Error Begets Error

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomster said:
I think if Lutherans would take the time and read Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “The Mystical Body of Christ” they would get a pretty good idea of the errors of their spiritual father.
Click to expand...
A nice thought but probably not. 😉
 
Egads, I knew Luther’s Sola Fide was nutty, but I didn’t know he was as wacky as Calvin in the matter of “double predestination!” He really wrote that? That man is merely a beast ridden either by God or by the devil and has no freedom in the matter? Seriously?
 
Tomster said:
For their convenience:

www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
Click to expand...
You’ll have no problem convincing confessional Lutherans on the necessity of the Church, where you’ll have problem is convincing us that that our church doesn’t preach and proclaim the the Gospel and administer the sacraments.

This encyclical has some great teaching, but where it falls short, is that it reminds me of polemical “One True Church” arguments.
 
benjohnson said:
You’ll have no problem convincing confessional Lutherans on the necessity of the Church, where you’ll have problem is convincing us that that our church doesn’t preach and proclaim the the Gospel and administer the sacraments.

This encyclical has some great teaching, but where it falls short, is that it reminds me of polemical “One True Church” arguments.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, I believe reform brings reform…and reform…and reform…and more reform. I believe that once someone decides they know better than The Church, then many more will draw that same conclusion later on. Example with in Lutheranism is ELCA, LCMS, WELS, LCMC…etc.
 
manualman said:
Egads, I knew Luther’s Sola Fide was nutty, but I didn’t know he was as wacky as Calvin in the matter of “double predestination!” He really wrote that? That man is merely a beast ridden either by God or by the devil and has no freedom in the matter? Seriously?
Click to expand...
If you read that Lutherans believe in ‘double predestination’ based on this article, I would say that the article is poorly written. Luther specifically denied the idea of the predetermined ‘elect’ and even more rigorously insisted that the Gospel was for all of us.

Where Tim Staples misconstrues Luther’s argument is that we don’t deny ‘good works’ - but simply say that good works are out of the equation of unmerited Grace given for us, and part of the equation that encompasses sanctification.
 
benjohnson said:
If you read that Lutherans believe in ‘double predestination’ based on this article, I would say that the article is poorly written. Luther specifically denied the idea of the predetermined ‘elect’ and even more rigorously insisted that the Gospel was for all of us.

Where Tim Staples misconstrues Luther’s argument is that we don’t deny ‘good works’ - but simply say that good works are out of the equation of unmerited Grace given for us, and part of the equation that encompasses sanctification.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you on the predetermined elect. I know many Lutherans and they all speak against it.

I tried to get my Lutheran friend to understand that he does do “good works” without calling them “good works.”
 
aidanbradypop said:
As I stated above, I believe reform brings reform…and reform…and reform…and more reform. I believe that once someone decides they know better than The Church, then many more will draw that same conclusion later on. Example with in Lutheranism is ELCA, LCMS, WELS, LCMC…etc.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair problem, and hence our desire for stronger unity with the holy, catholic and apostolic church we profess. As far as dogma, I would say the LCMS has been very consistent and hasn’t introduced anything novel - a concern our Orthodox friends would also share with us about the Catholic church.
 
benjohnson said:
If you read that Lutherans believe in ‘double predestination’ based on this article, I would say that the article is poorly written. Luther specifically denied the idea of the predetermined ‘elect’ and even more rigorously insisted that the Gospel was for all of us.

Where Tim Staples misconstrues Luther’s argument is that we don’t deny ‘good works’ - but simply say that good works are out of the equation of unmerited Grace given for us, and part of the equation that encompasses sanctification.
Click to expand...
Did Tim falsely quote Luther on the matter of man being like a “beast ridden by either God or the devil?” I’ll grant you that nobody used the term “double predestination” but the logic appears to clearly be there. If God chooses you to be saved, then that’s what happens and your will has no relevance (God rise those like horses?) If God doesn’t choose you to be saved, then the devil is free to have his way. That’s how I read the LUTHER quote, not Staples opinion of it.

Is this something that today’s Lutherans repudiate?

I admit to being no theologian, but the way I understand sin and Grace is that we humans have dug ourselves into a hopelessly deep pit of sin and cannot escape from it via our own efforts. In Christ, God offers us a rescue rope which we must cling to as He pulls us out of our pit. As I understand it, many protestants reject this analogy because they worry that the clinging to the rope is a “work” about which the person may brag and be proud of.

