How Do Protestants Feel While Saying The Apostles Creed?

[Napsack]

I can’t imagine doing anything like that. On the other hand, there are some Lutherans who, to me, are way out in left field. I don’t know what they might do.

The use of “holy Christian Church” is giving way to a return to “holy catholic church” among most Lutherans, although there are those to whom the word “catholic” is threatening. They are the ones whose primary identity as Lutherans is that “we are not Catholic.”

For those of us who don’t fear the Catholic bogeyman, “catholic” is a perfectly good description of the church.

That’s the thing, in the Creed, catholic is a description of Jesus’ Church not a proper noun giving way to exclusivity to one denomination as we see it today. Pretty easy concept when you give a moment of thought.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s the thing, in the Creed, catholic is a description of Jesus’ Church not a proper noun giving way to exclusivity to one denomination as we see it today. Pretty easy concept when you give a moment of thought.

but if your congregation is not the one that wrote the Creed and you are not in that Church, what give you the right to hijack it from that One who wrote it?

what will happened to you if you hijack somebody’s else’s writing and claim to be yours? by the laws of the land?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

 

[Napsack]

but if your congregation is not the one that wrote the Creed and you are not in that Church, what give you the right to hijack it from that One who wrote it?

what will happened to you if you hijack somebody’s else’s writing and claim to be yours? by the laws of the land?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

??? What are you talking about?

 

[Peter_J]

I can’t imagine doing anything like that. On the other hand, there are some Lutherans who, to me, are way out in left field. I don’t know what they might do.

To me, changing the Creed yet again would definitely be “out in left field”. But, according to Reg21 and JonNC (if I’m reading them correctly) the truth of a statement is what justifies it’s insertion into the Creed. If so, then how could it not be permissible to insert a statement about justification by faith?

 

[Idaho]

As MDK said -

Holy - this relates to the protection of Christ and does not teach error, has valid doctrine and Sacraments of Christ. Every Protestant church, and non-Catholic religion teaches error to a greater or lesser degree, has invalid or missing sacraments.

Thank you for that insight. It had never occurred to me that the term “HOLY” in the creed might be a reference to Christ keeping the Church from all error. That’s something new for me to think about.

also from MDK

Apostolic - The Bishops of the Catholic Church have an organic link to the Apostles in their mission, and so are valid and licit. These Bishops in union with the visible shepherd (Prime Minister) constitute a valid teaching authority that will not lead the Church astray in faith and morals. Those who reject these Bishops also reject Christ.

As a protestant (umm… perhaps a former protestant; a pre-Catholic?) I have always had great respect for the Nicene creed and felt that I could recite it and believe every word of it from my heart. I had no qualms about the word “catholic” because it meant universal. I saw the word “apostolic” as simply meaning based on the apostle’s teachings.

But now that I have been reading and learning a bit more about the Catholic church, I now see in the word “apostolic” a reference to the succession of Bishops, and the continuity of the Church through the teaching of these same Bishops. I now believe that the word “apostolic” is more rightly applied to the principle of a *succession of bishops *decescending from St. Peter, than to the idea of of it applying merely to *chuches *that teach the same concepts that the Apostles taught.

St. Irenaeus: “…the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times. …For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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, 1-2).

 

[episcopal1]

As an Episcopalian, I find this subject of the “catholic” church we profess each service in both the Nicene and Apostle creeds quite fascinating. Both the of the priests at our church are former Catholics who left that tradition as they wanted to be priests but also wanted to marry and have a family. They take the position that the the Anglican-Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Churches share a common heritage going back to the apostles with each priest in each of these churces being able to theoretically trace their own individual ordination back to St. Peter and others at the Last Supper through previous generations of priests and bishops from those traditions. I believe all three of these traditions share the apostolic faith. I am just completing Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis which is a remarkably cogent argument about how most Christians share the same basic beliefs and the minor differences between the traditional Christian churches should never overwhelm the commonality of the shared Christian belief.

 

[Napsack]

As an Episcopalian, I find this subject of the “catholic” church we profess each service in both the Nicene and Apostle creeds quite fascinating. Both the of the priests at our church are former Catholics who left that tradition as they wanted to be priests but also wanted to marry and have a family. They take the position that the the Anglican-Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Churches share a common heritage going back to the apostles with each priest in each of these churces being able to theoretically trace their own individual ordination back to St. Peter and others at the Last Supper through previous generations of priests and bishops from those traditions. I believe all three of these traditions share the apostolic faith. I am just completing Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis which is a remarkably cogent argument about how most Christians share the same basic beliefs and the minor differences between the traditional Christian churches should never overwhelm the commonality of the shared Christian belief.

