No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Topper17]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

I’d be careful with this line of argument. Before the dogmatic definitions of the later middle ages, lots of people you would recognise as orthodox Catholics held to a different numbering of the sacraments. St. John Damascene, if I remember correctly, spoke of only two!

I noticed that rather than engaging with my overall argument, you chose to pick out a very small detail to discuss.

Since you have mentioned St. John Damascene as having numbered the Sacraments at two, should I presume that you personally number them as two. Since you look to the past for some level of validation of your position, would it be safe to presume that you would give equal credence to those who offer a different number? Are you suggesting that St. John Damascene had a ‘better handle’ on the number of Sacraments than the other Fathers?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that anybody who wants to need only find some Father who picked a number that they like, and THEN use that Father (probably taken out of context) to justify the number that they personally “like”. It would seem that if this is the means by which people establish the ‘correct’ number of Sacraments (or anything else), then there could be NO END to the disagreements among Christians, which is by the way pretty much what we have now.

All this being said, my point was that, at the time of Luther, the Church had settled the issue of the number of Sacraments. The basic question has to do with the ‘authority’ of Luther to singlehandedly refute and condemn more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Church. Do you have some explanation other than his being ‘authorized’ by something OTHER than his Private Interpretation?

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hi GG,

Thanks for your response.

I think the story of Luther’s debate with John Eck at Leipzig in 1519 worth summarizing.

Luther and John Eck debated for almost a week. At the conclusion, virtually everyone agreed that Luther had been defeated by Eck. The interesting thing as it relates to our current discussion is WHY.

It wasn’t because Eck was a greater intellect than Luther, although he was. It wasn’t because Eck was a better debater than Luther, although he was. It wasn’t because Eck had a better reputation as a Scholar than Luther, although he did. Eck schooled Luther at Leipzig because the ‘knowledge’ of the facts that Luther brought to Leipzig was faulty. In other words, he didn’t have his facts straight on several key issues, which led him to misunderstand the role of ‘Authority’ in the historic Church.

If you need confirmation that Luther was defeated at Leipzig all you have to do is ask yourself how much you know about it. Honestly, if there was ANY way that Protestantism could possibly represent Luther as having won, you would know ALL about it, from the Protestant ‘perspective’ of course. But since he lost what was probably the most important debate in Christian history, you are probably like the vast majority of Protestants and have never heard of it.

In fact, this debate, contains the rough outline of all of the basic disputes that we still have to this day.

The lesson here is that when you begin with a misunderstanding of the facts, you are likely to come to the wrong conclusions.

God Bless You GG, Topper

That’s interesting Topper! Where could we get more info on this debate?

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response.

I noticed that rather than engaging with my overall argument, you chose to pick out a very small detail to discuss.

Well, it was your most interesting error I jest. You weren’t arguing with me, and I’m not a Lutheran, so I didn’t feel the need to respond to the whole thing. But I did think it was worth offering that little bit of information.

Since you have mentioned St. John Damascene as having numbered the Sacraments at two, should I presume that you personally number them as two.

I can do, but I don’t think the numbering needs to be particularly dogmatized. Depending on definition, I’m willing to speak of two, three, seven or more. In this I think I’m reasonably consistent with the ancient Fathers, and with the doctrine of the English Church.

Since you look to the past for some level of validation of your position, would it be safe to presume that you would give equal credence to those who offer a different number? Are you suggesting that St. John Damascene had a ‘better handle’ on the number of Sacraments than the other Fathers?

Depending on definitions. In terms of general sacramental mysteries, I think we can speak of seven, and perhaps more. In terms of sacramental rites present in the apostolic Church, seven seems a good number. In terms of sacraments clearly instituted by Our Lord himself in the Gospels as generally necessary to salvation, then two (or possibly three).

Furthermore, are you suggesting that anybody who wants to need only find some Father who picked a number that they like, and THEN use that Father (probably taken out of context) to justify the number that they personally “like”. It would seem that if this is the means by which people establish the ‘correct’ number of Sacraments (or anything else), then there could be NO END to the disagreements among Christians, which is by the way pretty much what we have now.

