and Melanchthon in Modern Research In many churches in Scandinavia or in Germany one will find two oil paintings of the same size and datingfrom the same time, representing Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, the two prime reformers of the Church. From the point of view of modern research it may seem strange that Melanchthon is placed on the same level as Luther, side by side with him, equal in importance and equally worth remembering as he. Their common achieve- ment was, above all, the renewal of the preaching of the Gospel, and therefore it is deserving t hat their portraits often are placed in the neighborhood of the pulpit. Such pairs of pictures were typical of the nineteenth-century view of Melanchthon and Luther as harmonious co-workers in the Reformation. These pic- tures were widely displayed not only in the churches, but also in many private homes in areas where the Reformation tradition was strong.
    [Show full text]
  • [Formula of Concord]
    [Formula of Concord] Editors‘ Introduction to the Formula of Concord Every movement has a period in which its adherents attempt to sort out and organize the fundamental principles on which the founder or founders of the movement had based its new paradigm and proposal for public life. This was true of the Lutheran Reformation. In the late 1520s one of Luther‘s early students, John Agricola, challenged first the conception of God‘s law expressed by Luther‘s close associate and colleague, Philip Melanchthon, and, a decade later, Luther‘s own doctrine of the law. This began the disputes over the proper interpretation of Luther‘s doctrinal legacy. In the 1530s and 1540s Melanchthon and a former Wittenberg colleague, Nicholas von Amsdorf, privately disagreed on the role of good works in salvation, the bondage or freedom of the human will in relationship to God‘s grace, the relationship of the Lutheran reform to the papacy, its relationship to government, and the real presence of Christ‘s body and blood in the Lord‘s Supper. The contention between the two foreshadowed a series of disputes that divided the followers of Luther and Melanchthon in the period after Luther‘s death, in which political developments in the empire fashioned an arena for these disputes. In the months after Luther‘s death on 18 February 1546, Emperor Charles V finally was able to marshal forces to attempt the imposition of his will on his defiant Lutheran subjects and to execute the Edict of Worms of 1521, which had outlawed Luther and his followers.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification
    Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification [Presented at the Reformation Lectures, Bethany Lutheran College and Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary, October 30, 1985, Lecture II] By Dr. Jacob A. 0. Preus 1. In 1537 at Wittenberg Luther presided over a Disputatio held in connection with the academic promotion of two candidates, Palladius and Tilemann, in which he discussed the passage in Rom. 3:28, “We believe that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” Luther, in his prefatory remarks, said, “The article of justification is the master and prince, the lord and ruler and judge of all areas of doctrine. It preserves and governs the entire teaching of the church and directs our conscience before God. Without this article the world is in total death and darkness, for there is no error so small, so insignificant and isolated that it does not completely please the mind of man and mislead us, if we are cut off from thinking and meditating on this article. Therefore, because the world is so obtuse and insensitive, it is necessary to deal with this doctrine constantly and have the greatest understanding of it. Especially if we wish to advise the churches, we will fear no evil, if we give the greatest labor and diligence in teaching particularly this article. For when the mind has been strengthened and confirmed in this sure knowledge, then it can stand firm in all things. Therefore, this is not some small or unimportant matter, particularly for those who wish to stand on the battle line and contend against the devil, sin, and death and teach the churches.” 2.
    [Show full text]
  • John Blahoslav, "Father and Charioteer of the Lord's People in the Unitas Fratrum"
    John Blahoslav, "Father and Charioteer of the Lord's People in the Unitas Fratrum" MILOS STRUPL Brief was the span of life which the Lord had allotted to Brother John Blahoslav. When he, "of the topmost four", one of the bishops of his communion, died on the twenty-fourth day of November 1571, while on a visit near Moravsky Krumlov, he had not yet reached his forty- ninth year. "All too soon, according to our judgment", sighed Lawrence Orlik, Blahoslav's faithful co-worker, as he was recording the death of his superior in the Necrology of the Unitas Fratrum, "it pleased the Lord to take him away; he himself knows for what reason. Mysterious divine judgments!" 1 And yet, its brevity notwithstanding, it had been a full life, crowded with the most diversified activities in the service of his beloved Unitas. For Blahoslav was indeed - quoting once more from Orlik's Necrology - "a great and outstanding man, whose fame, having been carried far and wide, excelled among other nations, a great and precious jewel of the Unitas".2 In this glowing appraisal Orlik did not remain alone. Others have voiced similar opinions. To mention just one, a modern historian, Vaclav Novotny, referred to Blahoslav as "one of the noblest spirits of his time, one of the most learned of his contemporaries, and therefore one of the most celebrated sons of his nation".3 No one will seriously question that in the history of the Unitas Fratrum Blahoslav holds a truly pivotal position. His importance must be judged in comparison with that of Brother Lucas of Prague, "the second founder of the Unitas", and that of John Amos Comenius, its last great spiritual leader and a man of undeniable international stature.
