E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Yes you may be right but Lutherans view the Confessions as the correct interpretation of holy Scripture, right? Maybe Jon can shed some light on this.
- Status
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi marywarfield: I agree that the post should have been directed to those who are not familiar with Church history. all one has to do is read the many secular and religious history out there that all agree that the main reason as to why the CC chained Bibles to the puppet was due to bibles were painstakingly printed by hand so were extremely expensive and even after the start of the printing press books were very expensive. The CC did not want people stealing the Bibles, which many would have done if they were not chained to the puppets of the CC’s in those times.
A
Annie39
Guest
Sorry to post and run I’ll BBL but would you please furnish chapter and verse about the Pope/antichrist idea?
Annie
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your response.
When I see these things being misrepresented or spun past a certain point, I speak, and when I do I almost always have the historic facts at my back.
Thanks for your response.
My apologies Edwin. I had no idea that I was mischaracterizing your opinions. That was not my intent. On the other hand, you could have mentioned that you were joking before now.
Do I have a bias – of course I do, just like everyone else here. The difference between me and many here is that I can verbalize WHY, specifically and exactly, I hold the opinions that I do. I am not at all a ‘fan’ of the man who began the Revolt that ended up with almost 30% of today’s Christianity being separated from the Historic Church. I am not a fan of the man who claimed that the Pope was the anti-Christ and hated Catholics like me. In other words I have very good reasons for opposing Luther and his modern day communions. Biased – Yes – but unfair – not at all. The Truth is neither fair nor unfair, and as I think you would agree, the negative aspects of Luther’s person and career, would NEVER be known without someone bringing it up. Lutheran scholarship has gotten much better in the last few generations, to the point where they honestly discuss those negative aspects. If Lutheran apologists were that intellectually honest, I probably wouldn’t have the focus that I do. What is unfair is the misrepresentation of the man in that it makes him (and Lutehranism) look better than they deserve, and correspondingly, the Catholic Church look worse that it deserves.
When I see these things being misrepresented or spun past a certain point, I speak, and when I do I almost always have the historic facts at my back.
What bothers me is the Protestant (including Lutheran) habit of stating opinions as if they are facts. This is another of Luther’s legacies. You can call my approach misguided. That is your opinion. However, ‘damaging to my soul’. On what authority Edwin could you possibly make that kind of statement? That is ridiculous and extremely presumptuous.I repeat: my problem with your methods is that you seem to think that if you just rub Protestants’ noses in the nasty stuff about their tradition they will see the light. This makes no sense. It’s not only an unpleasant and degrading method, damaging to your own soul and that of those who read you, but it’s pointless. I understand that you are engaging in this misguided approach out of the best motives. But you’re really having trouble engaging with Lutherans in particular (I don’t know what you have against Lutherans:shrugin a respectful and substantive way. You keep looking for “Gotcha!” moments.
I don’t deny it’s importance. It might end up providing a way forward, but whey don’t they simply GET ON WITH IT? There is not one concrete change in the doctrinal teaching of either side in what – 50 years? How many generations is it going to take?
If people believe in the teachings of the LCMS and the Lutheran Confessions, they will NEVER become Catholic. Never. There are many solid arguments that point to the extremely weak foundation of Protestantism. Pointing out the weaknesses of that foundation draws a lot of anger, just like it did in Luther. When these points are made in a less robust manner, people who don’t want to think about them just blow them off, only pretending to deal with them.If you’re talking about LCMS folks, then sure, a well-catechized and confident LCMS person is pretty hard to convince of anything. But you’re certainly not any more likely to get somewhere by throwing dirt than by substantive argument, and if you do you don’t deserve to
Again, that is your opinion. As for them drifting towards non-denominational evangelicalism, what other outcome could there be generally? When there are more liberal and ‘more understanding’ alternatives, which don’t have so many of those pesky moral teachings, fallen man will, as a rule, gravitate towards them.
