How would you respond re: Reformation?

[aicirt]

And the vast majority of those are not Lutheran. I only account my church - not the others. Just as Catholics don’t have to account for the Lutheran church.

I’m certain that there was political backing for the Lutheran church that sought it’s own aims, however I don’t think there was much monitory backing of the Lutheran church. We’re rather famous for our humble structures and we do try to be generous as Christ commanded us. Monetary avarice is hopefully not one of our sins.

I realize you can only account for your church. I’m just saying Luther took issue and decided he knew and those that followed him thought as he did. They too had the right to interpert scripture and so many went their own ways. And I believe Lutherans like Catholics have a catechism to help those understand scripture and the doctrines of the Church. But others still took issue and left.

I do not know the politics of Germany at that time. I’m assuming here that, like in England, the confiscation of Catholic property would be in play. Like England, didn’t it become the state religion?

I don’t know if Lutherans took over actual Roman churches. They did in England and in Norway.

 

[fhansen]

How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?

“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)

Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.

It is an over-simplification. This pastors’ concept is all about forgiveness-and completely forgetting about future obedience-about ‘going, and sinning no more’, about how no sinners can enter heaven and about how grace does more than merely forgive, but it mercifully seeks to change us, to replace our stony hearts with hearts of flesh and re-create us into the beings God always intended us to be. This is the New Covenant, the covenant of grace whereby God justifies man by placing His laws on our hearts and writing them in our minds, truly becoming our God again as per Jeremiah 31, rather than man trying to justify himself.

Conversion/justification/salvation are a process, a beautiful process of God *drawing *us, of getting us to align ourselves, without coercion, with His perfect will.

 

[benjohnson]

I realize you can only account for your church. I’m just saying Luther took issue and decided he knew and those that followed him thought as he did. They too had the right to interpert scripture and so many went their own ways. And I believe Lutherans like Catholics have a catechism to help those understand scripture and the doctrines of the Church. But others still took issue and left.

I do not know the politics of Germany at that time. I’m assuming here that, like in England, the confiscation of Catholic property would be in play. Like England, didn’t it become the state religion?

I don’t know if Lutherans took over actual Roman churches. They did in England and in Norway.

One of the first things Luther once removed from the Catholic church, was create two Catechism - one ‘small’ as a primer and a ‘large’ one for further study. He was able to distribute those in massive quantities because of the printing-press. One could say that a cohesive Lutheran revolt only could have happened because of the press.

The Catholic church recognized the value of this idea, and began their Catechism efforts for the laity in the 1990’s. I’ve read the CCC and it’s a great teaching tool, and I use it myself sometimes as it’s easier to read that translated 1500’s German.

…

As I undersand it, the Lutheran church did take over church and lands, but there unlike England, the Church never had large land-holdings like in England. If you’re curious here’s why: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain

Of course, Lutheran’s didn’t think they we’re taking over the “Roman Church” - it was simply their own churches that they had occupied and continued to occupy.

…

I understand your frustration with Evangelical Protestants, you may be surprised to hear that we Lutherans are almost as dismayed at their novelties as you probably are.

 

[Ginkgo100]

The passage your friend cited is (as he said) by Robert Capon, who is an Episcopal priest.

Capon’s views on salvation are extreme, even by the standards of protestants and fundamentalists.

So that’s why his Lutheran compatriots are teasing him for reading Capon. By the way, he’s a theologically conservative, full-confessional Missouri Synod pastor. The idea that grace having nothing to do with our response to God is probably what appeals to him.

 

[JonNC]

=aicirt;9378449]Absoultely. The paintings, statues, stained glass told the Bible stories. Imagine being a peasant or whomever entering a cathedral back then. You came into a piece of heaven on earth.

Yes, to hear the word and receive the sacraments.

Did Lutherans reject iconoclasm? I’m not sure I understand because Lutherans have statues etc. It did destroy a lot but more was destroyed by the Calvinists.

yes, Lutherans reject iconoclasm, that being the destruction and rejection of icons andthe like.

