Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Novocastrian]

Hi Novo,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether my point was valid or not. After all, if I thought it was invalid, I never would have posted it.

It seems to me that a lot of times, it is easier to call something ‘invalid’ rather than simply dealing with it straight out. Or, if it is actually ‘invalid’, then posting the actual reason that it is invalid would be helpful to the readers of the thread.
God Bless You Novo, