Freddy Finkelstein said on Bailing Water...
Anon @12:08 has a very good point. The Confessions do more than confess, they point to practice as proof of our confession. In the statement he cites, Melanchton (sic) answers the accusations of Rome, that we stand outside of the One True Church, by a) declaring the accusations False, "Falsely are we accused...", and by b) pointing the Romans to our practice as proof of our answer, as proof that we are catholic, "...for the Mass is retained among us..."
As for FC X (Epitome), it is elucidated further in Article X of the Thorough Declaration, stating directly that practices which would associate us with the heterodox are not adiaphora, but are to be avoided as prohibited by God (emphasis mine):
“When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color) [such as, fundamentally anthropocentric worship practices replacing christocentric practices, which openly conceal the Marks of the Church by removing the Sacrament from the Divine Service, which adopt worship practices defining human acts of worship as a Means of Grace, or which promote human experiences as assurance of salvation --FF], these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God [the practice of immersion, for instance, falls into this category --FF]. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists [or the Reformed, or the Baptists, or the Pentecostals... --FF] were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, or required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy [or turning to the Reformed, or the Baptists, or the Pentecostals... --FF] and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom.”
The point is, the Confessions point us, as well as our adversaries, to our Practices as proof of our Confession. Therefore, our Practices must manifestly prove our separation from the heterodox and from sectarianism.
JB states that it is abhorrent to put words in the mouths of the Confessors, to make them say what they do not say. I agree, but at the same time, I say, it is abhorrent to take words from their mouths, to make them say any less than they do, by failing to take their words at face value. Much of what the Confessions say is very easy to understand, if one is accustomed to didactic reading -- neither secret hermeneutic nor deep knowledge of dead languages is required to to unveil their "true meaning."
I ended my 03/11/2009-5:14PM comment by stating that the only winning play is to return to our Confessions. They require a Church Practice that proves them. In the Confessions we will find a degree of freedom in Practice, but no freedom to jettison manifestly catholic rites; and we will find the requirement to remove from them only what cannot be practiced without sinning.
Freddy Finkelstein
March 12, 2009 1:51 PM
3 comments:
I'm interested to know what you think of the rest of the conversation on Bailing Water,
I'll grant you that Lutherans should strive for a separation in practice, to make themselves distinct from the world, but I argue that some Confessionally minded folks act exactly the same as the Rock n rollers, placing too much importance on outward actions.
Some claim that the way the Lutheran Fathers understood worship, because they were right in so many things, should be followed as the 'right' way to worship.
Scripture provides no such specific prescription. Though the Lutheran Confessions are great we should be aware that the Confessions too can lead us into Legalism.
That's what I've been maintaining. Thoughts?
friends,
Which should be our greater concern: possibly offending the un-Legalist committee, or worshiping in a God-pleasing manner?
By purposefully staying close to the confessions and adhering to high standards, of course there will be accusations of 'legalism' especially from those that seek to stray (and the old Evil Foe that leads them astray).
["Oh yeah? Did God really say that? What about my alternative, more open interpretation of Christian freedom?" saith the snake.]
The bottom line is this: Does a worship service preach the Gospel in everything that is done? Or does it cloud the Gospel message with superfluousness?
A church member suggested to me that we should have alternative services to take advantage of the musical talent in the congregation. Why should we dilute our gospel message to give someone a chance to play his guitar and shake a tambourine? Hey, Rock star, you want to sing about how much you love God? Burn a disc or put it on your mySpace page.
Why race along the edge of the steep cliffs of whoopee worship above jagged El Diablo Canyon, when you can scatter seed throughout the broad, fertile plains of confessional, Western Rite?
Diet O Worms
Even a half hearted look at the reasons why changes are being made will reveal the false notion that we can do something to improve or detract from the reception of God's Word when it's taught in it's purity. If each proposed change was tested based on the promoters motivation the majority of changes would have to be condemned as attempts to supplement the Holy Spirit's work, catch people when they are "most succeptible" to hearing the Gospel, remove barriers to the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit etc. At the core most motivations for making changes are blasphemous heresy. The result is the blending of the Sacred with that of the carnaly minded world in order to remove the offense of the Cross. Church and Change is blinded by their false god and have become pawns to their father below.
Matt 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Post a Comment