An open question for Lutherans

[guanophore]

Not according to the early church fathers, per Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church;** and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you**; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

There are some gifts that are given to all the Apostles, and some that are given just to Peter. He gives to Peter the charge to “strengthen your brethren” and to feed and care for the sheep. This being said, Peter never exercised these gifts without unity from the other Apostles, and all were instructed not to “lord it over” one another. Peter is the visible sign of unity among the Apostles “as to begin from one”, just as his successor is considered the visible sign of unity since that time.

Cyprian:

Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Again he speaks of unity - the successor of Peter is to exercise the special gifts given to him in unity with the college of Bishops. Unity is achieved by adherance to the Truth, and the Bishops are entrusted with the deposit of faith.

No. The early church believed that the apostles were equals, and the ministry of Peter carried on to every bishop. Each bishop being the princeps of their diocese as Peter was the princeps of the apostles. Not that it carried down to one bishop only. I see no need to diverge from this teaching.

If you see no need to diverge, then why is your Bishop not in unity with the successor of Peter? When Jesus prayed for “you”, that “your faith not fail”, he spoke in the singular, meaning that everyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Christ better get in with Peter!

Ok. But I don’t see anything regarding the bishop of Rome, or anywhere else here.

No, you would not, since the Church at Rome did not yet exist.

But if you are willing to look at the writings of the NT and the Early Fathers, I think it will be clear that the successors of the Apostles were the Bishops, and they were given complete and Apostolic authority in every place they were appointed.

The papacy isn’t mentioned at all here either.

Well, we read it differently. What has grown to a large tree was here a smallest of seeds.

 

[guanophore]

Not at all. And if Jesus informed us through his word that he expected to make a specific bishop his vicar I would happily accept it.

So it is not the principle, but the application of it to His Church.

You don’t see the Keys given to Peter, and the charge to strenghten his brethren, or the charge to feed and care for His flock as any Word" from Christ?

It seems to me that every time (and there were not many) occasions when God changed the name of a person, it had huge impact upon their identity and mission. Do you believe that Jesus changed the name of Simon bar Jona to Peter?

 Because burning heretics is wrong.

Let me get this right. You think that burning heretics is against the HS because it violates your personal sense of right and wrong?

Do you think that the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts was “wrong” for the same reason?

   The pope blundered big time on that one.

Perhaps so, but since this is not a Teaching of the Church, it can be categorized with the great plethora of human blunders that have occurred throughout history.

Peter also evidently “blundered” by not grasping the Holy Spirit/Baptism was for the Gentiles.

It seems you are judging the pope through modern eyes of morality, rather than understanding the context. It was customary to burn/exile heretics at the time, since heresy was considered the same as treason. I am not defending the practice, just pointing out that from our point of view, it appears heinous because our culture and practices are so different. We are appaled that Islamic fundamentalists execute “infidels” but from their point of view, this is a holy work.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There are some gifts that are given to all the Apostles, and some that are given just to Peter. He gives to Peter the charge to “strengthen your brethren” and to feed and care for the sheep. This being said, Peter never exercised these gifts without unity from the other Apostles, and all were instructed not to “lord it over” one another. Peter is the visible sign of unity among the Apostles “as to begin from one”, just as his successor is considered the visible sign of unity since that time.

Again he speaks of unity - the successor of Peter is to exercise the special gifts given to him in unity with the college of Bishops. Unity is achieved by adherance to the Truth, and the Bishops are entrusted with the deposit of faith.

If you see no need to diverge, then why is your Bishop not in unity with the successor of Peter? When Jesus prayed for “you”, that “your faith not fail”, he spoke in the singular, meaning that everyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Christ better get in with Peter!

No, you would not, since the Church at Rome did not yet exist.

But if you are willing to look at the writings of the NT and the Early Fathers, I think it will be clear that the successors of the Apostles were the Bishops, and they were given complete and Apostolic authority in every place they were appointed.

Well, we read it differently. What has grown to a large tree was here a smallest of seeds.

If you see no need to diverge, then why is your Bishop not in unity with the successor of Peter? When Jesus prayed for “you”, that “your faith not fail”, he spoke in the singular, meaning that everyone who wants to get in on the prayer of Christ better get in with Peter!

Weird question. My bishop is as much the successor of Peter as yours, or any bishop. So I am already in union with him.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So it is not the principle, but the application of it to His Church.

You don’t see the Keys given to Peter, and the charge to strenghten his brethren, or the charge to feed and care for His flock as any Word" from Christ?

It seems to me that every time (and there were not many) occasions when God changed the name of a person, it had huge impact upon their identity and mission. Do you believe that Jesus changed the name of Simon bar Jona to Peter?

Let me get this right. You think that burning heretics is against the HS because it violates your personal sense of right and wrong?

Do you think that the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts was “wrong” for the same reason?

Perhaps so, but since this is not a Teaching of the Church, it can be categorized with the great plethora of human blunders that have occurred throughout history.

Peter also evidently “blundered” by not grasping the Holy Spirit/Baptism was for the Gentiles.