Good post.

 

[MDK]

That was very Christian of you to put it out there for him like that. I’m not Lutheran but I think his greatest contribution (other than being one of many necessary periodic stopgaps against abuses like indulgence-selling) was being an example of how many priests feel…and then of showing them what they are missing: Luther was as devout a follower of Christ as most. He denied himself, made attempts to physically humble himself, fervently prayed, etc, all to get close to God. But he said no matter how hard he tried, he could only see Jesus as a Judge and not a Savior. (Anybody out there identify with that? Might explain why some feel more comfortable going through Mary. Just a thought…). Anyway, (You can read this in Bainton’s classic, “Here I Stand”) God broke through while he was reading Romans and Luther understood finally what Paul meant when he wrote, “We maintain that a man is justified by FAITH apart from any works of the law.” He understood that Christ paid the entire debt and He saw true grace for the first time, and met the Savior. The rest is, well, a combination of mixed motives, results, and a whole lot of RCC villifying, but the grace part, that’s the biggie in my book. You can criticize him all you want, and some is justified, but I believe every human, not just Roman Catholics, needs to discover what Luther did, or they will one day meet a Judge who will say, “Depart from Me, I never knew you”

The idea of grace was already taught by the Catholic Church. You do misrepresent the issue above, and it’s not balanced. Luther discovered some Catholic truths, then twisted them into heresy. To be Lutheran, you have to ignore parts of Scripture… it’s the reason Martin Luther wanted to call James an epistle of straw. He didn’t like it, even though it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luther’s entire faith alone argument falls apart with the only place in Scriptures that “faith alone” appears. James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

One has to ask, do you see?

How can any valid interpretation of Scriptures directly be at odds with another? That is what Lutherans have to believe… and it’s not from God, and it’s not even common sense.

 

[MDK]

“As one who seeks Christ, you deserve better, more secure means to God.”

Funny, this is what I tell my Catholic friends about Wittenberg. The RCC teaches that even those who are baptized, repent of their sin, and trust in Christ’s death on the cross for salvation, have no assurance of salvation. The RCC says they must perform good works, or try hard to “cooperate” with God, never knowing whether their “process” of being justified is good enough to qualify for eternal life. Even though Christ promised that those who belive and are baptized will be with him, and even though Christ never promised a single corporate body unified in doctrine or apostolic succession, Catholics look to their membership in a particular corporate body for comfort.

Doesn’t seem to secure when you think about it. I’d suggest looking to Christ’s promises to give his grace in Word and Sacrament, and there you will find forgiveness and assurance of your salvation.

Side note: what is the basis for excluding Christ from the sacrament he instituted on the basis the presider is not in succession? There is none. Further, where do you think Lutheran bishops and pastors came from? They were RCC bishops and priests, who presumably were in succession before they entered fellowship with Luther. RCC can recognize apostolic succession or not in the Lutheran chuch, it is up to them, it is of no importance if the successors do not faithfully teach all that Christ commanded to the Apostles.

Why do you confuse the phrase “more secure” with the phrase “completely secure?” If you interpret as it was written and meant, using standard English definitions, you’d likely be fine. But then again, if you interpreted as was meant, you would be Catholic.

 

[IowaJay]

The idea of grace was already taught by the Catholic Church. You do misrepresent the issue above, and it’s not balanced. Luther discovered some Catholic truths, then twisted them into heresy. To be Lutheran, you have to ignore parts of Scripture… it’s the reason Martin Luther wanted to call James an epistle of straw. He didn’t like it, even though it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luther’s entire faith alone argument falls apart with the only place in Scriptures that “faith alone” appears. James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

One has to ask, do you see?

How can any valid interpretation of Scriptures directly be at odds with another? That is what Lutherans have to believe… and it’s not from God, and it’s not even common sense.

Do you not pay attention to what the Holy Father has said on these matters?

The phrase “faith alone,” in and of itself is NOT heretical according to Catholic theology.

