An open question for Lutherans

[Patavium]

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

Of course not. Lutherans are innocent of the “manichean delirium”. However, they should know that Luther’s theology did go into Gnosticism (both early and late Luther’s theology), and it is likely found in their confessions despite all the efforts of Melanchthon to be a “filter” of these extreme points that denied basic tenets of Christian faith such as the hypostatic union of Christ himself!

 

[KjetilK]

Im surprised our Lutheran brethren didn’t reply to your comment.

Luther’s extreme points and the reaction of others to these points are uncomfortable truths, especially the work of Fr. Theobald Beer with regards to Luther and his gnostic beliefs.

Or perhaps it is because you constantly misunderstand the role of Luther? He is not a person to which we are bound. I am not in any way bound to follow his personal opinions or academic works. And this is not a cop out. He has never, ever had such an official role. He is not the ‘founder’ of Lutheranism in the same way Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism.

 

[Patavium]

Or perhaps it is because you constantly misunderstand the role of Luther? He is not a person to which we are bound. I am not in any way bound to follow his personal opinions or academic works. And this is not a cop out. He has never, ever had such an official role. He is not the ‘founder’ of Lutheranism in the same way Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism.

Where do I constantly misunderstand his role? Or do you deny Luther’s theology as a major influence in Lutheranism, and even more Confessional Lutheranism?

 

[KjetilK]

…and it is likely found in their confessions…

Then it should be easy to point it out. Please do. Show me where this alleged gnosticism is, in the texts. You made the claim, you need to provide the evidence. As the old Latin saying goes: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – what is asserted without reason may be denied with our reason.

But remember that not all Lutherans are bound to all the Lutheran confessions. The Lutheran Churches were started in the 1530s (in Denmark-Norway in 1537), and were originally bound to nothing outside Scripture, the ancient creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and only insofar as they are read in light of Scripture, with the mind of Tradition). Many of the confessions were written in the late 1500s, and numerous Lutheran Churches rejected them. The Lutheran Churches are all autocephalous.

So if you should happen to find this Gnosticism in the confessions, note that I am not bound to anything outside the above mentioned confessions.

 

[KjetilK]

Where do I constantly misunderstand his role? Or do you deny Luther’s theology as a major influence in Lutheranism, and even more Confessional Lutheranism?

You keep pointing to Luther’s work as if that will show how wrong we are. But I am not, in any way, bound to follow Luther’ personal opinions. So instead of doing that, can’t we take as our starting point the actual confessions instead?

 

[Patavium]

Then it should be easy to point it out. Please do. Show me where this alleged gnosticism is, in the texts. You made the claim, you need to provide the evidence. As the old Latin saying goes: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – what is asserted without reason may be denied with our reason.

But remember that not all Lutherans are bound to all the Lutheran confessions. The Lutheran Churches were started in the 1530s (in Denmark-Norway in 1537), and were originally bound to nothing outside Scripture, the ancient creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism (and only insofar as they are read in light of Scripture, with the mind of Tradition). Many of the confessions were written in the late 1500s, and numerous Lutheran Churches rejected them. The Lutheran Churches are all autocephalous.

So if you should happen to find this Gnosticism in the confessions, note that I am not bound to anything outside the above mentioned confessions.

My argument is that it is likely as it is probable instead of improbable that Luther’s theology of gnosticism may have spilled over to the Confessions themselves. Fr. Theobald Beer has shown without doubt through examples of Luther’s theology development from early to late that Luther did hold gnostic beliefs. For me, if I was Lutheran it would give me pause. I say that separating Luther from Lutheranism by saying we are not bound to the man, it is folly or are not the words of Luther and his followers the Book of Concord you hold dearly? Not even one word?

 

[Patavium]

You keep pointing to Luther’s work as if that will show how wrong we are. But I am not, in any way, bound to follow Luther’ personal opinions. So instead of doing that, can’t we take as our starting point the actual confessions instead?