Latin was also used by diplomats too. It is the language used to worship God. I grew up with it and although I understood some but not all it became clearer when I could read the translation in my missal.

Aren’t there times when Lutherans use Latin?

There are some, not many, very high church lutherans who might, I suspect.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?
“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.

It’s a caricature. And in the form Fr. Capon makes it, it it inevitably leads to laments that the “pure grace” message was soon distorted by Reformational “legalism.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?
“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.

It’s a caricature. And in the form Fr. Capon makes it, it it inevitably leads to laments that the “pure grace” message was soon distorted by Reformational “legalism.”

Fr. Capon writes well and has good things to say, but he appears to be an antinomian.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

So that’s why his Lutheran compatriots are teasing him for reading Capon. By the way, he’s a theologically conservative, full-confessional Missouri Synod pastor. The idea that grace having nothing to do with our response to God is probably what appeals to him.

It would depend on what he means by this. I certainly consider myself a fully confessional Lutheran in the Missouri Synod, and I believe we grow in grace.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Hm, hard alcohol analogy…

Sounds like he one trip away from swimming the Tiber.

No, he’s an Episcopalian. You know: “When three or four Episcopalians are gathered, there’s always a fifth.”

Not a hard liquor person myself, actually.

Edwin

 

[austenbosten]

The reason I have difficulty with Luther is because God would not have allowed His Church to go on with the Catholic doctrine for 1500 plus years waiting for Luther to change it. If Luther was right, it means all were wrong and there was no Church. That can’t be. What was taught was the same as the apostles and the Church Fathers. The Church was what it was at the time of Peter, the Church fathers, in 1500, and now.

Haha I read this, and instantly I thought of the Jews. They say the exact same things about things like the Trinity.

 

[JonNC]

The reason I have difficulty with Luther is because God would not have allowed His Church to go on with the Catholic doctrine for 1500 plus years waiting for Luther to change it. If Luther was right, it means all were wrong and there was no Church. That can’t be. What was taught was the same as the apostles and the Church Fathers. The Church was what it was at the time of Peter, the Church fathers, in 1500, and now.

Which Catholic doctrine?

When you say all were wrong, that minimizes the fact that Lutherans and Catholics agree on a multitude of beliefs.

Further, has God allowed Orthodoxy to be wrong for 1,000 years about what the believe the primacy of Peter means? Is the IC what has been taught from the time of Peter?

Jon

 

[aicirt]

Which Catholic doctrine?

When you say all were wrong, that minimizes the fact that Lutherans and Catholics agree on a multitude of beliefs.

Further, has God allowed Orthodoxy to be wrong for 1,000 years about what the believe the primacy of Peter means? Is the IC what has been taught from the time of Peter?

Jon

Yes, we do have a lot in common and we have Luther that set us apart. And this issue is confusing enough without dragging the Orthodox in to it.

The Catholic Church is the same as it was before Luther and remains same after Luther. This is what I was taught: Through Christ’s suffering and death the gates of heaven were now open to us. After he died, he went into hell where the souls waited for the Messiah and he took them into Paradise.
Now heaven is open to me when I die but that does not mean that I get to do bad things on this earth and think I’m getting a free pass. I’m not. I must be like Christ on this earth and perform good works. I must obey the 10 Commandments etc. Makes sense to me.

From what I understand about Luther, he felt that if you believe, you die, you go to heaven. Faith alone. Don’t have to do anything. Good works, bad works. …no difference. As long as you believe, you’re in. And yet for some reason I believe good Lutherans do good works and are compelled to do so because they too imitate Christ on this earth. So what was Luther’s point?

 

[aicirt]

Haha I read this, and instantly I thought of the Jews. They say the exact same things about things like the Trinity.