T
Topper17
Guest
I agree Edwin and yet this perplexes me. You have come to the conclusion that you must join the Catholic Church at a potential expense far greater than that of most swimmers. Obviously you believe that you must follow the Truth.
Your comments about Luther’s false understanding of Salvation and your belief that you could change some minds leaves you with what?
I would suggest that you are in an extremely good position to make that case in a compelling manner, and that by doing so you could help a lot of people in their search for the Truth. So then the question to you is this:
Does that or does it not **compel **you to make that case or is it acceptable to simply make posts ‘in response to others’, allowing them to control to agenda, while you only criticize those things about which you disagree. Personally, I think you have a lot more to share than that. Somehow Newman comes to mind.
On a personal note, why did you want to become a Church Historian?
I will give you this though, it is MUCH harder to formulate a coherent position, organize it, and write it out in a compelling manner than it is to simply ‘respond to others’. Literally anybody can do that.
God Bless You Edwin, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
Our Confessions state our position regarding the Pope and cite Scripture and the Fathers (be sure to see the footnote citations!). If you’d read our Confessions, you could learn this.
A
Annie39
Guest
I asked him for chapter and verse I meant of course from the bible stating that the pope is the anti-christOur Confessions state our position regarding the Pope and cite Scripture and the Fathers (be sure to see the footnote citations!). If you’d read our Confessions, you could learn this.
A
Annie39
Guest
I don’t know. When I was a Lutheran I never thought in those terms. I guess you’ll have to ask a Lutheran.
Annie
S
steido01
Guest
As we’ve explained, ad nauseum, that’s not how Lutheranism works. We don’t get to cherry pick which bible verses we use. Asking a Lutheran to proof-text to support an opinion is silly.
Instead, I’ll reiterate what I and the other Lutherans here have already stated: To know what we believe and why we believe it, read our Confessions. Until you do, you’ll know enough about our theology to take a vow of silence.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Annie39: Ok Thought you might know but guess maybe one of the Lutheran posters might be able to answer it. Thanks anyway.
M
marywarfield
Guest
If the Bible states nothing about Popes being anti ChristAs we’ve explained, ad nauseum, that’s not how Lutheranism works. We don’t get to cherry pick which bible verses we use. Asking a Lutheran to proof-text to support an opinion is silly.
Instead, I’ll reiterate what I and the other Lutherans here have already stated: To know what we believe and why we believe it, read our Confessions. Until you do, you’ll know enough about our theology to take a vow of silence.
and Luther intended all to be Sola Scriptura as the
authority, can you explain why ANY confession
would contain the claim???
Isn’t that a contradiction?
Or is the Lutheran view that the Pope is anti Christ
coming from sacred tradition pulled out of the air by Luther instead?
J
joe371
Guest
Hmm…
A
Annie39
Guest
Oh he did believe in Sola Scriptura that is until some prophets went through town and he almost lost his right hand man (Melanchthon). He told M. that those prophets had to be false because they performed no miracles (and we all know about all those miracles performed by Luther, right?) Then when the peasants wanted to use SS he was not pleased.
Annie
A
Annie39
Guest
Sooo you believe in pirma Confessions then. Correct?As we’ve explained, ad nauseum, that’s not how Lutheranism works. We don’t get to cherry pick which bible verses we use. Asking a Lutheran to proof-text to support an opinion is silly.
Instead, I’ll reiterate what I and the other Lutherans here have already stated: To know what we believe and why we believe it, read our Confessions. Until you do, you’ll know enough about our theology to take a vow of silence.
Annie
J
joe371
Guest
Hey Per. Who wrote the book of Concord? Wikipedia has this to say, but I don’t always trust wikipedia:
S
steido01
Guest
Regrettably, yes. Poor catechesis is a scourge on each communion, be it Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, what have you.
Conversely, there are folks who actually have taken the time to at least read and learn about what other denominations believe. Many of them are kind enough to share their wisdom on these boards. Personally, I think it’s our Christian duty to seek understanding of our separated brothers - how else can we expect to come to a fuller earthly unity? That’s why this Lutheran owns and regularly reads a Catechism of the Catholic Church (it lives on my bookshelf, just below an ESV, an NIV, a Douay-Rheims, the Book of Concord and my favorite hymnals).