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

And, of course, the Lutheran confessions make it quite clear that “faith alone” is not opposed to charity in love, and make it quite clear that faith is to be made active in love (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. IV, para. 111):

"We also say that love ought to follow faith, as Paul also says. . . . . . "

bookofconcord.com/defense_4_justification.php

 

[MDK]

Well put. Assurance only comes to those who understand grace and are saved by grace. Most Roman Catholics simply do not understand grace. They have yet to have that ‘Aha moment’ where the Holy Spirit shows them what Christ meant when he said ‘tetelestai’-‘It is finished’ (literally, ‘paid in full’). They think they have to pay something. That’s not grace and it will never produce assurance of salvation. Many Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyerians are in virtually the same boat.

If you’re going to discuss the Church, please have the decency not to distort the Catholic teaching either by implication or explicitly. Otherwise, please have the decency to show where in the official Catholic teachings is the instruction or teaching that we are saved by working for it, as in earning our salvation. You can’t, because we don’t teach that. Additionally, those with a well developed conscience will have difficulty in falsely accusing, and so do not do it, or have the decency to apologize. I ask that you please consider whether it’s proper or acceptable to bear false witness against others. I submit that it is not.

Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God’s gift of grace through faith working in love… just like Scriptures teach. Why do we know this and have taught this faithfully? A clue is that Catholics wrote the NT Scriptures, and the Church assembled the inspired OT and NT Scriptures into the Bible. The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Why, because Christ built it this way, and protects her.

 

[MDK]

Do you not pay attention to what the Holy Father has said on these matters?

The phrase “faith alone,” in and of itself is NOT heretical according to Catholic theology.

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

And, of course, the Lutheran confessions make it quite clear that “faith alone” is not opposed to charity in love, and make it quite clear that faith is to be made active in love (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. IV, para. 111):

"We also say that love ought to follow faith, as Paul also says. . . . . . "

bookofconcord.com/defense_4_justification.php

Benedict is guiding the Lutherans back home. I hope Lutherans get onboard more fully, and come all the way. However, this is not what Luther taught as faith alone. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sola scriptura) as taught by Luther is indeed heretical. If we need love, then it is not “faith alone” is it? There is something more. Luther learned the Catholic meaning of it as concerned with grace, however, took it off the track. Pope Benedict is being generous and giving the Lutherans a way into correct teachings and come back toward the fullness of truth, by not following Luther as he originally taught. The teaching of Luther was indeed heretical.

Benedict goes on to say that faith “is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.” This is different than Luther’s “faith alone.”

If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? No, you must have more than “faith alone.”

Benedict does not contradict the Council of Trent’s statement that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.”

Benedict continues to give ecumenical goodwill and imagination, a tremendous gift to Evangelical Protestants that they may seek to come into the fullness of truth.

 

[JonNC]

But our understanding of the situation is incompatible with yours: from the Catholic p.o.v., any alteration to the Creed needs authorization from an ecumenical council, or from the pope. (On a side note, the change from “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” to “one holy Christian and apostolic Church” has no such authorization.)

To put it in concrete historical terms, the insertion of the filioque was done illegally for about 200 years, until it was authorized by the pope, at which point it became legal. Can you, as a Lutheran, agree with both parts of that statement?

Well, you have a point, Peter, in this way: has there been a truly ecumenical council since the schism? So, yes, therein is my only issue with the authority of the pope, that it is beyond “first among equals”. And done right, changes should be done in full ecumenical council.
All that said, I am a western Christian, and the pope is the patriarch of the west, so I guess I have the freedom to say that when the pope is right, we as Lutherans should be at his side.

Jon

 

[catholic_daddy]

The idea of grace was already taught by the Catholic Church. You do misrepresent the issue above, and it’s not balanced. Luther discovered some Catholic truths, then twisted them into heresy. To be Lutheran, you have to ignore parts of Scripture… it’s the reason Martin Luther wanted to call James an epistle of straw. He didn’t like it, even though it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luther’s entire faith alone argument falls apart with the only place in Scriptures that “faith alone” appears. James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone?

One has to ask, do you see?

How can any valid interpretation of Scriptures directly be at odds with another? That is what Lutherans have to believe… and it’s not from God, and it’s not even common sense.

No Scripture contradicts another, although there are many apparent contradictions to the skeptic or the casual observer.

Have you read Bainton’s biography of Luther?