Can’t help with what the Jews think. I assume they’re waiting for a human to come as a warrior and set up the nation of Israel on earth. Yes, maybe they don’t believe that He would be the son of God. Yet they know the prophecies with a Virgin giving birth in Bethleham. Why would a human need a virgin as a mother if there wasn’t something divine happening?

I asked a Jewish friend if the Jews still have prophets. He said God stopped talking to them 2000 years ago. Coincidence?

I know they have rabbis whom they see as great leaders and people with wonderful insight but they don’t, apparently, have the prophets they once had in the Old Testament.

 

[austenbosten]

Can’t help with what the Jews think. I assume they’re waiting for a human to come as a warrior and set up the nation of Israel on earth. Yes, maybe they don’t believe that He would be the son of God. Yet they know the prophecies with a Virgin giving birth in Bethleham. Why would a human need a virgin as a mother if there wasn’t something divine happening?

I asked a Jewish friend if the Jews still have prophets. He said God stopped talking to them 2000 years ago. Coincidence?

I know they have rabbis whom they see as great leaders and people with wonderful insight but they don’t, apparently, have the prophets they once had in the Old Testament.

I’m not talking about the Messiah, I’m talking about the Trinity, and your Jewish friend is not a member of the Rabbinical Council is he? I have a Modox Jewish friend who says something contrary to your friend.

Also many Jews don’t believe in the Messiah the same way the Zealots did. Some Jewish denominations believe the Messiah could be a symbol or something instantaneous…others believe in a Christ-like figure.

I’m not saying this to sway your faith, but when you made the comment about having a ‘difficult time accepting that God would allow His church to continue for 1500 years before having Luther changed it.’

Try being a Jew and being told since the time of Abraham until the time of Tertullian of the First Council of Nicaea that everything about the Hebrew Bible was wrong and even though the God of Israel had commanded the Jews to worship the one, true God…they falsely worshiped only God the Father without the Son and Holy Ghost…for thousands of years. All Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David ect.

I’m just saying it’s difficult for you because you’re a Catholic, but if you were a Jew you would have the same feelings towards Christianity and the Trinity.
And before some of you start coming on here and bashing me over the head as some heretic, I’m just explaining why I a first responded to aicirt. I’m not trying to proselytize Judaism or speak heresy.*

 

[JonNC]

=aicirt;9386686]Yes, we do have a lot in common and we have Luther that set us apart. And this issue is confusing enough without dragging the Orthodox in to it.

Then perhaps we shouldn’t confuse the issue with the claim you made, effectively, that God only protects that part of His Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome

The Catholic Church is the same as it was before Luther and remains same after Luther.

Then perhaps Trent was not necessary. Think in terms of what luther experienced in his time in Germany, and when he visited Rome. If one wants to claim that, aside from the corruptions and abuses within the Church, Luther set out to change doctrine, on soteriology for example, we can talk about that. But, honestly, I don’t see in the Catholic Church what Luther saw in his day. No comparison; the CC is far far better today under Pope Benedict than it was under Leo X.

This is what I was taught: Through Christ’s suffering and death the gates of heaven were now open to us. After he died, he went into hell where the souls waited for the Messiah and he took them into Paradise
Now heaven is open to me when I die but that does not mean that I get to do bad things on this earth and think I’m getting a free pass. I’m not. I must be like Christ on this earth and perform good works. I must obey the 10 Commandments etc. Makes sense to me.

No argument.

From what I understand about Luther, he felt that if you believe, you die, you go to heaven. Faith alone. Don’t have to do anything. Good works, bad works. …no difference. As long as you believe, you’re in.

Then you understand wrong. That isn’t what faith alone teaches.
There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow. - Luther

And yet for some reason I believe good Lutherans do good works and are compelled to do so because they too imitate Christ on this earth. So what was Luther’s point?

Yes. We believe that, while one is justified by grace alone through faith, the regenerate by necessity must perform good works, that the only saving faith is a Galatians 5:6 faith - a faith that works through love.

