R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not sure you actually believe that…but it sounded good.
- Status
Ahhh, so it sounded good. Hmmmmm.I’m not sure you actually believe that…but it sounded good.
What is of course true about it is that division and schism long predate the Reformation era.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thanks. BTW, that page has this:
Q: What’s the Lutheran response to the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory?
A: Lutherans have always rejected the traditional Roman Catholic teaching regarding purgatory because 1) we can find no scriptural basis for it, and 2) it is inconsistent, in our view, with the clear teaching of Scripture that after death the soul goes directly either to heaven (in the case of a Christian) or hell (in the case of a non-Christian), not to some “intermediate” place or state.
What Scripture teaches concerning the death of the Christian is summarized as follows by Lutheran theologian Edward Koehler in his book, A Summary of Christian Doctrine:
In the moment of death the souls of the believers enter the joy of heaven. Jesus said to the malefactor: “Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Stephen said in the hour of death: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Whoever dies in the Lord is blessed “from henceforth” (Rev. 14:13).
Is paradise “heaven”?
Stephen did ask Jesus to receive his spirit, but there is nothing in that verse to suggest how quickly that request would be granted, is there? Be honest…
People in Purgatory are blessed “henceforth” because they have assurance of heaven.
Is this the scriptural basis for believing that Purgatory does not exist???
That’s kinda thin…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The LC-MS site says this:
The authority of the pope.
Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans do not believe the office of the papacy as such has any divine authority or that Christians need to submit to the Pope’s authority to be “true” members of the visible church.
The authority of the pope.
Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans do not believe the office of the papacy as such has any divine authority or that Christians need to submit to the Pope’s authority to be “true” members of the visible church.
- Did Jesus give real authority to Peter and the Apostles?
- Did the Apostles view their office as perpetual by replacing Judas with Matthias?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response.
(Former) Lutheran Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan seems to believe that Luther, if he had known how his ‘reformation’ was going to ‘turn out’, he would rather have cut off his arm. Of course he said this when he was still a Lutheran.
As we know, Luther’s ‘authority’, he believed, came from the strength of his religious experiences. However the fact is those religious experiences were very unique, and in fact quite troubling from a Christian perspective. They were distinctive enough that they led him to take a very radical and individualistic approach to both Scripture and Theology. Of course, with this kind of individualism applied to “theology”, any fallen sinful person can “find” what they WANT, so badly, to “find” in Scripture, and then INSIST that THEY are the ONE, who FINALLY understands the Scriptures and St. Paul.
”All of the Devils attacks are directed at certainty of salvation, that fundamental article of faith. All temptations, whatever sort they may be, are aimed at awakening doubts in God’s reliability. Not only Luther, the fearful monk but Luther the Professor and “reformer”, too, felt singularly affected by these “critical doubts”. Although he never called himself a reformer or saw himself as one – only Christ is the Reformer, only Judgment Day will bring “reformation”- the fact remains that “he began the whole movement”, he rediscovered the Gospel. He regarded himself as an instrument of God; he could tehyrm himself “prophet” or “Evangelist”. But the cruelest of the Devil’s challenges – because it was the most obvious – concerned this role: “Do you think that you alone possess wisdom?” Would God have allowed so many generations of Christians to die in ignorance of the truth?” Oberman pg. 177
If Luther questioned whether he ‘alone’ possessed wisdom, then how could he possibly have justified NOT returning to the Church. Did he really believe that God had allowed so many generations to die in ignorance of the ‘truth’ that HE had identified and taught?
Apparently, he did.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response.
“Thus Ralph Waldo Emerson is quoted as saying that** if Luther had known his ninety-five theses would lead to Boston Unitarianism he would have rather cut off his arm than have posted them” **Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 19
(Former) Lutheran Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan seems to believe that Luther, if he had known how his ‘reformation’ was going to ‘turn out’, he would rather have cut off his arm. Of course he said this when he was still a Lutheran.
As we know, Luther’s ‘authority’, he believed, came from the strength of his religious experiences. However the fact is those religious experiences were very unique, and in fact quite troubling from a Christian perspective. They were distinctive enough that they led him to take a very radical and individualistic approach to both Scripture and Theology. Of course, with this kind of individualism applied to “theology”, any fallen sinful person can “find” what they WANT, so badly, to “find” in Scripture, and then INSIST that THEY are the ONE, who FINALLY understands the Scriptures and St. Paul.
”All of the Devils attacks are directed at certainty of salvation, that fundamental article of faith. All temptations, whatever sort they may be, are aimed at awakening doubts in God’s reliability. Not only Luther, the fearful monk but Luther the Professor and “reformer”, too, felt singularly affected by these “critical doubts”. Although he never called himself a reformer or saw himself as one – only Christ is the Reformer, only Judgment Day will bring “reformation”- the fact remains that “he began the whole movement”, he rediscovered the Gospel. He regarded himself as an instrument of God; he could tehyrm himself “prophet” or “Evangelist”. But the cruelest of the Devil’s challenges – because it was the most obvious – concerned this role: “Do you think that you alone possess wisdom?” Would God have allowed so many generations of Christians to die in ignorance of the truth?” Oberman pg. 177
If Luther questioned whether he ‘alone’ possessed wisdom, then how could he possibly have justified NOT returning to the Church. Did he really believe that God had allowed so many generations to die in ignorance of the ‘truth’ that HE had identified and taught?
