Book of Concord

[JM]

I'm interested in reading thru the Book of Concord, perhaps reading a few studies about its theology, etc.

Any suggestions on where to start? Which translation?

Thank you.

j

[JoeCatch]

The translation at the Book of Concord (http://www.bookofconcord.org/) Web site uses a translation that, as far as I know, is fairly well respected across the board. And it's free! The translation used there is now public domain, so you can read it online or download it in its entirety in as a .pdf document.

I don't know how much Lutheran background you have, but you can't go wrong starting with the Small Catechism. From there I'd move either to the Large Catechism or the Augsburg Confession.

[LilLamb219]

What Joe said :thumbsup:

[IowaLutheran]

The most recent translation is from Kolb and Wengert.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Concord-Confessions-Evangelical-Lutheran/dp/0800627407/ref=sr_1_5/102-4234326-3046539?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187127786&sr=8-5

I think there have been some objections to the modern flavor of the translation, but I find it easier to read than than the online version. The best part about it is that it has excellent footnotes and introductions which provide the historical background to each document and provides cross-references to other documents, and it has an excellent index.


But, if you don't want to spend $30, the online version works just fine!

[DaRev]

The version used on the Book of Concord site is from the Triglotta, translated by Bente and Dau, and is from 1917. It can be a bit difficult for the average layman to read.

It depends on what level of study you want. If you want a higher end version for more indepth study, then the Kolb/Wengert version would be reccomended, available from Augsburg/Fortress. The only down side is the inclusion of Scripture quotes from the NRSV, which is the version used by A/F in it's printed materials.

For a more casual study and a version that is more readable by the average layman, the Concordia:The Lutheran Confessions from Concordia Publishing would be reccommended. It is a more modern translation from the Bente/Dau Triglotta english version. It includes Scriptural quotes from the ESV Bible.

[JM]

Thanks for the start, any online articles describing conservative Lutheran theology I should look at? I own and have read works like Calvin's Institutes and Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and a few others, beside these I have read many theological works, so the deeper the better.

A Lutheran minister gave me a copy of the small catechism about 5 years ago, I forgot I had it, I'll have to dig it out.

peace,

j

[LilLamb219]

http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/chemnitz/id2.html

Check this out :)

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The version used on the Book of Concord site is from the Triglotta, translated by Bente and Dau, and is from 1917. It can be a bit difficult for the average layman to read.

It depends on what level of study you want. If you want a higher end version for more indepth study, then the Kolb/Wengert version would be reccomended, available from Augsburg/Fortress. The only down side is the inclusion of Scripture quotes from the NRSV, which is the version used by A/F in it's printed materials.

For a more casual study and a version that is more readable by the average layman, the Concordia:The Lutheran Confessions from Concordia Publishing would be reccommended. It is a more modern translation from the Bente/Dau Triglotta english version. It includes Scriptural quotes from the ESV Bible.
DaRev is absolutely right. I purchased Concordia a few months ago and haven't been dissapointed. The English Standard Version is fantastic, too.

Thanks for the start, any online articles describing conservative Lutheran theology I should look at? I own and have read works like Calvin's Institutes and Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and a few others, beside these I have read many theological works, so the deeper the better.

A Lutheran minister gave me a copy of the small catechism about 5 years ago, I forgot I had it, I'll have to dig it out.

If you get the Book of Concord (again, I highly recommend Concordia), it will include it along with the Longer Catechism.

As for Calvin and Bavnick... Calvin is of the patriarch of the Reformed tradition and Bavnick is the modern standard-bearer of the same. But, of course, I have serious problems with both. One area where I think we could benefit from Reformed theology is their covenant-eschatological exegesis. Two good examples of this are God of Promise by Michael Horton and A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger.

That said, if you want to get into Lutheran theology, I highly, highly recommend Jaroslav Pelikan, Gerhard O. Forde, Robert Preus, Robert Kolb, Gene Veith, and the series of books edited in tandum by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson (a fair warning: these last two are ELCA, though moderate; their essay collections contain multiple perspectives from different denominations, although they are most often very thoughtful; I personally love them). Any of those will serve you right. (I'll list the better ones at the bottom)

As for online? The LCMS doctrine (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=523)and FAQ (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=71)sections are a great place to start. For slightly more advanced reading, try the collection of essays on http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html.

Of course, the best modern exposition of Lutheran orthodoxy is Franz Pieper in his multivolume Christian Dogmatics.

Of the authors I mentioned, the best are...

