Lutheran Confessions - Infallible?

[benjohnson]

Of all that was posted, you chose to post about the what is called the Eucarist? Why would you call it the Lord’s supper? Come one now. Give me something here with my post. Besides this small error I may have made. I dont think it should be called the Lord’s supper. The body and blood of Christ called the Lord’s supper. Come on. I’ll call it the Holy Eucarist. A convenant with Jesus Christ. So you really think He was just talking figuratively?

If I may, it seems as if you want to provoke an argumentative discussion about the name of the Eucharist. Let me answer your implied question, and perhaps, give some advice.

We call it the Lord’s Supper because it is representation of the Last Supper - a meal that the Lord invites (or indeed commands) us to. Without this meal, we are dead. This Lutheran word is good, as it calls into mind where this Sacrament comes from.

My Greek is horrible, but the word εὐχάριστος means roughly ‘good’ and the verb ‘myself rejoicing’ - this Catholic way of looking at it is good as well - is a great name for the attitude we should have at this Sacrament.

Here’s the advice:

So rather than get angry about the Lutheran word, perhaps a more fruitful tact should seek understanding so that you may come to a better appreciation of your own faith.

Asking “Why do you call it the Lord’s Supper” would be more productive, in my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10665345]I assume it could also be said for the Catholic who proclaims they are Catholic, but does not agree with the majority of Church teachings. I would consider the LCMC congregations here to be more mainline and less confessional. They tend to work more with ELCA rather than LCMS here.

Probably

Way to stay on topic lol.

Thanks

How much authority, if any, do Lutherans grant the Confessions? Much like the CCC?

Not knowing for sure exactly how much authority the CC grants to the Catechism, I would guess probably similar. And they are both verrrrry looooong.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Of all that was posted, you chose to post about the what is called the Eucarist? Why would you call it the Lord’s supper? Come one now. Give me something here with my post. Besides this small error I may have made. I dont think it should be called the Lord’s supper. The body and blood of Christ called the Lord’s supper. Come on. I’ll call it the Holy Eucarist. A convenant with Jesus Christ. So you really think He was just talking figuratively?

Not at all. It is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins.
I chose only to respond to that for two reasons:

1. out of respect for the OP, as these are not the central question of the thread.
2. it was a topic I could briefly respond to, again, without hijacking the thread.

I will be happy to respond to a thread on any of the topics you raise.

Jon

 

[studentoflove]

If I may, it seems as if you want to provoke an argumentative discussion about the name of the Eucharist. Let me answer your implied question, and perhaps, give some advice.

We call it the Lord’s Supper because it is representation of the Last Supper - a meal that the Lord invites (or indeed commands) us to. Without this meal, we are dead. This Lutheran word is good, as it calls into mind where this Sacrament comes from.

My Greek is horrible, but the word εὐχάριστος means roughly ‘good’ and the verb ‘myself rejoicing’ - this Catholic way of looking at it is good as well - is a great name for the attitude we should have at this Sacrament.

Here’s the advice:

So rather than get angry about the Lutheran word, perhaps a more fruitful tact should seek understanding so that you may come to a better appreciation of your own faith.

Asking “Why do you call it the Lord’s Supper” would be more productive, in my opinion.

Sorry to burst your bubble Ben, but I am not angry. What is there to be angry about? I was asking Jon, not you. But thanks for the “advice”. Im pretty sure I was asking about the Lutheran opinion. No? Sorry if I did not phrase it the way you like. I see Jon really knows his faith. Thats why I asked him and not you. I wont apoligize for being passionate. I see that this is off topic so I will not go further with this on the thread here. I will send Jon a PM or start a new thread. If YOU would like to anwer my original post with all the questions send a PM. Id love to hear how you would productively answer it.

 

[studentoflove]

Not at all. It is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, given and shed for the remission of sins.
I chose only to respond to that for two reasons:

1. out of respect for the OP, as these are not the central question of the thread.
2. it was a topic I could briefly respond to, again, without hijacking the thread.

I will be happy to respond to a thread on any of the topics you raise.

Jon

Thank you Jon. I will start a different thread.

 

[PJM]

=stewstew03;10656854]Let’s start with an operational definition. Infallible = never misleading; always true and reliable. [Inerrant = incapable of any error].

Charles Krauth makes the claim that the Lutheran Confessions can err, but they DO NOT err. Thus, they are not wrong, never misleading, always true and reliable. One can put their faith in the truth of the Confessions because the Confessions are always faithful to Scripture.

Does this not make the Lutheran Confessions infallible?

If A is always true and reliable.
And B at all times is a true reflection of A.
Then B is always true and reliable.

What am I missing…?

.

If as I BELEIVE, and as seems logical that “truth” must be singular on all defined issues; I simply cannot comprehend HOW the Luthern Confessions can be “that singular set of truths”.

For this to happen our Perfect God would of had to lie!

Impossible right?

And could; would; or did Christ wait for Luther to expose His singular truths to the world? Some 1,600 years:shrug:

Does not the Bible PROMISE that the “gates of HELL shall NOT PREVAIL!” ; so who’s right Luther or Christ

ps: sorry Jon!

 

[JonNC]

=PJM;10668151]If as I BELEIVE, and as seems logical that “truth” must be singular on all defined issues; I simply cannot comprehend HOW the Luthern Confessions can be “that singular set of truths”.

Well, Pat, the singular set of truths is scripture. Our claim is only that the confessions rightly reflect truth.

For this to happen our Perfect God would of had to lie!

Impossible right?

On what grounds, Pat?

And could; would; or did Christ wait for Luther to expose His singular truths to the world? Some 1,600 years:shrug:

No, that would be preposterous, and it isn’t what Lutherans believe. He exposed His singular truths in His Son, and further in the written word. The written word did not come into existence in 1517.
Further, Lutherans “pledge ourselves” to the three ancient creeds, we accept the 7 general councils of the early Church. It seems to me that these facts do not portray a communion that ignores the history of the Church, of which we consider ourselves.

Does not the Bible PROMISE that the “gates of HELL shall NOT PREVAIL!” ; so who’s right Luther or Christ

And the gates of Hell will not prevail, on that truth you and I, and all of the Church Militant, and Church Triumphant - the Communion of Saints can’t take great hope and solace.

ps: sorry Jon!

shaw: We’re good, Pat.

Jon

 

[hn160]

Ben,

I am in the ELCA and I can assure you that not everyone here goes along with the recent decisions regarding same-sex unions and not everyone agrees with the ELCA’s position on abortion.

Why do some of us stay? I believe that there is a need for voices within the ELCA that proclaim the truth. I suspect that there are those who hope we would all go away and let them continue unchallenged. Given the number of people, both pastors and lay, who have left, the voice for traditional teachings is diminished. That, in my view, is unfortunate.

Now to the subject of this thread, I grant that I do not claim to follow the teaching that the Pope is the anti-Christ. I tend to turn away from polemics that seem to be rooted in the time in which the Confessions were written.

 

[studentoflove]

Ok, I understand what the Lutheran Confessions are now. I worked my way through 4 Lutherns before I could have any clue. Than read them. I reread this thread. Tomster basically puts it in a nutshell. Jon, you kick the can man. Wish I could spend all day on this Catholic Forum. But gotta work. Till tomorrow night Jon. Peace.

 

[hn160]

Ben,

I am in the ELCA and I can assure you that not everyone here goes along with the recent decisions regarding same-sex unions and not everyone agrees with the ELCA’s position on abortion.

Why do some of us stay? I believe that there is a need for voices within the ELCA that proclaim the truth. I suspect that there are those who hope we would all go away and let them continue unchallenged. Given the number of people, both pastors and lay, who have left, the voice for traditional teachings is diminished. That, in my view, is unfortunate.

Now to the subject of this thread, I grant that I do not claim to follow the teaching that the Pope is the anti-Christ. I tend to turn away from polemics that seem to be rooted in the time in which the Confessions were written.

But in time the voices of Truth will be silenced in the ELCA because it is disrupting the peace of the Church. Read what Charles Porterfield Krauth has to say about Truth and error on pages 195, 196 in his book The Conserative Reformation and Its Theology.

 

[studentoflove]

Jon,

What is an Evangelical Catholic? I like the sound of it. But I’ve never heard that before.