To be honest, I think it’d show that any theology of the sacraments (Roman or Protestant) which makes the number thereof its primary criterion of orthodoxy is bound to end up looking rather odd.

All this being said, my point was that, at the time of Luther, the Church had settled the issue of the number of Sacraments. The basic question has to do with the ‘authority’ of Luther to singlehandedly refute and condemn more than 4 dozen important doctrines of the Church. Do you have some explanation other than his being ‘authorized’ by something OTHER than his Private Interpretation?

That depends what you mean by private interpretation. John Eck exercised his own private interpretation in submitting to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church…

I’m interested that you consistently capitalise the words ‘private interpretation’. I presume you have some particular definition of that concept which you’re consistently referring to. What is it? Is it your own, or one you take to be Luther’s?

All the best,

N.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Novocastrian:

That depends what you mean by private interpretation. John Eck exercised his own private interpretation in submitting to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church…

I’m interested that you consistently capitalise the words ‘private interpretation’. I presume you have some particular definition of that concept which you’re consistently referring to. What is it? Is it your own, or one you take to be Luther’s?

Good point. Private judgement is exercised by all, even Catholics, in many areas. However when applied to Scripture Interpretation, it takes on the Protestant meaning. IOW, all Protestants have a right, nay a duty, to interpret Scripture for themselves, according to their own private judgement. This is important because the Protestant must always evaluate the teachings of his own and every other church based on this. It is a fundamental principle with Protestants.

Even Anglicans are bound by private judgement in their interpretation of Scriptures. Will they ask Queen Elizabeth to decide for them? or Parliament? or the current Archbishop of Canterbury? Some historic Anglican Divine? Some Church father? who? There is no consensus in Doctrine from the reign of Edward VI till now to rely on. What else can an Anglican do?

 

[Erich]

We can only pray that from the top down they come to see the superior authority of scripture that shapes doctrine.

What about doctrine that was shaped before scripture was canonized? And what about strongly-held Christian beliefs that are not attested (or very weakly attested) in the Bible?

 

[pablope]

W

We believe it to be no consequence that people reckon the numbering differently. It is of little importance to us that you number seven. Prayer could be numbered as a sacrament - a rite instituted by God, to which a promise of grace is attached. And scripture reading.

The authority to number differently, and yet we maintain all of the rites, is sufficient for us, and consistent with the Fathers, who also were not uniform in their numbering.

Jon

Hmmm…but those ECFs did not pronounce the doctrine themselves…they deferred to the Church.

And if the Church, from early one, both East and West…definitely defined them as 7…so why do you then question their numbering?

I thought you value Tradition…as a guide plus Scripture…so here, in choosing to alter or leave it to someone to define them as one sees fit…then you are going against the Traditions of both East and West?

Are then forging your own path in disregarding this 2000 yr tradition?

 

[Topper17]

That’s interesting Topper! Where could we get more info on this debate?

It’s quite an involved story, but is very telling in regards to the foundation upon which Protestantism is built. A lot of people think that Luther’s Revolt begun with the 95 Theses, but it was really the Leipzig Debate (July 1519) that set him off on a course that made it impossible to reconcile with the Church. Eck forced Luther to extrapolate from his already suspect doctrinal beliefs, to their ‘logical’ conclusion, such that at the end of the debate, even Luther recognized, finally, that his beliefs were seriously outside of what was considered to be acceptable Catholic teaching.

As I mentioned earlier, this debate is not at all well reported by Protestantism, especially the older Lutheran biographies of Luther, some of which don’t even mention it at all. Within the last 50 years or so though, there has been a greater propensity to more honestly depict this event. What is important to understand is how much the Leipzig Debate influenced Luther’s beliefs, his ‘slide’ from Catholicism, and how important an event it was in setting the course for the Reformation. As we know, Luther did not deal ‘well’ with opposition, let alone defeat. The drubbing that Eck handed him at Leipzig only made him double down and made him that much more invested in bringing down the Church.

This debate was conducted something like a medieval Super Bowl, with the Who’s Who of Europe in attendance. Eck’s debate on the Primacy of the Pope alone lasted for 5 days. The details of the debate paint a picture of a rash young theologian (although Eck was actually younger), who would not be corrected. He brought with him several key misunderstandings in regards to the history of the Church.