T
Topper17
Guest
Stiedo,
You know for a FACT, that we will NEVER again be dialogue partners and you know specifically and exactly why.
S
steido01
Guest
It seems like you’re looking to score more “gotcha!” points.
If it personally helps you to think of us that way in light of your *personal *definitions and understandings, sure. But bear in mind that your personal definition and understanding of Sola Scriptura are not congruent with the historical Lutheran understanding. I wouldn’t describe us that way. After all, if Lutherans are to ‘blame’ for Sola Scriptura, then it seems only logical that the Lutheran definition of the practice ought to be the ‘correct’ one. In the academic world, it is.
T
Topper17
Guest
Mark U. Edwards is one of the best of the modern Lutheran Scholars. He is far more honest than the Lutheran Scholars of previous times who created and defended the false “Legend” of Luther. Edwards is not exactly bashful at pointing out that Luther was prone to calling his opponents liars.
“By his own admission, Luther was an angry man. Anger was his special sin. But anger could also be necessary and proper – and useful. It helped him, he said, to write well, to pray, and to preach: ‘Anger refreshes my blood, sharpens my mind, and drives away temptations,’ he once commented……**The targets of his ire become under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, pg. 204, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”.
In case there is any confusion over this Lutheran Scholar’s opinion:
“The harshness of Luther’s later polemics was not a new element in his work and thought. **His polemics were angry and abusive from the beginning.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 6
When opposed by people with different beliefs, Luther would correct them. If they persisted, he was abusive towards them. If they continued to persist in their opposition, they he called them liars. After all, with Scripture being SO CLEAR as to be unmistakable, those who claimed to disagree with him were really lying. Obviously, because of the clarity of Scripture, they actually agreed with him but were lying by claiming to disagree.
This legacy lives on just like a lot of the other negative elements of Luther’s brand of Spirituality. Personally, I am somewhat shocked that anyone, even Luther, could believe that anger caused them to pray better.
Luther always lashed out at people when they made him doubt his beliefs.
“And what was the gospel? For the rest of his life he quarreled fiercly with other dissenters from Catholic faith – many of them beginning as his disciples – over the definition of his most treasured signs (the Holy Eucharist). ** How could God be in charge of all this confusion?..It does not require much insight to infer that he countered this frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on and on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts at bay only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving them and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” **Marius, pg. 285
Is this the kind of “Christian Leader” who can be seen as being qualified (in any respect) to lead Christianity into new doctrinal directions?
Harvard Professor Steven Ozment offers some thoughts about the Protestant reaction to being found to be wrong:
**“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing it has believed in vain.” ** Ozment, ‘The Birth of a Revolution’, pg. 6
When Luther doubted, he lashed out at the people who had caused that doubt, routinely calling them liars. There was no room for differing opinions in his world which demanded certainty in order to keep his terrors at bay.
“What drove him? Luther’s rhetoric is on the surface one of certainty. He has no room to scholarily ambiguity, for doubt, for tolerant consideration of views not his own.” Marius, pg. 100
It wasn’t so much that he was intolerant of the views of others, he found it necessary to depict them as evil, tools of Satan, the anti-Christ and the adherents of the antichrist.
“Luther defended the real presence, attacking Karlstadt down the line and adducing context, grammar, and philology to support his doctrine that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ. “Against the Heavenly Prophets” is a tedious work for all but those most persuaded that Luther was right in all his acts and deeds. Melanchthon at the time was disturbed by its rhetoric. The editors and translators of the American edition of Luther’s works record their embarrassment at the hateful tone of the treatise, and weary readers can only agree with them. **It is informed by Luther’s conviction that in the essentials of Christian doctrine he was right in everything and that anyone who disagreed was a tool of the devil.” **Marius, pg. 410
There is a reason that the Lutheran Confessions go to such extremes as calling the Pope the antichrist and claiming that the ‘adherents’ bear the marks of Satan. They are merely a reflection of Martin Luther and his rather unique version of Christian spirituality.
“By his own admission, Luther was an angry man. Anger was his special sin. But anger could also be necessary and proper – and useful. It helped him, he said, to write well, to pray, and to preach: ‘Anger refreshes my blood, sharpens my mind, and drives away temptations,’ he once commented……**The targets of his ire become under his pen the vilest of hypocrites, totally wicked and insincere, willing minions of the devil, deserving the most horrible fate.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, pg. 204, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”.
In case there is any confusion over this Lutheran Scholar’s opinion:
“The harshness of Luther’s later polemics was not a new element in his work and thought. **His polemics were angry and abusive from the beginning.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 6
When opposed by people with different beliefs, Luther would correct them. If they persisted, he was abusive towards them. If they continued to persist in their opposition, they he called them liars. After all, with Scripture being SO CLEAR as to be unmistakable, those who claimed to disagree with him were really lying. Obviously, because of the clarity of Scripture, they actually agreed with him but were lying by claiming to disagree.
This legacy lives on just like a lot of the other negative elements of Luther’s brand of Spirituality. Personally, I am somewhat shocked that anyone, even Luther, could believe that anger caused them to pray better.
Luther always lashed out at people when they made him doubt his beliefs.
“And what was the gospel? For the rest of his life he quarreled fiercly with other dissenters from Catholic faith – many of them beginning as his disciples – over the definition of his most treasured signs (the Holy Eucharist). ** How could God be in charge of all this confusion?..It does not require much insight to infer that he countered this frustration with a barrage of vehement language, railing on and on for page after ugly page as if he could hold all his fears and doubts at bay only by pouring liquid fire onto his foes, dissolving them and his doubts in one mighty holocaust of rhetoric.” **Marius, pg. 285
Is this the kind of “Christian Leader” who can be seen as being qualified (in any respect) to lead Christianity into new doctrinal directions?
Harvard Professor Steven Ozment offers some thoughts about the Protestant reaction to being found to be wrong:
**“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful than knowing it has believed in vain.” ** Ozment, ‘The Birth of a Revolution’, pg. 6
When Luther doubted, he lashed out at the people who had caused that doubt, routinely calling them liars. There was no room for differing opinions in his world which demanded certainty in order to keep his terrors at bay.
“What drove him? Luther’s rhetoric is on the surface one of certainty. He has no room to scholarily ambiguity, for doubt, for tolerant consideration of views not his own.” Marius, pg. 100
It wasn’t so much that he was intolerant of the views of others, he found it necessary to depict them as evil, tools of Satan, the anti-Christ and the adherents of the antichrist.
“Luther defended the real presence, attacking Karlstadt down the line and adducing context, grammar, and philology to support his doctrine that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ. “Against the Heavenly Prophets” is a tedious work for all but those most persuaded that Luther was right in all his acts and deeds. Melanchthon at the time was disturbed by its rhetoric. The editors and translators of the American edition of Luther’s works record their embarrassment at the hateful tone of the treatise, and weary readers can only agree with them. **It is informed by Luther’s conviction that in the essentials of Christian doctrine he was right in everything and that anyone who disagreed was a tool of the devil.” **Marius, pg. 410
There is a reason that the Lutheran Confessions go to such extremes as calling the Pope the antichrist and claiming that the ‘adherents’ bear the marks of Satan. They are merely a reflection of Martin Luther and his rather unique version of Christian spirituality.
S
steido01
Guest
Actually, I don’t know why.
But I don’t need to. Although part of me is saddened that you don’t wish to dialogue peaceably, I am comforted with the knowledge that the goal of corporate unity is the task of our wise and patient leaders, who are tremendous dialogue partners; it is not for amateur apologists and polemicists on internet forums. More importantly, despite our inability to connect here --for some incredible and inexplicable reason-- Christ still loves the both of us
I pray God grants you peace.
Your brother in Christ,
- Status