I am not using Luther’s “personal opinions” to show how wrong Lutherans are. Didn’t you miss my comment that I don’t hold Lutherans to Luther’s “manichean delirium”. My position is I do believe that Lutherans hold certain beliefs in opposition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which includes the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers (i.e. Catholics of the past). My comments are about the theology of a principal source of theology of the Lutheran Churches, unless you believe Luther is just a blip in Lutheran Churches radar.

 

[chero23]

Where do I constantly misunderstand his role? Or do you deny Luther’s theology as a major influence in Lutheranism, and even more Confessional Lutheranism?

So you guys don’t follow Luther’s teachings? So your not bound to follow what he says? Yet you guys say that Luther this, Luther that, Luther made this turn to be Pope Leo X. I really think you guys do have to abide by Luther and his teachings but rather not to show independence.

Your answer reminds me of Seventh Day Adventist, oh I don’t use Ellen G White as my belief, really, but SDA derieves from her works. It just doesn’t add up.

 

[Hawkiz]

I want to thank everyone for their participation thus far. I think it is fruitful for us to flush out our differences, but only within the light of pointing back to what we have in common. I would ask that everyone take a deep breath and calm down a bit. For the purposes of THIS thread, I would ask again for our Lutheran brethren out there to simply state what it would take for you to seek unity with the Catholic Church? I will beg my fellow Catholics to heed these differences with humility and compassion before setting out to ‘prove’ anyone wrong. We all love Christ. We all recognize our need for Him. We all desire to be closer to Him, both now and for eternity.

Please allow me to ask some questions here: As a hypothetical about the office of the Pope, is it the ‘possibility’ that he could speak ex-cathedra that impedes you to unity? Or is it that past popes have done so? Do you fear that somehow a pope could force you to change your faith somehow in a real, practical sense? Do you fear that if you reunited with Rome, that at some point, you or your children would have to turn around and leave the Church again if you saw a need for reform? I am just trying to get a better grip on what exactly is putting the brakes on unity.

House, if we took a closer look at Holy Days of Obligation as an example, you seem to indicate that no one, or no office, should impose upon you, and thus no one should be in a position to ‘force’ you or ‘guilt’ you (my words, not yours there, so if I am assuming wrongly, please insert your own) into feeling obligated to celebrate those particular days, is that correct? If I am taking your explanation correctly, you feel that, celebrating God on…idk, The Feast of the Ascension of Jesus, just to pick one, is wrong because the Church has said that we should do so?

Does it boil down to authority then House? If the Church went to a more ‘democratic’ style of leadership, would that make you more comfortable with Her declarations? If, when speaking ex-cathedra, the sitting Pope made it more clear that he was not acting alone, but was speaking only after conferring (sometimes over centuries of thought) with his fellow bishops and reaching…idk…90% consensus, then and only then was he speaking infallibly on a matter of faith and morals…would that soften this ‘pope is the anti-Christ’ thought process?

I am trying to get a better, more practical feel for what continues to motivates continued dis-unity, so that it can be addressed and talked about more fully.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Peace in Christ

 

[guanophore]

Luther’s extreme points and the reaction of others to these points are uncomfortable truths, especially the work of Fr. Theobald Beer with regards to Luther and his gnostic beliefs.

I recommend reading the interview with Fr. Theobald Beer on the topic of Luther, and also the interview of now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI of Luther and unity of the churches.

As can be seen by reading the thread, most of the reasons that Lutherans do not become Catholics have very little, ,if anything, to do with Luther,and most Lutherans on the Board are very tired fo being made to answer for things that Luther said and did that they dont’ agree with or defend.

 

[guanophore]

Luther’s extreme points and the reaction of others to these points are uncomfortable truths, especially the work of Fr. Theobald Beer with regards to Luther and his gnostic beliefs.

I recommend reading the interview with Fr. Theobald Beer on the topic of Luther, and also the interview of now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI of Luther and unity of the churches.

As can be seen by reading the thread, most of the reasons that Lutherans do not become Catholics have very little, ,if anything, to do with Luther,and most Lutherans on the Board are very tired fo being made to answer for things that Luther said and did that they dont’ agree with or defend.