Apparently, he did.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Jon,
First of all, I want it to be noted that it was you who brought up the subject of Luther’s anti-Semitism, and it was also you who brought up the official LCMS response.
“we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon……”
That would certainly make it appear as if, after having some negative and ‘uncharacteristic’ things to say about the Jews, “Luther’s final attitude” is something which we all should adopt. This of course should cause us to wonder about the details of Luther’s ‘final attitude’ towards the Jews.
Two of Luther’s final letters home, in the last days of his life reflect his ‘final attitude’.
February 1, 1546. “To my dearly beloved mistress of the house, Catherine Luther, a doctor, the lady of Zölsdorf [and] of the pig market, and whatever else she is capable of being; Before all else, grace and peace in Christ, and my old, poor, and, as Your Grace knows, powerless love. Dear Katie. Yes, on the way, shortly before Eisleben, I became dizzy. That was my fault. Had you been here, however, you would have said that it was the fault of the Jews or their god. For shortly before Eisleben we had to travel through a village in which many Jews are living, [and] perhaps they have attacked me so painfully. [151] At this time over fifty Jews reside here in the city of Eisleben. It is true that when I passed by the village such a cold wind blew from behind into the carriage and on my head through the beret, [that it seemed] as if it intended to turn my brain to ice. This might have helped me somewhat to become dizzy. But thank God now I am well, except for the fact that beautiful women tempt me so much that I neither care nor worry about becoming unchaste. After the main issues have been settled, I have to start expelling the Jews. Count Albrecht is hostile to them and has already outlawed them. But no one harms them as yet. If God grants it I shall aid Count Albrecht from the pulpit, and outlaw them too.”
Feb 7, 1546. “I think that hell and the whole world must now be empty of all devils, who, perhaps for my sake, have congregated here at Eisleben, so hard has this affair run aground. There are also Jews here, about fifty in one house, as I have written to you previously. Now it is said that in Rissdorf—close to Eisleben, where I became iii during my journey—there are supposedly about four hundred Jews living and working. **Count Albrecht, who owns all the area around Eisleben, has declared that the Jews who are caught on his property are outlaws. But as yet no one wants to do them any harm. **The Countess of Mansfeld, the widow of Solms, is considered to be the protector of the Jews. I do not know whether this is true. Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it. Otherwise it might not do any good at all. You people pray, pray, pray, and help us that we do all things properly, for today in my anger I had made up my mind to grease the carriage. But the misery of my fatherland, which carne to my mind, has stopped me.”
In the first of these two letters Luther makes it very clear that he considers it to be his responsibility to have to “start expelling the Jews”. In the second he speaks of the Jews in a fashion similar to devils. He also mentions that he has “made his opinion known” on the subject, and that in his anger, he made up his mind to “grease the carriage”, obviously for the expulsion of the Jews. He also mentions that as of yet – “no one wants to do them any harm”.
Given that Luther died on February 18th, it seems that these letters actually represent his ‘final attitude’ towards the Jews. It also appears as if the 1983 LCMS Synod which pronounced that ‘resolution’ was not aware of these letters.
Topper
First of all, I want it to be noted that it was you who brought up the subject of Luther’s anti-Semitism, and it was also you who brought up the official LCMS response.
Here we see that the LCMS, in 1983, resolved that:
“we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon……”
That would certainly make it appear as if, after having some negative and ‘uncharacteristic’ things to say about the Jews, “Luther’s final attitude” is something which we all should adopt. This of course should cause us to wonder about the details of Luther’s ‘final attitude’ towards the Jews.
Two of Luther’s final letters home, in the last days of his life reflect his ‘final attitude’.
February 1, 1546. “To my dearly beloved mistress of the house, Catherine Luther, a doctor, the lady of Zölsdorf [and] of the pig market, and whatever else she is capable of being; Before all else, grace and peace in Christ, and my old, poor, and, as Your Grace knows, powerless love. Dear Katie. Yes, on the way, shortly before Eisleben, I became dizzy. That was my fault. Had you been here, however, you would have said that it was the fault of the Jews or their god. For shortly before Eisleben we had to travel through a village in which many Jews are living, [and] perhaps they have attacked me so painfully. [151] At this time over fifty Jews reside here in the city of Eisleben. It is true that when I passed by the village such a cold wind blew from behind into the carriage and on my head through the beret, [that it seemed] as if it intended to turn my brain to ice. This might have helped me somewhat to become dizzy. But thank God now I am well, except for the fact that beautiful women tempt me so much that I neither care nor worry about becoming unchaste. After the main issues have been settled, I have to start expelling the Jews. Count Albrecht is hostile to them and has already outlawed them. But no one harms them as yet. If God grants it I shall aid Count Albrecht from the pulpit, and outlaw them too.”