The Christian Faith (Kolb)
Credo (Pelikan)
Whose Bible Is It? (Pelikan)
On Being a Theologian of the Cross (Forde)
The Spirituality of the Cross (Veith)
Doctrine and Life (Preus)
Principles of Lutheran Theology (Braaten)
Mother Church (Braaten)
Marks of the Body of Christ (Braaten/Jenson)
The Last Things (Braaten/Jenson)
Mary, Mother of God (Braaten/Jenson)
Sin, Death, and the Devil (Braaten/Jenson)

Best of luck in your reading. Feel free to PM me any time. I've got hundreds of recommendations.

[DaSeminarian]

I'm interested in reading thru the Book of Concord, perhaps reading a few studies about its theology, etc.

Any suggestions on where to start? Which translation?

Thank you.

j

I suggest you pick up a copy of Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions. It is available from Concordia Publishing House and is a readers edition of the the Confessions. Otherwise the Kolb/Wengert Book of Concord is the most new of the two most often used.

[JM]

What would be the most conservative Lutheran synod be? Pieper's works look interesting.

Where can I get a copy in print of the Triglotta?

Good stuff so far, I'll keep book marking and making lists of names to look up...

Peace,

j
PS: Isn't the new Concordia a little liberal?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What would be the most conservative Lutheran synod be? Pieper's works look interesting.

Where can I get a copy in print of the Triglotta?

Good stuff so far, I'll keep book marking and making lists of names to look up...

Peace,

j
PS: Isn't the new Concordia a little liberal?

WELS is likely the most conversative of the notable denominations, although LCMS is more of a bastion of conservativism and developed conservative thinking because of its larger size.

[DaRev]

What would be the most conservative Lutheran synod be? Pieper's works look interesting.

Where can I get a copy in print of the Triglotta?

The Concordia Triglotta can be purchased through CPH or NPH for $81.50 plus shipping.


PS: Isn't the new Concordia a little liberal?


No.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Concordia Triglotta can be purchased through CPH or NPH for $81.50 plus shipping.



No.
Oh, and where the Triglotta is 80 some odd dollars, I got my Concordia for 25.

And no, it's not liberal. It's wonderful.

[Qoheleth]

Any suggestions on where to start? Which translation?


Get the Triglot Concordia. It contains the "Catalogue of Testimonies" and the "Visitation Articles". You might as well get the full boat. You will enjoy that greatly.


Q

[synger]

What would be the most conservative Lutheran synod be? Pieper's works look interesting.

Where can I get a copy in print of the Triglotta?

Good stuff so far, I'll keep book marking and making lists of names to look up...

Peace,

j
PS: Isn't the new Concordia a little liberal?

I didn't think I would be able to afford Pieper, and had heard wonderful things about Mueller's one-volume Dogmatics (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Dogmatics-John-Theodore-Mueller/dp/0570032210)(which is primarily, I believe, a summarization of Pieper's four volume work), so I bought it. I HIGHLY recommnd it.

I also second (or third) the recommendation of Concordia the Reader's Edition. We've been using it extensively since it came out.

[Jenna]

Is there a lutheran lending-library? If not, maybe y'all should start one. ^_^


....and here I was thinking that a $20 book was "expensive". lol

[LilLamb219]

Pastors are generally a great source for reading material and often are very eager to loan out books :) But, there were some books that my pastor tried to deter me from reading since they were very heavy (not in weight) and I guess he didn't think I could handle the challenge :( I felt disappointed at that really.

[JM]

What makes the 'readers edition' a 'readers edition?'

I ordered the Lutheran Prayer Book by LCMS, it looks interesting.

[LilLamb219]

The Readers Edition is just that it's written in laymen's terms and easier for the every day person to understand.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Readers Edition is just that it's written in laymen's terms and easier for the every day person to understand.
Concordia also contains explanitory notes and thorough introductions to each of the editions. For instance it describes the Crypo-Calvinist, Flacian, and Adiaphorist controversies that gave rise to the final editions to the confessions before presenting the Epitome and Formula of Concord.

[Qoheleth]

I ordered the Lutheran Prayer Book by LCMS, it looks interesting.

Are you speaking of the "Brotherhood Prayer Book"?

http://www.llpb.us/

THE LUTHERAN LITURGICAL PRAYER BROTHERHOOD is a voluntary group of confessional Lutheran Christians which encourages its members to pray, especially making use of the Psalms and Holy Scripture. We accept without reservation the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice, and all the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. We strive to use the best of western Christian liturgy, prayers, and music—especially the ecclesiastical choral music known commonly as Gregorian Chant—as it has come down to us in our Evangelical Lutheran Church. We value an orderly discipline of prayer, frequent communion, and private confession. We pray for each other and meet together, as we are able, to pray and sing the liturgy.

