"Lutherans" Why the name?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjohnson said:
The reformers had no authority - only His word. That frankly was the crux of the issue - on where other authority is placed in relation to His word.
Click to expand...
Yes I know…seems clear though

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

2 Thes 2:15

Why do you only hold fast to the letters? (Or at least say you do, we all know you follow some tradition)

Glad to hear you say that the reformers had no authority!

Sadly, you give them TREMENDOUS authority whenever you read the Bible through their lens.
 
Jon_S said:
Why do you only hold fast to the letters? (Or at least say you do, we all know you follow some tradition)
Click to expand...
We don’t deny other authorities at all! Not to be rude, but that would be crazy as you can’t have a church without tradition. I can’t imagine a church without the Divine Service (Mass).

We only deny authorities that claim to speak for God and yet preach a different Gospel. To cement this denial of a false authority (from our view) , we used scripture as it’s rather hard to change the Word.
Glad to hear you say that the reformers had no authority!
Click to expand...
Sadly, you give them TREMENDOUS authority whenever you read the Bible through their lens.
Click to expand...
The only authority they have is when the reflect the Gospel and point us to the Cross. When they actually do so, they do have tremendous authority as they are proclaiming the Word of God.

Thankful the time of virulent disagreements between our two communions seem to be at a end, and I pray for reconciliation.
 
benjohnson said:
We don’t deny other authorities at all! Not to be rude, but that would be crazy as you can’t have a church without tradition. I can’t imagine a church without the Divine Service (Mass).

We only deny authorities that claim to speak for God and yet preach a different Gospel. To cement this denial of a false authority (from our view) , we used scripture as it’s rather hard to change the Word.

The only authority they have is when the reflect the Gospel and point us to the Cross. When they actually do so, they do have tremendous authority as they are proclaiming the Word of God.

Thankful the time of virulent disagreements between our two communions seem to be at a end, and I pray for reconciliation.
Click to expand...
If it was so simple as “we only deny authorities that claim to speak for God and yet preach a different gospel” then perhaps it would just be Lutheran and Catholic. A simple disagreement.

But it’s not, and there are thousands of Protestant denominations claiming you guys are preaching a different gospel.

It’s all relativism. You identify with the Lutheran view, when I was Evangelical I identified with that view.

So I was authority.

That is relativism.

God is not relative so, we need to look to the church he promised to protect.

The church he promised would stand forever.

If he broke that promise , we may as well throw it all away.

I too would love to see the Lutheran Rite of the Catholic Church someday. Hopefully soon!
 
Jon_S said:
But it’s not, and there are thousands of Protestant denominations claiming you guys are preaching a different gospel.
Click to expand...
We’re used to it- in fact we expect it; for His sake. We expect no affirmation from others.
I too would love to see the Lutheran Rite of the Catholic Church someday. Hopefully soon!
Click to expand...
We already are in the catholic church 😛

I know what you’re saying, and I appreciate the sentiment!
 
benjohnson said:
And we don’t claim that the gates of hell prevailed - the church needed reform and the church reformed.
Click to expand...
The Church has always been in reform. And there are proper ways to deal with that. For example that’s why there are local and ecumenical councils. What happened in the 15th century was division / dissent / sedition / etc from the Church, which is a whole different matter. Scripture condemned that, and there is no expiration to that condemnation…
 
lots of silliness here-A Church theoretically can call itself whatever it wants-but in a effort to create order and sanity among the church going public various names have been found to be useful-

the term “Catholic Church” really is not terribly specific as it applies to “universal”

Roman catholic Church -now this has meaning -one knows what to expect

the "Evangelical Church formed in Germanyby Martin Luther -shortened to “Lutheran” likely allows one to pretty much expect a certain type of worhsip

the term “Evangelical catholic Church” could apply to the Lutherans but also could apply to various Old catholic and Anglican denominations

the term Episcopal Church actuality is vaque as it could apply to any denomination that has Bishop’s like the Lutherans / Methodists/Anglicans/Orthodox and Old catholics among many others-yet when one sees an Episcopal CHurch in the USA one can pretty much expect a certain type of Worship-by the way the Proper name is "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States

Likewise what in the world does “community church” mean-? all Churches are “communities”

ALL THE ABOVE CHURCHES ARE DOING GOD’S WORK
 
pablope said:
How do you know Lutherans have the proper interpretation? They have only 66 books in their Bibles…🤷
Click to expand...
Who decided only 66 books? Did this person get a divine revelation to take out the other books of Scripture after it was decided by the one, Holy and Apostolic Church? Who was this prideful person? I bet they don’t believe that the Eucharist is the TRUE BODY and BLOOD and DIVINItY of JESUS! Tell them to read John 6:22-69. Did they take that out too?
Get real! Quit creating your own religions. Love, your brother in Jesus!!!
 
dronald said:
I remember I once brought up that I would have immense trouble becoming a Lutheran because I don’t like naming myself after a man. The One True Church with the fullness of Truth I felt likely could not be found in one named specifically after Luther. “Lutheran Church” and the members calling themselves “Lutheran.”

