Luther on house church

I don't think Luther ever followed through with these thoughts. But at one point he proposed having three types of gatherings or church services.

"[1] The first, in Latin; which we published lately, called the Formula Missae..."

"[2] Next, there is the German Mass and Divine Service, of which we are now treating. This ought to be set up for the sake of the simple laymen. Both these kinds of Service then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity"

"[3] But the third sort [of Divine Service], which the true type of Evangelical Order should embrace, must not be celebrated so publicly in the square amongst all and sundry. Those, however, who are desirous of being Christians in earnest, and are ready to profess the Gospel with hand and mouth, should register their names and assemble by themselves in some house to pray, to read, to baptize and to receive the sacrament and practise other Christian works."

(The German Mass and Order of Divine Service, January 1526. http://history.hanover.edu/texts/luthserv.html)

I find this an interesting mix of 'Divine Services'. Type 1 and 2 would focus on outreach to the general public.

I suspect Luther recognized that the large gatherings was not the best fit for continued spiritual growth. I suspect he was looking at what was modeled by the the New Testament gatherings as he considered a home based gathering of believers.

I find it especially interesting that he proposed having baptism and the sacraments practiced in these smaller house gatherings.

I shall never be a heritic

"I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men." - Martin Luther

ditto

Related Post:

• Am I a heretic?

Reformation Sunday - My 95 Thesis

Today is Reformation day. On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis. Issues he wanted the church to dialog about. I'm recognizing the guts it must have taken for Martin Luther and others to go against the flow of the established church.

Personally I'm not sure the work of the Reformation has finished. I'm doing my part by posting my 95 thesis, stuff I'd love to see the church dialog around:

http://jonjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-95-thesis.html

there the Devil would also build a chapel

"For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel." - Martin Luther

I find this quote interesting. I can't find the context. But can I make an assumption? Would Martin Luther be disappointed with where the protestant reformation ended up.... back in a bunch of buildings. Different leaders, different titles for the leaders, and some different theology... but a very similar structure.

Am I a Heretic?

"Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma. It is distinct from apostasy, which is the formal denunciation of one's religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion. The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy are known as heretics. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

If this is how we define heresy, I suppose Jesus was a heretic. He brought controversial change to the religious system of beliefs of his day.

All the reformers like Martin Luther, and William Tyndale were considered heretics in their days.

And for everyone who believes they hold to true orthodoxy there will be others who hold to a different system of beliefs calling them heretics.

So I guess we are all heretics according to someone.

However, I pray I can avoid being burned at the stake (both figuratively in terms of ruined relationships and harm done to Christ's Church - and literally of course). But I can't help think being a heretic may not be such a bad thing. If you think of history, we've all benefited from the efforts of other great heretics.

So go ahead and call me a heretic if you want, but ...

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "(Matt 7:1-5 NIV)

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."(Rom 14:1-8)

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Luke 6:37-38 NIV)

“It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” (1 Cor 4:4-5 NIV)

My 95 Thesis - Point 8 - Sola Scriptura

Here's my 8th Point in My 95 Theses.

Is Sola Scriptura an essential to the faith?

"Of the five Solas, Sola Scriptura best encapsulates the heart throb of the European Reformers. A key question posed by Martin Luther was, what is the final and ultimate authority for life, faith and worship? Has God given a sufficient and final decree through which all activities of human existence are to conform? Or does the Church along with tradition have the right and authority to impose binding legislation upon the hearts and minds of people, even when such legislation clearly violates Scripture? We hold that the Bible and the Bible alone is the only ultimate and reliable source of God’s personal revelation to mankind."
http://www.sola-scriptura.ca/mission-and-purpose/

Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?

That seems like a basic question. If you hold strongly to Sola Scriptura, yet don't see Scripture teaching it, do you need to believe it? I see irony if it is only a tradition handed down from the reformers...

There are certain themes in Scripture that are certainly central to our faith. Love and Unity are two that come to mind. How many verses are there that support the position of Sola Scriptura? If Sola Scriptura is less essential than Love and Unity, it may be a good topic for discussion, but not worth creating or maintaining divisions over.

So, are there lots of verses that support the idea? There seems to be one verse that comes up in every discussion of Sola Scriptura.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "

All Scripture... which Scripture? Was Paul talking about the 66 books we now call the Bible, some of which were not even written when he was writing this letter to Timothy? I think not.

But even if he was holding our leather bound book in one hand while he made this statement, he never said it was the only authority or revelation of God to us.

And let's not forget the main point of this verse... the point is that Scripture is useful ... "so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (vs. 17)

So what's my concern? Are we missing something by holding tightly to Sola Scriptura?

