Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for your response.

You speak of a ‘voting block’. Can you imagine how strong a worldwide Christianity would be in opposition to secularization and evils like abortion? The ‘Reformation’ greatly weakened Christianity with all of its destruction, bloodshed, and doctrinal confusion. What do potential Christian converts think when they look at the divisions between all of the various competing ‘communions’? How could the heresy within greater Christendom NOT have weakened the Faith overall.

:clapping:

John 17
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 

[Topper17]

Not at all. I think the Vatican can discuss with more than one dialogue partner, as can Lutherans. Even the LCMS has ongoing dialogue with Rome, the ACNA, and others.

That said, complete reconciliatntion between Rome and the EO would have a profound impact on me, personally.

I think it is interesting that you say “even the LCMS has ongoing dialogue with Rome”, as if it would be presmumed that they would not likely be in dialogue with the Church. Given their adament statements that it is ROME which must change doctrinally, it is surprising that there is an ‘ongoing dialogue’. Where could I read of the actual results of this dialogue, or the history of these ongoing Catholic/LCMS discussions?

In addition, how small a ‘group’ should the 1.1 Billion member Church be expected to dialogue with?

The authors are listed
Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, Nicholas Selnecker, David Chytraeus, Andrew Musculus, and Christopher Koerner.
The Catholic Church, while in schism, has the same issue regarding ecumenical councils.

OK, so where is it, specifically and exactly, in Scripture, or in Church history, or in the Fathers, that we see a certain group, ‘branching off’ to set up their own non-Ecumenical Council to make doctrinal decisions for ONLY that small group, and in direct opposition to the Ecumenical Councils? Specifically?

By What Authority did Andraea, Chemitz and the rest set up their own communion? By what Christian precident? If they had the right to do that, then where does it stop? Couldn’t some bunch of people today decide that THEY are just as able to develop their own communion? Isn’t this exatly what has happened and continues to happen to Lutehranism and the rest of Protestantism?

As for your comment that the Catholic Church is ‘in schism’ – did the Roman Catholic Church schism off from Luther, as he believed? Did the entire Church just up and walk out on itself, or on Luther when he FINALLY figured out, at Leipzig, that his teachings were NOT at all those which the Church had been teaching? OR is it possible that Luther was simply another in a long line of men who ended up having followers who became known by their names?

Actually, it has.

Ok – I didn’t realize that the Dialogue has discussed papal infallibility. I have read a statement from the Dialogue which specifically stated that they have NOT discussed papal infallibility. Apparently this conversation then has occurred in the very recent years. Where can I learn more about their discussions, if in fact they have actually taken place as you suggest? Where are the specifics of their recommendations?

Perhaps the Catholic side has determined, against your wishes, that Lutherans are actually worth talking to, and in a respectful manner. Perhaps they’ve decided that the “stay divided” approach prior to Vat II wasn’t working very well.

Jon. As you know perfectly well, this is a blatant and complete misrepresentation of my position.

That fact that you even ask that question of me reveals how little you listen to discussion partners. You know for a fact that I do not approve of anyone who claims that Catholics are not Christian, and I’ve said so often.

We all have our disappointments here. Mine tend to revolve around asking very straightforward and important questions and getting no answers. It is frustrating but also very telling. For the record, I am not frustrated by my discussion with Edwin.

For example Jon, you continue to suggest that the Catholics of Luther’s time should have done things differently, and yet you refuse to post even ONE THING that you think they should have done differently after Luther began his doctrinal Revolt. I understand why.

 

[Topper17]

In my last post I even said that the CC was the Church (part of it). I find the question typical of the baiting and polemics you regularly employ here.

I think you have ‘admitted too much’ in the above statement Jon. You ‘even’ said the CC was part of the Church. Gee – thanks. I do realize how that is a pretty big thing to admit though. After all, your statement goes directly against the official teachings of the Lutheranism as found in the Book of Concord:

"XII. Of the Church.

1] We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. 2] For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. 3] This holiness does not consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the Word of God and true faith." bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#church”

Please don’t misunderstand, I am happy that you chose to reject official Lutherran church doctrine on this issue. On the other hand Jon, my ‘polemics’ which I would not characterize as such, are NOTHING compared to the official teachings of Lutheranism.

Possibly what you might need Jon, is a better understanding of the nature of ‘polemics’. Let’s go one of the best, most intelligent Lutheran Scholars of the last century, who BTW did NOT remain Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan:

**“When the confessions of Luther’s Reformation say: ‘We believe, teach, and confess’, however, they are bearing witness for something (pro-testantes) and against something. In an age of simple-minded interconfessional toleration it needs to be pointed out that evangelical Catholicity is by definition polemical……**The very word ‘polemics’ like the words ‘pious’ and ‘sermon’ and ‘preaching’, has almost lost its usefulness because of past abuses. **The restoration of fraternal polemics to its rightful role in theological discourse is one of the assignments facing a truly evangelical Catholicity.” ** Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 194-5

I agree with Pelikan here. The very essence of Protestantism IS polemical, in that it was founded on being AGAINST the teachings of the Church. Luther’s Revolt was NOTHING if not ‘polemical’. Yet today, we are not ‘supposed’ to discuss our disagreements? Are we NOT to point out the so very obvious flaws in the positions of the ‘other’? Is that really ‘bad form’ or is that just the complaints of the side which is not faring all that well in the discussion?