Finally, a Lutheran book of liturgical hours with all 150 Psalms and Old Testament Canticles in English and pointed with the Reformation Gregorian tones. Add beautiful, ancient hymns and historic responsories to your daily discipline of prayer.


Also pick up a copy of...

"About our Liturgy" by Pastor David Kind

found here...

http://www.ulcmn.org/index.html


Q

[DaRev]

I believe he's referring to this...

http://www.cph.org/cphstore/images/product_images/products_large/061323.jpg

...from CPH. I give this as a gift to our new confirmands each year.

[KEPLER]

Concordia also contains explanitory notes and thorough introductions to each of the editions. For instance it describes the Crypo-Calvinist, Flacian, and Adiaphorist controversies that gave rise to the final editions to the confessions before presenting the Epitome and Formula of Concord.

Of course, the Triglot contains Bente's Historical Introductions to the Book of Concord, which also explains those events. His schoarship is somewhat dated, though.

[WildStrawberry]

I'll fourth or fifth the recommendation of the new Concordia book. I LOVE LOVE LOVE it and I also have the Kolb/Wengert which is nice but a bit...hard. *G*

I'd also recommend My Prayer Book also at CPH.org I have both that one and The Lutheran Book of Prayer and use them both all the time. The My Prayer Book goes with me where ever I go and we use it in Sunday School as well.

Happy reading!

Kae

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'll fourth or fifth the recommendation of the new Concordia book. I LOVE LOVE LOVE it and I also have the Kolb/Wengert which is nice but a bit...hard. *G*

I'd also recommend My Prayer Book also at CPH.org I have both that one and The Lutheran Book of Prayer and use them both all the time. The My Prayer Book goes with me where ever I go and we use it in Sunday School as well.

Happy reading!

Kae
See. Concordia is great. It's the Book of Concord we've all been waiting for.

[ByzantineDixie]

Are you speaking of the "Brotherhood Prayer Book"?

http://www.llpb.us/



I thought the LLPB was way cool...like a Lutheran breviary. Even had a list of questions in it for examination prior to confession. I think I sent my copy to ChiRho once I defected, though. I hear those Fort Wayne guys are fans of it.

[DaRev]

I thought the LLPB was way cool...like a Lutheran breviary. Even had a list of questions in it for examination prior to confession. I think I sent my copy to ChiRho once I defected, though. I hear those Fort Wayne guys are fans of it.

I'll have to look into that when the hardcover is available.

[JM]

Did Luther teach double predestination?

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by ... (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html)

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Did Luther teach double predestination?

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by ... (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html)
No! Luther did not teach double predestination, no matter what the Reformed say.

All the quotes in that essay prove is that Luther believed that God had sovereignty over the damned and should work change and work good even in their hearts. It does not prove that Luther thought that God was the cause of their damnation.

[JM]

No! Luther did not teach double predestination, no matter what the Reformed say.

All the quotes in that essay prove is that Luther believed that God had sovereignty over the damned and should work change and work good even in their hearts. It does not prove that Luther thought that God was the cause of their damnation.

Thank you for the answer.

Did Luther believe God's foreknowledge was exhaustive? If God foreknows all and decrees based on His knowledge, He still created a mass of mankind that was created without any chance of salvation...how do Lutherans deal with this?

[DaSeminarian]

Thank you for the answer.

Did Luther believe God's foreknowledge was exhaustive? If God foreknows all and decrees based on His knowledge, He still created a mass of mankind that was created without any chance of salvation...how do Lutherans deal with this?

It is not up to me to understand God's infinite knowledge or try. (the mental calithenics on doing this is exhaustive) Suffice it to say that he wants that all would be saved and sent his son for that purpose, but knows that not all will be saved because of their hardened hearts.

[JM]

If God wants all to be saved and all are not saved, what does God's will have to do with salvation?

The fact still remains, God created people He knew would never be saved.

I understand what you're saying, but I was hoping to find more from Luther and the early Lutherans and ideas on where to look?

[DaRev]

Your asking a question that God does not provide an answer to, thus Luther would not even dare to propose an answer.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thank you for the answer.

Did Luther believe God's foreknowledge was exhaustive? If God foreknows all and decrees based on His knowledge, He still created a mass of mankind that was created without any chance of salvation...how do Lutherans deal with this?

