No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Peter_J]

But there is only ONE truth. Only one Church can be right.

Yes. Which is why I don’t get too upset when one side calls another side “heterodox”.

I’m reminded of several years ago when liberal Catholics were upset about *Dominus Iesus *being “unecumenical”, but conservative Protestants and Orthodox weren’t bothered at all.

 

[JohnR77]

to knock on doors of Lutheran Church’s to spread the Gospel ???

John

Just to clarify. By the “Gospel” I meant the fullness of what the Catholic Church really teaches as opposed to Pastor Fisk’s misrepresentation of it. Being Catholic I also believe the Lutherans are our brother’s in Christ.
John

 

[JonNC]

Didn’t watch the video and don’t know anything about this particular pastor.

I do know the official position of the LCMS. It is: “While Lutherans believe that any doctrinal error has the potential to distort or deny Scripture’s teaching, we also believe that anyone (regardless of denominational affiliation) who truly believes in Jesus Christ as Savior will be saved.” (This was taken directly from an official LCMS website Q&A)

I spent some time as a Lutheran and can say that this was the constant teaching of the Lutheran pastors I have known personally.

If the pastor in the video is teaching otherwise, then he is not teaching true Lutheran doctrine.

Thank you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But there is only ONE truth. Only one Church can be right.

Agreed. And the intent of ecumenism is to dialogue and reach the point where we confess, together, one Truth. This will not happen if one side or the other takes the position that they have the superior belief, and therefore the only solution is the other sides submission. That approach failed for 450 between our communions.

There are numerous examples of convergence of belief between our communions over the last 50 years that indicates that this can happen, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[SPH1]

I’ve never been Lutheran, but I think I need to object to this statement … Just like I would object if someone claimed that the anti-Lutheran posters on this forum were representative of the official position of the Catholic Church.

No, the official position of the LCMS is that the Papacy is the antichrist. Actually, it refers to the “pope” and not just the papacy. “Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.””

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

 

[JonNC]

No, the official position of the LCMS is that the Papacy is the antichrist. Actually, it refers to the “pope” and not just the papacy. “Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.””

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Which does not mean the person of the pope, the individual who is the Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis is not** the **antichrist.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Don,

Yes, Topper. Insofar as the Pope and his adherents obscure the Gospel with added dogmas not based in Holy Scripture, he is antiChrist because he is acting anti-to-Christ. Just as when I kiss my wife, I am her husband. Why is this so hard to understand? You see that by the Lutheran definition of antiChrist, it is not limited to the Pope - even Lutherans can act anti-to-Christ! This is why we must remain particularly against poor catechesis and mischaracterizations by those who do not understand what we believe.

And we must make sure to oppose what we consider to be mischaracterizations of the Gospel. If you want to oppose the teachings of the Church, then you should accept the fact that the Church will oppose you back. This shouldn’t surprise you and you shouldn’t take it personally.

You say that the “Pope and his adherents obscure the Gospel” as if it was an absolute cold hard fact, when in actual fact, that statement is based on nothing more or less than Lutheran interpretations of Scripture. Yes as a matter of fact, the Pope (and I) do oppose Lutheran doctrine, because we believe that it is opposed to the Gospel. If in fact, your statement about us obscuring the Gospel were actually clear to all, the whole world would be Lutheran. Despite Luther’s expectations, it hasn’t worked out that way.

Furthermore, you state:

Here is what our church officially teaches, Topper. It’s right here. Read it. Read it and learn what we actually teach. Stop telling us what you mistakenly think we do. This is what we believe:

First of all, the question has NEVER been whether individual Lutherans or any of the numerous Lutheran denominations consider Catholics to be Christians. The question IS what the F of C MEANT, because whatever it meant then, in 1537, it STILL MEANS.

It seems that the position of the Lutheran church is the same now as it was then. In order for there to be a meaningful communion, the Catholic Church is going to have to cave, as evidenced by the quote that you offered:

From the LCMS Synod’s Theological Commission:

“a footnote, the Commission adds: “To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.”

This makes it pretty clear that the LCMS does not envision ‘adjusting’ it’s own doctrinal beliefs on salvation. If there is to be ‘meeting of the minds’, it will require a ‘revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.’

Yes, Topper. Let’s look at what Melanchthon wrote when he signed his name to that document:

“Concerning the pope I maintain that if he would allow the gospel, we, too, may (for the sake of peace and general unity among those Christians who are now under him and might be in the future) grant to him his superiority over the bishops which he has “by human right.”

First of all Don, you did not properly reference this quote. If you had we would learn that this quote is from an entirely different context than what Melanchthon wrote as the text of the F of C. Please cite the actual reference.

