For Lutherans...

[Jabronie]

I mean no disrepect, but why are Lutherans still Lutheran? What I mean are the following:

1. Are there still any specific parts of Luther’s thesis that keep you in the faith?
2. Which parts of Catholicism “scare” you away, and do they actually fit with Luther’s teaching?
3. Why Lutheran and not Methodist, Baptist, etc.
4. Could you ever see a time where the majority of Lutherans would rejoin the Roman Catholics?
5. Finally… Do you accept the authority of the pre-reformation Church & Popes?

Thanks in advace.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

One more small question to add: why the name “Lutherans”, when Luther said he didn’t want people naming themselves after him?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Liberian]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

One more small question to add: why the name “Lutherans”, when Luther said he didn’t want people naming themselves after him?

In Christ,
Rand

Rand,

I’m not Lutheran, but I used to be, and I can answer your question. It was applied by non-Lutherans and stuck.

• Liberian

 

[Reid]

I can answer for my Grandmother.

My Grandmother is Lutheran because the Catholic Church would not allow her to join the Church because my Grandfather had a previous mariage, that the Church found was valid, my Grandmother also had a previos mariage but was married to a Jew therefore the Church could go through the anulement process on that one. But since she was married to my grandfather that was a sin.

The Catholic Church made a decision to not allow my grandparents in full comunion with the Church. My grandmother then went out and found the closest thing to Catholic which is Lutheran in her mind and as been in Christian fellowship ever since.

The day the Church closed there door on my grandmother, the Lutherans opened the door with open arms.

I hope moving forward in vatican 2 that we would open our arms more to converts and work through and forgive their sins or faults and accept all into our Church, this hurt the Church a long time ago that people were excomunicated for being sinners, later it was determined that this Church needs to be the house for sinners, so that they can hear the word of God.

 

[Reid]

Also most Catholics leaving the Church is based on one teaching that the Pope is infallible, this is usually due to a lack of teaching. Most people including Catholics could not explain the infallibilty claim of the Church.

In 2000 years only 9 to 12 such infallible statements have been made.

 

[Liberian]

Reid:

The Catholic Church made a decision to not allow my grandparents in full comunion with the Church. My grandmother then went out and found the closest thing to Catholic which is Lutheran in her mind and as been in Christian fellowship ever since.

The day the Church closed there door on my grandmother, the Lutherans opened the door with open arms.

I hope moving forward in vatican 2 that we would open our arms more to converts and work through and forgive their sins or faults and accept all into our Church, this hurt the Church a long time ago that people were excomunicated for being sinners, later it was determined that this Church needs to be the house for sinners, so that they can hear the word of God.

(off-topic)

Reid,

Knowing nothing for sure about your grandparents’ case, i can only speak in generalitites. In general, the Church would welcome people in second marriages even if their first marriages were found to be valid, as long as these people promised not to engage in certain activities within these second marriages. Most people refuse to make this sort of promise, and so the Church cannot “allow them into full communion,” as you put it.

The Church welcomes sinners. What the Church does not do is condone their sins. There is a vast difference between saying “your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more” and “what you are doing is quite all right, go ahead and keep doing it.”

• Liberian

 

[Angainor]

1. Are there still any specific parts of Luther’s thesis that keep you in the faith?

Not particularly.

2. Which parts of Catholicism “scare” you away, and do they actually fit with Luther’s teaching?

I would be Catholic if the Pope let me.

3. Why Lutheran and not Methodist, Baptist, etc.

I agree with Lutherans most.

4. Could you ever see a time where the majority of Lutherans would rejoin the Roman Catholics?

When the Pope lets them.

5. Finally… Do you accept the authority of the pre-reformation Church & Popes?

No. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[scylla]

Hello Angainor,

Could you please explain a little more on the #2and #4 answers? If you already explained this in another thread, please just let me know and I will search for it.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Angainor]

scylla:

Could you please explain a little more on the #2and #4 answers? If you already explained this in another thread, please just let me know and I will search for it.

I would be Catholic if I could. I think Luther 'till the end would have been Catholic if he could.

We are both prevented from being Catholic because we do not accept the Pope’s authority. The only way I could be Catholic is if the Pope let me be Catholic knowing I don’t accept his authority. I’m hopeful, but not holding my breath.

 

[janman55]

So it comes down to the Pope has to change Catholocism for you or you’ll have to accept Catholocism?

 

[Angainor]

janman55:

So it comes down to the Pope has to change Catholocism for you or you’ll have to accept Catholocism?

I already consider myself catholic. I don’t accept the Pope’s authority so I don’t need him to tell me if I am catholic or not.

However, to be considered Catholic (by Catholics), the Pope would have to welcome me into Catholicism knowing I don’t accept his authority.

 

[scylla]

That is interesting, I really had no problem accepting the Pope’s authority in a sense of accepting him as part of my family. I come from a different mindset though, which makes a big difference. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that older churches such as the Lutheran Church have a little more problem than this than people coming from a very recent church such as Evangelical Christianity.(example one started in 1965 or so)

Since these new churches don’t have a sense of historical breaking of ties they don’t really notice this, since they focus on being a (new foundation of Christianity) or reemergance of the Church from hiding.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Angainor]

scylla:

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that older churches such as the Lutheran Church have a little more problem than this than people coming from a very recent church such as Evangelical Christianity.(example one started in 1965 or so)

Since these new churches don’t have a sense of historical breaking of ties they don’t really notice this, since they focus on being a (new foundation of Christianity) or reemergance of the Church from hiding.

That could be. It sounds about right.

I, for one, don’t think Christ’s Church was ever hiding. It’s had its ups and downs, but it has always been with us.

The institution of Catholicism is a different story. It is like a Sorites Paradox:
Would you describe a single grain of wheat as a heap? No. Would you describe two grains of wheat as a heap? No. … You must admit the presence of a heap sooner or later, so where do you draw the line?
Catholicism has gone through many small changes over the centuries. Each small change when compared to the last one looks insignificant, but if you take a step back and compare Catholicism of Luther’s day to the Church in the New Testament, clear differences are apparent. It is apparent to me that Catholicism is a heap. I don’t know when in history it happened because each individual change is very small.

The institution of Catholicism has drifted away from Christ’s Church, but I consider myself catholic.

 

[scylla]

Interesting Angainor,

It was difficult for me as I was in a pretty anti-Catholic environment. (in a subtle way) I attended Calvary Chapel for some time which is ecumenical, until you mention the Catholic Church. Then all heck breaks loose!

I thought about the changes, and it took a lot of study for my to make a personal decision to decide if this as a development of doctrine, a slight change from the truth or an apostacy?

It is my opinion that there really is no 100 percent certain way to tell if I am sceptical of what I believe when I read early Christian writings or Catholic Church history. That is when I had to make a little leap of faith, for myself.

I consider you a Catholic too, just not in communion at the moment. So thank you for the response, my brother in Christ.

Scylla

 

[DeniseR]

I find this discussion interesging as I have friends who are Lutheran. I don’t understand where they come from, considering themselves catholic (small “c”) but not in communion with the Catholic Church.

From what you’re saying, Angainor, and from what my friends tell me, authority seems to be the big rub. I think it’s pretty well agreed upon by both Catholics and protestants that there was need for reformation at the time. But I think Catholics believe that the people who needed reforming and the Reformers (Luthur) believed the Church needed reforming.

But, Angainor, you are saying that you don’t believe there was ever authority of the pope during the first 1500 years of church history? How do you view Matthew 16 with Jesus building his church on Peter (Rock) and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose? And that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church?

Not to put you on the spot but I’m curious about how you view the Church in the first century compared to today. Do you mean the small changes made have changed the structure of the church? The teaching? The liturgy? The authority? If the pope isn’t in authority, then who should be? Who has the final say on earth about what is truth and what is not? Even though the history of the Catholic Church has it’s share of sinners who were priests, bishops, and even popes, don’t we have to look to someone – good or bad – to have the final authority? Anyone and everyone can say the Holy Spirit speaks to them but by what authority? Especially when they are all saying different things.

 

[Angainor]

DeniseR:

But, Angainor, you are saying that you don’t believe there was ever authority of the pope during the first 1500 years of church history?That is right. The Pope never possessed a quality of “authority”.

DeniseR:
How do you view Matthew 16 with Jesus building his church on Peter (Rock) and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose?You ask good questions. You got me to look closer at some of the Lutheran Confessions. This is one of the best bible passages on the subject:

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus answered them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authorty over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” - Luke 22: 24-26
Lutherans believe the keys were given to the Church itself, and not to an individual.