In short, Luther’s point was opposition to semi-pelagian thought. The sola in sola fide is simply that by no actions of our own can we come to justifying faith, that it is a gift of grace.

Jon

 

[aicirt]

I’m not talking about the Messiah, I’m talking about the Trinity, and your Jewish friend is not a member of the Rabbinical Council is he? I have a Modox Jewish friend who says something contrary to your friend.

Also many Jews don’t believe in the Messiah the same way the Zealots did. Some Jewish denominations believe the Messiah could be a symbol or something instantaneous…others believe in a Christ-like figure.

I’m not saying this to sway your faith, but when you made the comment about having a ‘difficult time accepting that God would allow His church to continue for 1500 years before having Luther changed it.’

Try being a Jew and being told since the time of Abraham until the time of Tertullian of the First Council of Nicaea that everything about the Hebrew Bible was wrong and even though the God of Israel had commanded the Jews to worship the one, true God…they falsely worshiped only God the Father without the Son and Holy Ghost…for thousands of years. All Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David ect.

I’m just saying it’s difficult for you because you’re a Catholic, but if you were a Jew you would have the same feelings towards Christianity and the Trinity.
And before some of you start coming on here and bashing me over the head as some heretic, I’m just explaining why I a first responded to aicirt. I’m not trying to proselytize Judaism or speak heresy.*

No, my friend is not a member of the Rabbinical Council. As I said before, I can’t talk on what the Jews believe because I don’t fully understand.

There’s the prophets and the Apostles. All were Jews as was Jesus. For some reason, the Apostles, all Jews, saw Jesus as the Messiah. He fit what the prophets said. He performed miracles. He rose from the dead. Through Jesus, they were able to go out to all nations and convert. After Christ died, they worshipped with their fellow Jews in the synagougues. I don’t know how long that lasted. I’m amazed the new Christians were allowed considering the feeling some Jews had against Jesus. The apostles continued to perform miracles. Simultaneously, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.and they were dispersed to the four corners of the earth. Now somewhere along the line, I’d think that the Jews might think that Christ might be the Messiah and they misjudged. There were other so called Messiahs but were any like Christ? Did any of the others fit what the prophets had foretold? Don’t think so.

The Messiah is the Son of God. He’s the second person of the Trinity. The Jewish Apostles accepted that. Why could they and not all the Jews? If the prophets were talking about a Virgin giving birth to the Messiah, why was that necessary if he was to be an ordinary human being. They also foretold of his crucifixion. If the Jews were hoping for some Moses to rescue them, how good was He going to be and how long did they expect their earthly kingdom to last if He was going to be crucified by His enemy? The Jews would be right back to their original plight.

 

[austenbosten]

No, my friend is not a member of the Rabbinical Council. As I said before, I can’t talk on what the Jews believe because I don’t fully understand.

There’s the prophets and the Apostles. All were Jews as was Jesus. For some reason, the Apostles, all Jews, saw Jesus as the Messiah. He fit what the prophets said. He performed miracles. He rose from the dead. Through Jesus, they were able to go out to all nations and convert. After Christ died, they worshipped with their fellow Jews in the synagougues. I don’t know how long that lasted. I’m amazed the new Christians were allowed considering the feeling some Jews had against Jesus. The apostles continued to perform miracles. Simultaneously, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.and they were dispersed to the four corners of the earth. Now somewhere along the line, I’d think that the Jews might think that Christ might be the Messiah and they misjudged. There were other so called Messiahs but were any like Christ? Did any of the others fit what the prophets had foretold? Don’t think so.

The Messiah is the Son of God. He’s the second person of the Trinity. The Jewish Apostles accepted that. Why could they and not all the Jews? If the prophets were talking about a Virgin giving birth to the Messiah, why was that necessary if he was to be an ordinary human being. They also foretold of his crucifixion. If the Jews were hoping for some Moses to rescue them, how good was He going to be and how long did they expect their earthly kingdom to last if He was going to be crucified by His enemy? The Jews would be right back to their original plight.

