An open question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hawkiz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps the confessions will help. From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, articles III, IV, and V specifically address your question. Without pasting all of it, a few snippets;
Article III

From Article IV

The alone in faith alone specifically excludes works regarding the article of justification.
Works are, however necessary:

When it says bound, it doesn’t simply mean certain, but also required.
The regenerate do not have the freedom to forego good work.

[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.)

We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, that we access that grace through faith alone for justification, and respond to grace out of the new obedience by doing the good works He commands us to do, that being, “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

Jon
So your statement is this: “We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, that we access that grace through faith alone for justification, and respond to grace out of the new obedience by doing the good works
My statement is this: "We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sola gratia! Grace alone "

Seems to me we both believe salvation is by God’s Grace alone. What am I missing here? Seems we both believe you can’t earn your way to heaven and you can’t get there without Grace. Further we both believe that you need to have Faith in order to get to heaven. Lastly, as we read here: James 2:17 "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Thus you may want to delete the term: “alone” that comes after faith and we’re right on.
 
Lutherans do not advocate any kind of “Cheap Grace” where we are free to live in sin without true repentance.
In fact, it is a Lutheran Pastor who has one of the most strong lines against “Cheap Grace” theology:
“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?..
Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
 
Not speaking for House, but he seems to be speaking in the singular as well. There is but one Church.

Jon
Jesus spoke of St. Peter in the singular, as opposed to all the Apostles gathered together in the same place.
 
Of course that’s not what’s being claimed. HH is perfectly aware that there was one Peter, but is asserting that there was more than one simultaneous successor. Indeed, Rome endorses this up to a point, in accepting that the Patriarchate of Antioch was founded by Peter.
Up to a point. But the Patriarchate of Antioch was NOT where the office of St. Peter was invested, as can be seen with certainty and clarity from the writings of the ECF.
The question is whether the Bishops of Rome possess some charism or authority that the Patriarchs of Antioch, or any other successors of Peter, do not.
Again, answered by the Early Church quite emphatically in the affirmative.
 
So your statement is this: “We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, that we access that grace through faith alone for justification, and respond to grace out of the new obedience by doing the good works
My statement is this: "We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sola gratia! Grace alone "

Seems to me we both believe salvation is by God’s Grace alone. What am I missing here? Seems we both believe you can’t earn your way to heaven and you can’t get there without Grace. Further we both believe that you need to have Faith in order to get to heaven. Lastly, as we read here: 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Thus you may want to delete the term: “alone” that comes after faith.
The reason for the “alone” is to only distinguish that which makes it possible to access justification . So, if there is agreement on the principle upon which it is used, one could remove it.

Beyond that, agreed.

Jon
 
The reason for the “alone” is to only distinguish that which makes it possible to access justification . So, if there is agreement on the principle upon which it is used, one could remove it.

Beyond that, agreed.

Jon
I think we are in agreement. The “alone” part is a stickler for Catholics because the only time we see “faith” and “alone” together in the bible is in the negative:
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”-James 2:24. No matter we both agree in principle that it is by God’s Grace that we are saved(we can’t work our way into heaven), through the bedrock which is Faith and shown by good works (loving one another, caring for the poor-NB to Jesus, and obeying the 11 commandments)….

So now that we’ve agreed on the semantics (though slightly disagree on the wording), should we move to Sola Scripture.👍
 
Who are you (we or anybody!) to tell others what they “do have to abide by”?!?!?!

I think that people of every faith tradition have the freedome to choose for themselves what they want to believe! That is like telling Catholics that we hve to abide by the personal expressions of the Popes.

Pidgeonholing our separated brethren and dictating what they “have to abide by” things they reject does nothing to heal the wounds to unity that exist.

No, Lutherans are very clear about the basis of their beliefs, and that is the point where discussion needs to take place,rather than assinging beliefs to people they reject. KjetilK has been very clear about the foundational elements of his faith, and that is where focus needs to occur,not on those things he has REPEATEDLY said he does not accept.
But see that’s what makes us different. We don’t have to be in accordance with the Pope every single time. Yes we hope and pray that the Pope is shows and demonstrate the faith the right way but we know he is human.

You say about Lutherans do not have to have to abide by Luther’s teaching, but yet, they have brought up the one of the Confessions quite a bit (forget me I don’t remember which 1 it is. But that is the reason they “believe the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist”. That is b/c Luther stated that. Your logic does not add up. Your saying their free to believe whatever they like, but yet, they put Luther and his teachings in the front page. It just doesn’t add up.
 