I think you should know that your Melanchthon quote was (I am 99% sure) from a private letter. It was NOT signed by thirty some Lutheran theologians, is NOT part of the F of C and it is only Melanchthon’s personal opinion. Thus is means practically nothing next to the F of C. If you would please post the reference for this quote, I think that the above will be confirmed. This quote does though verify Melanchthon’s attitude that the Catholic Church was going to have to cave in on doctrinal issues if there was going to be any progress towards reunion.

I pray that God softens your heart toward your fellow Christians, and that He grants you His peace. I forgive you for your offenses.

First of all Don, I find it ironic that you would presume to judge my heart and I do not think it a coincidence that Luther also judged his opponents harshly:

“The targets of his ire became under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 7

Luther was a really nice guy, UNLESS you disagreed with him (and few didn’t). However, when you persisted in your opposition, he took it extremely personally. Then off came the gloves, and it got really ugly. In other words, he didn’t take it well when people opposed him.

God Bless You Don, Topper

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed. And the intent of ecumenism is to dialogue and reach the point where we confess, together, one Truth. This will not happen if one side or the other takes the position that they have the superior belief, and therefore the only solution is the other sides submission. That approach failed for 450 between our communions.

There are numerous examples of convergence of belief between our communions over the last 50 years that indicates that this can happen, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

Hmmm … You agree, then, with

Quote:
Originally Posted by betsybug354
I have a lot of trouble with the Lutheran church terming the RCC a “heterodox church body.”

?

 

[steido01]

If you want to oppose the teachings of the Church, then you should accept the fact that the Church will oppose you back. This shouldn’t surprise you and you shouldn’t take it personally…You say that the “Pope and his adherents obscure the Gospel” as if it was an absolute cold hard fact, when in actual fact, that statement is based on nothing more or less than Lutheran interpretations of Scripture.

I thought it was clear that I was speaking about the situation from the Lutheran perspective - I didn’t think I needed to spell out what was obviously implied in that sentence and explicitly stated elsewhere in that post. Of course a good Roman Catholic should be expected to believe otherwise! But I also expect that they do not attempt to dictate what they might wrongly think I believe. Please understand that distinction. Our respective Communions respectfully disagree - would that our laities could do the same.

Yes as a matter of fact, the Pope (and I) do oppose Lutheran doctrine, because we believe that it is opposed to the Gospel. If in fact, your statement about us obscuring the Gospel were actually clear to all, the whole world would be Lutheran. Despite Luther’s expectations, it hasn’t worked out that way.

By your logic, oughtn’t the world be Roman? Doesn’t look like Leo X’s expectations were met, either. All the more reason that we require a mutual call to repentance and charitable dialogue that seeks truth, rather than an imposition of beliefs.

First of all, the question has NEVER been whether individual Lutherans or any of the numerous Lutheran denominations consider Catholics to be Christians. The question IS what the F of C MEANT, because whatever it meant then, in 1537, it STILL MEANS.

Precisely. And that’s what we’re trying to tell you, Topper. You are not rightly understanding the FC, and you have no authority to interpret it even if you did understand it correctly. Every Lutheran -ever- disagrees with you. When that happens, you’re probably not in the right regarding Lutheran belief.

First of all Don, you did not properly reference this quote. If you had we would learn that this quote is from an entirely different context than what Melanchthon wrote as the text of the F of C. Please cite the actual reference.

I think you should know that your Melanchthon quote was (I am 99% sure) from a private letter. It was NOT signed by thirty some Lutheran theologians, is NOT part of the F of C and it is only Melanchthon’s personal opinion. Thus is means practically nothing next to the F of C. If you would please post the reference for this quote, I think that the above will be confirmed.

No. You are wrong. You can get away with the snide remarks and polemics, but I will not allow you to blatantly mislead about history and my faith. Melanchthon did not write about his willingness to submit to Rome in some “personal letter.” He wrote it for all to see when he signed the Smalcald Articles in 1537 - had his fellow Lutherans objected to this, they would not have allowed him to do so. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (written by Melanchthon’s own hand!) is, essentially, an appendix to the Smalcald Articles, also signed by those same Lutheran authorities at the Smalcaldic League in 1537. It is included in the Concordia which lays upon my desk. You can read Melanchthon’s subscription here: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03p.html Topper, you can disagree all you want with what we teach, and I will respect you for steadfastness. But these incorrect statements (which demonstrate either an incomplete understanding of Lutheranism or an intentional mischaracterization of it) need to stop. We Lutherans here don’t wrongly accuse RC’s of being “Mary-worshipers” or other silly things, so why not return the courtesy?