DeniseR:
And that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church?I ask you: If Rome and your Priest, and all the clergy on Earth fell into a black hole, would the Church… cease to exist?
“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” - Matthew 18:19-20
You are the Church, I am the Church, the people sitting around you at mass are the Church. The Church is made up of all believers.

DeniseR:
If the pope isn’t in authority, then who should be? Who has the final say on earth about what is truth and what is not? Even though the history of the Catholic Church has it’s share of sinners who were priests, bishops, and even popes, don’t we have to look to someone – good or bad – to have the final authority? Anyone and everyone can say the Holy Spirit speaks to them but by what authority? Especially when they are all saying different things.

Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!” - Acts 5:29
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is authority personified. Jesus is no longer bodily with us, but Jesus’ teachings remain. Paul tells Timothy to “Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2)

As far as false teachings go, scripture also gives us tools to fight that.

DeniseR, you ask very though provoking questions. I learn more by looking into ways to try to answer them. Thanks, and God bless!

 

[Assurance]

Hello. I am a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Lutheran who was studying to be a pastor for a couple years (no longer)

*1. Are there still any specific parts of Luther’s thesis that keep you in the faith? *

The main thing that keeps me Lutheran is the teaching of justification by faith, which I believe is very, very different from what Rome believes. Just so you are aware, Pope Pius XVI several years ago made it very clear that in spite of the Joint Declaration on Justification (made with compromised Lutherans), all of Trent stood firm – Pope John Paul II said the same.

Here is what I have learned about Trent and the real reason I don’t
think I could ever become Catholic (right now at least):

Lutheran scholar Leif Grane in his book about the Augsburg Confession, the main Confessional document of the Lutheran Church says: "Behind the entire decree lies Trent’s opposition to the Reformation’s “faith alone.” Accordingly, the reformer’s language about faith as trust (fiducia) and as certainty of salvation is rejected (chapter 9).

…Even though as Grane says, “The council maintains that works are merits only by virtue of grace, and thus it never speaks of relying on one’s own righteousness” (64), this hardly seems comforting provided everything that has just been said.

I, like the Reformers, simply cannot abide this monster of
uncertainty. Whether Trent anathematized faith as trust and certainty of salvation, or gave it a lesser warning, I do not know, but I can’t go where they go here. It goes against everything that I read in the Scriptures, where I see the certain rock of hope in Christ everywhere. No, this position angers, frustrates and confuses me to no end. There is no way that I love my 3 year old more than God does and yet, even though I have behavioral expectations for him and many goals I desire him to accomplish, I would never have him doubt my love for him. Such a thought is horrible to me. How could I ever desire that he doubt that I desire to be in a relationship with him for ever or desire that he thought he had to merit my acceptance and favor through his actions, and that such acceptance and favor was not rather meant to be the basis and foundation of his actions? Are we not told in many, many places in the NT that in Christ, fear dissipates? (of course, insofar as we are in / operate in the flesh, we rightly FEAR [not just awe and reverence] God and His Law). I do not understand Rome. This makes me think that when Paul says “shall we go on sinning” many in Rome must still be trying to figure out what Paul is talking about.

For this reason I still think that Luther fought something very real –something that I still see very present in the Roman Church. Of course the LC-MS is far from perfect. There is no doubt we need leadership.

This is the main thing and basically the only thing that keeps me and many Lutherans from becoming Catholic. If this one doctrine, on which the Church stands or falls, would be rightly believed, everything else would fall into place.

Nevertheless, I will try to answer questions 2,3,4, and 5 tomorrow morning.

Love in Christ alone, in whom I can have absolute certainty,
isfatherwrong?

 

[Roman_Army]

Angainor:

That is right. The Pope never possessed a quality of “authority”.You ask good questions. You got me to look closer at some of the Lutheran Confessions. This is one of the best bible passages on the subject:Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus answered them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authorty over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” - Luke 22: 24-26

Lutherans believe the keys were given to the Church itself, and not to an individual.I ask you: If Rome and your Priest, and all the clergy on Earth fell into a black hole, would the Church… cease to exist?“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” - Matthew 18:19-20

You are the Church, I am the Church, the people sitting around you at mass are the Church. The Church is made up of all believers.Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!” - Acts 5:29

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is authority personified. Jesus is no longer bodily with us, but Jesus’ teachings remain. Paul tells Timothy to “Preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2)

As far as false teachings go, scripture also gives us tools to fight that.