 

[studentoflove]

Ben,

Im sorry I was rude. Your post ignited some passion for me to wake up at 5 this morning and read from a book about discovering more about Christianity. I wont be able to get back on this forum until tonight, but today I will bring my Christianity to work with me. And for now on I will remember this each morning. I will leave the door with the sign of the cross to remind myself. Today and for now on I will live with passioin and purpose even as I set tile all day. Im sorry to Jon too if I offended you. I could have written my post differently. But I still ask what an Evangelical Catholic is? I really have never heard of this before and want to know more about Charles Krauth (sp?) and how he wants to bring back the traditions that are lost with many Lutheran Churches.(this is what I have gathered in the last couple of days) My wife is Lutheran. She needs to start with this I think so I can help her discover the Catholic Church later.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

What is an Evangelical Catholic? I like the sound of it. But I’ve never heard that before.

One might compare it to high church in the Anglican setting. For me it is a recognition and valuing the catholicity of Lutheranism.
Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Studentoflove,
No worries at all! Peace if the Lord be with you always. I pray that you and your wife will be able to receive the Eucharist at the same altar.

 

[MaryT777]

Student of Love:
Has your Lutheran wife read the confessions and does she believe they are without error?
Mary.

 

[studentoflove]

She does see error.

 

[MaryT777]

If as I BELEIVE, and as seems logical that “truth” must be singular on all defined issues; I simply cannot comprehend HOW the Luthern Confessions can be “that singular set of truths”.

For this to happen our Perfect God would of had to lie!

Impossible right?

And could; would; or did Christ wait for Luther to expose His singular truths to the world? Some 1,600 years:shrug:

Does not the Bible PROMISE that the “gates of HELL shall NOT PREVAIL!” ; so who’s right Luther or Christ

The truth seems so obvious doesn’t it? No God did not wait for Luther to come and
reveal his singular truths to the World by any means. That’s why we excommunicated him as a heretic. The Lutheran Confessions are not infallible by any means nor does any LCMS Lutheran tell you so. Most I know say a resounding NO. They don’t believe in a concept of infallibility. They believe Scripture interprets Scripture
Not to sound like a DA but it’s a simple ? are the Lutheran confessions
infallible?
Yes or No.
It’s that simple.
No according to the Catholic Church and also every LCMS person I know personally.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;10668287]Well, Pat, the singular set of truths is scripture. Our claim is only that the confessions rightly reflect truth.

On what grounds, Pat?

Hello again Jon; I KNEW I’d be hering from you.

The “grounds are clearly biblical” One God; His One set of Faith beliefs; in and through His Only One Church.

No, that would be preposterous, and it isn’t what Lutherans believe. He exposed His singular truths in His Son, and further in the written word. The written word did not come into existence in 1517.

WOW!
That MY friend is the wildest claim I have ever heard you make

Check out “agapebiblestudy.com”

The Bible, which I assume is what we ARE speaking of here, was completely authored by the end of the First Century or VERY early in the second Century at the latest.

The Church [singular] did not exist without the Bible unitl 1517. WHAT evidence do you have? Are you implying that our PERFECT God waited for Luther to expose His religious truths?

Further, Lutherans “pledge ourselves” to the three ancient creeds, we accept the 7 general councils of the early Church. It seems to me that these facts do not portray a communion that ignores the history of the Church, of which we consider ourselves

Good and VERY GOOD!

But is a partial truth “thee truth?.” IMO! it cannot be

And the gates of Hell will not prevail, on that truth you and I, and all of the Church Militant, and Church Triumphant - the Communion of Saints can’t take great hope and solace.

So Jon MY FRIEND; how does one read Matthew 16:15-19 and come away with God being Okeydookie wirh competing faiths, religions and churches. As I Recall; Christ our perfect God said: 'onYou Peter and “my church” … Wheres the wiggle room in that statement?

Jon

God’s Continued Blessing MY Friend!

Pat /PJM

 

[benjohnson]

She does see error.

That’s unfortunate in my opinion; if she accepted the Lutheran confessions, she’d be more ‘Catholic’ than if she didn’t.

 

[Tomster]

That’s unfortunate in my opinion; if she accepted the Lutheran confessions, she’d be more ‘Catholic’ than if she didn’t.

Better yet, if she accepted the Catechisms of Trent and Vatican II she’d be spot on.

Messin’ with you Ben, that’s all.