Yes, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive. And yes, all are not saved.

However, God has purposefully limited himself to working through the church, the word, and the sacraments- that is, the means of grace. He has done this is accordance not with his sovereignty, but with is self-giving nature of revelation. Instead of choosing people divinely from the sky, he chooses them through means which both perform and signify salvation, that they might not only be saved by know their savior.

[LilLamb219]

DaRev is right, you're trying to go to the places that scripture doesn't give us answers on. We just have to remember that God is a just God and he's also merciful and compassionate.

[JM]

I, along with others, would disagree that Scripture does not give us the answers but that's not why I asked, I was just interested in the Lutheran view on the subject.

In the Anglican Church you'll find Anglo-Catholic's or those affected by the Oxford Movement. Is there a similar movement in the Lutheran Church?

Peace,

j

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I, along with others, would disagree that Scripture does not give us the answers but that's not why I asked, I was just interested in the Lutheran view on the subject.

In the Anglican Church you'll find Anglo-Catholic's or those affected by the Oxford Movement. Is there a similar movement in the Lutheran Church?

Peace,

j
It's not quite like Anglo-Catholics and the Oxford Movement because we're not terribly enamored with Catholicism. But we do have high church and liturgical movements. In the 19th century there begun a movement called Neo-Lutheranism, which was largely a return to the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy (16th-early 18th centuries) and a reaction against the Pietist influences in the church. It also opposed the Prussian Union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Germany. Lines of thought from this movement evolved into the confessional movement many of us are a part of today. The LCMS is definitely within the Neo-Lutheran, Confessional camp (although there remain Pietistic and low church influences).

[BigNorsk]

A book that sounds like it takes this issue head on is:
Luther on predestination: The antinomy and the unity between love and wrath in Luther's concept of God (Studia doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia)

by Fredrik Brosche

If you go to http://books.google.com/books?id=KwcUAAAACAAJ&dq=luther+on+predestination

You can search for if libraries near you have it. Go to the right side and read down to "Find this book in a Library" If I click it, I just get libraries sorted by distances to me though if I knew your zip code I could change it.

Anyway try it out.

Marv

[JM]

Thanks Marv, I work in a library and should be able to get my hands on it.

[JM]

Thoughts?



If man’s will is not free but under God’s sovereign control, this would necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is the ultimate cause of evil. Many find this idea very hard to swallow, even many within Reformed circles. Before I read Luther, before I read Calvin, I read Gordon Clark. In Religion, Reason and Revelation, Clark attributed the ultimate cause of evil to God. I was totally shocked when I read it, but his arguments were irrefutable. I thought it was a novel idea, at least until I read Luther and Calvin. Then I found that this was the position of the Reformation all along. (This view does not in any way deny secondary causes.)

Commenting on Pharaoh’s heart being hardened by God, Luther wrote: “His [Pharaoh’s] evil will would not have been moved or hardened of itself, but as the omnipotent Agent makes it act (as he does the rest of his creation) by means of his own inescapable movement” (207). God did not merely “permit” Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened of itself. God “makes it act by means of his own inescapable will.” Furthermore, God did not simply look into the future and see what Pharaoh would do. God is the one who actually caused the hardening of his heart. On God’s foreknowledge, Luther wrote: “Had there been in Pharaoh any power to turn, or freedom of will that might have gone either way, God could not with such certainty have foretold his hardening” (211). In other words, foreknowledge is due to foreordination, not vice versa.

Luther continued:

It would certainly be a hard question, I allow-indeed, an insoluble one-if you sought to establish both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man together; for what is harder, yea, more impossible, than maintaining that contraries and contradictories do not clash?


The apostle, therefore, is bridling the ungodly who take offense at his plain speaking, telling them they should realize that the Divine will is fulfilled by what to us is necessity, and that it is definitely established that no freedom or “free-will” is left them, but all things depend on the will of God alone (215).
Two things should be observed from the above quotations. First, to hold contradictories as both true is not the position of the Reformation, but the position of a muddle-headed thinker (or non-thinker). Second, Luther calls the free-willists “ungodly.”

So the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our “free-will.” Either God makes mistakes in his foreknowledge, and errors in his action (which is impossible), or else we act, and are caused to act, according to his foreknowledge and action. And by the omnipotence of God I mean, not the power by which he omits to do many things that he could do, but the active power by which he mightily works all in all. It is in this sense that Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of free will (217).
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was not done by the passive permission of God. Nor did God merely foresee it as an observer passively observes the future. God caused it to come to pass by his “active power.” This view certainly establishes God as the ultimate cause of evil. But does this view make man a mere puppet on a string? Luther answered: “It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by his omnipotence, like everything else” (213).