Fallen men - plural. All sides. You. Me, Luther. Leo X. Personally, I have great confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to work through men of good will, who despite our differences, dialogue with charity and a a positive approach.

Again Jon, what should the Church have done differently? For that matter, without resorting to generalizations, at all, what should Luther have done differently? These questions would definitely be necessary to address in any kind of dialogue between our two communions.

It is not my place to formulate a plan. Unlike you, I trust our leaders.

It seems to me that you would like to paint me as being ‘disloyal’ to my Church. Let me ask you a question – Do you agree with all of the policies and practices of you secular federal government? Would you consider yourself as being a ‘disloyal’ American for your disagreement or cricicism? Why is it that you can make actual phone calls to your leadership about the lack of progress of the Dialogue and I am somehow not ‘allowed’ to criticize them here? I see that as hypocracy.

My concern Jon, is that the efforts of our leaders, both sets, at least in regards to their efforts to affect doctrinal agreement, have obviously been INEFFECTIVE. That is clear from the lack of any significant doctrinal movement in 50 years. But of course as long as we are discussing ME, we aren’t discussing the subject of the thread, which BTW is Martin Luther. Correct?

I have a question for you. Do you think that it is important for us to be united in doctrine or not?

Your leadership disagrees with you. I might be tempted to say that referring to the leadership of men like John XXIII, Paul VI, JP II, and Benedict XVI as “timid” is laughable, Topper, but I actually think its sad. Of all of the things you have said here at CAF, I probably disagree with this the most.

Here you blatantly misrepresent my position again Jon. You cannot find even one statement where I made any negative comments about any of those Popes. Somehow I am reminded how abusive Luther was towards his opponents. (as always – documentation available upon request, volumes of it if you would like).

 

[Contarini]

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for your response.

You speak of a ‘voting block’. Can you imagine how strong a worldwide Christianity would be in opposition to secularization and evils like abortion? The ‘Reformation’ greatly weakened Christianity with all of its destruction, bloodshed, and doctrinal confusion. What do potential Christian converts think when they look at the divisions between all of the various competing ‘communions’? How could the heresy within greater Christendom NOT have weakened the Faith overall.

Alister McGrath, from his excellent book: “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”:
**
“So what is heresy? Heresy is best seen as a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilization, or even destroying the core of Christian faith**. Both this process of destabilization and the identification of its threat may be spread out over an extended time……The correction of critical mistakes is often a costly and time-consuming business; nevertheless it needs to be done. ** Heresy represents certain ways of forumating the core themes of the Christian faith – ways that are sooner or later recognized by the church to be dangerously inadequate or even destructive.** What one generation welcomes as orthodoxy another may eventually discover to be heretical….**Heresy lies in the shadow land of faith, a failed attempt at orthodoxy whose intentions are likely to have been honorable but whose outcomes were eventually discovered to be as corrosive **as Nikolaos Balanos’s iron clamps…….any discussion of heresy must acknowledge the darker side of the discussion – the enforcement of ideas by force, the supresssion of liberty, and the violation of rights……Who decides what is definitive and what is dangerous? And how are such decisions made?" pg. 11-12

Here we have one of the formost Protestant Scholars describing the nature and destructive nature of heresy. How in the world can we **NOT **see Luther’s Revolt in his comments?

God Bless You Kathleen, Topper

Well, McGrath certainly wouldn’t

I actually dislike his book Christianity’s Dangerous Idea very much because it seems to me to glorify the disunity and diversity of the Reformation. I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that he speaks about heresy the way you quote–I should read this book.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/06/luther-roman-church-is-basically.html

Its well worth the read. (Topper)

James Swan (TQ) also posted the poll on his website as well. We must be good material for his site…

Not like this site though, you can’t comment like a message board; the comments are “monitored” LOL… We can’t have " Dem dere Catholics" posting too much in disagreement I suppose.

Topper, I think you should receive a little royalty check from James Swan if he uses your post(s) on his blog.

Mary.

Just think Mary, I could be rich! And if you play your cards right, you could too.

The interesting thing though I think is that a precedent has obviously been set. If my posts can be taken from here and put on ‘that site’, then obviously…

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Gibeuromonies]

There are many things Luther wouldn’t want, such as the State of Israel (That guy really hated Jews). I don’t think he’d have wanted the current state of Christianity either.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Abu,

The priesthood was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper – to His specially chosen Apostles “I will make you fishers of men” (Mk 1:16), who were ordained by a special rite and given special offices – “Do this in commemoration of Me.” [Lk 22:19]. “These words made them priests because they gave the power to offer sacrifice to God.” This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 226].

Thanks for the appreciation, jmcrae (post #865).

Luther’s teaching of the priesthood as being ONLY the ‘priesthood of all believers’ was the result of his completely rejection of everything Catholic, but in fact even the earliest of the Fathers support the Catholic concept of the priesthood.

Clement was the Bishop of Rome during at least most of the last decade of the first Century. According to Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, this is the same Clement who was Paul’s “fellow-laborer”. (Philippians 4:3). In addition, Tertullian informs us that Clement was ordained by St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, although certainly not as a Bishop, but as a Priest. With these kinds of references, certainly the thoughts and actions of Clement would be revelant to a discussion about the Church’s early concept of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthian Church, (in 96-98 A. D.), in which he makes the following comments dealing with the rightful leaders of the Church there being deposed:

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, had been greatly defamed.” St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, (address)

Here we see Clement, claiming at least, that it was his role, or the role of the Roman Church, to concern itself with a matter of discipline in a Church a great distance away from Rome. In addition, we find him apologizing for not having addressed the matter in a more timely fashion, which indicates that at least he believed that he had been tardy in his attending to the matter.

**“To the high priest, indeed, proper ministrations are allotted, to the priests a proper place is appointed, and upon the levites their proper services are imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.” **Ibid, (40,1)

That is pretty clear, and from the Bishop of Rome no less. There are some issues which Protestant apologists can claim were ‘developed’ over the centuries, but were not clear in the early Church. Clearly the issue of the priesthood is not one of them.

Here we find Clement beginning to scold those in rebellion in Corinth, claiming that the laity are to obey the ordinances set for them by the priesthood, especially their high priest, meaning their Bishop. Of course, this very early evidence of an authoritative Priesthood, and the duty of the laity to follow that Priesthood, flies directly in the face of Luther’s 16th century concept of the priesthood as being ONLY that of “all believers.”

Speaking of the Apostles: “they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these (the successors of the Apostles),…we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry.
Our since will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily offered its Sacrifices.” Ibid, (44,1)

Clearly this points to a very anti-Protestant concept, an Apostolic Succession in which that Succession, but ONLY that Succession, is ordained to minister and lead the Church that Christ established.

“Shameful, beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well-established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has not come only to us, but even to those professing other faiths than ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves.” Ibid, (47,6)

It is very evident that Clement believes that it is his role to chastise those who have rebelled against the rightfully ordained leaders in Corinth. In addition, he is also dismayed that those “professing other faiths” (meaning schismatics or heretics such as the Gnostics) have learned about the revolt in Corinth and that it reflects poorly on the whole Church. Clement also reminds them that in the blasphemy of revolt, they themselves are in danger, that danger obviously referring to salvation.

 

[Topper17]

**“You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility.” **Ibid, (57,1)

“Submit to the presbyters…bending your knees in a spirit of humility.” This is contrast to Luther’s ‘attitude’.

Here in this section, Clement has graduated from fatherly advice and love to a command that those in revolt cease and return the rightful leaders to their offices.

“Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret.” Ibid (58,2)

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in a transgression of no small danger.” Ibid, (59,1)

Clement, in his demand that the Revolt in Corinth cease, claims to be speaking for the Holy Spirit, and again, points out that there it is no small matter to disobey the Church. In claiming to speak for God, the Bishop of Rome makes a very early case for the type of authority that has been claimed by every Pope ever since. That authority of course cannot be “taken” from God but must be ordained by Him. The issue here, in respect to Luther’s contention that there was no evidence earlier than 1100 AD of a papal supremacy, is not so much whether the papacy IS actually ordained by God, but that there was evidence pre-1100 AD which Luther dismissed. Luther was clearly wrong on this matter.

Either Clement was wrong in his presumption of having God’s authority, or Luther was wrong to dismiss this evidence as being “worthless”. Luther, who at least acted as if He had the Authority of the Holy Spirit to teach and interpret, would be wrong to refute the Authority of the Church if Clement was in fact “authorized” to speak for God in the matter of the Corinthian Church.

Some Protestant denominations give at least some credence to the writings of the early Church Fathers. In my experience, Lutherans are one of the denominations who claim to revere the early Church Fathers at least as much as any of the rest.

Interestingly, after Clement sent his letter to the Church at Corinth, the rebellion ended immediately, indicating that even those in rebellion acknowledged Clement’s authority to set things in their proper order in Corinth.

Eusebius, the great 4th century historian states:

“Clement has left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church at Rome and sent to the church at Corinth, where dissention had recently occurred. I have evidence that in many churches his epistle was read aloud to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own.” Eusubius, “The History of the Church”, (3, 16)

Clements’s Letter to the Corinthians was read at Mass as it were Scripture and while we know now that it is not considered to be as such, we must remember that the canon of the New Testament was not settled until after Eusebius wrote the above text.

There is no record of anyone questioning Clements’s authority to command that a local Church far from Rome bend to his will. This concept of a first century show of authority by the Bishop of Rome flies in the face of Protestant theology or rather theologies, from Luther’s “priesthood of all believers ONLY” all the way to the independence of each particular Bishop.