Of course not. Lutherans are innocent of the “manichean delirium”. However, they should know that Luther’s theology did go into Gnosticism (both early and late Luther’s theology), and it is likely found in their confessions despite all the efforts of Melanchthon to be a “filter” of these extreme points that denied basic tenets of Christian faith such as the hypostatic union of Christ himself!

yeah, I haven’t run across anything htat sounds like a denial of the hypostatic union.

Yesterday, ,though I realized that the insistence of the “saint and sinner” does gnostic feel to it. It is basically a denial that we can avoid sin, because we are in fallen bodies.

 

[guanophore]

So you guys don't follow Luther's teachings? So your not bound to follow what he says? Yet you guys say that Luther this, Luther that, Luther made this turn to be Pope Leo X. I really think you guys do have to abide by Luther and his teachings but rather not to show independence.

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.

Your answer reminds me of Seventh Day Adventist, oh I don’t use Ellen G White as my belief, really, but SDA derieves from her works. It just doesn’t add up.

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.

 

[KjetilK]

My argument is that it is likely as it is probable instead of improbable that Luther’s theology of gnosticism may have spilled over to the Confessions themselves.

And I say that you need to show that, in the confessions. Your ‘argument’ is that there is probably something there. That’s not an argument. Arguments and assertions aren’t the same thing. Please show where this alleged Gnosticism is, in the confessions. Then you might have an argument.

Fr. Theobald Beer has shown without doubt through examples of Luther’s theology development from early to late that Luther did hold gnostic beliefs.

That may be so. My question is: So what? I am not a Gnostic. The Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound are not Gnostic. Unless you can prove that they are, of course. But that would require that you actually open up these confessions and show it.

For me, if I was Lutheran it would give me pause. I say that separating Luther from Lutheranism by saying we are not bound to the man, it is folly or are not the words of Luther and his followers the Book of Concord you hold dearly? Not even one word?

As I’ve said several times in this thread alone: I am not bound to most of the confessions in the Book of Concord. The Scandinavian Churches never have been, ever. And Luther hash’t authored all of them either.

I am not using Luther’s “personal opinions” to show how wrong Lutherans are. Didn’t you miss my comment that I don’t hold Lutherans to Luther’s “manichean delirium”. My position is I do believe that Lutherans hold certain beliefs in opposition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which includes the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers (i.e. Catholics of the past). My comments are about the theology of a principal source of theology of the Lutheran Churches, unless you believe Luther is just a blip in Lutheran Churches radar.

I am saying that he has no formal authority. I do not deny that he has been influential. But he has no formal authority. The formal authority lies within the confessions, and in the bishops of the particular Lutheran churches.

So you guys don’t follow Luther’s teachings? So your not bound to follow what he says? Yet you guys say that Luther this, Luther that, Luther made this turn to be Pope Leo X. I really think you guys do have to abide by Luther and his teachings but rather not to show independence.

Your answer reminds me of Seventh Day Adventist, oh I don’t use Ellen G White as my belief, really, but SDA derieves from her works. It just doesn’t add up.

Could it not perhaps be that you have been misinformed about the role of Luther? I am not bound to be held accountable for your misunderstandings.

Luther is not the equivalent of Jospeh Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. And when you say ‘you guys,’ to whom are you speaking? I haven’t made a single reference to Luther as a person.

 

[steido01]

You’ve written a lot here, and it all boils down to a misunderstanding in this paragraph:

…Believing that the key to salvation is Faith Alone in Jesus Christ is not biblical, it’s heresy. But people are flocking to this in droves because it allows them to do onto others as they would, so long as they have Faith in Christ. Sounds too good to be true!

This is a Straw Man. Lutherans do not advocate any kind of “Cheap Grace” where we are free to live in sin without true repentance. To borrow your phrasing (which is exceptionally fitting given the depraved hopes of our fallen human nature), that would be “too ‘good’ to be true!” because we poor sinful beings would always choose evil. Yet Lutherans understand quite clearly from James that a faith that does not produce good works is a dead faith, indeed. Luther once wrote, “It is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” Works are the natural result of faith; they are not, however, the cause of our justification.