Man acts willingly. A puppet not only does not have free will; it does not have any will at all. Man has a will, but his will is in the hands of God, and he directs it wherever he likes (Proverbs 21:1). Therefore, God never causes man to act against his own will, for it is the very will that he controls. Judas acted willingly, not by compulsion. link (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=171)

[BigNorsk]

Did he actually read Luther or just selectively read Luther, here's one quote that I would have a hard time fitting into what he is saying.

A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.

Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination. Lifted from Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Predestionation (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v1n8.htm)by Don Mazat. Which took it from "What Luther Says" by Ewald Plass.

I'm a little suspicious of anyone that ends up seeming to say that Luther taught God was the source of sin. That's not how I read Luther, though it can be at times the apparent logical conclusion.

Marv

[JM]

Luther may not have agree to the strong wording making God the author of sin, but have you read Bondage of the Will? When I get some time I post where Luther taught double predestination...I only bring it up because it seems the Lutheran Church has stepped away from this teaching which was common among Reformers.

j

[Qoheleth]

Luther may not have agree to the strong wording making God the author of sin, but have you read Bondage of the Will? When I get some time I post where Luther taught double predestination...I only bring it up because it seems the Lutheran Church has stepped away from this teaching which was common among Reformers.



Of course many believe that Luther is speaking of "Predestination" in the same sense as Calvin did, but it is important to note...


What you hear from Luther that sounds Calvinistic are echoes of St Augustine. Both men were influenced heavily by him (as were nearly all theologians in the west). The difference is that Calvin is more consistently Augustinian than Luther. In other words, Luther clearly rejects some of Augustine’s thought, while Calvin runs Augustine to his logical conclusions (sometimes in ways that Augustine, himself, would likely disapprove).

To read Calvin’s double predestinationism back into Luther is an academic fallacy. The better way is to read Luther on his own terms—not trying to squeeze him into Calvin’s mindset.

The passages where it seems as if Luther is speaking of double predestination are actually him speaking clearly in terms of Law and Gospel; or, better, the wrath of God and the mercy of God. Furthermore, in the Bondage of the Will, Luther’s chief argument (against Erasmus) is to show that, in spiritual matters, the will is bound to reject the Lord’s mercy; and that as that rejection hardens, God gives a man over to his base desires. This, however, is not God predetermining the man to hell.



Q

[DaSeminarian]

Of course many believe that Luther is speaking of "Predestination" in the same sense as Calvin did, but it is important to note...


What you hear from Luther that sounds Calvinistic are echoes of St Augustine. Both men were influenced heavily by him (as were nearly all theologians in the west). The difference is that Calvin is more consistently Augustinian than Luther. In other words, Luther clearly rejects some of Augustine’s thought, while Calvin runs Augustine to his logical conclusions (sometimes in ways that Augustine, himself, would likely disapprove).

To read Calvin’s double predestinationism back into Luther is an academic fallacy. The better way is to read Luther on his own terms—not trying to squeeze him into Calvin’s mindset.

The passages where it seems as if Luther is speaking of double predestination are actually him speaking clearly in terms of Law and Gospel; or, better, the wrath of God and the mercy of God. Furthermore, in the Bondage of the Will, Luther’s chief argument (against Erasmus) is to show that, in spiritual matters, the will is bound to reject the Lord’s mercy; and that as that rejection hardens, God gives a man over to his base desires. This, however, is not God predetermining the man to hell.



Q


Well put. Thanks Q

[JM]

Q, I see you're around the Lutheran forum often, are you switching camps?

[DaRev]

Q, I see you're around the Lutheran forum often, are you switching camps?

He already did.

[JM]

I don't understand how or why someone would make such a change, but I am familiar with the standard reasons given, I just don't buy them. For about 2 years I attended a GOC but never signed up...

[JM]

Found this:

Luther's commitment to paradox means the student of his thought cannot pin him down to the rational conequences of his statements.

[BigNorsk]

True, when reading Luther I try never to think rationally.

Marv

[JM]

True, when reading Luther I try never to think rationally.

Marv

:D

I don't think that was the point of the quote, only, that we shouldn't draw rational conclusions on certain statements that Luther made because he never meant to take any them further.

^_^