We should also remember that Clement’s letter is normally attributed to the time during which the Apostle John was still alive on Patmos, which is much closer to Corinth than Rome. Why didn’t John take it upon his own shoulders to address the situation in Corinth unless it was because he was never the Bishop of Rome?

When we look at those ‘vague passages’ in Scripture and wonder how we can interpret them, what better than the non-Scriptural writings of someone who was actually mentioned in Scripture?

Sorry about being so long-winded Abu. God Bless You, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

Topper-

I wrote this years ago, and I haven’t had an excuse to post it in quite awhile. This is as good a time as any.

Korah and the Priesthood of All Believers

In the book of Exodus, we read the following:

“The sons of Izhar were Korah, Nepheg and Zicri.” (Exodus 6:21)

“The sons of Korah were Assir, Elkanah and Abiasaph. These were the Korahite clans.” (Exodus 6:24)

There’s not much in these two verses to catch anyone’s eye, to be sure. However, one of these people, Korah, became famous much later on, so I’m going to quote the entire story for you from the 16th & 17th chapters of the Book of Numbers. I’ll also highlight a couple of key verses that we’ll consider more closely.

CHAPTER 16

Korah, Dathan and Abiram

1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. **3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?” **

4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7 and tomorrow put fire and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

**8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. **11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, “We will not come! 13 Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us? 14 Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!”

15 Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

16 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18 So each man took his censer, put fire and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, God of the spirits of all mankind, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?”

23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’ "

25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, [c] then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah’s men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

36 The LORD said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to take the censers out of the smoldering remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy- 38 the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

39 So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned up, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, 40 as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.

41 The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the LORD’s people,” they said.

42 But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. 43 Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the Tent of Meeting, 44 and the LORD said to Moses, 45 “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown.

46 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” 47 So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. 48 He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. 49 But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. 50 Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, for the plague had stopped.

CHAPTER 17

The Budding of Aaron’s Staff

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes. Write the name of each man on his staff. 3 On the staff of Levi write Aaron’s name, for there must be one staff for the head of each ancestral tribe. 4 Place them in the Tent of Meeting in front of the Testimony, where I meet with you. 5 The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout, and I will rid myself of this constant grumbling against you by the Israelites.”

6 So Moses spoke to the Israelites, and their leaders gave him twelve staffs, one for the leader of each of their ancestral tribes, and Aaron’s staff was among them. 7 Moses placed the staffs before the LORD in the Tent of the Testimony.

8 The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Testimony and saw that Aaron’s staff, which represented the house of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds. 9 Then Moses brought out all the staffs from the LORD’s presence to all the Israelites. They looked at them, and each man took his own staff.

10 The LORD said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff in front of the Testimony, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so that they will not die.” 11 Moses did just as the LORD commanded him.

12 The Israelites said to Moses, “We will die! We are lost, we are all lost! 13 Anyone who even comes near the tabernacle of the LORD will die. Are we all going to die?”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

At this point, I was going to expound on what this incident (actually there are two issues intertwined) is all about, but I discovered a Jewish website that discusses the matter far more eloquently than I could hope to do. Therefore, I provide the following passage taken from www.myjewishlearning.com:

Bible critics ascribe the difficulties of this section to a joining of two traditions. While a clear division is no longer possible, there appears to be a Korah rebellion that is directed against Aaron and levitic privilege and an anti Moses uprising led by Dathan and Abiram. [Authorship of] the former is assigned to the P (priestly) source and the latter to the J/E (Yahwist/Elohist) source.

The first story tells of Korah and 250 men who complain about the special religious status of the Levites. There is a contest involving censers; Korah’s people come to the Tent and are consumed by fire; their censers are taken away, destroyed, and symbolically refashioned; the 14,000 people who support the rebellion or who are unhappy with Korah’s punishment are killed by a plague. The story appears to reflect a struggle for priestly privilege. Once upon a time (as attested by Psalms) Korah’s people were full priests and singers, but after a power struggle they were reduced to doorkeepers.

The second tradition tells of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, and members of the tribe of Reuben, against the civil authority of Moses. They refuse a confrontation with him. Moses appeals to the community, which backs him up and withdraws from the rebels, who in turn are swallowed by the earth. This story may represent the memory of an intertribal struggle. Originally the tribe of Reuben was very important, but in time it was dislodged from its original preeminence. This is also reflected in the Jacob tale, where the first born Reuben is passed over in favor of others.

Korah’s rebellion (taking the intertwined stories as a literary whole) was directed against the leadership of Moses. Superficially, his act may appear to be the usual attempt by someone out of power to displace the incumbent rulers. But the Bible’s very silence about his motives directs our attention away from Korah’s true intention to his stated argument.

Korah said: “All the community are holy… Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?” The question implies the challenge: If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary (Buber, Moses).

Note that Moses and Aaron make no answer to the first part of Korah’s statement, that is, the reference to communal holiness. They refer only to the latter (“Why do you raise yourselves…?”), leaving it to God to reaffirm their embattled leadership. He raised them to high position and He will answer the rebels, as indeed He does.