Of course Eck and Luther disagreed on the interpretation of various passages involving Authority, but the key is that Luther based his interpretation of those passages on several key misunderstandings in regards to the history of the Church that he had brought with him to the debate. Protestant Scholars have had no choice but to admit to his errors on the facts. What is key is the fact that is was on these errors in actual history that Luther developed his opinions of the papacy as being the Anti-Christ, in addition of course to his recognition that the Church was not going to buy into Salvation by Faith Alone.

The thing about the facts about Leipzig is that they show Luther to be shockingly arrogant and surprisingly unprepared, even though he had been preparing for the debate that he wanted so badly for 6 months.

A few quotes indicating the importance of this little known debate:

“Leipzig is rightly regarded as a major moment in Luther’s life and in the Reformation. Now it was a matter of public record that he stood in radical opposition to the received doctrines of the Catholic Church, or at least to the power of the institution of the church as it was incorporated tin the bishops, the mendicant orders, and the pope. It would be hard indeed to imagine that after Leipzig the centers of power in the church could have considered Luther as anything but an enemy. But it is not certain that Leipzig represents anything but a working out of ideas already germinating in his early lectures on Scripture. Leipzig made explicit some of the content of the silences in those lectures. We may also say that it was the prototype of all the debates and polemics of Catholics and Protestants through the rest of the Reformation and for centuries afterward until recent times, when a happier, ecumenical spirit has prevailed. Luther was a benchmark. It failed on both sides because both men hardened positions already taken.” Marius, pg. 182-3

“After this Leipzig Disputation Luther found out his true religious position in a way that he had never previously done.” T. M. Lindsay DD, “Luther and the German Reformation”, pg. 89

“The Leipzig Disputation, as it is called, is one of the most important episodes in the history of the Reformation. It brought the two German champions face to face. Eck so forced the discussion that it became plain that Luther s Augustinian theology led him much further than he had at first believed, and really involved much more than a protest against some prominent abuses in the mediaeval Church.” Lindsay, pg. 81-2

“The significance of the Leipzig Debate for Luther’s own development it is impossible to exaggerate. It meant the final parting of the ways. It showed him clearly where he stood and emancipated him once and for all from the delusion that he was in harmony with the papal Church and could remain permanently within it.” Citstonau, pg. 142

To be continued

 

[Topper17]

Part 2

Eck of course charged Luther with the heresy of Private Interpretation:

“He charged Luther with the typical attitude of the Bohemian schematics (Hussites) toward the Scriptures. They, too, had claimed to better understand the Bible better than the Pope, the councils, and all the doctors of the universities, even though the Holy Spirit guided these authorities of the Christian Church. Luther’s position, he charged, swept away all authority of councils, popes, and juristic faculties, and, in fact, made the whole of Canon Law worthless.” Lutheran Professor of History E. G. Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 409

At Leipzig, Eck called Luther a “Hussite”. Luther, extremely offended, called him a ‘liar’, thereby setting an extremely low bar for the Lutheran charge of dishonesty. Six months later, Luther finally recognized what everyone else had understood at Leipzig if not earlier, which was that he really WAS a “Hussite” “We are all Hussites” he said, meaning of course the people who agreed with him.

Prior to Leipzig, Luther was told by at least 2 dozen (better) Theologians that his beliefs were NOT Catholic. He continued to insist that THEY were ALL wrong and that HE was the one who was correctly teaching what the Church had always taught. He was THAT arrogant and clueless.

Most importantly, the Leipzig debate demonstrates how utterly unprepared Luther was to launch off into a “Reformation” of anything, much less the Church that Christ founded for us all to be able to know His Absolute Truth.

With all that being said, if you are looking for things to read about this extremely revealing debate, I would make a few suggestions. Although the Leipzig Debate is dealt with by several dozen Scholars, there are only a few which deal with it in a comprehensive manner.

Richard Marius, a Protestant wrote a primarily secular biography, but I consider it to be the most readable and the most fair. “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”. The chapter on the Leipzig Debate is more than 20 pages.

