2 Thessalonians 2:5-6

[Tomster]

It isn’t what I accept or reject that matters. As a Lutheran, I am bound by the teachings of the Church through the Confessions.
It must be remembered that an oral speaking of the Gospel predates it being written down.
From a Lutheran standpoint, I can accept some things not confirmed explicitly by scripture. For example, I accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. The confessions refer to it, but it is not doctrine. It is adiaphoron. Those things that are doctrine, things which bind the conscience of the believer, come from scripture, and are often witnessed to by tradition. As an example, the Holy Theotokos is clear from scripture and the doctrine affirmed by the early council.

Jon

Back it up, Jon. As a Lutheran, you bear the Dr.'s name. You are bound to his teachings as he demanded and his alone, “sola Luther” if you will.

 

[Nicea325]

True enough! Unless of course you are a disciple of Dr. Luther. Then what was once declared as orthodox has now become subject for review and declared unorthodox.

This discussion is blending nicely. It goes right to my OP.

Exactly! This the main root of the problem:

Orthodox doctrines are not open for discussion.

Either Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (John 14) or He pulled everyone’s leg?

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;11425283]Well then Jon, let’s talk about Lutheranism.

Obviously as a good Lutheran, Jon, you would have to accept the words of your spiritual father, Dr. Luther on his say-so wouldn’t you?

No.

Luther replaced the infallible teaching authority of the Church by his self-bestowed personal infallibility in interpreting the Bible.

A non-starter for the discussion, because Luther, nor any of the other Lutheran reformers made no such a claim. If we are going to discuss, we need to start with the premise that Catholics get to say what Catholicism teaches, and Lutherans get to say what Lutheranism teaches. Why? Simple, in two sentences you have managed to misstate Lutheran belief and practice twice.

In theory, he conceded the right of every believer to do this: “In matters of faith each Christian is for himself Pope and Church, and nothing may be decreed or kept that could issue (result) in a threat to faith.” But in practice it was Luther’s interpretation which must be accepted: “He who does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is God’s and not mine.”

You have these in quotes. Please provide the link.
Regardless, that is not the practice within Lutheranism, whether Luther taught that or not.

Luther did not believe in universal freedom of opinion in religious matters. What he demanded was freedom for his own opinions. Those who disagreed with him, whether Catholic or Protestant were dismissed as “pig-dogs”, “dolts”, “fiends from hell”. His interpretaion of the Bible was the saving truth; all else were lies and delusions. It is hardly surprising that some Reformers (desenters from the desenter) who disagreed with him remarked sardonically that it was a small gain to have got rid of the Pope if they were to have in his place the Pope of Wittenberg.

Where do you think he might have picked that attitude from?

Having said this, it’s no wonder why you wouldn’t want to talk about Lutheranism. You really should brush up on the words of your spiritual Father, Jon, and admit that for you as a Lutheran, Dr. Luther’s interpretation of the Bible is infallible and quit dragging the Sees of the East and the West into all of your responses.

I will talk about Lutheranism all day long, if you choose. What I won’t do is engage in trying to defend beliefs which we do not hold.

Just admit it, Jon, for you as a Lutheran the only See(s) where the infallible interpretations of the Bible can be found are the fragmented synods of Lutheranism

If you can find where we claim infallibility, please link it. Otherwise, the statement has no validity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Back it up, Jon. As a Lutheran, you bear the Dr.'s name. You are bound to his teachings as he demanded and his alone, “sola Luther” if you will.

I am not bound to Luther. No Lutheran is. We are bound to scripture and the Lutheran confessions. To the extent that Luther is in agreement with scripture and the confessions, we agree with him. Where he is not, we reject his teachings.
Luther, too, is held to the standard of sola scriptura, as stated in the confessions.

So, what is it you want me to “back up”?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But my friend, if that is the determing factor, we can also add into the mix, Arians, Jehovah Witnesses,Mormons,etc who reject the Incarnation, Trinity,etc,etc. The fact that mother church (west/east) split does not have a bearing on doctrinal matters. What has been defined as orthodox has been determined.

My good friend,
It has a significant bearing on a number of different doctrines, doesn’t it?

Purgatory
Filioque
Primacy v. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
The IC
Dormition v. Assumption
Transubstantiation

To name a few.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

My good friend,
It has a significant bearing on a number of different doctrines, doesn’t it?

Purgatory
Filioque
Primacy v. Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff
The IC
Dormition v. Assumption
Transubstantiation

To name a few.

Jon

Rejection or different forms of explanation?

 

[JonNC]

Rejection or different forms of explanation?

Perhaps one in some cases, and another in other cases. We could say the same thing about the relations between Catholics and Lutherans. If we are willing to accept different forms of explanations, then, based on dialogue statements, we are closer together on Purgatory, the Eucharist, to name a couple.