But the question still seeks its answer. Ultimately, as Buber emphasizes, the question Korah asked poses an insoluble contradiction: for holiness can never be fully realized within history, yet the people are to act as if it can be or even as if it has been realized. This is the biblical way of dealing with a divine impasse and it became the normative way of Jewish tradition. Korah’s argument turns on the eternal tension between authority and freedom. Like many demagogues after him, Korah offered himself as a fitting guardian of the spirit of freedom. But while the people might have accepted the offer of substitute leadership, God did not.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you see? Korah rebelled against the authority and leadership of Moses and Aaron by declaring, “all the community is holy”. To restate a portion of the above for emphasis, “If God is in our midst, then whoever is leading us will have His support. Or, going further (though this is not expressed): If we are all holy, what need is there for someone like Moses to instruct us, or why is there need for laws to make us holy? Since the people are holy, commandments from without are not necessary.” In a way, Korah was right! God declared the entire nation of Israel to be a nation of priests in the book of Exodus.

Moses went up to God, and Yahweh called to him out of the mountain, saying, "This is what you shall tell the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:3-6)

However, Korah’s error was not in his understanding of the “priesthood of all Israelites”, but in his rebellion against God and the authority God had vested in Moses and Aaron. God’s answer to this challenge was swift and final.

Let’s recap: the entire nation of Israel was a “kingdom of priests”, the tribe of Levi served as a ministerial priesthood, and Aaron served in the highest place. Thus, in the Old Testament, we find a foreshadowing of the New Testament priesthood that includes the Priesthood of All Believers, the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood consisting of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and Jesus, our eternal High Priest.

Not convinced, are you? Well, let’s take a look at the Book of Jude beginning with verse 3:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

Jude notes that there were some within the early Church who had rejected the authority of the Bishops and Priests, and he links their error directly to that of Korah and his followers who rebelled against God and the authority of the leaders He had placed over His people, Israel.

Today, there are Christians who refuse to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and the Bishops who have been established as its leaders. They believe that the “priesthood of all believers” replaces the ministerial priesthood in Christ’s church, and they reject the episcopate completely. The unfortunate incidents of the 15th century began in “protest” and rebellion against authority – not true reform, and that same rebellious spirit continues to proclaim a message that promotes denominational division.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12786118]I think it is interesting that you say “even the LCMS has ongoing dialogue with Rome”, as if it would be presmumed that they would not likely be in dialogue with the Church. Given their adament statements that it is ROME which must change doctrinally, it is surprising that there is an ‘ongoing dialogue’.

Hi Topper,
Doesn’t the Catholic Church say the same thing? Isn’t that a better starting point than wishy washy? I think so. And BTW, I respect Rome’s position that they can’t change doctrine. I think that’s a good thing.

Where could I read of the actual results of this dialogue, or the history of these ongoing Catholic/LCMS discussions?

We’ve been involved since the opening of dialogue here in the US, in one way or another, in virtually every round of talks.

In addition, how small a ‘group’ should the 1.1 Billion member Church be expected to dialogue with?

Good question. Why not ask the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? See if they think that Christian unity doesn’t need to include small traditions within the Church.

OK, so where is it, specifically and exactly, in Scripture, or in Church history, or in the Fathers, that we see a certain group, ‘branching off’ to set up their own non-Ecumenical Council to make doctrinal decisions for ONLY that small group, and in direct opposition to the Ecumenical Councils? Specifically?

.
Where, exactly and specifically, in scripture or Church history, are baptized Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome condemned, prior of course to Unam sanctam? Where, exactly and specifically, and contrary to Nicea canon 6, is the the Bishop of Rome grant supremacy?

By What Authority did Andraea, Chemitz and the rest set up their own communion? By what Christian precident? If they had the right to do that, then where does it stop? Couldn’t some bunch of people today decide that THEY are just as able to develop their own communion? Isn’t this exatly what has happened and continues to happen to Lutehranism and the rest of Protestantism?

By what authority, contrary to scripture and Nicea canon 6, does the Pope claim for himself, without an ecumenical council, supremacy over all of the Church Militant?

Don’t you see how these types of questions don’t solve division, but simply reinforce it?

As for your comment that the Catholic Church is ‘in schism’ – did the Roman Catholic Church schism off from Luther, as he believed? Did the entire Church just up and walk out on itself, or on Luther when he FINALLY figured out, at Leipzig, that his teachings were NOT at all those which the Church had been teaching?

Yes, we are in schism from each other. The CC is in schism with the EO.

OR is it possible that Luther was simply another in a long line of men who ended up having followers who became known by their names?

You mean like Roman Catholic Church? How does this kind of question move us toward unity?

Ok – I didn’t realize that the Dialogue has discussed papal infallibility. I have read a statement from the Dialogue which specifically stated that they have NOT discussed papal infallibility. Apparently this conversation then has occurred in the very recent years. Where can I learn more about their discussions, if in fact they have actually taken place as you suggest? Where are the specifics of their recommendations?

I’d try Google to start with. Topper, you are incredibly well read. Do you mean to tell me only in anti-Luther writings, or Lutheran writings that are honestly critical of him? Try Centro Pro Unione, the USCCB, the Vatican website.