It seems you are judging the pope through modern eyes of morality, rather than understanding the context. It was customary to burn/exile heretics at the time, since heresy was considered the same as treason. I am not defending the practice, just pointing out that from our point of view, it appears heinous because our culture and practices are so different. We are appaled that Islamic fundamentalists execute “infidels” but from their point of view, this is a holy work.

So it is not the principle, but the application of it to His Church.

You don’t see the Keys given to Peter, and the charge to strenghten his brethren, or the charge to feed and care for His flock as any Word" from Christ?

It seems to me that every time (and there were not many) occasions when God changed the name of a person, it had huge impact upon their identity and mission. Do you believe that Jesus changed the name of Simon bar Jona to Peter?

Fine.

Let me get this right. You think that burning heretics is against the HS because it violates your personal sense of right and wrong?

No. It’s because the HS says don’t murder people.

Do you think that the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts was “wrong” for the same reason?

God can take or give life as he pleases. We can’t.

Perhaps so, but since this is not a Teaching of the Church, it can be categorized with the great plethora of human blunders that have occurred throughout history.

Peter also evidently “blundered” by not grasping the Holy Spirit/Baptism was for the Gentiles.

It seems you are judging the pope through modern eyes of morality, rather than understanding the context. It was customary to burn/exile heretics at the time, since heresy was considered the same as treason. I am not defending the practice, just pointing out that from our point of view, it appears heinous because our culture and practices are so different. We are appaled that Islamic fundamentalists execute “infidels” but from their point of view, this is a holy work.

Its immoral then and its immoral now. No matter who is doing it.

 

[ptisme]

House Harkonnen, I spent hours working on posts 66 and 67. I was wondering if you read it and considered it?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Confessio Augustana is the heart of Lutheran theology that even some Catholics regard as a “Catholic” statement of faith; the Confession communicates what Lutherans believe regarding Holy Scripture and Justification of Faith. That Martin Luther wrote parts of the Confession holds even more credibility for Lutherans.

Blessed Pope John 23 [holy day: June 3 on Lutheran calendar] opened the Church to Dialogue. Lutheran theologians and bishops represented Augustana in these 50 years of talks. To my knowledge these men came from several different Synods because essentially it doesn’t matter who the person is articulating Lutheranism.

There are several schools of thought presented as Lutheran on this thread; all are correct historically though differ in application. Some Lutherans may not agreed in totality with the Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the average parishioner has no idea about the Commission on Unity between Lutherans and Catholics. But the ramifications of these extraordinary ecumenical conclusions clearly point to reunion of Lutheran and Catholic, which is God pleasing.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

House Harkonnen, I spent hours working on posts 66 and 67. I was wondering if you read it and considered it?

It’s long and you’re going to have to give me some time.

 

[guanophore]

Weird question. My bishop is as much the successor of Peter as yours, or any bishop. So I am already in union with him.

Yes, but that is not what I asked. I asked why your Bishop is not in unity with the successor of Peter. In the beginning, all the Apostles were in unity, as were their successors, the Bishops.

 

[JonNC]

Hello Jon,

I’ve been a long time lurking fan of yours, and I very much enjoy your posts. May I ask you, hypothetically, if #3 from your list happened, but #2 didn’t, would you reconsider yourself abandoning the Augsburg Confession? Or is that a non-negotiable? Essentially I’m curious how “undeniable and irresistible” you’d find a hypothetical Catholic/Orthodox reunification.

Completely. I would avail myself of RCIA immediately

Thank you for the kind words. I am honored.

Jon

 

[TarkanAttila]

Neither, I mean faith as in trust. Trust of course leads to obedience. But still to merit eternal salvation with our works we would have to obey totally and completely which is impossible.

You do not think Jesus would have some latitude with us, given how confused we tend to get, given our limited natures, subject to sin? I think I agree with you more than you think. Must trust always lead to obedience to be trust? If it is trust without obedience, is it still trust?

The only way in so to speak is by Gods grace, which engenders faith.

And, of course, every time God asks you to do something, at least as far as you can tell, you can say “serviam” or “non serviam”. Now, with the sacrament of confession, the non-serviams are forgiven, and God gives you some latitude, and you are healed.

But, of course, if you refuse to do God’s will in some way, you cease to trust him. And when you do, how will you be forgiven?

 

[chero23]

Not according to the early church fathers, per Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church;** and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you**; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

**
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; **but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

No. The early church believed that the apostles were equals, and the ministry of Peter carried on to every bishop. Each bishop being the princeps of their diocese as Peter was the princeps of the apostles. Not that it carried down to one bishop only. I see no need to diverge from this teaching.

Ok. But I don’t see anything regarding the bishop of Rome, or anywhere else here.

The papacy isn’t mentioned at all here either.

I would read more in regards to Peter primacy and the papacy. Theirs ton of info in regards to that especially with the early church fathers. You say the word pope is not in the bible, so it’s not accurate, how about trinity? That’s not mentioned in the bible, but yet as Christians we believe in it. Why is it that we can assume that, but not the papacy?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes, but that is not what I asked. I asked why your Bishop is not in unity with the successor of Peter. In the beginning, all the Apostles were in unity, as were their successors, the Bishops.

