Lutheran Faith Questions

[DD2007]

I’m an alumni of Iowa State as well, so I’ve seen the mighty Sooners in action many times. Now please go and kick the tar out of Florida!

That is certainly the plan We have a lot to prove to the doubtful SEC.

 

[DD2007]

OK. Thanks for all of your assistance and prayers.

I am certainly NOT converting to Lutheranism. The Lutheran faith is divided up into so many groups that fight amongst one another that it is hard to keep track of. My biggest turn off came today when I learned that the largest Lutheran group the ELCA (the one i was going to try) does the following:

1. Ordains women: This is a debatable issue for me possible acceptance.
2. Ordains active homosexuals: This is a non negotiable rejection for me and my conscience screams false religion like it never did while praying to a saint!
3. Condones abortion as unsinful: This is just downright wicked. Non negotiable to the maximum.

I have a lot of doctrinal problems but after researching this group it doesn’t sound like it’s all that bad. At least the RCC doesn’t change like that.

So, I still have reservations but I do feel much better. The disunity and come what will doctrinal displays of the protestant community will surely keep me away. I got the creeps when I heard about the abortion and active homosexual pastor thing. Martin Luther would just flip out!

Anyway, I am remaining Catholic. I don’t agree with everything the Church does and teaches but I do agree with it more than any other visible church I have looked at.

I’m still a lond way from fully comfortable. I’m afraid to pray the rosary now and I’ve stopped wearing my miraculous medal because I am afraid to offend God through idolatry. The annullment is still lingering, the baptism…etc But, really I have no where else to go. So here I am.

Martin Luther had some good ideas. The RCC and the World Lutheran something or another organization issued a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification which RollTide pointed out. That is interesting to know that we adhear to the same beliefs in Justification. I just am not comfortable with anything else they do. Wow, that scared me.

 

[gcnuss]

I am certainly NOT converting to Lutheranism. The Lutheran faith is divided up into so many groups that fight amongst one another that it is hard to keep track of. My biggest turn off came today when I learned that the largest Lutheran group the ELCA (the one i was going to try) does the following:

1. Ordains women: This is a debatable issue for me possible acceptance.

As a Lutheran, this is not an issue for me. For me, one of the issues that holds me back from considering Catholicism as an option is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

1. Ordains active homosexuals: This is a non negotiable rejection for me and my conscience screams false religion like it never did while praying to a saint!

The official policy of the ELCA is that practicing homosexuals are not eligible for ordination and that homosexual clergy are to live celibate lives. In practice, there is limited enforcement of these requirements – in fact, it is newsworthy when they are enforced. Of course, it usually hits the news because the gay community goes up in arms.

1. Condones abortion as unsinful: This is just downright wicked. Non negotiable to the maximum.

I would say the ELCA’s position on abortion is more nuanced than that. For example, from the Social Statement on Abortion:

Because we believe that God is the creator of life, the number of induced abortions is a source of deep concern to this church. We mourn the loss of life that God has created. The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life. Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion as the answer to unintended pregnancies.

We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her. We are moved particularly by the anguish of women who face unwanted pregnancies alone. The panic and isolation of such pregnancies, even in the best of circumstances, can be traumatic. Poverty, lack of supportive relationships, immaturity, oppressive social realities, sexism, and racism can intensify her sense of powerlessness. The prospect of having and caring for a child can seem overwhelming.

We confess our sin as a community of faith. We often have fallen short in respecting God’s gift of life and in providing conditions more conducive for bringing new life into the world.

As a community of faith we seek to live out our support for life in all its dimensions. We are committed to supporting those who face problematic pregnancies in ways that effectively address their immediate as well as long-term needs. This can include financial, nutritional, medical, educational, social, and psychological, as well as spiritual support.

---

Services and shelter should be provided, especially to enable young mothers and fathers to continue their education and care for their children. Members should also be encouraged to become foster and/or adoptive parents. By our policies and practices as a church we need to indicate that we are truly supportive of children through the long years after, and not only before, they are born.

and

Because of the Christian presumption to preserve and protect life, this church, in most circumstances, encourages women with unintended pregnancies to continue the pregnancy. Faith and trust in God’s promises has the power to sustain people in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. In each set of circumstances, there must also be a realistic assessment of what will be necessary to bear, nurture, and provide for children over the long-term, and what resources are available or need to be provided for this purpose. The needs of children are a constant. The parenting arrangements through which these needs are met may vary. If it is not possible for both parents to raise the child, this might be done by one parent, by the extended family, or by foster or adoptive parents.

This church encourages and seeks to support adoption as a positive option to abortion. Because adoption is an increasingly more open process today, it generally is easier for birth parents to have a role in selecting the adoptive parents and in maintaining some contact with the child. These possibilities can be helpful in the grieving process that is likely to occur when birth parent(s) choose to place the child for adoption after having bonded with the child during pregnancy. Care needs to be taken in selecting adoption processes that do not exploit but safeguard the welfare of all parties involved

Even though it finds the prevalence of abortions to be a problem, the ELCA does not see legislation to ban abortions as the answer to that problem. It is the responsibility of the Christian community to educate its people, and others, in how to make abortion unnecessary except when medically indicated. Of course, that is far easier said than done.

I have a lot of doctrinal problems but after researching this group it doesn’t sound like it’s all that bad. At least the RCC doesn’t change like that.

So, I still have reservations but I do feel much better. The disunity and come what will doctrinal displays of the protestant community will surely keep me away. I got the creeps when I heard about the abortion and active homosexual pastor thing. Martin Luther would just flip out! Agreed. He’s probably turning over in his grave.

Anyway, I am remaining Catholic. I don’t agree with everything the Church does and teaches but I do agree with it more than any other visible church I have looked at.

God’s blessings to you as you continue in your journey of faith.

 

[DD2007]

As a Lutheran, this is not an issue for me. For me, one of the issues that holds me back from considering Catholicism as an option is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Well, if the Bible is taken literally. It is very clear that women are not to be ordained etc. The issue can be debated but it requires one to make a case that the instructions against women in the Church were only meant to be in place to give credability to a young growing Church given the social order of the times.

What I understood JP2 to say is that the Church has no authority to ordain women because there is no scriptural or traditional mandate or revelation that can be used to overrule what paul wrote. And Jesus said “scripture cannot be broken”…etc

So I think the issue is debatable on an intellectual level given social concerns and knowledge of history. But for all those who take the Bible literally this will forever go against their conscience. So, it’s a hard issue.

The official policy of the ELCA is that practicing homosexuals are not eligible for ordination and that homosexual clergy are to live celibate lives. In practice, there is limited enforcement of these requirements – in fact, it is newsworthy when they are enforced. Of course, it usually hits the news because the gay community goes up in arms.

That is also the policy of the RCC. I agree with that. What I can’t agree with is if a homosexual who does not believe homosexual acts are sinful and therefore practices them is ordained into the ministry as a Shepard of the flock. That is unscriptural, and appears nowhere in Christian tradition until recently and is usually only the case in strange fringe groups that people debate may be a cult. However, I learned yesterday that the ELCA, and the Episcopal Church are ordaining active Homosexuals into the ministry. I hear the Anglican Bishop of Canterbury is furious about it.

Even though it finds the prevalence of abortions to be a problem, the ELCA does not see legislation to ban abortions as the answer to that problem. It is the responsibility of the Christian community to educate its people, and others, in how to make abortion unnecessary except when medically indicated. Of course, that is far easier said than done.

I believe in separation of Church and state, and I am a democrat. I think that given our government system abortion will be legal in the US as long as there are atheists and agnostics who believe it is an option. I think it is the duty of the Christian Church to condem it for what it is, sin, and one of the gravest sins at that. There is no exeption other than gross ignorance. I think that to believe abortion isn’t sinful is to be ignorant of the teachings of Christ. So only very confused christians or those who do not believe in our God can think abortion is acceptable. So this is a non-negotiable issue for me. I will only support a Church that completely condems abortion as the sin that it is.

So, I still have reservations but I do feel much better. The disunity and come what will doctrinal displays of the protestant community will surely keep me away. I got the creeps when I heard about the abortion and active homosexual pastor thing. Martin Luther would just flip out! Agreed. He’s probably turning over in his grave.

I think Luther was a very spiritual man. He would be broken hearted by what has come to be.

God’s blessings to you as you continue in your journey of faith.

Thank you very much! And also to you! I wish you the best. And I’m still going to use the Book of Concord as an asset in my spiritual journey. So, please don’t worry.

I don’t know how to manipulate a single quote correctly so i responded inred above.

Thank you Pastor Gary.

 

[Jean_1958]

Anyway, I am remaining Catholic. I don’t agree with everything the Church does and teaches but I do agree with it more than any other visible church I have looked at.

That’s terrific DD2007!

My daughter does not necessarily agree with everything the Church teach hes either, however, that has not stopped her from calling herself Catholic. Like you, she feels she agrees far more with that Catholic Church than any other visible denomination or faith. We all have to find what works for best for us even if we are not in total agreement with it.