Lutheran Professor Schweibert’s “Luther and His Times”, is a fact filled tome and a half. The chapter on Leipzig is almost 50 fact filled pages and as usual, it is the details which provide the compelling evidence.

Naturally, there is very little in Luther’s Works about the Leipzig Debate. What little there is is in Volume 31.

Lutheran Scholar W. H. T. Dau wrote the only chronicle of the Debate that I know of that is available in English. “The Leipzig Debate of 1519”. It is 250 page long so it contains only a small portion of the 7 day long debate between Luther and Eck, but that is enough to learn how poorly prepared Luther was to debate someone of Eck’s skill, knowledge and mental abilities. More importantly it shows how Luther was in no position to challenge the Church, and that at the time he, in essence, broke with the Church, he didn’t have a clue what he was doing and didn’t have any idea what he was going to substitute for the things that he was rejecting.

Several other Scholars have done a decent job on Leipzig; Bainton, Cistonau, D’Aubigne, Fife, Grisar, Holborn, Kittleson, McGiffert, Oberman, Pelikan (in three different books), Rivington, Schaff, Preserved Smith, and Wreidt. Of course there is also a lot of information in Luther’s letters.

The Leipzig Debate reveals the foundation of Protestantism as being on extremely shaky ground – with that ground being named Luther.

That’s probably a whole lot more than what you wanted to know Am, but then that is only a small fraction of what there is to know on the subject. I realize how ‘wonky’ Leipzig is, but I think that is one of the best ‘weapons’ that we Catholics have to show how poorly the Reformation began and how much better the Catholic arguments of the time were than what Luther used against the Church. When the facts are revealed, it is no wonder that Protestantism doesn’t exactly ‘brag’ about Leipzig. If you have any specific question about Leipzig, please let me know.

God Bless You Am, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hmmm…but those ECFs did not pronounce the doctrine themselves…they deferred to the Church.

And if the Church, from early one, both East and West…definitely defined them as 7…so why do you then question their numbering?

I thought you value Tradition…as a guide plus Scripture…so here, in choosing to alter or leave it to someone to define them as one sees fit…then you are going against the Traditions of both East and West?

Are then forging your own path in disregarding this 2000 yr tradition?

I do value Tradition, and part of that Tradition is looking at the teachings of the Fathers. But as the Apology says, we believe it to be no consequence that people reckon the numbering differently. So too, I believe it not to be Church dividing. It is something that can be reconciled.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Hmmm…but those ECFs did not pronounce the doctrine themselves…they deferred to the Church.

And if the Church, **from early one, ****both East **and West…definitely defined them as 7…so why do you then question their numbering?

I thought you value Tradition…as a guide plus Scripture…so here, in choosing to alter or leave it to someone to define them as one sees fit…then you are going against the Traditions of both East and West?

Are then forging your own path in disregarding this 2000 yr tradition?

I’m not sure that this is the case.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Topper17:

That’s probably a whole lot more than what you wanted to know Am, but then that is only a small fraction of what there is to know on the subject. I realize how ‘wonky’ Leipzig is, but I think that is one of the best ‘weapons’ that we Catholics have to show how poorly the Reformation began and how much better the Catholic arguments of the time were than what Luther used against the Church.

Thanks Topper! I appreciate all of the book references. It is certainly a good thing to have a good historical perspective on such things.

It would also be interesting to see how Eck countered Luther in these debates, since, apparently, this debate has never really ended! I will have to look into your reading list.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11826553]Hi Jon,

After that I am going to pick and choose the parts of our dialogue that are the most important. I have little time and there is much that needs to be said. You can have the last word if you like in this phase, but I am going to try to keep our dialogue out of the weeds.

I will try to find, then, the middle between being too brief, as concerned you earlier, and being to wordy.

If we follow this ‘logic’, nobody would be able to speak to the trends within Protestantism as a whole. …
What I find fascinating is that so many ‘Protestants’ prefer to be thought of as being ‘set aside’, as opposed to ‘those Protestants’, whom they generally look down upon, at least doctrinally, whether they admit it or not.