Code:
Of course that's not what's being claimed. HH is perfectly aware that there was one Peter, but is asserting that there was more than one simultaneous successor. Indeed, Rome endorses this up to a point, in accepting that the Patriarchate of Antioch was founded by Peter.
It is not likley that HH’s Bishops come from the line of Peter, but from out point of view it is irrelevant. Apostolic Succession passes through all the Bishops from all the Apostles, and there are many successors.

Titus 1:5-7

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, 6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless…

This was the NT beginning of metropolitan bishops. Clearly Titus was charged by Paul (after having been ordained a Bishop by him) to appoint Elders/Overseers in “every town”, so there would be many successors here of Paul, and of Titus.
The question is whether the Bishops of Rome possess some charism or authority that the Patriarchs of Antioch, or any other successors of Peter, do not.
Yes, I think this is the crux of it. The Church believed from the beginning that the Petrine Gifts and responsibiliies given to Peter were passed on to his successor, and so on, until the present day.

This was recognized by the whole Church throughout the world until the Schism.

An example of this occurred at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Pope’s teaching was received as authoritative by the Eastern bishops, who proclaimed: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”
 
“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See
“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.”(Eusebius Pamphilius-Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195))

CYPRIAN:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
 
You say about Lutherans do not have to have to abide by Luther’s teaching, but yet, they have brought up the one of the Confessions quite a bit (forget me I don’t remember which 1 it is. But that is the reason they “believe the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist”. That is b/c Luther stated that. Your logic does not add up. Your saying their free to believe whatever they like, but yet, they put Luther and his teachings in the front page. It just doesn’t add up.
Only some Lutherans adhere to that writing as a confession. The Scandinavian Churches do not, and never have. It was made a confession in the 1580s, well after the Reformation and the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1530, where Confessio Augustana was presented.

Not all Churches approved every part of the Book of Concord. What you need to do is not to engage ‘Lutherans’ - as if we are all alike - but each particular Church on its own terms. As a vicar in the Church of Norway, I’m not obliged to answer for the official teaching of, say, LCMS or WELS.
 
You say about Lutherans do not have to have to abide by Luther’s teaching, but yet, they have brought up the one of the Confessions quite a bit (forget me I don’t remember which 1 it is. But that is the reason they “believe the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist”. That is b/c Luther stated that. Your logic does not add up. Your saying their free to believe whatever they like, but yet, they put Luther and his teachings in the front page. It just doesn’t add up.
I’m not a Lutheran, but I can relate to them when they receive complaints like that. Why? Because we Catholics very often receive complaints from persons who misunderstand and exaggerate our beliefs on Papal Infallibility.
 
But see that’s what makes us different. We don’t have to be in accordance with the Pope every single time. Yes we hope and pray that the Pope is shows and demonstrate the faith the right way but we know he is human.

You say about Lutherans do not have to have to abide by Luther’s teaching, but yet, they have brought up the one of the Confessions quite a bit (forget me I don’t remember which 1 it is. But that is the reason they “believe the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist”. That is b/c Luther stated that. Your logic does not add up. Your saying their free to believe whatever they like, but yet, they put Luther and his teachings in the front page. It just doesn’t add up.
Hi Chero,
Frankly, it isn’t on the front page. On the front page of the Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. Nothing, written by any reformer of the 16th century comes before them in our confessions.
Secondly, as a general rule, it is quite rare here at CAF, and also during Lutheran catechesis, that the issue of the papacy is brought up by Lutherans. The reason it is not brought up by Lutherans here is, in my view, two-fold:
  1. it is a historically conditional charge, not a doctrine, and one of those conditions is now moot, and at least another has seen remarkable progress over the last 50 years.
  2. it is both misunderstood, and extremely harsh to the modern ear.
Finally, the reasons for the charge that the papacy is anti (opposed to) Christ is specific, and found not in Luther’s Smalcald, but in Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. It is not because “Luther said so”. When those conditions are resolved (and we have today a spirit of dialogue between our communions which makes this more possible than anytime in the history of our sad division), then the charge no longer applies.

Jon
 
As one example, the first council of Constantinople, which attempted to grant Constantinople precedence over all the sees except for Rome, which was acknowledge to hold the highest authority.

This was rejected, as the Tradition did not have the Roman see as the primary one because of its political stature, but rather because the see (not the city) held the office of St. Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top