    [Show full text]
  • Life of Philip Melanchthon
    NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES 3 3433 08235070 7 Life of MELANciTHON m M \ \ . A V. Phu^ji' Mklanchthon. LIFE PHILIP MELAXCHTHOX. Rev. JOSEPH STUMP. A.M., WITH AN IXTKCDCCTIOS BY Rev. G. F. SPIEKER. D.D., /V<jri-iVi.»r .-.-" Cj:»r.-i ~':'sT:.'>y r* sAt LtttkiT^itJt TianiJgiir^ Smtimtry at /LLirSTRATED. Secoxp Epitiox. PILGER PUBLISHING HOUSE READING, PA. XEW YORK. I S g ;. TEE MEW YORK P'REFACE. The life of so distinguished a servant of God as Me- lanchthon deserves to be better known to the general reader than it actually is. In the great Reformation of the sixteenth century, his work stands second to that of Luther alone. Yet his life is comparatively unknown to many intelligent Christians. In view of the approaching four hundredth anni- versary of Melanchthon's birth, this humble tribute to his memory is respectfully offered to the public. It is the design of these pages, by the presentation of the known facts in Melanchthon's career and of suitable extracts from his writings, to give a truthful picture of his life, character and work. In the preparation of this book, the author has made use of a number of r^ biographies of ]\Ielanchthon by German authors, and of such other sources of information as were accessi- ble to him. His aim has been to prepare a brief but sufficiently comprehensive life of Melanchthon, in such a form as would interest the people. To what extent he has succeeded in his undertaking, others must judge. (V) That these pages may, in some measure at least, ac- complish their purpose, and make the Christian reader more familiar with the work and merit of the man of God whom they endeavor to portray, is the sincere wish of Thern Author.A CONTENTS, PAGE Introduction ix CHAPTER I.
    [Show full text]
  • Philip Melanchthon: Justification As the Renewal of the Intellect and the Will
    CHAPTER THREE PHILIP MELANCHTHON: JUSTIFICATION AS THE RENEWAL OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILL Melanchthon has had the dubious honor of being the lupus fabulae of the history of Lutheranism. The reason for this hostility must be understood in context of controversies which followed Luther’s death and resulted in party-forming. The followers of Luther were split into a number of rival parties, two of which the most prominent were the Philippists, who were supporters of Melanchthon’s theology and style, and the Gnesiolutherans, who tried to identify themselves as the genuine followers of Luther.1 Melanchthon tried to formulate Lutheran theology in such a way as to maintain a connection with Calvinist theologians. During Luther’s lifetime, he had already sought an alliance with the Roman Catholic Church. Melanchthon’s ecumenical interests became apparent in Regens- burg (1541) and in the Leipzig interim (1548). The formulations of the interim in particular was interpreted as a deviation from Luther’s teachings. These accusations came from Joachim Mörlin, among others, whose comment embodies the ambivalent status of Melanchthon. He is our Preceptor, and Preceptor he shall be called. But when he speaks about the Lord’s Supper, free will, justifi cation of man, or actions concerning interims, then you, Philip, shall be praised by the devil, but me nevermore.2 Melanchthon’s notion of justifi cation evolved over the years so that the role of renewal in justifi cation varied. His greatest difference from Luther was his way of depicting renewal as the causal renewal of the 1 A third minor party was the Swabachian group, who were followers of Johannes Brenz.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formula of Concord As a Model for Discourse in the Church
    21st Conference of the International Lutheran Council Berlin, Germany August 27 – September 2, 2005 The Formula of Concord as a Model for Discourse in the Church Robert Kolb The appellation „Formula of Concord“ has designated the last of the symbolic or confessional writings of the Lutheran church almost from the time of its composition. This document was indeed a formulation aimed at bringing harmony to strife-ridden churches in the search for a proper expression of the faith that Luther had proclaimed and his colleagues and followers had confessed as a liberating message for both church and society fifty years earlier. This document is a formula, a written document that gives not even the slightest hint that it should be conveyed to human ears instead of human eyes. The Augsburg Confession had been written to be read: to the emperor, to the estates of the German nation, to the waiting crowds outside the hall of the diet in Augsburg. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it is quite clear from recent research,1 followed the oral form of judicial argument as Melanchthon presented his case for the Lutheran confession to a mythically yet neutral emperor; the Apology was created at the yet not carefully defined border between oral and written cultures. The Large Catechism reads like the sermons from which it was composed, and the Small Catechism reminds every reader that it was written to be recited and repeated aloud. The Formula of Concord as a „Binding Summary“ of Christian Teaching In contrast, the „Formula of Concord“ is written for readers, a carefully- crafted formulation for the theologians and educated lay people of German Lutheran churches to ponder and study.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Lutheran Confessions: Dialogue Within the Reformation Spirit Oscar Cole-Arnal
    Consensus Volume 7 | Issue 3 Article 1 7-1-1981 Concordia' and 'unitas' in the Lutheran confessions: dialogue within the Reformation spirit Oscar Cole-Arnal Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus Recommended Citation Cole-Arnal, Oscar (1981) "Concordia' and 'unitas' in the Lutheran confessions: dialogue within the Reformation spirit," Consensus: Vol. 7 : Iss. 3 , Article 1. Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol7/iss3/1 This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “CONCORDIA” AND “UNITAS” IN THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS Dialogue Within the Reformation Spirit Oscar L. Arnal Within the process of determining the criteria for fellowship among Canadian Lutherans, this symposium has been assigned the specific task of analyzing the re- lationship between concordia and unitas in the Lutheran Confessions. With that end in mind, I propose a comparison of two sets of our symbolic documents, namely the Augsburg Confession and the Book and Formula of Concord. By employing such a method, it is hoped that our historical roots may be utilized in the service of our re- sponsibility to critique and affirm each other. Before one can engage in this dialogue with the past, it becomes necessary to come to terms with our own presuppositions and initial assumptions. All our asser- tions, even our historical and doctrinal convictions, are rooted within the reality of our biological and sociological environments. We speak out of experiences which are our own both individually and collectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Lutheran Confessions Bible Study
    A Brief Introduction to the Lutheran Confessions A Bible Study Course for Adults by Robert J. Koester Student Lessons • Lesson One—The Three Ecumenical Creeds: “The Ancient Church’s Confession” • Lesson Two—The Small and Large Catechisms: “The People’s Confession” • Lesson Three—The Augsburg Confession and the Apology: “The Princes’ Confession” • Lesson Four—The Smalcald Articles: “Luther’s Confession” • Lesson Five—The Formula of Concord, Part One: “The Theologians’ Confession” Scripture is taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. All quotations from the confessions, where noted as Kolb and Wengert, are from The Book of Concord edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, © 2000 Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN. Used by permission of Augsburg Fortress Publishers. All rights reserved. Northwestern Publishing House 1250 N. 113th St., Milwaukee, WI 53226-3284 www.nph.net © 2009 by Northwestern Publishing House Published 2009 Lesson One The Three Ecumenical Creeds: “The Ancient Church’s Confession” Introduction: What Are the Lutheran Confessions? Anyone who has attended the installation of a pastor or teacher in a confessional Lutheran church has heard the officiant ask the person being installed several questions. Among them are “Do you confess the Holy Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God?” and “Do you hold to the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran church and believe they are a correct exposition of Scripture?” Then the officiant reads off the list of the Lutheran Confessions. Unless you have received the formal training of a pastor or teacher, you may be left scratching your head.
    [Show full text]