An open question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hawkiz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
-]/-]

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.
They all seem to be equal in their episcopate, but early on we do seem to see various regional primacies, subsequently recognised by the oecumenical councils. Hence Rome seems preeminent in the Latin West and among Roman colonies, Alexandria in Egypt, etc. Of course, this is not to say such primacy was de jure divino, but it does seem to have existed.
 
Confessional Lutherans still believe the office of the pope is the antichrist.
Not all confessional Lutherans.

The confessional Lutherans in the Church of Norway are not bound by the treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the Smalcald Articles, and the Defense of the Augsburg Confession (the last of which is simply Melanchthon’s personal piece of writing in my opinion).

In the 1580s many Lutherans bound themselves to the aforementioned confessions, but the Church in Denmark and Norway fortunately refused.

The term ‘confessional Lutheran’ was originally made only about those who bound themselves to Confessio Augustana (in addition to Scripture and the ancient creeds). I refuse to be denied the title ‘confessional Lutheran’ just because we refused to bind ourselves to some orivate writings of Luther, Melanchthon and (probably) Chemnitz. These writings have some merits, but they are not binding on this confessional Lutheran.
 
They all seem to be equal in their episcopate, but early on we do seem to see various regional primacies, subsequently recognised by the oecumenical councils. Hence Rome seems preeminent in the Latin West and among Roman colonies, Alexandria in Egypt, etc. Of course, this is not to say such primacy was de jure divino, but it does seem to have existed.
Yes sure. Only because of the historical and political influence of the cities they governed though. Rome was the old imperial capital, so it got higher honor.
 
Yes sure. Only because of the historical and political influence of the cities they governed though. Rome was the old imperial capital, so it got higher honor.
I’m agnostic on this. I don’t know whether it was “only because”, though it was definitely “because”, if you appreciate the distinction I’m making.
 
House Harkonnen, when you say “faith alone”, do you mean belief alone, or docility alone? I.e, that simply believing what Jesus says, and not necessarily doing what He says, will save you? Or that you must not only consent to His ideas, but obey His instructions?

If by “faith alone” you mean “obedience alone”, I think you and us Catholics are on the same page. We only believe faith cannot really be faith without also being obedient and doing as God wishes.
As a Lutheran I see faith, the faith which justifies, as ‘faith operating in love’ (cf. Gal 5:6).
 
House Harkonnen, I spent hours working on posts 66 and 67. I was wondering if you read it and considered it?
FWIW, I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who sometimes spends a lot of time on a single post (although even for me, hours is a bit much :o :cool:).
 
Once again contradiction bc the Antichrist according to St. John in his 3 letters (I believe its 1 John and 2 John) state that the antichrist is he whomever who denies that Jesus came in the flesh, and that Jesus is the Son of God. No pope, let me repeat it, no pope has made that claim, making the Lutheran statement false.
I am not sure you can say that. There may have been at least one Pope that thought Jesus was a myth.

Anyhow, that is irrelevant, since Luther redefined what constitutes the AntiChrist so that it would fit Leo X. The antichrist for Luther is the one who occludes the Gospel.
 
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.
There were disputes, yes, but they were resolved by the One Church founded by Christ, and those who did not accept the decisions of the councils were considered heretics.

So, why are your bishops not in unity with the successor of Peter?
 
The Church of Norway, of which I am a member (and a vicar),
Is that like a kyrkoherde?
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.
Not too much of a problem, because those non-demoms won’t get caught with the word “catholic” next to them. 😉
 
As a Lutheran I see faith, the faith which justifies, as ‘faith operating in love’ (cf. Gal 5:6).
I think we would agree. “Operating” is simply another way of saying “working”. And working, operating.

The heart of faith is to love God - in my thoughts, and words, in what I have done, and what I don’t do. (That is a reversal of what the penitent says in the sacrament of confession.)
 
There were disputes, yes, but they were resolved by the One Church founded by Christ, and those who did not accept the decisions of the councils were considered heretics.

So, why are your bishops not in unity with the successor of Peter?
There were disputes, yes, but they were resolved by the One Church founded by Christ, and those who did not accept the decisions of the councils were considered heretics.
No. There were many false councils. Many accepted and rejected them. It wasn’t until centuries later that the councils were fully accepted or rejected. Even so, the early church was rife with schism, and infighting, and divisions. Nothing like the shining unity we see in the church today.
So, why are your bishops not in unity with the successor of Peter
Which successor of Peter? The bishop of Rome? We aren’t in unity with him because he teaches serious error and we believe he is the antichrist. Why isn’t the pope in unity with all the other bishops who are successors of Peter?
 
Code:
 Not completely.  The only one who can do that is Christ.
As Paul says, all have fallen short.
He did say that, but you are taking the statement out of context. So it is your contention that Jesus has given us a commandment that He has made it impossible to follow?

Paul also says:

Eph 1:3-5

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.

He has given us every spiritual blessing so that we can live holy and blameless before Him.

And also Peter:

1 Peter 1:15-16
15 Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; 16 for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
On the contrary, I agree with Paul that all have fallen short.
Paul here is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, and how the Jews do not have special status before God because they are chosen people. He is also speaking in the past tense. Once we enter Christ, the bondage to sin is broken.

Rom 6:17-19
17 But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18 and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Thus it is a grave heresy to claim that sin must have power over us, and that we do not have the ability, through the grace of God to avoid sin.
 
If that is true, why are you not in unity with them?
House Harkonnen;12265727:
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. 👍

It is right next to the word “Trinity”, didn’t you see that? 😉
If that is true, why are you not in unity with them?
I am.
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. 👍
No one is saying that faith doesn’t produce good works.
 
I am not sure you can say that. There may have been at least one Pope that thought Jesus was a myth.

Anyhow, that is irrelevant, since Luther redefined what constitutes the AntiChrist so that it would fit Leo X. The antichrist for Luther is the one who occludes the Gospel.
I guarantee you no Pope has said that which you said. So your saying Luther has more authority that St. John? Bc St John said it was anybody who denied the divinity of Jesus. He didn’t say 1 person, he said everyone who did. Luther got it wring its just that simple.
 
As a Lutheran I see faith, the faith which justifies, as ‘faith operating in love’ (cf. Gal 5:6).
👍 Any “Lutheran” who teaches differently is teaching a heresy of Cheap Grace. Yet it is, correctly, that faith “allein” that saves.
 
Yes sure. Only because of the historical and political influence of the cities they governed though. Rome was the old imperial capital, so it got higher honor.
I don’t think that Rome got any higher honor because it used to be the old imperial capital. It was because of the nature of the Church there, and the nature of orthodoxy.
 
-]/-]

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.

Because the concept of the modern RC papacy is not taught in scripture nor accepted by the early church like the Trinity was.
Here’s some quotes from the ECF
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

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]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).*
 
No. There were many false councils. Many accepted and rejected them. It wasn’t until centuries later that the councils were fully accepted or rejected. Even so, the early church was rife with schism, and infighting, and divisions. Nothing like the shining unity we see in the church today.

Which successor of Peter? The bishop of Rome? We aren’t in unity with him because he teaches serious error and we believe he is the antichrist. Why isn’t the pope in unity with all the other bishops who are successors of Peter?
That’s a link to CAF info in regards to the Papacy.
catholic.com/tracts/browse/papacy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top