Jon. As you know perfectly well, this is a blatant and complete misrepresentation of my position.

I honestly do not know this. Please explain where I’ve misrepresented.

For example Jon, you continue to suggest that the Catholics of Luther’s time should have done things differently, and yet you refuse to post even ONE THING that you think they should have done differently after Luther began his doctrinal Revolt. I understand why.

You’re the Catholic here, why don’t you explain what the Catholic Church means in CCC 817.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12786124]I think you have ‘admitted too much’ in the above statement Jon. You ‘even’ said the CC was part of the Church. Gee – thanks. I do realize how that is a pretty big thing to admit though.

Now who is blatantly and completely misrepresenting.

Salvation of Catholics
Q: A non-Lutheran Christian friend of mine recently stated that he believes that Catholics are not saved and should not be considered Christians. What is the Synod’s belief regarding the salvation of Catholics who adhere to Roman dogma?

A: **The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to “cults,” which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian). In fact, a primary “objective” listed in the Synod’s Constitution (Article III) is to “work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies”—which explicitly assumes that these “other church bodies” are “Christian” in nature. **That does not lessen the Synod’s concern for the false doctrine taught
and confessed by these churches, but it does highlight the Synod’s recognition that wherever the “marks of the church” (the Gospel and Sacraments) are present—even where “mixed” with error—there the Christian church is present. Such a church is a heterodox church, that is, a church that teaches false doctrine.
Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.
This explains why former Synod President A.L. Barry called members of the Roman Catholic Church “our fellow Christians” in his statement Toward True Reconciliation, which at the same time identifies and laments the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
The great danger is that believing things contrary to God’s Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior. We pray that this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church.

lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=581

Note in the red that we do not claim that being in communion with the LCMS is necessary for salvation.
This is really getting old, Topper.

After all, your statement goes directly against the official teachings of the Lutheranism as found in the Book of Concord:

Please don’t misunderstand, I am happy that you chose to reject official Lutherran church doctrine on this issue. On the other hand Jon, my ‘polemics’ which I would not characterize as such, are NOTHING compared to the official teachings of Lutheranism.

The statement you’ve made here is precisely the polemics I am speaking of.

Possibly what you might need Jon, is a better understanding of the nature of ‘polemics’. Let’s go one of the best, most intelligent Lutheran Scholars of the last century, who BTW did NOT remain Lutheran, Jaroslav Pelikan:

**“When the confessions of Luther’s Reformation say: ‘We believe, teach, and confess’, however, they are bearing witness for something (pro-testantes) and against something. In an age of simple-minded interconfessional toleration it needs to be pointed out that evangelical Catholicity is by definition polemical……**The very word ‘polemics’ like the words ‘pious’ and ‘sermon’ and ‘preaching’, has almost lost its usefulness because of past abuses. **The restoration of fraternal polemics to its rightful role in theological discourse is one of the assignments facing a truly evangelical Catholicity.” ** Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 194-5

I agree with Pelikan here. The very essence of Protestantism IS polemical, in that it was founded on being AGAINST the teachings of the Church. Luther’s Revolt was NOTHING if not ‘polemical’.

To try and couch what you do in Pelikan’s words is laughable. Remember that Pelikan did not become Catholic.

Yet today, we are not ‘supposed’ to discuss our disagreements? Are we NOT to point out the so very obvious flaws in the positions of the ‘other’? Is that really ‘bad form’ or is that just the complaints of the side which is not faring all that well in the discussion?

continued

 

[JonNC]

Again Jon, what should the Church have done differently? For that matter, without resorting to generalizations, at all, what should Luther have done differently? These questions would definitely be necessary to address in any kind of dialogue between our two communions.

I’ll leave to you to explain CCC #817, as for Luther, the list is quite long, but I will start with his explanation on the 8th Commandment:

The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?–Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

He should have practiced what he preached.

That is the main flaw, for when we dialogue or even argue outside of this, it hardens hearts, and stiffens necks. We live today with those hardened hearts and stiffened necks
on both sides. I continue to contend that Lutherans and Catholics have far more in common, doctrinally, than we have differences, that we are closer today than we have been in 500 years.

It seems to me that you would like to paint me as being ‘disloyal’ to my Church. Let me ask you a question – Do you agree with all of the policies and practices of you secular federal government? Would you consider yourself as being a ‘disloyal’ American for your disagreement or cricicism? Why is it that you can make actual phone calls to your leadership about the lack of progress of the Dialogue and I am somehow not ‘allowed’ to criticize them here? I see that as hypocracy.

Not disloyal. To paint you as disloyal would mean I’d have to know something about your thoughts regarding the CC. I’ve seen scant little of that. But you have, over a number of threads, been highly critical, I would dare say dismissive, of Catholic dialogue efforts. So I’m not the one doing the painting.

My concern Jon, is that the efforts of our leaders, both sets, at least in regards to their efforts to affect doctrinal agreement, have obviously been INEFFECTIVE. That is clear from the lack of any significant doctrinal movement in 50 years. But of course as long as we are discussing ME, we aren’t discussing the subject of the thread, which BTW is Martin Luther. Correct?