Exactly, no one theologian can speak doctrinally for various different communions. It depends, however, on what you mean by “trends”.
As for Lutherans, we, in the true sense of the term, were the first “protestants”, protesting at the Second Diet of Speyer, against government restriction on religious exercise, something Catholics have been forced into the position of joining in the US these last few years. But you yourself, more than once, have “set us apart” by your comment that you, as I recall, appreciate Lutherans because we are, again as I recall your word, “dogmatic”.

Already this reminds me of the discussion about Luther downgrading the 4 NT books into a category which is not to be used to determine doctrine. …

Topper, read what the Apology says. The one sacrament that Luther did not like was Confirmation, and Lutherans have continued to practice it ever since. The numbering is that that big an issue for us. We don’t condemn the Catholic numbering.

You can claim that you ‘practice‘ these 4 in some manner so ‘its all good’, but there is absolutely NO doubt that Luther and Lutherans have reduced the 4 to a lesser significance. …

Actually, it is all good. I have received much blessing, and I would say grace from my marriage, my confirmation, and the blessings of word and sacrament from the various pastors I have known through my life. I would say it has been very good.

That may be true, but it was Luther who set the precedent for using his Private Interpretation to establish whatever number of Sacraments ‘feels good’. As such it is Luther who is to answer for the plethora of different combinations and definitions of Sacraments.

First, it had nothing to do with what “feels good”. That’s the kind of comment that makes it difficult to not question your intentions.
This is the “lemming doctrine”. The doctrine that all the other reformers from other traditions then and since were unthinking lemmings who decided to follow Luther, but not really. Calvin speaks for Calvin, Zwingli for Zwingli, the Anabaptists for the Anabaptists. To say otherwise is calls into their free will.

Jon, you can impugn my motives or my tactics in whatever manner suits your purposes. What you seem not to be able to understand though is that I might not be as interested in discussing what you want to discuss as you are.

If you assume I am impugning your motives, I apologize. I hoped that use of the word seems, and appears would reveal that what I said were my perceptions of what you say. If I am wrong about it, again, I apologize.

You seem to automatically assume that I want to discuss the intricacies of the Lutheran Confessions. …

Here is the point. If you want to discuss Lutheran Catholic differences and convergences, Lutherans have to discuss the CCC, and Catholics have to discuss the BoC. Otherwise, it isn’t a discussion worth having. The only people that I regularly run into that say they won’t discuss our confessions are the Bible - only folks that say they use not creed nor confession. So, again, it isn’t a matter of whether or not you want to discuss the Confessions, its a matter that you have to if you want to dialogue with Lutherans.

BTW, I noticed that you did not step up and post the Ratzinger quote about how the Augsburg Confession is ‘Catholic’. That confirms my suspicions.

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/02/roman-catholics-and-confessional-lutherans-explore-deeper-ties

You might want to read the whole article.

Jon

 

[GraceofGod31]

What about doctrine that was shaped before scripture was canonized? And what about strongly-held Christian beliefs that are not attested (or very weakly attested) in the Bible?

Again doctrine that was formulated before Scripture was Canonized is still found in Scripture. And for the other let’s take Mary’s Virginity, strongly held by Catholics and many other Christians but not attested to or denied in Scripture. However if I do not hold that to be truth, will I be denied salvation? Scripture teaches God to be Triune, if I deny that is that not very damaging?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11826555]Jon, Catholics ‘get a say’ about what is ‘anti-Catholic’ and what is not. It’s like Jews having a say as to whether Luther’s horrific writings against them are anti-Semitic. If the Confessions calling the Pope (NOT the office) the anti-Christ, plus all of the stuff about the ‘adherents’, the Mass, etc, etc. – are NOT ‘anti-Catholic’, then you tell me, what possibly could be?

Nonsense.

Please help me to understand this because I really want to understand your position here. Are you saying that you think that the Catholic Church would, could, or SHOULD accept the LCMS into full communion with Rome WITHOUT all of those anti-Catholic (yes, Anti-Catholic) statements in your Confessions? And are you really suggesting that what – that the Catholic Church should accept the LCMS into full communion with the expectation that AFTER that full communion the LCMS would jettison those offensive passages? Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church would, could or SHOULD trust, your leadership, people like Preus, to ‘do the right thing’ after full communion has been achieved?