However, it was immediately brought to my attention that Martin Luther did not want anyone to ever call himself “Lutheran” in fact he wrote explicitly against it.

Great response; but a simple Google search of “Lutheran Church” brings multiple websites of Church’s in my area that call themselves Lutheran. Then, almost all of the Lutherans here define themselves as Lutheran. So whether or not Luther taught one thing, you’re certainly not acting it out by naming your Church’s and it’s members such. Why?

Finally, Lutherans confess One Catholic, etc. Why do Lutherans not call themselves simply “Catholic” if they are certain that they have the right interpretation of the Catholic faith. I do recognize that Lutherans do consider themselves Catholic, but why not specifically Catholic? That is to say, when I drive by a Lutheran Church why does the sign not read “St Mark’s Catholic Church.”

Thank you. This has been itching at me for a while.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because Martin Luther and his successors, never referred to their church as the Catholic Church. Could be confusing for someone new to an area, seeing a Catholic Church, attending the Mass, just to find out that it’s not a Catholic Mass.
 
joe371 said:
Perhaps because Martin Luther and his successors, never referred to their church as the Catholic Church. Could be confusing for someone new to an area, seeing a Catholic Church, attending the Mass, just to find out that it’s not a Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
So far, this is probably the only historically correct answer.
 
Jon_S said:
The problem with this is the authority of the reformers!

It would be like the church in Corinth telling the Apostle Paul they were going to do it their way and not listen to his correction!!

Then we would read about the apostate schismatics in Corinth in the Bible instead of the corrected church we see.
Click to expand...
Clearly, Jon, if we thought that the Pope during the Reformation had the apostle Paul’s authority, we wouldn’t have argued against him.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Clearly, Jon, if we thought that the Pope during the Reformation had the apostle Paul’s authority, we wouldn’t have argued against him.
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable. What would be cool was if there was only one reformed church, as opposed to so many. It would make things a lot easier, in terms of discussing doctrinal differences.
 
The authority of the Pope as articulated in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/ Declaration is acceptable to Lutherans so long as it “does not contradict the Gospel”.
The churches of the Lutheran Reformation themselves carry out binding teaching and themselves have organs or ministries for the church’s teaching. They even have displayed the willingness, and indeed the "deep desire"287 to recognize for themselves the church’s teaching ministry in its traditional form.288 What they insist on is solely that this teaching and this teaching ministry be in accordance with the gospel in their self-understanding and exercise, and do not contradict the gospel.289
Click to expand...
 
EvangelCatholic said:
The authority of the Pope as articulated in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/ Declaration is acceptable to Lutherans so long as it “does not contradict the Gospel”.
Click to expand...
How would that work? For example, would I, as a Lutheran, be the one to decide if the Pope was teaching something that conflicted with the gospel i.e. my interpretation versus his?
 
In answer to the question, “Lutherans” Why the name?

From the Papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem: “Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.”

In our time, the use of “Lutheran” is so established that most people would be confused if it were changed. And, over the centuries the name became, in the minds of many, synonymous with “not Catholic.” I was catechized by a pastor who was very much of the “not Catholic” persuasion and who would rail against the Catholic Church. I have come to appreciate the Catholic Church and its role in transmitting the faith while also appreciating my Lutheran heritage and all that it has taught me about the Triune God.
 
Jon_S said:
Clearly you gave that authority to someone else. Luther.
Click to expand...
If that were true, we’d have our own separate pope.

The resulting years have widened the gap (in some ways) between the Lutherans and the Bishop of Rome, but as our Confessions indicate, he still is our Bishop and we’re quite willing (if not eager) to be in communion with him once the remaining marks of his inflated (from our viewpoint) office are no longer.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Nope. We gave it back to Paul, where it belongs 😛
Click to expand...
So try this on for size.

Your father writes you a letter. He tells you about himself and life and hopes for you etc…

You pass that letter and the stories to give it context to your kids who pass it to their kids.

Then I come in, read the letter and rail on how wrong your family has been in interpreting this letter.

I spread my interpretation of the letter to people and say I am letting your dad speak for himself.

How would you feel?
 
benjohnson said:
If that were true, we’d have our own separate pope.

The resulting years have widened the gap (in some ways) between the Lutherans and the Bishop of Rome, but as our Confessions indicate, he still is our Bishop and we’re quite willing (if not eager) to be in communion with him once the remaining marks of his inflated (from our viewpoint) office are no longer.
Click to expand...
What value is there in him being your bishop if you strip him of all authority???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top