Lutherans, Is This True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Hockeygurl:
These believers may not attend church at all (myself) or the catholic church, orthodox church etc…

I don’t find it easy to have a good connection with GOD in these services that have you sitting, then standing then kneeling. Tiring. AND sometimes they have very stupid hymns. I understand fellowship is a good thing, however I find that alone time is the time where I can have a good “conversation” with GOD. “wherever 2 or more gather in my name, I will be there also” I prefer to study and worship with my family or a small group.

Hi there! I agreed with parts of your post, but I do think we should all go to church as part (though not all) of our relationship with God. A balance of corporate and private worship is probably best: that’s what Christ seemed to do, when he both visited synagogue services/the Temple and also prayed alone.
 
littlenothing said:
I’m sorry for being snitty but how can we not feel revulsion at that?
Click to expand...
By listening. By not hearing what has not been said.

My guess is that you find the word antichrist to be off-putting because of modern connotations. The modern, popular connotations from those stupid “Left Behind” books has nothing at all to do with the biblical terms. So instead of “hearing” revulsion at that meaning, instead try to “listen” to what Lutherans actually mean by the term. As I have explained in my previous post, the label “antichrist” can apply to anyone who obscures the Gospel of Christ. You’ll note that antichrist, in the Lutheran understanding, is a term that can apply to even misguided Lutherans!

Hope that helps.

On the flipside, how are Lutherans supposed to feel when Rome called those who professed our teachings of Grace Alone to be “anathema” - in other words, damned?
 
Aside from the rhetoric of the LCMS document [that is a likely holdover from historic circumstance], there is no attempt by Lutherans to support the notion that the Pope is the ‘anti-Christ’. On the contrary, efforts by both European & north American Lutherans toward reunification with the Church of Rome, are unmatched among all Christians except perhaps Anglicans.
 
40.png
Hockeygurl:
As far as the stumbling blocks for me… Mary, oral contraception, confession etc… I don’t know any protestant churches that REQUIRE the belief in these doctrines for salvation. The catholic church still affirms that it is necessary for salvation to believe what the church teaches on these practices. In that case I know MANY catholics who are in trouble because of practices in the church that they don’t agree with.

To clarify, the catholic church has NEVER taught that people are saved through special knowledge of correct doctrine. That’s closer to a heresy called Gnosticism that we’ve been fighting for about 2,000 years…

What may have you confused is that deliberate rebellion against God in the form of defying His commands is inherently a rejection OF God. He is who He is, right? This is an objectively true teaching. The subjective nuance is that only God is qualified to know who is actually rejecting a principle they KNOW to be from God and who is merely deceived by the devil into believing in lies. We leave it to God to figure out who is who in the end, but we are obliged to be clear about principles. See the difference from the way you put it?

Thanks for askin’.
 
steido01 said:
Now let’s take a look at why Lutherans consider the institution of the papacy to be anti-Christ
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t say just “anti-Christ” or “an anti-Christ”, it says “the very anti-Christ” a in the anti-Christ of the apocalypse.
 
Something that is often overlooked is that Melanchthon and a few of the other reformers approached the Orthodox Church in an attempt to form an alliance against the Catholic Church - even possibly to enter into communion with them. Over the course of six years, the Augustinian Confessions were translated into Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church examined those beliefs and a dialog ensued. At the conclusion, the Orthodox Church rebuffed the reformer’s advances, rejecting out of hand the concept of scripture alone and various other points that the new German group believed in. In paraphrase, the EOC held that the reformers no longer possessed the constitutive elements of a Church.

The reformers, for their part, thought that the Orthodox retained too many elements that they associated with Catholicism. One wonders what on earth they were thinking.

The following article is written from a purely Protestant point of view. The point being entirely glossed over is: What did the Orthodox think of the reformers? No one seems to ask that one. When that is asked, the answer is not favorable to sola scriptura, no matter how one seeks to define it. The reformers vainly believed that they were the one true Church. And, each succeeding splintered-off denomination has held likewise. The elephant in the reformer’s living room is that Christ did not found His Church on a bible, nor did He give scripture the ultimate authority - Acts 15 destroys (or should) this accusation.

christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/feb08.html
 
Alizarin said:
Yeah… Catholics never say that :cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, the difference is we’re right.

(I’d insert a smiley at this point, except I’m allergic.)

Seriously though, I think it is important that us Catholics recognize when we do what we get annoyed at others for doing to us. For example, while there is certainly some truth to the claim that we think we’re right and everyone else is wrong, our actual position is a bit more nuanced than that and we don’t think that all other Christians are completely off base (though all y’all are still wrong, and seriously need to come back and stuff). But we can see how statements to this effect can be interpreted poorly, as a sort of Catholics think they’re better than everyone else sort of thing. (Which isn’t true at all. Though obviously Catholicism is better than everything else.)