And your polemics have been offensively anti-Lutheran, as well. And some of the condemnations from the CC were back then, too. That said, I would expect a logical progression. Dialogue, which has been ongoing, convergence on doctrine, with the help of the Spirit, and reconciliation, whereby the mutual condemnations would be expunged. Now, that seems the logical progression.

In the same manner as the discussion about those 4 downgraded NT books, I don’t think there is a compelling argument for why, specifically and exactly, Lutherans have decided to lock in on the 3 you ended up with. This is of course knowing that not all Lutherans have the same set of Sacraments. Any explanation that you could offer could also be used by people to justify their own unique list of Sacraments or non-Sacraments. Again, Luther set that precedent and it is being used to come up with conclusions with which Lutherans disagree.

You seem to have had your mind made up, so I don’t know why I waste my time, but, as the Confessions say, the numbering isn’t important. Some Lutherans consider Absolution an extension of the sacrament of Baptism. It isn’t Church dividing for us, because the numbering has no bearing on grace.

I often have a problem obtaining answers to the questions that I have actually asked,

No, Topper, you seem to mostly have a problem with accepting the answers you receive.
You have your mind made up, best of luck, and his peace.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It’s quite an involved story, but is very telling in regards to the foundation upon which Protestantism is built. A lot of people think that Luther’s Revolt begun with the 95 Theses, but it was really the Leipzig Debate (July 1519) that set him off on a course that made it impossible to reconcile with the Church. Eck forced Luther to extrapolate from his already suspect doctrinal beliefs, to their ‘logical’ conclusion, such that at the end of the debate, even Luther recognized, finally, that his beliefs were seriously outside of what was considered to be acceptable Catholic teaching.

You know, Topper, how virulently anti-Jewish Eck was, correct? This isn’t particularly alluded to in New Advent, but it is true.

It really doesn’t matter, quite frankly, but mentioning it is precisely the kind of polemic one finds in your posts on a regular basis.

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t think you’ll find that Scripture “teaches” God to be Triune. You may find allusions and oblique references TO that teaching, but NOT the teaching itself. Many core teachings of Christianity are not “taught” in Scripture, but rather allusions TO the teaching ARE found.

If something as profound and basic as the Incarnation is NOT found specifically “taught” in Scripture (hence Jehovah Witnesses and other Arian Protestant churches,) then how can you claim so many other things are “taught” in Scripture? Is it not more likely a biased reading of Scripture that sees “teaching” with respect to some of these doctrines? IOW, Lutherans are Trinitarian, and therefore “find” the Scripture “teaching” the Trinity. If Protestants could just be purely objective about the Scripture, they would come to find that very little of what we consider foundational Christianity is explicitly taught in Scripture. But it is EXTREMELY difficult to read the scripture with a purely objective eye. Meaning not inferring from oblique and vague allusions “teachings” that really are not there. Instead, seeing them as allusions and oblique references to teachings outside of Scripture. Teachings of the Church. Is that uncomfortable for Protestants?

There IS a simple explanation for this startling fact. It is that Scripture was NEVER intended to be read outside the context of the teaching Church. It was written as a proof and verification of what the Church was ALREADY teaching (called Tradition by Catholics.)

 

[Topper17]

Hi Nov,

Thanks for your response.

Well, it was your most interesting error I jest. You weren’t arguing with me, and I’m not a Lutheran, so I didn’t feel the need to respond to the whole thing. But I did think it was worth offering that little bit of information.

I appreciate your perspective and the information you posted.

I can do, but I don’t think the numbering needs to be particularly dogmatized. Depending on definition, I’m willing to speak of two, three, seven or more. In this I think I’m reasonably consistent with the ancient Fathers, and with the doctrine of the English Church.

Depending on definitions. In terms of general sacramental mysteries, I think we can speak of seven, and perhaps more. In terms of sacramental rites present in the apostolic Church, seven seems a good number. In terms of sacraments clearly instituted by Our Lord himself in the Gospels as generally necessary to salvation, then two (or possibly three).

This I think points out the problem. It appears that you would support individual freedom to the extent that anyone or any group could establish their own definition of a Sacrament and then whatever number they ‘feel’ is appropriate, and THEN appeal to some particular ancient Father as their justification. That is not the way to achieve the unity of faith to which we are commanded. That is WAY to subjective and could only lead to doctrinal division, which would be ok of course, IF you deciede that all of that ‘doctrinal stuff’ is ‘non-essential’. My guess is that you don’t feel that way.

To be honest, I think it’d show that any theology of the sacraments (Roman or Protestant) which makes the number thereof its primary criterion of orthodoxy is bound to end up looking rather odd.

Certainly it would look ‘odd’ to those who have reduced the number of Sacraments down to only a few, and the faith down to an ever diminishing number of ‘essentials’. That is exactly what Tillich was warning about. To those who consider ALL of the teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture to be important, it would not look so ‘odd’ to think that the number of Sacraments is important.

That depends what you mean by private interpretation. John Eck exercised his own private interpretation in submitting to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Church…

I’m interested that you consistently capitalise the words ‘private interpretation’. I presume you have some particular definition of that concept which you’re consistently referring to. What is it? Is it your own, or one you take to be Luther’s?

Private Interpretation is one of the founding doctrines of Protestantism. It is this fundamental Protestant teaching which allows, and even demands, the creation of an uncountable number of competing and conflicting doctrinally independent denominations. John Eck was 100% opposed to Private Interpretation in the manner in which I am using the term.

“Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that the uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become a part of the spiritual equipment of humankind.” Marius, pg. 186 (in reference to the Leipzig Debate)

Luther was warned that reliance on Private Interpretation was going to cause doctrinal division. His response was something along the lines of ‘Balderdash’. Of course, it has been proven that he was exceptionally wrong on the matter. The Private Interpretation that he unleashed on Western Christendom has in fact resulted in massive doctrinal confusion, and doctrinal uncertainty.

At one point in the Leipzig Debate, Eck commented about Luther’s reliance upon his own “abilities” as opposed to giving some credence to those who had come before him.

“I am astonished at the humility and modesty with which the reverend doctor undertakes single-handed to combat so many distinguished Fathers, and to know better than sovereign pontiffs, councils, doctors, and universities. It would certainly be astonishing that God should have concealed the truth from so many saints and martyrs and not revealed it until the advent of the reverend father!”, Rivington, “The Story of Luther’s Life”, pg. 224

At the beginning of the Debate, Eck pronounced himself to be loyal to the Pope, Luther to no one. Eck didn’t charge off Willy Nilly using his own Private Interpretation and create a brand new radical version of Christianity, and so we don’t have to scrutinize him as closely as we do Luther. Furthermore, rather than establishing several dozen radical doctrines, Eck simply defended the Catholic Faith.

We all rely on our Private interpretation to some extent, and up to a point, it does not constitute a threat to Christian unity. When the use of Private Interpretation (in the Martin Lutheran sense) becomes an overt challenge to valid authority and established Doctrine, then it becomes a much more serious matter.

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[Erich]

And for the other let’s take Mary’s Virginity, strongly held by Catholics and many other Christians but not attested to or denied in Scripture.

Actually, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – closely tied to the belief that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant – is attested to in Scripture. This link has a good explanation.

And, those who deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity typically hang their hat on verses such as Matthew 13:55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”) and/or Mark 6:2-3 (“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”). These are the only named brothers of Jesus in Scripture… but Scripture also clearly shows that none of these “brothers of Jesus” are children of Mary and Joseph!

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Topper17]

If it is possible for anyone who has been reading along to believe that possibly the LCMS does not consider the Pope to be the antichrist, this post should dispel that notion. The following is directly from the LCMS website.

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod

Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

Of the Church

1. We believe that there is one holy Christian Church on earth, the Head of which is Christ and which is gathered, preserved, and governed by Christ through the Gospel.

The members of the Christian Church are the Christians, that is, all those who have despaired of their own righteousness before God and believe that God forgives their sins for Christ’s sake. The Christian Church, in the proper sense of the term, is composed of believers only, Acts 5:14; 26:18; which means that no person in whom the Holy Ghost has wrought faith in the Gospel, or – which is the same thing – in the doctrine of justification, can be divested of his membership in the Christian Church; and, on the other hand, that no person in whose heart this faith does not dwell can be invested with such membership. All unbelievers, though they be in external communion with the Church and even hold the office of teacher or any other office in the Church, are not members of the Church, but, on the contrary, dwelling-places and instruments of Satan, Eph. 2:2. This is also the teaching of our Lutheran Confessions: “It is certain, however, that the wicked are in the power of the devil and members of the kingdom of the devil, as Paul teaches, Eph. 2:2, when he says that `the devil now worketh in the children of disobedience,”’ etc. (Apology, Triglot, p. 231, Paragraph 16; M., p. 154.)

1. Since it is by faith in the gospel alone that men become members of the Christian Church, and since this faith cannot be seen by men, but is known to God alone, 1 Kings 8:39; Acts 1:24; 2 Tim. 2:19, therefore the Christian Church on earth is invisible till Judgment Day, Col. 3:3, 4. In our day some Lutherans speak of two sides of the Church, taking the means of grace to be its “visible side.”

Topper: In other words, Christians are people who believe in the ‘Gospel’, which is ‘the doctrine of justification’. AND, ‘Since it is by faith in the gospel alone that men become members of the Christian Church’, it would appear that Catholics who do NOT ascribe to the Lutheran version of Salvation, are apparently NOT members of the Church. I would bet that there is some ‘alternate’ interpretation of these passages which can explain this, with some sort of very non-literal understanding.

Of the Antichrist

1. 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.

Of Open Questions

44.Those questions in the domain of Christian doctrine may be termed open questions which Scripture answers either not at all or not clearly. Since neither an individual nor the Church as a whole is permitted to develop or augment the Christian doctrine, but are rather ordered and commanded by God to continue in the doctrine of the apostles, 2 Thess. 2:15; Acts 2:42, open questions must remain open questions. – Not to be included in the number of open questions are the following: the doctrine of the Church and the Ministry, of Sunday, of Chiliasm, and of Antichrist, these doctrines being clearly defined in Scripture.

Topper: The above statements about who are and who are not members of the Church, AND who is the Antichrist – is not open for debate. Those questions have been dogmatically defined by the LCMS. We should note that there is NO mention of the ‘office’ of the papacy.

Of the Symbols of the Lutheran Church

1. Since the Christian Church cannot make doctrines, but can and should simply profess the doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture, the doctrinal decisions of the symbols are binding upon the conscience not because they are the outcome of doctrinal controversies, but only because they are the doctrinal decisions of Holy Scripture itself.
2. Those desiring to be admitted into the public ministry of the Lutheran Church pledge themselves to teach according to the symbols not “in so far as,” but “because,” the symbols agree with Scripture. He who is unable to accept as Scriptural the doctrine set forth in the Lutheran symbols and their rejection of the corresponding errors must not be admitted into the ministry of the Lutheran Church.

This is what happens when Private Interpretation is utilized on a denomination wide basis. Those ‘others’ are not led by the Holy Spirit and are thus, NOT part of the Christian Church.

I would like to ask the former members of the LCMS if they were aware of how extreme and intolerant this teaching was when you were members.

 

[MaryT777]

Topper.

My good friend I met in a nursing Home was a LCMS Pastor. We discussed this issue
directly when I read it in the Concord book. He had a Master’s in Exegesis from the St Louis Seminary and told me the LCMS teaches the Office of the Papacy IS Anti Christ because the office proclaims the teaching of works righteousness for Justification. He also went on to say ANY POPE who sits in this office as it stand now is an AntiChrist.

He noted that until the teaching of justification changed every pope is the office would be and is an anti Christ.

That said, he was a great preacher and teacher of the Bible (minus the anti Catholic thoughts which are indicative of true LCMS teaching)
and I miss him.

He said.
We are as DIFFERENT as Catholic and Lutheran
but as similar as two BELIEVING Christians.