I’m still a lond way from fully comfortable. I’m afraid to pray the rosary now and I’ve stopped wearing my miraculous medal because I am afraid to offend God through idolatry. The annullment is still lingering, the baptism…etc But, really I have no where else to go. So here I am.

Just give it time.

You will be in my thoughts and prayers.

Jean

 

[emeraldcoast]

I’m an alumni of Iowa State as well, so I’ve seen the mighty Sooners in action many times. Now please go and kick the tar out of Florida!

Hold it there, buddy…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[jean8]

Sorry to give you a hard time. You asked why a person wouldn’t be Lutheran so I answered. I was kind of in the same position as you not so long ago. If I were you would try to remove my personal circumstances from the equation, take a step back, and try to conclude which church I believe teaches the most pure form of the Gospel. If you honestly believe in Lutheran doctrines than be a Lutheran. But don’t be Lutheran as a consolation because you have to jump through hoops to get communion from Rome. Be a Roman Catholic if you believe their teaching…if not go somewhere else. God bless.

VARC,
If your thinking about changing churches I would go the LCMS. this is the closest you can come to catholic doctrine and Liturgy.
Look them up on the net. lcms.org
The ELCA is very liberal. You can look them up also.

God bless you in your search,
jean8

 

[Lampo]

VARC,
If your thinking about changing churches I would go the LCMS. this is the closest you can come to catholic doctrine and Liturgy.

That might be true, but if you are wanting to get *close *to Catholic doctrine and liturgy, why not go for the real deal? Why would you just want to get *close *to Catholic doctrine and liturgy? Why DO you want to get close to Catholic doctrine and Liturgy? What is it about Catholic doctrine and liturgy that you want to get close to?

 

[jean8]

Thank you. I’ll do what I can to honestly consider the best course of action. I appreciate your advice.

DD,
I watch Journey Home and I also have read Scott Hawn. His journey home to the Cathoilc Church is interesting. This was before he earned his Doctorate.
There are three main branches of the Lutheran church. ELCA, very liberal, LCMS , conservative. They believe in the real presence , and WELS.

God bless,
jean8

 

[KingAlfred]

"Well,

1. I believe there is a certain priesthood of all believers but it is different from the priesthood of a pastor or priest.
2. I believe that salvation is by Grace through faith. Or if the person has not had the opportunity to hear the gospel then by Grace alone in a manner unknown to us.
3. I believe in the supreme authority of scripture in that I believe the Church is subject to scripture and is not allowed to contradict it. However, I believe there are truths handed down through the church that are not found in the Bible, such as the canon of scripture and possibly the Marian doctrines."

Too broad of an interpretation. Lutherans will never accept it, and neither can Catholics, from a strictly theological perspective. Remember…Luther, the intellectual author of this new variant of Christianity, did not authorize broad interpretations. If you want a church of the ‘third way’, that is, a middle-ground position, you’re looking at the English variant – Anglicanism or its American version, Episcopalianism.

 

[JonNC]

"Well,

1. I believe there is a certain priesthood of all believers but it is different from the priesthood of a pastor or priest.
2. I believe that salvation is by Grace through faith. Or if the person has not had the opportunity to hear the gospel then by Grace alone in a manner unknown to us.
3. I believe in the supreme authority of scripture in that I believe the Church is subject to scripture and is not allowed to contradict it. However, I believe there are truths handed down through the church that are not found in the Bible, such as the canon of scripture and possibly the Marian doctrines."

Too broad of an interpretation. Lutherans will never accept it, and neither can Catholics, from a strictly theological perspective. Remember…Luther, the intellectual author of this new variant of Christianity, did not authorize broad interpretations. If you want a church of the ‘third way’, that is, a middle-ground position, you’re looking at the English variant – Anglicanism or its American version, Episcopalianism.

Actually, this is not very far off my beliefs as a Lutheran.
In #1, I almost completely agree, though we may disagree in degrees regarding the ordained clergy’s role.
#2 Complete agreement
#3 In the first part, I agree. In the second, I even have no problem with this if it isn’t the basis of dogma.

Finally, I would say you are right about some Anglicans, but certainly not all.

JOn

 

[Erich]

I don’t agree with everything the Church does and teaches but I do agree with it more than any other visible church I have looked at.

With that word “visible” you’ve hit the nail on the head… i.e. that one word is more important than you may have realized at the time you posted! It comes down to this: did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? (Only one answer to this question “works.” Take a guess.)

From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

…
Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

The visibility of the Church is no light matter. It underlies the ultimate source of Christian belief: Church or Bible? Its importance surpasses that of other divisive issues, such as the veneration of saints or confession.
…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

 

[Erich]

along with the fact that in the early Church priests and bishops were of the same rank.

