The Reformers were just men.

[Ovedya]

If that is the case with the reformers, wouldn't it also be the case that writers today would also be an integral part of carrying out God's economy? Wouldn't they also have to be given equal weight, and if not, at what point did this cease to be the case?

There were writers and theologins during the many decades of the Reformation, and there were the writers and theologins to whom the Reformation is commonly attributed. I think that the main difference was that the writers and theologins to whom the Reformation is attributed made significant changes to most prominent, or popular, schools of thought through their teachings.

As far as Paul's transgressions go, they were before his conversion to Christianity, not after.

Yes, however, I think that there is a pattern to be learned from in Paul. Although Paul's persecution was out of ignorance and before his conversion to Christianity, he nevertheless persecuted the church from the standing of being "of the called race." HE no doubt considered himself to be absolutely right for persecuting the church because in his opinion, and because of his zeal, he was the "true believer" and the Christians were "the heretical cult." In fact, if you think about it, Luther and Paul had the same attitudes, only one was opposite from the other.

[Smalcald]

OK Smalcald, I understand your position, but let's look at it this way. Yes, a strict adherence to the doctrine of someone like Luther will prevent the church from being led astray by gnostics for instance, but will not help them when it comes to errors created by Luther himself. As for doctrine, the Bible itself contains doctrine, whether it be that of the apostle Paul, or that of Jesus himself, and the Bible was written by the inspiration of God through human vessels. To simply read the Bible is to get doctrine. Understanding comes as we are instructed by the Holy Spirit.

You said nobody should follow the teachings of one pastor, but that is in actuality what we are doing when we follow Luther. His followers believe what he says to be true and continue to follow it, only in greater and greater numbers. It would be no different than if I started a church with a new doctrine and people started believing what I said and following it. The teachings would then be written in a book and from generation to generation a church named after me would teach my doctrine and use me as an authority. It wouldn't have to be me, it could be someone with a completely different view such as a Horizoneast or Ovedya, but the point is, it would still be one person with a doctrine that was accepted and then repeated. All new ministers would be required to study the works of that individual insuring the doctrine remained pure, but the problems come in because the errors of that individual are passed down with the truth.

I believe that what I teach is truth. If I didn't I wouldn't state it in the first place, but in light of the fact I only know in part, (only God knows everything perfectly), I understand there are errors in things I say as is the case with all ministers. I wouldn't want anyone blindly following my teachings without checking them out in light of scripture to make sure they are true, and that is how I look at the reformers. Since everything they taught is not absolute truth, we need to instruct people to learn the Bible for themselves and seek the scriptures to see if what they are being taught is true or not.

I see your point.

But you see when it comes to doctrine (not necessarily all of his writings), I don't think Luther had great error, thus I am a Lutheran. For the same reason hopefully that a person who is a member of the AOG for example does not believe that the AOG has great error. Luther himself tells me to go to scripture as you also point out and check, and I have and I agree with all of his doctrine, his take on the bible. Thus when I take communion with my congregation we are in total agreement, there is no new revelations to worry about, no new ideas some preacher is going to "discover". I know that what is preached in my congregation has been preached for 500 years, and will be preached 500 years from now. The creeds that I validate as true and publicly state that I believe are true have been recited by Christians for 1700 years. I really find that important for my walk, also for my children's walk with God.

Now, the danger of this way is that it becomes shallow and meaningless and does not continually return to scripture. All doctrine must stand on scripture alone, and we must start with scripture and continually go the Word of God. I have seen some people simply rely on their congregational doctrine and creeds, not even knowing why what is doctrine is true, or even why they believe if they do, this is backward. The true faith must always be kept in mind, faith trumps doctrine, as Luther said, faith alone. For example a person can be wrong about some aspect of communion and some other person may be correct intellectually, but if the person who is correct about communion, does not have a true saving faith in Jesus Christ being correct on this point of doctrine matters not a whit.

[Mark777]

Smalcald,

I would like to ask YOU what you think made the difference in Luther's transformation from Roman Catholic to Protestant Reformer? What was the agent of change?

Mark

[Smalcald]

I could give you a long winded response.

But it would still come down to one thing, God.

[st. Worm]

Horizoneast quote:

That all sounds good on paper Smalcald but is it reality? Didn

[Mark777]

What made the difference in Luther's life was God- you are right - and then came investigation. He looked and learned and was convicted. He tried to reform the Catholic church. They wouldn't have it. This is the responsibility of every believer. To reform themselves. Luther was no more equiped than anyone else. We all have the creator within our person. God can directly influence every one of us. We do not need any man made church institution to know God's truth. It is God who keeps us and keeps His word. It is God who indwells us and puts His truth in our hearts. This comes first. God may use people, institutions, histories, creeds etc to aid a believer but the source is God and He can be directly experienced by each one of us.

My God teaches me. He has taught me from day one. He taught me before I was aware of His existence. He kept me and saved me and has taught me. I learned from Luther and others - things both good and bad. But to think of adhering to any man's system of thought seems repulsive to me. I question myself - and any other man.

The Standard is Christ. His perfect word is the Scripture. His teaching agent is the Holy Spirit - which every believer has within them. True Believers are taught by Him. We are all sinners.

Look to God not to man.

Mark

[Smalcald]

Smalcald

I see your point.

But you see when it comes to doctrine (not necessarily all of his writings), I don't think Luther had great error, thus I am a Lutheran. For the same reason hopefully that a person who is a member of the AOG for example does not believe that the AOG has great error. Luther himself tells me to go to scripture as you also point out and check, and I have and I agree with all of his doctrine, his take on the bible. Thus when I take communion with my congregation we are in total agreement, there is no new revelations to worry about, no new ideas some preacher is going to "discover". I know that what is preached in my congregation has been preached for 500 years, and will be preached 500 years from now. The creeds that I validate as true and publicly state that I believe are true have been recited by Christians for 1700 years. I really find that important for my walk, also for my children's walk with God.

That all sounds good on paper Smalcald but is it reality? Didn

[st. Worm]

Horizoneast quote:

I understand your concept but again you push the idea that there is something intrinsic in the extra-biblical writings peculiar to Lutheranism that bind you all together and those who do not adhere to such

[st. Worm]

horizoneast quote:

Agreed

[st. Worm]

As I said before horizon, we just disagree. I don't think the historical beginnings of the Christian church as written about in Acts negates the more detailed theology of the rest of the NT that provides more specific details about the importance of unity in doctrine. Yes, this was the start of the church but individual churches had not really been organized at this point. This occurred later as the Apostle's started churches throughout the region. You say it is not biblical yet I think the WELS has done a fine job of biblically justifying proper confirmation of new members with regard to doctrine.

SW