Reformed site distorts historical Lutheran view on holidays
This site has a view of Regulative Principle, which is not the view of many Reformed either, so its condemnations is not just at today's Lutherans but also at fellow Reformed as well.
The site reads:
http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/truwrshp.htm
"It is well known that most Lutherans have always retained as part of their service to God both the Lord's day instituted by Christ as well as most of the major "holy days" instituted by the Papists. The practice is inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Formula of Concord which asserts, 'We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a plain [and steadfast] confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in regard to such adiaphora, as the apostle has written Gal. 5,1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Also 2 Cor. 6,14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc. For what concord hath light with darkness? Also Gal. 2,5: To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. For in such a case it is no longer a question concerning adiaphora, but concerning the truth of the Gospel, concerning [preserving] Christian liberty, and concerning sanctioning open idolatry, as also concerning the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith [how care should be taken lest idolatry be openly sanctioned and the weak in faith be offended]; in which we have nothing to concede, but should plainly confess and suffer on that account what God sends, and what He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict upon us.'
"Here, in the Epitome's fourth affirmation in chapter 10, we have a clear affirmation that when the enemy of the Gospel has commanded an observation as moral duty, sinful to neglect, the Christian should STAND FAST in the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free, by defending his Christian Liberty through an open dissent from that practice or profession imposed by the enemies of the Gospel. Certain it is that the entire liturgical year, with Christ-Mass, Ishtar, Good-friday, &c. is all one big idolatrous chain of bondage imposed by no authority but that of Antichrist."
Here we see the article actually claiming the Lutheran Book of Concord denouncing celebrations of Christmas, Easter, etc., as practices of the antichrist. It takes a statement about Christian liberty and turned it into what the Book of Concord does NOT say- and that is that Christians are not at liberty to celebrate such days. Yes, the site does say Christians are to defend their liberty by OPEN DISSENT against these practices. But to the Book of Concord, that is precisely antithesis to Christian liberty. The Book of Concord was stating that Christians are at liberty to not celebrate these days even when those in authority demand they practice those days. It does not say celebrating them means submitting to the authority of the antichrist.
Here are other statements that show the Book of Concord (cited particularly from Epitome):
http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#X.%20Church%20Rites
"4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God. "
Here is the statement in that same context that shows indeed that congregations can practice these ceremonies as long as they are useful and edifying. More we also see the Book of Concord states:
"7] 5. We believe, teach, and confess also that no Church should condemn another because one has less or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, if otherwise there is agreement among them in doctrine and all its articles, as also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei, Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith. "
These is the very statement that came after what the Reformed article cited from the Book of Concord in claiming Lutherans today are not following the Book of Concord since they celebrate holidays like Christmas. Yet, here, the Reformed article is doing the very thing the Book of Concord said NOT to do- that is to condemn another church for having external ceremonies not commanded by God. I would suggest it is the Reformed article that is not keeping with the principle of the Book of Concord.
As pointed out, what is cited by the Reformed article is a statement about Christians are at liberty to celebrate or not celebrate the holidays in question. If it becomes a matter of these holidays being turned as required commandment/law or twisted to become the gospel in itself, Lutherans are to oppose being forced to celebrate them. But they are not to condemn others who do celebrate them as long as it is done out of principle of Christian liberty. That is in following with what the Augsburg Confession not only said about Christmas and Easter, but also Sunday which ironically the Reformed themselves, regardless of whether they follow the regulative principle or not, keep.
posted by Thuyen Tran at 9:10 PM
4 Comments:
Furthermore, the Reformed article goes on to say: "From these observations we may conclude, that even without respect for Presbyterian / Reformed Principles of Worship which deny that such ecclesiastical holydays may be classified as adiaphora, Lutheran principles at least condemn the Pope's holydays and thus condemn also the celebration of all holydays on those days appointed by the Pope, lest the observance of those days fail to distinctly declare our liberty from the laws of Antichrist and thus become a sinful and shameful failure on our part to stand fast as Christ's freemen. Sadly however, Lutherans cannot say that they "would not give place, no, not for an hour," but have for nearly 500 years given place to Rome, and sanctioned her idolatry."
As pointed out before, by selectively quoting the Book of Concord, the author of the Reformed article made it appear that the Lutheran confession opposed as principle actually celebrating these holidays, when in fact it opposed the idea of Christians being forced to celebrate them. Big difference. Not only that, but given that the very same confession said that we are not to condemn each other for celebrating or not celebrating them indeed show the Lutheran principle as articulated by the Book of Concord does not condemn these holidays as of the antichrist.
In fact, it is consistent with the Augsburg Confession (which is part of the Book of Concord) which only condemned turning these practices into binding on the Christian conscience or into some form of gospel (which we would all agree would be unbiblical):
http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.html#article28
53] What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54] without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
55] It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14, 40; comp. Phil. 2, 14; 56] but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.
57] Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and 58] rites.
The Reformed article states this: "Fifthly and lastly, this quote, cited in other reformed works against holydays, I cite in full, lest any accuse me of being dishonest."
That's ironic since it selectively quoted the Epitome section of the Book of Concord, when on the very topic, it left out other points made by the confession which contradicted what the Reformed article claims. Including the very statements made right after the quotation it cited from the Lutheran confession. And let's not forget it completely ignored what the Augsburg Confession said, and that is also part of the Book of Concord. And the article claims to speak for what is true Lutheran principles? Ridiculous.
And since the Reformed article wants to appeal to the writings of Luther, such as his letter to the nobility, let it be known that the Augsburg Confession was a statement of what Lutherans believe and was approved by Luther himself. And it should be also noted Luther did not condemn celebrating certain holidays per se, but condemned the abuses associated with them, such as gluttony and other vices.
The Reformed regulative principle is in disagreement with not only today's Lutherans, but with the Lutherna principles articulated in the Book of Concord, as well as with Luther who approved the very Augsburg Confession, that stated that it is proper for churches to keep days like Easter as long as it is not binding on the Christian conscience.
This link showed that Luther kept the liturgy in regards to these holidays:
http://www.pdcnet.org/pmluther.html
Post a Comment
<< Home