In the same way, we need to acknowledge that our outsider’s reading of a Lutheran belief can be twisted - perhaps even in small ways - that change the meaning and tone of the actual belief. “The pope is the anti-Christ” as opposed to “the office of the papacy is antithetical to Christ’s purpose.” I mean, obviously we’ll disagree with the second too*, in the same way that protestants will disagree with the Catholicism is the fullness of revealed truth (especially when taken together with “none of you Lutherans are actually Catholic, whatever you say”), but we need to be careful that we’re not arguing against caricature of what they think about us that isn’t actually believed by anyone. Or by anyone much, anyway. Ok, it’s believed by a lot of people (especially in the Southern U.S.), but not because it’s part of Lutheranism.

*Strongly. With good reasons. That I am barely restraining myself from typing because that’s not what this discussion is about.
 
Novocastrian said:
I quite understand. I imagine Lutherans feel the same way about being told that they are not a real church, that they aren’t allowed to own property, that their church was founded by an incontinent, excommunicated monk, etc.
Click to expand...
What’s worse is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, at the time, also told them they were not a real Church!
 
po18guy said:
Something that is often overlooked is that Melanchthon and a few of the other reformers approached the Orthodox Church in an attempt to form an alliance against the Catholic Church - even possibly to enter into communion with them. Over the course of six years, the Augustinian Confessions were translated into Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church examined those beliefs and a dialog ensued. At the conclusion, the Orthodox Church rebuffed the reformer’s advances, rejecting out of hand the concept of scripture alone and various other points that the new German group believed in. In paraphrase, the EOC held that the reformers no longer possessed the constitutive elements of a Church.

The reformers, for their part, thought that the Orthodox retained too many elements that they associated with Catholicism. One wonders what on earth they were thinking.

The following article is written from a purely Protestant point of view. The point being entirely glossed over is: What did the Orthodox think of the reformers? No one seems to ask that one. When that is asked, the answer is not favorable to sola scriptura, no matter how one seeks to define it. The reformers vainly believed that they were the one true Church. And, each succeeding splintered-off denomination has held likewise. The elephant in the reformer’s living room is that Christ did not found His Church on a bible, nor did He give scripture the ultimate authority - Acts 15 destroys (or should) this accusation.

christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/feb08.html
Click to expand...
If the reformers believed that they were the one true church, they probably wouldn’t have contacted the Greeks like that, would they?

The Lutherans and the Orthodox would together reply to you by claiming that Christ did not found his Church on the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff!
 
po18guy said:
What’s worse is that the Eastern Orthodox Church, at the time, also told them they were not a real Church!
Click to expand...
I’ve read the Patriarch’s replies to the Lutheran questions before, but don’t have them to hand. Could you supply me with that passage?

Many thanks,

N.
 
Novocastrian said:
I’ve read the Patriarch’s replies to the Lutheran questions before, but don’t have them to hand. Could you supply me with that passage?

Many thanks,

N.
Click to expand...
It is referred to in the article, which is short. I can dig up another reference if you’d like.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Aside from the rhetoric of the LCMS document [that is a likely holdover from historic circumstance], there is no attempt by Lutherans to support the notion that the Pope is the ‘anti-Christ’. On the contrary, efforts by both European & north American Lutherans toward reunification with the Church of Rome, are unmatched among all Christians except perhaps Anglicans.
Click to expand...
So are the Confessions being revised and the statements regarding the Pope and His Office being taken out?
 
Novocastrian said:
I’ve read the Patriarch’s replies to the Lutheran questions before, but don’t have them to hand. Could you supply me with that passage?

Many thanks,

N.
Click to expand...
Well, I can spend a couple of days or so, dig it up and present it, but you will disagree with whatever I post. The bottom line, from all Protestant sources, is that the Orthodox rebuffed the reformer’s advances, primarily on theological bases, correct?
 
po18guy said:
Well, I can spend a couple of days or so, dig it up and present it, but you will disagree with whatever I post. The fact is that the Orthodox rebuffed the reformer’s advances, correct?
Click to expand...
They did indeed. That’s not quite the same as saying that they’re not a real Church though.
 
Novocastrian said:
They did indeed. That’s not quite the same as saying that they’re not a real Church though.
Click to expand...
Well, was the EOC’s listing of foundational doctrinal differences a sign of approval, or of rejection? How else would a rational human being accept the EOC point-by-point rejection of so many of the reformer’s beliefs? We all grant that several core beliefs were shared, but it is the stark differences that caused the EOC rejection. Last I checked, the EOC was not a relativistic Church, viewing faith and doctrines as either orthodox or heterodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top