But doctrinal differences clearly exist between Rome and the Orthodox, and both with Lutherans and others. Does that matter? Sure. It matters for all Christians, even those who think it doesn’t matter. It matters in terms of unity, of authority, and in terms of Christ’s Church presenting to a skeptical world the True Faith with one voice.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Perhaps one in some cases, and another in other cases. We could say the same thing about the relations between Catholics and Lutherans. If we are willing to accept different forms of explanations, then, based on dialogue statements, we are closer together on Purgatory, the Eucharist, to name a couple.

But doctrinal differences clearly exist between Rome and the Orthodox, and both with Lutherans and others. Does that matter? Sure. It matters for all Christians, even those who think it doesn’t matter. It matters in terms of unity, of authority, and in terms of Christ’s Church presenting to a skeptical world the True Faith with one voice.

Jon

My friend I know exactly what you mean, not testing you in any way. But we must also take into account:

*time,culture,politics,language,etc which can have detrimental effects on matters. *

 

[JonNC]

My friend I know exactly what you mean, not testing you in any way. But we must also take into account:

*time,culture,politics,language,etc which can have detrimental effects on matters. *

Agreed! Would you agree that these same things have to be taken into account when looking at the history of the Reformation? IOW, the relationship between our communions is vastly different than it was even 100 years ago. And the view our communions’ leaders have of the teachings of the other, no longer looking at the polemics, but instead looking at doctrinal differences, and convergences.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Agreed! Would you agree that these same things have to be taken into account when looking at the history of the Reformation? IOW, the relationship between our communions is vastly different than it was even 100 years ago. And the view our communions’ leaders have of the teachings of the other, no longer looking at the polemics, but instead looking at doctrinal differences, and convergences.

Jon

Of course. We humans are very complex creatures full of all kinds of problems.

 

[Tomster]

Just a note Jon, in over 500 years the Lutheran Confessions have never received an imprimatur from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body. They have never been accepted as official “teachings of the Church”. St. Paul never taught them either. They are simply fallible man-made traditions

By your latest responses, Jon, it is easy to see why the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, has never given an imprimatur to any of the Lutheran confessional statements. According to your own statements any Lutheran in the pew is free to pick and choose and to give any spin he or she wishes regarding your own man made traditions. Lutheranism, like all of Protestantism, is in a constant state of flux and it will continue to remain that way. By your own admission Jon, it’s your fallible tradition.

Back on topic, could the 16th century Lutheran revolt have been an intensification of the apostasy referred to in 2 Thessalonians by St.Paul and what has been that mysterious force holding back the total apostasy?

 

[Tomster]

Perhaps one in some cases, and another in other cases. We could say the same thing about the relations between Catholics and Lutherans. If we are willing to accept different forms of explanations, then, based on dialogue statements, we are closer together on Purgatory, the Eucharist, to name a couple.

But doctrinal differences clearly exist between Rome and the Orthodox, and both with Lutherans and others. Does that matter? Sure. It matters for all Christians, even those who think it doesn’t matter. It matters in terms of unity, of authority, and in terms of Christ’s Church presenting to a skeptical world the True Faith with one voice.

Jon

Authority? Are you kidding Jon? Please name the binding teaching authority within Lutheranism who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Be specific if you please. Lutheranism cannot even agree on how to interpret their own confessional statements as evidenced by your own fragmented Synods. And finally Lutheranism doesn’t even adhere to all of the writings of your founder Dr. Martin. All of which is to be expected due to Lutheranism’s fascination with its inherent weakness, the pride of “private judgment”. But of course we’ve been through all of this before haven’t we?

Is Lutheranism united in terms of authority and presenting to a skepitical world the True Faith with one voice? Absolutely not!

 

[JonNC]

=Tomster;11469719]By your latest responses, Jon, it is easy to see why the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, has never given an imprimatur to any of the Lutheran confessional statements. According to your own statements any Lutheran in the pew is free to pick and choose and to give any spin he or she wishes regarding your own man made traditions. Lutheranism, like all of Protestantism, is in a constant state of flux and it will continue to remain that way. By your own admission Jon, it’s your fallible tradition.

If you choose to see it that way, you are free to do so.

Back on topic, could the 16th century Lutheran revolt have been an intensification of the apostasy referred to in 2 Thessalonians by St.Paul and what has been that mysterious force holding back the total apostasy?

Not worthy of a response. Let me know when I refer, even as a question, to the Catholic Church as “apostate”.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

If you choose to see it that way, you are free to do so.

Not worthy of a response. Let me know when I refer, even as a question, to the Catholic Church as “apostate”.

Jon

Not worthy of response or are you just unable to give one?

 

[JonNC]

Not worthy of response or are you just unable to give one?

Not worthy of one. You know I am quite capable, as my tenure here can attest. But I’m not interested in responding to the kind of polemics which appears in the post I responded to. I always treat your communion with respect and courtesy, here at CAF and elsewhere, and I think it not unreasonable to expect the same in return. Often times I have defended the CC here when unfair and uncharitable attacks by protestants occur, and I certainly in my own apologetics never refer to the CC as apostate, or any other noxious term that has come between our communions in the past. And I won’t be baited into doing so now.

Jon