Personally, I’ve never met anybody that bragged about his achievement of clinging to the rope that rescued him from the fatal pit he had dug himself into… 😉
 
manualman said:
Did Tim falsely quote Luther on the matter of man being like a “beast ridden by either God or the devil?” I’ll grant you that nobody used the term “double predestination” but the logic appears to clearly be there. If God chooses you to be saved, then that’s what happens and your will has no relevance (God rise those like horses?) If God doesn’t choose you to be saved, then the devil is free to have his way. That’s how I read the LUTHER quote, not Staples opinion of it.

Is this something that today’s Lutherans repudiate?
Click to expand...
We never had to repudiate it, for we never believed it. Luther wrote an amazing volume of work and combined with that, and poor translations and out of context quotes you can make the man say anything.

And even if he did say it, it doesn’t matter, for Luther was but a man who pointed to the Gospel. It’s the Gospel that’s important.

If you really want to find our what Lutherans believe, you must first understand what Catholics believe then read the Book of Concorde. It’s a long process.

But suffice to say, if you tell a Lutheran that he believes in double-predestination you’re probably going to have a conversation.
 
manualman said:
the way I understand sin and Grace is that we humans have dug ourselves into a hopelessly deep pit of sin and cannot escape from it via our own efforts.
Click to expand...
Lutheran’s vehemently agree, and would only add that our desire for Christ begins with Christ’s love for us.

I’ll be the first to admit that Lutherans can spend way too much time arguing over free-will, when we should be content with what God has given us.
 
manualman said:
That’s how I read the LUTHER quote, not Staples opinion of it.
Click to expand...
Sorry not to address your question directly: What Tim’s quote leaves off is Luther’s admonition that once you a liberated by God, it is only then that you free of the devil’s power.

While that sounds close to being ‘elect’ - where Lutherans differ from the Calvinists is that we don’t pontificate about the fates of those who don’t display any outward signs of grace. And because our own grace is unmerited, we don’t get to boast either.

In Lutheran theology, being a Christian is perhaps is both a joyful but risky proposition for you have no more excuses.
 
benjohnson said:
It’s the Gospel that’s important.

If you really want to find our what Lutherans believe, you must first understand what Catholics believe then read the Book of Concorde. It’s a long process.
Click to expand...
You have to believe the Gospel, or you have to believe the “Book of Concorde (It’s a long
process.)”?

What happened to “except ye become like little children. . .?”
 
aidanbradypop said:
I would agree with you on the predetermined elect. I know many Lutherans and they all speak against it.

I tried to get my Lutheran friend to understand that he does do “good works” without calling them “good works.”
Click to expand...
🙂 That there are very poorly catechized Lutherans is not a surprise. If you were to tell him that his does ‘good works in response to God’s Grace’, then I hope he would agree!
 
Love4All said:
You have to believe the Gospel, or you have to believe the “Book of Concorde (It’s a long
process.)”?

What happened to “except ye become like little children. . .?”
Click to expand...
Are you implying that knowing the Book of Concorde is a prerequisite to salvation? If so, then I would say that not how we understand it.

You must enter the kingdom as little children is true. But that isn’t a proscription to remain ignorant as a child during your life here.
 
benjohnson said:
We never had to repudiate it, for we never believed it. Luther wrote an amazing volume of work and combined with that, and poor translations and out of context quotes you can make the man say anything.
…
But suffice to say, if you tell a Lutheran that he believes in double-predestination you’re probably going to have a conversation.
Click to expand...
I suppose that’s the same problem catholics face when critics dredge up an obscure EF quote written for an audience and culture long gone and use it to mock catholic teaching (I’ve had people quote Augustine to “prove” that the catholic church taught that sex is inherently dirty, even in marriage and only grudgingly tolerates it for procreation. :rolleyes: )

But it’s hard NOT to look where one’s line of argument leads. If Lutherans believe that God compelled believers to believe then it is a logical necessity that unbelievers are that way simply because God did not compell them to believe. I really don’t mean to be polemic, but it’s hard to see such a position as anything other than rejection of the LABEL of double predestination while swallowing its most troubling problem. Or am I missing some subtlety? There must be more than “We prefer not to think about the implications.”
 
Let’s try and talk about the article for the sake of staying on topic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top