Feb 7, 1546. “I think that hell and the whole world must now be empty of all devils, who, perhaps for my sake, have congregated here at Eisleben, so hard has this affair run aground. There are also Jews here, about fifty in one house, as I have written to you previously. Now it is said that in Rissdorf—close to Eisleben, where I became iii during my journey—there are supposedly about four hundred Jews living and working. **Count Albrecht, who owns all the area around Eisleben, has declared that the Jews who are caught on his property are outlaws. But as yet no one wants to do them any harm. **The Countess of Mansfeld, the widow of Solms, is considered to be the protector of the Jews. I do not know whether this is true. Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it. Otherwise it might not do any good at all. You people pray, pray, pray, and help us that we do all things properly, for today in my anger I had made up my mind to grease the carriage. But the misery of my fatherland, which carne to my mind, has stopped me.”
In the first of these two letters Luther makes it very clear that he considers it to be his responsibility to have to “start expelling the Jews”. In the second he speaks of the Jews in a fashion similar to devils. He also mentions that he has “made his opinion known” on the subject, and that in his anger, he made up his mind to “grease the carriage”, obviously for the expulsion of the Jews. He also mentions that as of yet – “no one wants to do them any harm”.
Given that Luther died on February 18th, it seems that these letters actually represent his ‘final attitude’ towards the Jews. It also appears as if the 1983 LCMS Synod which pronounced that ‘resolution’ was not aware of these letters.
Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Jon,
If there is another way to understand the term ‘adherents’ in your Confessions, I would be happy to hear it.
The Book of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE
“39] Now, it is manifest that **the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. **57]
Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, **yet since he defends godless services and doctrine **conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, **it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. **
59]**But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, **detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”
Jon, who are the ‘adherents’, specifically and exactly?
Topper
Here’s my offer to you. I will prepare a post on Unam sanctam. Will you finally, after being asked more than a dozen times, answer my question about who, specifically and exactly the ‘adherents’ are? I ask because it seems to me that the “adherents” are all Catholics who are loyal to the Bishop of Rome, which would mean that that term applies directly to me and the thousands of loyal Catholics here on CA.
If there is another way to understand the term ‘adherents’ in your Confessions, I would be happy to hear it.
The Book of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE
“39] Now, it is manifest that **the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. **57]
Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, **yet since he defends godless services and doctrine **conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, **it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. **
59]**But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, **detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”
Jon, who are the ‘adherents’, specifically and exactly?
Topper
See post #210
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon, I’ll cut tot the chase. Are adherents Catholics in union with the Pope?
Yes or No will do.
Mary.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Jon,
Are you saying that by Luther’s last sermon he had changed his mind about the Jews and their lies?
Mary.
Mary,
Read what the resolution says. What luther said in his last homily is what we accept.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
Careful about the “Jews and their lies” - don’t assume that Luther hated the Jews and wanted to burn them to the ground and damn them to hell. Quite the opposite - Luther wanted the Jews to find Christ and reside with the Father. Of course, the methods he proscribed are appalling, but hardly unique.
I find it interesting that Luther get’s so much grief for postulating making life miserable for the Jews to drive them to Christ, yet in other parts of the Christian world we actually drove the Jews out of their homes without conversion.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Is this in reference to the dancing around the Pope Boniface VII language?
I think it was Boniface VIII that gave us Unam Sanctam.
Boniface VII was a Pope who did naughty things (Bonifice VIII came right after him If I remember correctly). Those naughty things were so naughty that in the early 20th century, Catholics started to view him as an Anti-Pope and begun to change how he’s recorded in the list of Popes.
EDIT (and really off topic):
Dante Alighieri wrote against the two-swords claim of Unam Sanctam rather well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Monarchia
Thanks, Ben. Missed a “I” this morning.
I think it was Boniface VIII that gave us Unam Sanctam.
Boniface VII was a Pope who did naughty things (Bonifice VIII came right after him If I remember correctly). Those naughty things were so naughty that in the early 20th century, Catholics started to view him as an Anti-Pope and begun to change how he’s recorded in the list of Popes.
EDIT (and really off topic):
Dante Alighieri wrote against the two-swords claim of Unam Sanctam rather well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Monarchia
Jon
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Topper, I don’t agree with your apologetic style.
But I have to say that this is the most reasonable argument I have ever heard in favor of the Papacy.
I can’t believe how this has gone unnoticed by all those in favor of the papacy as it is today.
Attempts to prove it from SS, selective history, and ignoring the actual practices of the Church is not going to make a compelling case.
A case presented and demonstrated from this point of view can then bring all the other elements as supportive arguments and not as main arguments.
That is, of course, my fallible opinion.
Just another anonymous fallible internet poster dude.
- Status