You think they’ve been ineffective, while I believe there has been dramatic progress, if in no other way than in the remarkable level of cordiality, respect, and charity between our communions, the level of cooperation on a variety of social fronts in this country alone

I have a question for you. Do you think that it is important for us to be united in doctrine or not?

Again, it is remarkable how you could be here this long and not at least have an idea about this, as I have been quite clear that doctrinal unity is the only unity will last. But it also seems that doctrinal unity follows mutual respect and love. The centuries of animosity between our traditions within the Church takes time to overcome, and that is happening.

Here you blatantly misrepresent my position again Jon. You cannot find even one statement where I made any negative comments about any of those Popes.

Here is what you said: **OK, how much time are you willing to allow them? All I am saying is the obvious Jon, that if after 50 years we haven’t ‘gotten around’ to the most crucial issue, the issue of authority, then the current Dialoge is NOT WORKING. We need a new, bolder, less ‘timid’ approach. **

If my assumption that you meant the leaders directing the dialogue were being timid is not the case, I apologize, but that seems a fairly logical conclusion.
As for how much time am I willing to allow them, I am willing to allow them the time they need, not that I have a say one way or the other.

Somehow I am reminded how abusive Luther was towards his opponents.

That seems to be your only interest. Incidentally, that seems to be Edwin’s main complaint as well.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC #893
Where, exactly and specifically, in scripture or Church history, are baptized Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome condemned, prior of course to Unam sanctam?

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the Protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Where, exactly and specifically, and contrary to Nicea canon 6, is the the Bishop of Rome grant supremacy?
By what authority, contrary to scripture and Nicea canon 6, does the Pope claim for himself, without an ecumenical council, supremacy over all of the Church Militant?

Arnold Lunn (in *Now I See, *Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that “This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church of today to the “unerring teaching” of the Roman Pope is most impressive.”

'To render Canon 6 along the lines of: “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]” is nonsense; it’s the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn’t follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

'The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction.” This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

'This obviously entails two things: the Council submitting to the traditions of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and a clear primacy over the other two Patriarchs (and by extension all bishops of the Church). This refutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

’Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 says:
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome’.
See: catholicnick.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/council-of-nica-proves-papacy.html

The evidence from the historicity of the Gospels, and the early Church confirms the primacy of authority and the infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I, and the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope.

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as the first Pope:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

Well, McGrath certainly wouldn’t

I actually dislike his book Christianity’s Dangerous Idea very much because it seems to me to glorify the disunity and diversity of the Reformation. I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that he speaks about heresy the way you quote–I should read this book.

McGrath would not be my favorite Protestant Scholar if I thought that at all. In “Dangerous” I see him reporting honestly on the state of Christian doctrinal dissension, and the destruction that has been caused by the Reformation. Even the term ‘Dangerous’ in the title, to me indicates that McGrath ‘gets it’. Far from glorifying that disunity, I think he simply and fairly only ‘reports’ on it dispassionately.

It seems odd that here you seem to be critical of McGrath for being ‘too Protestant’ in his ‘admiration’ of diversity, and I admire him for honestly presenting the facts which support my (Catholic) arguments. I do agree I am bothered by all of those clueless statemens like: ‘ain’t it grand that we have all of this doctrinal freedom’.

As you know Edwin, we tend to ‘get’ the best and brightest of Protestantism’s Scholars. Ever since I read ‘Dangerous’, and especially after reading ‘Heresy’ and other McGrath, I have presumed that, eventually, we will ‘get’ McGrath. After all, he is extremely bright, well educated, insightful, and intellectually honest.

In reading McGrath, I am reminded of reading Pelikan, especially “Obedient Rebels”. It seems to me that when a Protestant writes the kinds of things that Pelikan and McGrath (and many others write), it is simply part of the ‘process’. Of course Pelikan became EO and McGrath hasn’t done anything officially yet, but it certainly seems like the foundation for swimming ‘something’ is in place (and it is not going to be the Mississippi).

“Heresy” was written only two years after “Dangerous” (2009 vs. 2007) but even in that short period, there seems to be a slight ‘shift’. As you will see in the text that follows, McGrath is quite clear about Luther’s ‘responsibilities’ for doctrinal disunity. Personally, I can’t imagine how McGrath can write what he does and NOT be led to the ‘logical conclusion’ of his studies.

I do think that you would enjoy “Heresy”. Given that McGrath hasn’t yet written a book about “Topper”, maybe we we could fall back on some of his comments in “Heresy” on Luther - that is if that would not be too much of a departure from the subject of the thread.