From Successors of the Apostles:

The New Testament appears to use the terms bishop (episkopos) and *priest *(presbuteros) interchangeably (Acts 20:17 with 20:28, Tit. 1:5-7). It also speaks of there being more than one bishop in a given church (Phil. 1:1). From the end of the first century onward there appears to have been only one bishop (see the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107) or one main bishop plus assistant/auxiliary bishops, such as the *chorepisopus. *

There is more than one way to account for the transition from one state of affairs to the other. However, it seems most likely that the individuals referred to in the New Testament as bishops or presbyters did not possess the fullness of holy orders but were equivalent to modern priests. As the apostles began to pass from the scene, they appointed certain non-apostles-e.g., Timothy, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos-to oversee multiple local congregations and to appoint (Tit. 1:5) and discipline (1 Tim. 5:19-20) individual presbyters within them.

At the time, these individuals were called evangelists (Acts 21:8, Eph. 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5). By the end of the first century the term *overseer *(bishop) may have gravitated to them because they oversaw the individual congregations and presbyters. The term *bishop, *on this hypothesis, thus supplanted the earlier term *evangelist. *

To understand why this happened, one should note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic ministry-episkopos (overseer, bishop), *presbuteros *(elder, priest), *diakonos *(servant, minister, deacon)-were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon.

This was true even if the person in question had the highest office of all: that of apostle. The apostles Judas and his successor Matthias could be described as having a “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The apostle Peter could describe himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1); and the apostle Paul could describe himself as a “servant” or “minister” (diakonos, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23, 25). The terms had not acquired the technical senses they did over the course of the first century.

The evidence would seem to indicate that the functions of overseeing, serving as elders, and ministering to the Christian community were all exercised by the apostles. As the Church grew, they began to discharge these functions, beginning with the lowest (which is the typical pattern with any corporation-the founders delegate the lowest functions to others first, the highest functions last). Thus the apostles appointed first deacons (Acts 6:1-6), then elders (14:23), and lastly evangelists (cf. Acts 21:8).

As the terms for these offices began to acquire their technical meanings, the servile term* servant* (diakonos) naturally attached itself to the lowest of these three ranks, as the more senior term* elder *(presbuteros) did to the second office. The high term *overseer *(episkopos) at first attached itself to the office of presbyter when these men were the highest ministers in local churches. Later overseer became attached to the office of evangelist when the apostles began to appoint men with the higher authority to appoint and discipline presbyters.

The understanding is further supported by the strong tradition of the Church Fathers that the three offices date from the time of the apostles, to whom early Church writers who attribute the ordination of specific, individual bishops (e.g., Ignatius [Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History

3:36], Symeon [ibid. 3:11]). The understanding is also supported by later writers’ recognition as bishops of those known in the New Testament as *evangelists *(Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *3:4).

Whichever account of the origin of the office is correct, bishop was a distinct office by the late first century, the end of the apostolic age. This is evident because at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters (A.D. 107) to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution. In these letters, he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

He is so confident of this usage that he can say that without these three offices a local body cannot be called a church (*Trallians *3:1-2). These facts show that the usage was already widespread at the dawn of the second century, so it must have first been established in the late first century, at the close of the apostolic age.

 

[Erich]

Sola Scriptura is a theological necessity derived from the fact that there are no Apostles today and that all we have that we can be certain is their teaching is what we find in the Bible.
…
As for the issue of the authority of Scripture itself, it is both self-attesting to the regenerate as well as recognized and proclaimed by the church which has the proper custodianship of it.

It’s one thing to say that Scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation. But it’s quite another to claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In fact, just a quick glance at the “churches” section in any phone book is all that is needed to disprove the latter claim. Churches which teach baptismal regeneration (for example) do so because of what they read in Scripture. Churches which teach that baptism (and the other sacraments) are mere symbols do so because of what they read in the very same Scripture.

You cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired.

 

[Erich]

In the 1400’s, Boniface VIII, Martin V, and Innocent VII all allowed ordinations by priests, including Cistercian Abbots.

Given the facts of travel and time and the availability of bishops in the Middle Ages…an abbot may very well have been the one to ordain priests for his abbey (just as even today a bishop is the one who normally confers the sacrament of Confirmation, but because he obviously can’t be at every parish in his diocese sametimeaneously during the Easter Vigil the pastor is allowed to confirm – with the bishop’s permission – RCIA candidates entering the Church i.e. he becomes the “extraordinary minister of confirmation”)

Still, this would not have affected apostolic sucession as it was only priests being ordained, not more bishops.