First of all Don, I find it ironic that you would presume to judge my heart and I do not think it a coincidence that Luther also judged his opponents harshly:

I did not judge you; I forgive you.

Your fellow brother in Christ,

 

[JonNC]

Hmmm … You agree, then, with

?

Well, no, Peter, or at least not yet, and I think not to the degree that we used to see it was. I suspect the reverse being true, as well.
We disagree on some stuff, some of it important stuff. And for centuries, it seems it was these differences that drove the relationship. Two things have changed ISTM. 1) the recognition that we may not be so different after all, and the Spirit can guide us even closer together 2) modern secular society is putting is in a position where, to borrow the phrase, we must hang together so we do not hang separately.
So now, at least at the leadership level, the relationship is driven more by what we have in common.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Hmmm … You agree, then, with

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn’t too sure, from your previous post.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, Topper. Insofar as the Pope and his adherents obscure the Gospel with added dogmas not based in Holy Scripture, he is antiChrist because he is acting anti-to-Christ. Just as when I kiss my wife, I am her husband. Why is this so hard to understand? You see that by the Lutheran definition of antiChrist, it is not limited to the Pope - even Lutherans can act anti-to-Christ! This is why we must remain particularly vigilant against poor catechesis and mischaracterizations by those who do not understand what we believe.

Don,

Major presupposition on the bold above.

1. Why are dogmas supposed to be based on Scripture?
2. Who determines what dogmas are consistent with Holy Scripture?

What is the limit (if any) of “whatever you bind on earth is bound on heaven, and whatever you lose on earth is loosed on heaven”?

The concept of basing “whatever” on Scriptures did not start until the 1,500’s. I’ll leave history as the witness of what that has done.

The Smalcald articles are not authoritative to me any more than the CCC is authoritative to you.

However, I am responsible to explain to you things you don’t understand about the CCC just like you are for the Articles.

Have you read Unam Sancta by Pope Boniface VIII? Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

It has some things hard to understand which have been clarified throughout history and more recently in Dominus Iesus.

Where is the “official” document from the LCMS expanding on the Smalcald Articles?

 

[Goya]

Which does not mean the person of the pope, the individual who is the Bishop of Rome. Pope Francis is not** the **antichrist.

Jon

Well golly gee, that just makes it all better now, doesn’t it?

Why Pope Francis isn’t himself, the Antichrist…he’s just occupying the Office of Antichrist…and as Pope Benedict is no longer the occupant of that office, why he is now "Antichrist Emeritus".

Sure, that makes it all just hunky dory and peachy keen…

Silly, ignorant posters on here…daring to make up such inflammatory stuff up about how the LCMS views Catholicism…and daring to conflate what this one Pastor says of Catholicism, with …

…wait…never mind…

Looks like the truth is actually even worse.

 

[pablope]

Agreed. And the intent of ecumenism is to dialogue and reach the point where we confess, together, one Truth. This will not happen if one side or the other takes the position that they have the superior belief, and therefore the only solution is the other sides submission. That approach failed for 450 between our communions.

There are numerous examples of convergence of belief between our communions over the last 50 years that indicates that this can happen, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

Jon…I do not think it is a matter of “superior belief”…but one of the right or apostolic belief.

On submission, one way or another, there has to be an acknowledgement of authority…when one accepts this authority…how would you describe it aside from it being a form of “submission”?

I was just watching a movie on TBN a few weeks ago, about the life of Jeremiah…and in it, he continues to exhort the king of israel to accept or submit to the Babylonian or Assyrian( I forgot the empire that is conquering Israel at that time)…but for course, the king refused and got his eyes plucked out.

 

[Goya]

No, the official position of the LCMS is that the Papacy is the antichrist. Actually, it refers to the “pope” and not just the papacy. “Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.””

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Thanks for clarity. Sadly, so many ppl. try to downplay the actual doctrines held by many protestant churches–or pretend they don’t exist (I guess). The Catholic Church has actually softened her actual views on protestantism–especially post Vat. II–and in return, she has been treated with…[mostly] lip service.

 

[Goya]

From the link posted by SPH1, that it may not be lost by so much diversionary tactics by our well-meaning Lutheran disciples, who would have so many on here intentionally deceived as to what the Lutheran church–Martin Luther’s Church–actually maintains, vis a vis the papacy, here it is, Cut & Pated:

Of the Antichrist

***As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures ***concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, ***have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome*** and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; ***that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ***, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines ***till God revealed him through the Reformation*** -- these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) ***Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist."*** (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Just…wow…

Kindly spare us your righteous indignation about your precious LCMS being ‘mis-characterized’, when its own actual characterization of its own views, serves as a more scathing indictment, and more uncharitable proclamation, than the most mal-intended of ‘caricatures.’