My concern is we've placed less value on the things Jesus did leave with us to guide us. He did not write a book and leave it with us saying "follow this book". But he did leave us his Holy Spirit to guide us. His followers are also called His body, and we are to allow members of Christ's body to encourage, teach, build up, instruct, and submit to each other.

John 14:15-21 (NIV)

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John 14:26 (NIV)

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

OK... so what I am left to hold on to? I think the early church confirmed that these books were the best books describing the life of our Lord, and the life and teachings of the early church. There are other early christian writings that may also shed light on the early church. But there was reason for enough doubt and they were excluded from the canon.

I believe the 66 books we cherish do point us towards knowing the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. I believe it is possible that God spoke clearly to the authors as they penned the books in the Bible. I hope all of it is 100% accurate. It would make sense that a loving God would want to preserve an accurate written account of who He is. But even if it isn't 100% accurate, I am thankful that I hold a book that reveals to me who God is, and that He wants to relate to me in a personal way. In that relationship I can hear God's words to me.

Related Posts:

• Word in you
• Freedom from Biblicism
• People of the Book
• Sola Scriptura
• Do you know God's voice
• Spirit of truth
• I don't understand Hebrews 8

If Martin Luther lived today

I just re-read Martin Luther's 95 Thesis. When I started My 95 Thesis series of posts I was thinking Luther was taking issue with 95 separate issues with the Roman Catholic church of his day. But it looks like this trigger point of the protestant reformation was basically one issue described in 95 points or sentences. Indulgences was the main issue Martin Luther wanted to start a dialog around.

So my logic around naming My 95 Thesis series is a bit flawed. I have more than one issue I'd like to see some dialog around today.

I also wonder... If Martin Luther lived today, would he still write something similar to his 95 Thesis?

I think it's safe to say the main points in Luther's 95 Thesis are no longer concerns in the Roman Catholic church. I think the counter reformation of the 1500's - 1600's addressed most of those concerns.

A Catholic friend of mine had never even heard of indulgences until an 'evangelical' friend of her's told her how wrong it was for her to believe such things. She had to go look it up to figure out what all the fuss was about.

The war on this battle line is over, but many of the troops haven't been informed.

Is there still a need to protest the Roman Catholic church? There are other differences that have emerged, but if they are big issues for you, wouldn't dialog be more constructive? ... and that is what Martin Luther originally desired.

Are there issues with the traditions of the protestants that should also discussed?

If someone was to protest the protesters... what would they be called?

My 95 Thesis

"Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."
http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2008/11/martin-luthers-95-theses-in-latin-and-english/

I understand Martin Luther's desire with his 95 thesis was not to start a new denomination or branch of Christianity, but to start dialog. My desire is the same. I doubt I'll get to 95, but I do have some points of concern with protestant evangelicalism that I believe are worth dialoging on.

I don't want to create new divisions. I want to start by affirming the common belief of all Christ followers that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of my life. And this dialog is intended for those who confess that he is Lord of their lives. If we share a common Lord, and He is ruling in our hearts and lives and not our own selfish ambitions, let's put aside our agenda's and seek God as we approach these topics. If we are one with Christ, even in the midst of disagreement I believe He will direct us to maintain unity.

I'm also not assuming I have it all figured out. I may be wrong on a number of these issues. But I ask you to consider my concerns and seek God for the truth.

Point #1: Unity

Are we joining Christ's prayer for unity - or working against it?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #2: Gospel

What was the gospel message Jesus and his disciples preached?
Would this same gospel message work today?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #3: God is Love

Does our God love us or hate us? Seems like a simple question, yet God is often portrayed as an angry God who hates the world...
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #4: Hell

Does Scripture say Hell is eternal punishment? Or does it teach that the wages of sin is death, perishing, being destroyed, a second death, or not getting to live for eternity?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #5: Calvinism

I'm concerned at the level of influence Calvinism has within 'protestant evangelicalism'.
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #6: Membership

I'm concerned that the way we do church membership does more harm to the unity of Christ's body than good.
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #7: Magic 8 Ball

Does the Bible give clear answers on all issues? I`m concerned with the tendency in Christian circles to try to find answers to every question in the pages of Scripture.
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #8: Sola Scriptura

Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura? Is Sola Scriptura an essential to the faith? I'm concerned we may place a greater emphasis on a book than on the two things Jesus did leave with us to guide us.
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.


Point #9: Money

Money for poor is emphasized in New Testament. Money for buildings, staff, and programming... not so much. Does Christ's Church need a budget?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #10: Denominations

Where do we get the idea that having different denominations is acceptable? Is Christ's church divided? Are we dividing Christ's body? Or are we assuming that our denomination is the only real church?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #11: Sermon Centered

Why has our gatherings become centered around a sermon? Why does the body of Christ, the royal priesthood, sit passively listening to the same person speak week after week? There is nothing wrong with a good sermon. But are we missing out on something better?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #12: Leadership

Of course, in any gathering there will be some who lead others. But does the church need leaders who make decisions for the body? Or should the leaders simply be the ones who are living as examples that others should follow? And what about the use of titles common to church leaders?
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.