Look you don’t need to convince me I believe Christ is the Messiah, but I’m just saying that you have a hard time accepting Lutheranism, well Jews have a hard time accepting Trinitarianism.

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does God say that He’s Three Person’s In One. Throught the Hebrew Bible God has told the Israelites

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 6:4[/BIBLEDRB]

Christians will try and argue that the word echad as used in the verse Deuteronomy proves the Trinity as echad can mean compound. But the word echad meaning “one” in Hebrew is used the same way English uses the word one. One can mean singular and compound unity…it all depends on the context it is used in.

However in the case of Deuteronomy, God is announcing to the Israelites that He is One…not Three in One.

I won’t go any further, I have a lot of verses that could challenge the Trinity, but I believe in the Trinity.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been exposed to both Protestantism, Judaism, and Catholicism that I can see outside my faith and question it.

I’m just saying your difficulty believing in Lutheranism is no different than Jews believing in Christian doctrine.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[aicirt]

Austenbosten…you are a Lutheran looking to Catholicism…Why?

 

[Porknpie]

From a Lutheran perspective, the account is mostly accurate - In the space of ten years a German peasant went from listening to a mass in a language he didn’t understand, to having the word of God in his hands that he could read for himself. I doubt you could convince him otherwise.

If you’re wanting to build a bridge with your Lutheran friend, I would suggest discovering the similarities you have now 500 years later. In my opinion, that would be more fruitful and more enjoyable.

BenJohnson - Luther was educated as a child. Weren’t the 95 theses in Latin? That aside, by his birth there were multiple bible editions in high German and in low German by the time of Luthers birth so why would he have to create his own translation? Help me understand.

Peace.

 

[CEM5]

How would you respond to this quote, posted on Facebook by a Lutheran pastor friend?

“The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar full of fifteen-hundred-year-old, two-hundred proof Grace–bottle after bottle of pure distilate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the Gospel–after all those centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your bootstraps–suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home before they started…Grace has to be drunk straight: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale; neither goodness, nor badness, not the flowers that bloom in the spring of super spirituality could be allowed to enter into the case.”
― Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace (HT: Donavon Riley)

Seems like a distortion and an oversimplification of the state of the Church through the medieval period. But I’m no history expert (and my pastor friend is) so I’m not sure where to start.

Hello Ginkgo,

My apologies if someone has already answered…

Salvation is a gift from our Lord – given to all men, however, it must be accepted by the person. We are also free to reject this gift.

Christ died on the cross in order to redeem ALL men. We are freed from the slavery of original sin, and baptism washes us clean.

Grace is given to all people, however, just as Adam and Eve fell from grace, so too can we – even if we were baptised. I think many Protestants close their eyes to this truth, just as they close their eyes to the real possibility that we can lose this gift of salvation as well.

Belief is NOT enough. We must “work out our salvation”…Faith and works go hand in hand.

Philippians 2:12 RSVA
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Hebrews 5:9 RSVA
and being made perfect He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

1 Peter 2:2 RSVA
Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation;

James 2:19 RSVA
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder.
See, even the demons believe in and know God, however, they have disobeyed God – therefore, they are not allowed into heaven.

James 2:14 RSVA
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

James 2:17 RSVA
So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

James 2:18 RSVA
But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:20 RSVA
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

James 2:22 RSVA
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

James 2:24 RSVA
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:26 RSVA
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

We are blessed with enough grace from God to become obedient and faithful servants of God, therefore, obtain salvation, however, this grace is not forced upon us. Just as the Bible and Church teach: Faith and works go hand in hand.

As Paul says, “We are saved by grace through faith”. No where in the Bible does it ever say by faith alone we are saved.

---

I have been given the grace to do good works through my faith in God. Amen.

CEM