 

[steido01]

Major presupposition on the bold above.

I was speaking from the Lutheran perspective. Clarified above; this is a truth to Lutherans, not to Roman Catholics. The reasons we Lutherans think this is manifest in our Confessions.

The Smalcald articles are not authoritative to me any more than the CCC is authoritative to you.

However, I am responsible to explain to you things you don’t understand about the CCC just like you are for the Articles.

Of course. Thank you, Jose. I appreciate your willingness to teach me when/if I should ever misconstrue Roman doctrine (I don’t think I have on this thread). I hope I prove receptive to your explanations.

Have you read Unam Sancta by Pope Boniface VIII? Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

It has some things hard to understand which have been clarified throughout history and more recently in Dominus Iesus.

Where is the “official” document from the LCMS expanding on the Smalcald Articles?

I am familiar with those documents, and although I have not studied them at particularly great length, Unam Sancta seems difficult -at face value- to reconcile with Roman Catholicism’s more recent teachings – but I take my Roman Catholic friends’ word for it when they explain that it doesn’t necessarily mean what it initially appears to mean (either by my misunderstanding of it or by ‘Development of Doctrine’). If this was the point you were making, Jose, I agree. The difference between us, however, is that Rome allows for the ‘Development of Doctrine,’ whereas Wittenberg simply holds to the Confessions as the “bare-bones basic” starting block while acknowledging that circumstances can change (convergence, then, becomes a possibility! ). An example of this can be seen in the second reason the Treatise gives for rejecting Papal Supremacy: The Papal Office no longer claims to wield both swords, at least in the way it did in Unam Sancta, so one of the charges we hold against the Papal Office is already moot.

 

[betsybug354]

From the link posted by SPH1, that it may not be lost by so much diversionary tactics by our well-meaning Lutheran disciples, who would have so many on here intentionally deceived as to what the Lutheran church–Martin Luther’s Church–actually maintains, vis a vis the papacy, here it is, Cut & Pated:

lcms.org/doctrine/doctrinalposition#antichrist

Just…wow…

Kindly spare us your righteous indignation about your precious LCMS being ‘mis-characterized’, when its own actual characterization of its own views, serves as a more scathing indictment, and more uncharitable proclamation, than the most mal-intended of ‘caricatures.’

Goya, it was this kind of stuff that caused me to sit down a while back and take a very hard look at why I was a Protestant and not a Catholic. (I have been a lifelong Protestant up to now, BTW.) I read about the Reformation from both sides, including information about Martin Luther, the man. I read the Augsburg Confession, and then I studied the claims of the Catholic Church. I finally came to the conclusion that I am… Catholic.

 

[Goya]

Continued…

Yes, Topper. Let’s look at what Melanchthon wrote when he signed his name to that document:

Quote:
Concerning the pope I maintain that if he would allow the gospel, we, too, may (for the sake of peace and general unity among those Christians who are now under him and might be in the future) grant to him his superiority over the bishops which he has “by human right.”

…

Was that supposed to help anything? “…IF" the pope would allow the Gospel.…”???

IOW, the Pope doesn’t follow the Gospel. In fact, the Pope does not even ALLOW the Gospel.

…and yet you accused Topper of being offensive.

Seems to me Melanchthon, Luther, et. al., laid down plenty of foundation for being offensive, and when the contemporary Lutheran subscribes to their antiquated (yet still extremely offensive) declarations, they seem to think that extrinsic spin of what was actually said, and what IS actually written, somehow makes it any of it, any less offensive.

Sorry sir, but politics and Truth, simply do not mix.

You may not personally hold this position, but stop trying to pretend (and worse still, deceive others into believing) that the LCMS does not hold thusly.

 

[Goya]

BTW, in case it was lost on anyone–from the cut and pasted quote above (ref. post at top of page, in turn/originally from SPH1’s link), please note the significance of the claim made within that quote:

Of the Antichrist

"…and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation – these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. …

Did you catch that? “…God revealed…through the Reformation…”

And what basis is there, other than their very own convenience, to base this blasphemous claim–that GOD REVEALED anything to anyone, through the reformation???

What is the source of this alleged Divine Revelation??? What Prophet…what express prophecy…what Angel…what manifestation of the Holy Spirit…what undeniably divine source can the Protestant site, to bolster this claim???

Nothing.

Just a grotesquely unfounded, bald faced lie, to take liberties with the Will of God, to justify their own church, to compete with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ Himself actually founded, upon the Apostles that He actually selected, which can actually trace its roots back to the Pentecost, and the Apostles.