Rather than say what you think Lutherans believe, why not read what Lutherans actually understand faith to be? ligonier.org/learn/articles/martin-luthers-definition-faith/

Now look what Matthew says next! (Ch 7: 21-23): “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only **the one **who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
You can say “Lord, Lord” until you are blue in the face. But if you do not perform God’s will you will not go to heaven. Says Jesus himself!

So people will come to Jesus at judgement saying, “Look at these good works we’ve done!” and Jesus tells them that their good works don’t save them. How does this support your view? Lutherans understand this text to be Jesus explaining how only the One (red, above) who did/does/knows the will of the Father deserves eternal life (he’s being coy and talking about Himself again… He has a habit of doing that). Obviously, this could be a damning sentence for us! After all, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But luckily for us, the Old Adam is replaced by the New Adam (Christ) in Baptism - it is no longer us who live and do good works, but Christ who does good works through us. What a joy to not only have our sins removed, but to have Christ’s righteousness replacing our wickedness when we face judgement!

Many who believe in “Faith Alone” minimize the Law (commandments). Matthew 12:50: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” The only way that we can ever prove that we love God on this earth is to obey him. Follow His old testament commandments and His New Testament commandment to love (Works).

Once again, you’re speaking to a Straw Man. Lutherans do not minimize the Law. To the contrary, we preach Law and Gospel equally. Many Lutherans even speak of the Law as serving three purposes: 1)Curb against sin, 2)Mirror to show where we have sinned and to call us to repentance, 3)Rule/Measure for how we regenerate are to live our faith.

Matthew 19: 16-17: Jesus is asked again what “I must do to enter eternal life”. What does he say? Faith alone? Let’s take a look: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

'Zactly. See above; there is only One who is good.

Make a little more sense?

 

[ptisme]

:

OK, I read it and I’m confused. Perhaps it’s the terminology? I have a friend who is Lutheran who describes Sola Fide in the sense that: “Christ accomplished everything on the cross and all you have to do now is believe (paraphrasing)”.

Perhaps we both agree on the concept but it’s the wording we’re stumbling on? Let’s do this by what we agree on. Are the next two statements fair?:
both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

Here is a statement that sums up the Catholic position on salvation: We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sola gratia! Grace alone – but a grace we have to co-operate with. Thoughts on this paragraph?

 

[JonNC]

OK, I read it and I’m confused. Perhaps it’s the terminology? I have a friend who is Lutheran who describes Sola Fide in the sense that: “Christ accomplished everything on the cross and all you have to do now is believe (paraphrasing)”.

Perhaps we both agree on the concept but it’s the wording we’re stumbling on? Let’s do this by what we agree on. Are the next two statements fair?:
both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

Here is a statement that sums up the Catholic position on salvation: We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sola gratia! Grace alone – but a grace we have to co-operate with. Thoughts on this paragraph?

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

Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is (this very thing], that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous.

5] 3. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold of Christ, and thus in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God, for whose sake this faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5.

From Article IV

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

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

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. **Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins. **

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.)

Here is a statement that sums up the Catholic position on salvation: We are saved by Christ’s grace alone, through faith and works done in charity inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sola gratia! Grace alone – but a grace we have to co-operate with. Thoughts on this paragraph?

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

 

[JonNC]

Of course not. Lutherans are innocent of the “manichean delirium”. However, they should know that Luther’s theology did go into Gnosticism (both early and late Luther’s theology), and it is likely found in their confessions despite all the efforts of Melanchthon to be a “filter” of these extreme points that denied basic tenets of Christian faith such as the hypostatic union of Christ himself!

From the Formula of Concord, Epitome:

1. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.

18] 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.

19] 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.

Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God’s Word:

8] 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.

9] 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

10] 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.

[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#I. Original Sin.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#I. Original Sin.)

I hope that helps.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

So Jesus misspoke when He used the singular?

 

[JonNC]

So Jesus misspoke when He used the singular?

Not speaking for House, but he seems to be speaking in the singular as well. There is but one Church.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

So Jesus misspoke when He used the singular?

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. 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.