 

[JonNC]

Benedict is guiding the Lutherans back home. I hope Lutherans get onboard more fully, and come all the way. However, this is not what Luther taught as faith alone. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sola scriptura) as taught by Luther is indeed heretical. If we need love, then it is not “faith alone” is it? There is something more. Luther learned the Catholic meaning of it as concerned with grace, however, took it off the track. Pope Benedict is being generous and giving the Lutherans a way into correct teachings and come back toward the fullness of truth, by not following Luther as he originally taught. The teaching of Luther was indeed heretical.

Benedict goes on to say that faith “is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.” This is different than Luther’s "faith alone."

If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? No, you must have more than “faith alone.”

Benedict does not contradict the Council of Trent’s statement that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.”

Benedict continues to give ecumenical goodwill and imagination, a tremendous gift to Evangelical Protestants that they may seek to come into the fullness of truth.

MDK,
Where you said sola scriptura, which I highlighted, I know you meant sola fide.
Where you say this is different than Luther’s “faith alone”, I wonder if you would explain further what you mean, and how you see his “faith alone”, because as a cradle Lutheran, I have never seen faith alone as meaning cheap grace, that we need do nothing. While grace is a gift, and even faith is a gift, the requirement of Christian to act out that faith in love and charity is explicit in Christ’s commands. Even Luther said that while we are justified by faith alone, faith is never alone.

Jon

 

[grampben]

MDK,
Where you said sola scriptura, which I highlighted, I know you meant sola fide.
Where you say this is different than Luther’s “faith alone”, I wonder if you would explain further what you mean, and how you see his “faith alone”, because as a cradle Lutheran, I have never seen faith alone as meaning cheap grace, that we need do nothing. While grace is a gift, and even faith is a gift, the requirement of Christian to act out that faith in love and charity is explicit in Christ’s commands. Even Luther said that while we are justified by faith alone, faith is never alone.

Jon

If faith is alone, there is no real faith as the fruits of true faith are good works.
But we are justified by faith alone because faith is a way of life, not a one time act.

 

[gcnuss]

If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? No, you must have more than “faith alone.”

Luther:

We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true. The Smalcald Articles

As far as I know, no Lutheran claims that one is saved by false faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, you have a point, Peter, in this way: has there been a truly ecumenical council since the schism? So, yes, therein is my only issue with the authority of the pope, that it is beyond “first among equals”. And done right, changes should be done in full ecumenical council.
All that said, I am a western Christian, and the pope is the patriarch of the west, so I guess I have the freedom to say that when the pope is right, we as Lutherans should be at his side.

Jon

Actually, the Council of Florence (1431-1445) – which, among other things, affirmed the earlier papal decision to allow the insertion of the filioque in the Creed – was an ecumenical council, but it isn’t acknowledged by most Lutherans.

 

[MDK]

No Scripture contradicts another, although there are many apparent contradictions to the skeptic or the casual observer.

Have you read Bainton’s biography of Luther?

Yes, no Scripture does contradict another. That is why as a Catholic, we embrace the entire written Tradition, as well as oral Tradition. As a Catholic, we are not casual observers, but it was Catholics who wrote the Scriptures. That’s also why Luther’s doctrines of salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide), the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), and the formal sufficiency of Scriptures giving right of private interpretation are all off the mark.

Second one is no, I haven’t read Bainton’s biography of Luther. I don’t mind checking it out, but really want it as it was, not as some would have liked it to be.

 

[MDK]

MDK,
Where you said sola scriptura, which I highlighted, I know you meant sola fide.
Where you say this is different than Luther’s “faith alone”, I wonder if you would explain further what you mean, and how you see his “faith alone”, because as a cradle Lutheran, I have never seen faith alone as meaning cheap grace, that we need do nothing. While grace is a gift, and even faith is a gift, the requirement of Christian to act out that faith in love and charity is explicit in Christ’s commands. Even Luther said that while we are justified by faith alone, faith is never alone.

Jon

Yes, thank you… yes, I did mean sola fide. Thanks for being decent about that. I happen to be working on other issues and answering these at the same time. Thanks.

Now, grace is indeed a gift as is faith. However, Lutherans seem to want it both ways. You say salvation is by faith alone, and then you say it’s certainly not by faith alone. If it’s faith and something, then it’s really not faith alone is it?