No they weren’t. Early bishops fought all the time.

Even so, my bishop is in unity with all the other bishops of my denomination, and all are successors of Peter.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

-]/-]

I would read more in regards to Peter primacy and the papacy. Theirs ton of info in regards to that especially with the early church fathers.

I have read the ECFS. I’m convinced they didn’t believe in the modern conception of the papacy. I think they believed all bishops were equal, with each being the princeps of his diocese. The concept of a singular bishop have sole universal immediate jurisdiction over the entire church is foreign. That’s why its one of the doctrines that the RC must jettison if there is going to be any chance at unity with Confessional Lutherans.

You say the word pope is not in the bible, so it’s not accurate, how about trinity? That’s not mentioned in the bible, but yet as Christians we believe in it. Why is it that we can assume that, but not the papacy?

Because the concept of the modern RC papacy is not taught in scripture nor accepted by the early church like the Trinity was.

 

[ptisme]

It’s long and you’re going to have to give me some time.

OK, Thank you sir.

 

[KjetilK]

My issue with transubstantiation is only that I feel it is a bit of a reach to declare that there is only one way to explain the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. It is a mystery that defies explanation as I see it.

Three questions: What do you mean by ‘explanation,’ in what way does this constitute an explanation, and what is the principled difference between this use of philosophy and the use of philosophy when explaining the mysteries of the Trinity (that Christ, as God, is of the same essence as the Father) or the Incarnation (that Christ, as man, is of the same essence as us)?

 

[guanophore]

Neither, I mean faith as in trust.  Trust of course leads to obedience.  But still to merit eternal salvation with our works we would have to obey totally and completely which is impossible.  That why Jesus commands us to be perfect.  We cannot do it.  That's why Paul states all men have fallen short.  The only way in so to speak is by Gods grace, which engenders faith.

I find such a position unscriptural. Jesus does not command us to do that which is “impossible”.

Those who are led by the Spirit can, and do, follow the Commandments of God. They do not walk according to the flesh.

I am not on the same page at all on this issue with Catholics,

Clearly you are rejecting an important aspect of the Scriptural message. :sad_yes:

 

[guanophore]

Are we to believe that the teachings of the confessions take supremacy over the teachings of the successors of the apostles thus the Catholic Church of past, present, and future?

No, but we are not to make Lutherans responsible for the Manichean delirium either.

 

[KjetilK]

In a way do you think with Lutherans accepting the Pope as a pastor, differs from that of Martin Luther who called the Pope the antichrist?

The probably differ a whole lot. But as I have said on many occasions now, on this forum: Lutheran churches originally got their name from their adversaries, and we are not bound to the private opinions of Martin Luther. And to anticipate an objection: No, Luther didn’t found ‘the Lutheran church.’ He was a reformer, yes, but not a founder.

The question is not what ‘the Lutheran church’ holds (which would be pointless, since no such Church exists), but what is held by the particular Churches either calling themselves Lutheran (or being called Lutheran).

The Church of Norway, of which I am a member (and a vicar), only hold to the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and only insofar as they are read in light of Scripture, with the mind of Tradition).

Many Lutheran churches do not call themselves Lutheran, but evangelical or evangelical catholic. In english this has become a problem, since that term has now been hijacked by low church non-denominational protestants.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I find such a position unscriptural. Jesus does not command us to do that which is “impossible”.

Those who are led by the Spirit can, and do, follow the Commandments of God. They do not walk according to the flesh.

Clearly you are rejecting an important aspect of the Scriptural message. :sad_yes:

I find such a position unscriptural. Jesus does not command us to do that which is “impossible”.

Those who are led by the Spirit can, and do, follow the Commandments of God. They do not walk according to the flesh.

Not completely. The only one who can do that is Christ.

As Paul says, all have fallen short.

Clearly you are rejecting an important aspect of the Scriptural message.

On the contrary, I agree with Paul that all have fallen short.

 

[guanophore]

In fact all bishops have the "keys" and all bishops have the Petrine ministry.  That's the way the early church taught like Cyprian and Chrysostom, and I am comfortable with that interpretation.

If that is true, why are you not in unity with them?

Romans 5:1

Peace of Christ with faith, nothing else needed. You will never have that peace relying on works.

I recently ran into an SDA on the forum that also derived a complete theology from a handful of verses, ignoring all the other verses that talk about the same thing.

It is amazing how much scripture must be ignored in order to make a statement like yours. For example, the very next verse!

Rom 5:1-2
Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand

Faith is the faculty through which we access the grace by which we are saved. And the grace that saves us by faith is the same grace that produces good works in us.

Eph 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

These good works are to be our way of life.

So you see, faith is never “alone”. Faith is always accompanied by the good works it produces.
House Harkonnen;12265727:

Also, can you show me where the term “pope” or “vicar of Christ” appears in the bible? If not, why hold me to a standard you refuse to hold yourself?

It is right next to the word “Trinity”, didn’t you see that?