Since the subject of this thread is SUPPOSED to be Martin Luther and since we have been discussing the priesthood, and McGrath’s excellent book “Heresy”, why not a quote from “Heresy” on Luther and the ‘universal priesthood of believers’?
**
“On the basis of this doctrine of theverse universal priesthood of believers, Luther insisted that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible and to raise concerns about any aspect of the church’s teaching or practice that appears to be inconsistent with the Bible. ** There is no question of any ‘spiritual’ authority, distinct from or superior to ordinary Christians, who can impose certain readings of the Bible upon the church. **The right to read and interpret the Bible is the birthright of all Christians. At this state, Luther clearly believed that the Bible was sufficiently clear for ordinary Christians to be able to read and understand it. **Following through on his democratizing agenda, Luther insists that all believers have the right to read the Bible in a language they can understand, and to interpret its meaning for themselves. **The church his thus held to be accountable to its members for its interpretation of the sacred text, and is open to challenge at every point.

The significance of Luther’s point can hardly be overlooked. **By inisisting that it had a divenly ordained monopoly on biblical interpretation, the medieval churh had declared itself to be above criticism on biblical grounds. **No external critic had the authority to interpret Scripture, and thus to apply it to criticize the church’s doctrines or practices. Luther’s response was to empower the laity as interpreters of the Bible, and to hold the church accountable to its people for what it taught. And if they were not satisfied with the outcome, they, as laity, had the right to demand that a reforming council should be convened to address their concerns. ** “Heresy”, pg. 210-11

 

[Topper17]

Here McGrath informs us that, early on, Luther believed that all Christains had the right to interpret the Scriptures. As we know, beginning in about 1525, or roughly 7 years after he began his Revolt, Luther renounced his own teaching on the matter, gradually claiming his own personal authority over doctrine and demanding that everyone follow HIS teachings. In other words, he became even more authoritarian than he was accusing the church of being and with virtually NO justification to support that assertion.

Luther claimed that members of the church had the right to hold the church accountable to THEM and their personal interpretations. If that isn’t the prescription for doctrinal disunity then I don’t know what could be.

The typical response to these facts are that it doesn’t matter whether Luther taught the ‘right of the individual’ or not:

“Lutheranism does not teach that; neither does my subset of Lutheranism, and I personally do not believe that, so what Luther taught on the matter is irrevelant.”

The fact remains though that it was on that belief that the ‘Reformation’ was founded. IF that fundamental concept of authority was wrong (as Lutheranism now claims it was and is), then the foundation upon which the Reformation was established was FALSE. An argument could be (and actually has been) made, that it doesn’t matter what Luther taught, because Protestantism ‘recovered’ from those teachings of Luther that were wrong, and set them straight prior to the establishment of the Confessions. That would seem logically to be a tremendous ‘stretch’. That something could be built on such a false foundation and then mend itself to the point of being SUPERIOR to that from which it sprung, is rather more than a little ‘optimistic’. When one looks at the doctrinal dissension that resulted from Luther’s teachings, and even the doctrinal dissension within modern Lutheranism, it is very clear where the facts lead.

McGrath continues:

**“Luther and the other Protestants were roundly denounced as heretics by the church. For many Catholic apologists, Lutheranism was simply the reappearance of earlier heresies. In concemning as heretical or heterodox Luther’s early theological theses in the sixteenth century, **the Universtiy of Paris attempted to establish the essential continuity between earlier heresies and the ideas now being expoded by Luther. ** Luther’s ideas were thus not to be regarded as original, but were essentially the republicactions of older heresies. **Thus Luther was a Hussite in his theology of contrition, a Wycliffite in his doctrine of confession, and a Manachaean in his theology of grace and will. According to the University of Paris, the Reformation represented little more than the reappearance of older heretises that were already known and condemned. “Heresy”, pg. 211-12

Where did Luther think that Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation was going to lead? The fact is that he didn’t have a clue that they were going to lead to doctrinal discord and confusion. How could he NOT have realized that? McGrath contines:

“As we noted earlier, Protestantism was rapidly branded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. Protestants responded with indignation, retorting that they had recovered orthodoxy from its medieval distoritions. What was Protestantism if not the recovery of the orthodox faith of the early church? Yet Catholics had little difficulty in arguing that, while Protestantism might be perfectly capable of recovering earlier biblical interpretations, it lacked the means to determine whether what it had retrieved was orthodox or heterodox. And lacking any such capacity to discriminate such interpretations, Protestant were obliged to repeat the judgments of the Catholic Church on these matters. In turn, Protestants argued that, since they were committed to restoring the authentic teaching of the early church, this naturally extended to the church’s views on orthodoxy and heresy…….

The difficulty for Protestantism was that it was found to possess no higher authority that can declare one or the other (conflicting teachings) to be in the right. If Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, no interpretative authority can be placed above Scripture……

The problem is that ‘heresy’ is ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 213-5

We have seen the statement that Lutheranism needs a Pope, actually THE Pope. It, and Protestantism in general, needs SOMETHING to rally around. They can all claim that they they rally around the Bible but it is clear that the ‘Bible Alone’ CANNOT protect doctrinal unity.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

BTW, “Reformation Thought” and “Iustitia Dei” are just as impressive.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can we please get more 5,000 + characters posts?

Thanks,



Make that 2 servings…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isn’t there a limit on intellectual property quotations from books? Or an explicit authorization to that matter? :bluelite: