The Book of Concord

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Short version of long story: I'm no longer comfortable with the UU church I was a member of and am looking for a new church home.  I already attend on occasion an ELCA church and expect to make that my primary church home, but I feel the need to explore its doctrines more fully before I take the step of formally becoming a member. Hence this thread is where I intend to do my exploration.
Links to various posts

• The Three Ecumenical Creeds
  
  • The Apostles' Creed
  • The Nicene Creed
  • The Athanasian Creed
• The Augsburg Confession
• The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
• The Smalcald Article
• Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
• The Small Catechism
• The Large Catechism
• Formula of Concord

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Three Ecumenical Creeds

First off, I'm largely agnostic on the issue of Unitarianism versus Trinitarianism. It doesn't seem to have anything other than esoteric significance that doesn't concern me, so the fact that these three creeds exist in large part to expound trinitarianism shouldn't be a major concern to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Apostles' Creed

Even tho Lutherans apparently don't use the traditional twelve part Roman division, and it doesn't fit how I want to discuss the creed, so I won't be using it.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

The first phrase is something I think pretty much all theists can agree on. Some might quibble over gender-issues, but expressing the Divine Creator in parental imagery is fairly straightforward.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

So, how does a universalist such as myself square universalism with "his only Son"?  Quite easily, at least in my case.  The phrase is used as an epithet for quite a few distinct persons in the Bible. For me the qualifier "only" refers not to the singularity of person, but the singularity of philosophy.  There is but one Dao and those who follow the Way set out by the Divine need not have noted every stone laid upon it.

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

Taking this as metaphorical is the easiest interpretation, but a more literal one doesn't bother me too much.

born of the Virgin Mary,

This is more problematic for me. I don't see the need for a virgin birth and its inclusion in the narrative obscures the fact that for me at least, in order for Christianity to work, Jesus Christ needs to be as much the Son of Man as he is the Son of God; as much the Son of Earth as he is the Son of Heaven. I typically go back to the original Hebrew of Isaiah 9:14 and use "born of the Almah Mary" instead.

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

People often don't consider the full import of this phrase in my opinion.  It's not just here as place filler.  To begin with, the use of a Roman emphasizes it's not the Jews, but all of humanity responsible for the crucifixion. Just as Pilate washed his hands, we don't want to admit that we so doubt God's love that it takes an ultimate sacrifice on God's part to convince us of that. Moreover, the Pontius gen was plebeian, not patrician. Again, its not the ruling class that is to blame, but all of us.

was crucified, died, and was buried;

This emphasizes that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of Man.  Were he only God, then the crucifixion would be a farce, for he would have perfect knowledge of what was to come. This is also why I'm an adoptionist in my Christology.

he descended to the dead.

I generally view the afterlife as being outside linear time. The crucifixion broke the link between Christ and linear time.

On the third day he rose again;

But uniquely, for him the link was restored.

he ascended into heaven,

And then left linear time again.

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

Having experienced linear time gives him the ability to truly understand.

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

At least that's how it will seem to our perspective when we are detached from this line of time.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

It seems like the Holy Spirit always gets short shrift.

the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Until you realize that all these are aspects of the comfort derived from the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

So be it indeed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Nicene Creed

This isn't quite as popular as the Apostles' Creed at the church I go to, yet because of Eastern Orthodoxy, it truly is the most universal, if you ignore the filloque controversy.

There are several English language translations. The one below is the ELLC one used in the ELCA.

We believe in one God,
       the Father, the Almighty,
       maker of heaven and earth,
       of all that is, seen and unseen.

The first part is but a mild expansion of what's in the Apostles' Creed on the Father. Nothing new to comment on.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
       the only Son of God,
       eternally begotten of the Father,
       God from God, Light from Light,
       true God from true God,
       begotten, not made,
       of one Being with the Father;
       through him all things were made.

See above for my thoughts on "only son of God". "Eternally begotten" adds the concept that Jesus Christ pre-existed time. The "God from God" phrase is a Western addition that doesn't add any content. I can only assume it somehow made it easier to chant. "Begotten, not made" asserts the eternal coexistence of the Father and the Son, thus denying some forms of Unitarianism. As noted earlier, I'm largely agnostic on the issue Unitarianism as unimportant, but the forms denied here don't appeal to me anyway. I'll skip ahead to the phrase "through him all things were made". This is not just mere continuation of the assertion that Christ is "of one Being with the Father". Christ is presented in the Bible as a new perfected Adam. Like Adam he takes the creation of the Father and interprets in his language thereby remaking it without changing it.

For us and for our salvation
       he came down from heaven,
       was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
       and became truly human.


The first part is oddly phrased, but I don't mind it. It seems to imply he came down because we humans insisted that how we would be saved. I doubt that was the intent of the credal authors but it does follow my own thoughts that we're too stiff-necked to accept any lesser evidence of God's love. Other than my same quibble concerning the virginity of Mary as in the Apostles' Creed, the rest garners no comment from me.


For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
       he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
       in accordance with the Scriptures;
       he ascended into heaven
       and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Nothing different from the previous creed and thus nothing to add.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
       and his kingdom will have no end.

Since that kingdom will be outside linear time, it necessarily will be without end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

A somewhat panentheistic view of the world, or at least of life.

       who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

All hail the Filloque, excuse for a millennium of schism between east and west
(more commentary to come)

       who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
       who has spoken through the prophets.
       We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
       We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
       We look for the resurrection of the dead,
               and the life of the world to come. Amen

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Athanasian Creed

placeholder

[libertpaulian]

Start off with The Small Catechism.  ALWAYS start off with Luther's Small Catechism.  It's the simplest, most succinct summation of Lutheran doctrine.  Then, I'd read the Augsburg Confession, and then after that, the Large Catechism.  Once you've read the Creeds, the Catechisms, and Augsburg, you can read the rest of the documents in whichever order you like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Start off with The Small Catechism.  ALWAYS start off with Luther's Small Catechism.  It's the simplest, most succinct summation of Lutheran doctrine.  Then, I'd read the Augsburg Confession, and then after that, the Large Catechism.  Once you've read the Creeds, the Catechisms, and Augsburg, you can read the rest of the documents in whichever order you like.

I've already read both catechisms and the Confession.  I'll probably do the Nicene next and then skip to the Small Catechism before tackling the Athanasian simply because that creed is not as commonly encountered as the other two and that's true in most churches. Of course, I'll have the small problem that I grew up with and prefer the Reformed numbering of the commandments and think their more logical than Luther's.  From my perspective Luther skipped the Second and then split up the Tenth into two.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Small Catechism
Basically this is the Reader's Digest version of the Large Catechism intended for everyone to read and follow.
Ten Commandments
The first section covers the Decalogue and already I run into a problem before even going into his analysis. Because of my Congregationalist/Methodist background, to me it looks like Luther omitted the second commandment and split the tenth into two amendments to make up the shortfall. A more serious shortcoming is that Luther consistently puts the cart before the horse in his analysis of the Decalogue. His view is that love and fear of God will lead us to follow the teachings of the commandments. My view is that following the commandments will lead to us loving and reverencing God.

First: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Luther's take is "we should fear, love, and trust in God above all things," but mine is that this is a declaration of the unity of the Divine.

Second: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Luther omits this one, tho he will touch upon it in his discussion of the First in his Large Catechism. However, in my opinion this no mere prohibition on art. Considering that the text of Exodus explicitly calls for art in the tabernacle, such an iconoclastic interpretation would be silly. Rather, I see this as a commandment to not carve away the parts of the Divine that offend us and offer homage only to the parts we like. Our reverence must be reserved for the whole Divine, entire and unbroken.

Third: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks."
I'm gonna have to disagree with Martin here, but only because of how his words could be twisted, not how he meant them. We should call upon God, but only when sincerely seek Him, not because it is the expected thing to do or because we treat him as a merchant who trades his blessings for our reverence like a charlatan or witch would. (No offense to Wiccans meant here.)

Fourth: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred, and gladly hear and learn it."
Huh? Leaving aside the whole Seventh-Day versus First-Day issue, the Biblical focus of the sabbath is on rest, which then leads to reflection. Preaching is an effect, not the reason for the sabbath.

Fifth: Honor thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee and thou may live long upon the earth.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not despise nor anger our parents and masters, but give them honor, serve, obey, and hold them in love and esteem."
Other than Luther's consistent reversal of cause and effect, no problems. We should give honor to our parents as they are the masters and creators we first come to know and love as they nurture and guide us. From that example and the example of our parents honoring their own parents and masters we learn to love and esteem all who nurture and guide us, including most of all, God.

Sixth: Thou shalt not murder.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need."
As per the seventh principle of the UU that I formerly considered myself a part of, I see here not merely a call to not needlessly harm other humans but a call to have "respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Seventh: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may lead a chaste and decent life in words and deeds, and each love and honor his spouse."
Adultery is perhaps the ultimate personal betrayal and it affects not one but two marriages. It shows a lack of concern in keeping one's word and putting one's immediate pleasures above the needs of a community.

Eighth: Thou shalt not steal.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor's money or property, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business."
Luther's middle class outlook leads to him neglecting theft of labor and focusing on the theft of capital. Both are important of course.

Ninth: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Luther's take: "We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything."
It is proper that Luther includes not only our obligation to not defame others but also to speak to defend others from what we know to be false statements. There is no middle ground as some would hold between this commandment and "Thou shalt bear true witness for thy neighbor."

Tenth: Thou shalt not covet.
Luther's take for both parts of the commandment he split is essentially the same; don't try to take stuff that belongs to another by either guile or force, but instead help your neighbor to keep what's his. Now, refraining from action is important, but I don't see that as the focus of this commandment. Rather it's that desire for the physical things of this world is ultimately unimportant. Instead, one should focus on relationships, including first and foremost one's relationship with the Divine.
The Creed
Specifically, the Apostles' Creed. I've already given my take on it, so I'll only comment on what Luther had to say on it. Firstly, unlike my clause by clause analysis, Luther contents himself here with a paragraph for each of the three members of the Trinity.

The First Article
In the case of the Father, this means Luther gets far more verbose than the Creed does. He also includes theology not present in the Creed, tho present elsewhere in the Bible. Specifically, that God provides all we need. From this, Luther derives a "duty to thank, praise, serve and obey him." I realize that Luther was a man of his times, but I think he has profoundly missed the mark here. Cain made an offering unto the Lord out of a sense of duty, but Abel made his offering out of love. Multiple times in the Bible we have example of people who grudgingly do things out of duty, such as the brother of the Prodigal Son, but it those who do things out of love that God cherishes. Anyone who appreciates what God does for us all would "thank, praise, serve, and obey him" not out of duty, but out of love.

The Second Article
I'll skip over Luther's Christology both because it is fairly standard and I've already commented on it. Luther emphasizes Christ's role as the Redeemer here and like his take on the Father and Creator in the first article, he does so through a very structured view of the world. He views redemption as a transaction in which we are purchased from Sin to be owned by Grace as if we were serfs being traded from one Lord to another. Given Luther's views on free will (man has none), his comments here are understandable. However, I view free will as an essential part of the human condition, under which Grace and Redemption are not offered to transform us from being the slave of one master to the slave of another, but from being the slave of Sin to the willing servant of Love.

The Third Article
My principal complaint against Luther here is his diminution of the role of the Holy Spirit in favor of that of Christ.  It's not a problem unique to Luther and that is because in large part the New Testament focuses on Christ's role in redeeming us from Sin so that we can accept God's Grace. Yet it is the Holy Spirit that sustains us once we have accepted that Grace. Christ is like an itinerant revival preacher while the Holy Spirit is like the local pastor that remains to guide and comfort us once the revivalist has gone on to another town and break the bonds of sin there for those who will hear his message.
The Lord's Prayer
Luther breaks it down into the traditional Introduction and Seven Petitions. He does not include the Doxology. Just as the prayer itself is straightforward, so is Luther's commentary. If I were writing a catechism today, I'd say essentially the same thing, tho hopefully in a style more accessible to modern ears.
The Sacrament of Holy Baptism
While Luther makes clear in The Large Catechism his position on infant baptism, he doesn't do so here. Not only that, but his choice of verses to support his discussion make it seem like he favors believers' baptism, which he doesn't.

Also the verses he quotes all use the Trinitarian formula instead of the Jesus only formula used in Acts, but I don't know if that mattered to Luther. It doesn't to me since either way, it's God.

My Universalist beliefs cause me to take a different view of baptism than Luther. I don't see baptism as conferring salvation but as a sign of accepting the salvation already graced to us on the cross. Does that make infant baptism an error? Not in my view, if the baptized infant construes it as acceptance of grace once he can understand what that means. However without such a belief, then as in Mark 16:16, it avails nothing to have been baptized as an infant.
How the Unlearned Should Be Taught To Confess
Firstly, Luther skipped an important step in my opinion. While the need and mandate for confession is easily shown in the Bible, he failed to do that. Also while he made a good argument that the one who hears the confession should ideally be trained in how to console and guide the repentant sinner, he assumed that it must be such a person.

The rest is basic advice which I think sound, but it would have been nice to see some biblical references to back things up. The suggestions boil down to, confess your sins,be specific as you can, but don't strain to recall every last one of them. Essentially, steps 4-7 out of a 12 step program with a sponsor confessor to provide guidance.

Unfortunately, this topic is not expanded upon in the large catechism.
The Sacrament of the Altar
Personally, I think that the differences in interpretation largely depend on how philosophical one's thinking is. Even if one understands communion as "mere" remembrance, on a real level one truly is taking the body and blood of Christ. Anyone who reads my comments here will be thinking of me and my words and hence in a real sense, I will become a part of them. We all are not mere collections of physical substance. In that same manner, when we remember Christ as we partake of the communion, we remember the body as we think of the bread and thus the bread is the body and we remember the blood as we think of the wine and thus the wine is the blood. If we think all the bread and wine are be but the physical substance, we truly do not understand even bread and wine, let alone the body and blood of Christ and what they signify.
Daily Prayers
This section definitely shows Luther's background as a monk. Still, it is the small rituals that matter as touchstones in our lives.  It's clear from Luther's tone that he is more interested in this twice daily remembrance at the beginning and end of the day than in the specific content itself so long as it is prayerful and gives a chance to reflect on the day to come and what happened in the day just concluded.
Table of Duties
A selection of New Testament verses compiled to demonstrate the duties of various classes of people. If nothing else, these demonstrate that Luther had a hierarchical view of society. They certainly don't serve as a means of teaching, at least not on their own.
Christian Questions with their Answers
A late addition to the Small Catechism with what would be expected.