Point #13: Temple Worship

When you look at the Old Testament model it is easy to identify the temple, priests and sacrifices of worship. There are specific holy places, holy people, and holy actions. When you look at the modern church practices and beliefs it is a bit confusing.
Click here for more on this topic, and share your thoughts.


OK, I likely won't get close to 95... and Luther's 95 wasn't really 95 separate issues either... but I may post a few more points here in the future to organize my concerns...

Sola fide

Sola fide ("by faith alone")

Let's see how wikipedia explains this one:

"Sola fide is the teaching that justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, "being declared right by God"), is received by faith only, without any mixture of or need for good works, though in classical Protestant theology, saving faith is always evidenced by good works. Some Protestants see this doctrine as being summarized with the formula "Faith yields justification and good works" and as contrasted with the Roman Catholic formula "Faith and good works yield justification."

However, this is disputed by the Roman Catholic position as a misrepresentation; they claim it is better contrasted with a comparison of what is meant by the term "justification": both sides agree that the term invokes a communication of Christ's merits to sinners, where in Protestant theology this is seen as being a declaration of sinlessness (while not yet necessarily being objectively so — "simul justus et peccator"(simultaneously justified and yet a sinner) for Luther). Roman Catholicism sees justification as a communication of God's life to a human being, cleansing him of sin and transforming him truly into a son of God, so that it is not merely a declaration, but rather the soul is made actually objectively righteous. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

... and the debate goes further on and on ...

I can't help think we are mostly just splitting hairs here, debating only over the best way to put into words a concept that we all agree on.

To simplify it to something a child can understand.

We need to believe and follow Jesus.

Catholics and protestant children can agree to that - and aren't we to have child-like faith?

Let's look further at some verses.

Justified by Faith:

Gal 2:15-21

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (NIV)

Gal 3:24

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Rom 3:28

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." (NIV)

Rom 5:1

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (NIV)

Justified by Works

James 2:24

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

James 2:17-18

"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."

Matt 7:21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.".

Matt 25:34-35

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'"

I find it interesting that the the words "faith alone" are only found in James 2:24, and are making the point that we can not be saved by faith alone. Supposedly Luther had added the word "alone" to his translation of Romans 3:28, but it does not show up in any current translations that I can find. So to be fair to all scripture I will not use that language in ways protestants have. I believe justification is through faith which leads to works. You can't have one without the other.

In practice there are likely many who call themselves catholic, who are hoping to get to heaven based on some steps they've taken, who shouldn't have that assurance. There are likely also many from protestant churches who have believed as a child and said a prayer, and have been told they are saved. But if they have gone on with their lives rejecting Christ, they also should not have that false assurance. Faith without works is not real faith.

Here is the wording that the lutheran church and catholic church now agree on in their 'Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification':

(3.15) "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

And more from that joint declaration:

(37) "We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit."

I can agree to these statements too! I see nothing here that I would personally protest.

I think we are not far off from their official doctrine on this. In practice there may be a large gap between these teachings and how many who call themselves Christians live their faith... but then we should be there to encourage them in their walk with Christ.

Protestant Reformation

A few years ago we watched a movie on the life of Martin Luther, and last night we watched one on the life of William Tyndale. The Catholic church of the 1400's and early 1500's had much political power and chose to kill other Christ followers who had viewpoints that challenged their position of power. The protestant reformation was started during this period, and I believe for many good reasons.

However I wonder what would happen if the likes of Martin Luther and William Tyndale lived today. Do the same conditions exist today that would warrant splitting up Christ's church? The catholic church has become more tolerant of dissenting views. Tyndale would not have been burned at the stake, and Luther may not have even been excommunicated for his views.

So what were the issues that started the divisions 500 years ago?

The reformers took issue with

• the sale of indulgences.
• the practice of buying and selling church positions
• purgatory
• Particular judgment
• devotion to Mary
• the intercession of and devotion to the saints
• most of the sacraments
• mandatory celibacy requirement of its clergy
• the authority of the Pope.
  

Hmm... I've got some more readings to do... I'll try to do some follow-up posts on each of these topics. Are these issues still reason enough to reject the faith of another Christ follower who holds a different view on them?

(Edit: Feb 9, 2009)

I still haven't looked in detail at all the points above, but a few additional issues were looked into:

• Sola Scriptura
• Sola Fide
• Irony of works vs faith divide

(Edit: Feb 22, 2009)

I still haven't looked into all the details, but I'm pretty confident I am no longer protestant. I am not Catholic, but I am not protesting the Catholics either. I'm just going to follow Christ and try to avoid using labels that divide.