DeniseR, you ask very though provoking questions. I learn more by looking into ways to try to answer them. Thanks, and God bless!

No you’re just being obstinate, looking for ways around the truth. The Catholic Church was and is the first Church. You know this. Christ said that his church can not err. You also know this. The apostles had successors, you also know this. There can not be full physical unity without a physical and visible head, you also know this, it’s common sense, Christ always existed and yet in the Old Testament the Jews needed a visible head. Peter was first among equals, you also know this. You say the keys were given to the Church, and you were right. But, which Church? lol, The Lutherans didn’t exist till the 16th century. The Keys were given to the Church and it was the Church who proclaimed that the Pope also has the Keys since he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. The Church is the earthly reflection of the Church in heaven. Christ is the head and center for unity, the pope is the head and center for unity on earth, and is in full service to the Christ that’s the head and center for unity in heaven.

 

[Angainor]

Roman_Army:

No you’re just being obstinate, looking for ways around the truth. The Catholic Church was and is the first Church. You know this.

There is only one Church. There is no “second Church”. Do you think Jesus would allow a “second Church”?

Roman_Army:

The apostles had successors, you also know this.

No, I [thread=66501]do not know[/thread] that.

Roman_Army:

There can not be full physical unity without a physical and visible head, you also know this, it’s common sense, Christ always existed and yet in the Old Testament the Jews needed a visible head.

They needed a physical head? I think you are wrong.
But when they said “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. - 1 Samuel 8:6-8

 

[Assurance]

Fascinating discussion here. Well, I wanted to make good on my intentions from yesterday:

1. Which parts of Catholicism “scare” you away, and do they actually fit with Luther’s teaching?

Actually, not a whole lot scares me other than what I wrote above - that in official Roman Catholic teaching, a person MAY NOT HAVE assurance that they are in a state of grace - that they are in the kind of right relationship with God where they can know that He forgives them and will bring them home to heaven.

I do not deny that a person can lose their faith (TRUST, also knowledge and assent) in Christ’s perfect forgiveness and acceptance (accomplished at the cross) by grace through faith and not make it to heaven - I believe they can if they do not persevere. Its a moment by moment thing. Are you keeping the faith?

Again, official Catholic teaching categorically denies that at this moment in time I can REALLY KNOW if I am in a state of grace - even if I will make it to purgatory! Now, many Catholic laypeople and priest have not really believed this, and so they are certainly saved by this happy inconsistency. Most people don’t really think this hard about these issues, I think.

1. Why Lutheran and not Methodist, Baptist, etc.

Because Lutherans, in my view, most closely hold to the Apostolic faith and the faith of the Church Fathers. Keep in mind Luther wanted to reform the Church, not break away or start over. I would argue that all who came after Luther - including Calvin and Reformed - were actually intending to be more REVOLUTIONARY - they tossed out the Real Presence in the Eucharist, cheapened the power of baptism, denied that a person could lose the faith or that grace could be resisted, etc. Luther and the followers of Luther never claimed to have left the Catholic Church - THEY were the ones who were faithfully preaching the Apostolic doctrine and were reforming the Church from within - never intending to leave.

1. Could you ever see a time where the majority of Lutherans would rejoin the Roman Catholics?

For serious Lutherans, it all hinges on the doctrine of justification. Mary, purgatory, indulgences, saints - all of these issues are related to justification. In principle, I see no problem talking to Mary or the saints or asking them to pray for me - I understand what Catholics say here. However, I don’t even see any descriptive examples of people in the Bible doing this sort of thing, much less prescriptive examples. In practice, I fear (as do some more evangelically-minded Roman Catholics) some really do start trusting the saints more than or instead of Jesus.

1. Finally… Do you accept the authority of the pre-reformation Church & Popes?

Good question. Luther thought that the Pope did have authority - though by human rite and not divine rite. In other words, he believed something like I think the Orthodox believe today. I must admit - I am open to considering that the Pope may be who he is by Divine rite - meaning God really did give something to Peter, his “prime minister”, and meant for him to be the visible head of the Church, and to pass that on - but I don’t see how that would necessarily make him infallibe. When Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth and that hell won’t overcome the Church, I take this to mean the Gospel rises to the top (think of Mel Gibson’s Passion) and transforms the world and will not be conquered - not that the man whom God means to lead the visible Church on earth will never make a mistake when speaking authoritatively from the chair of Peter. Willing to listen though!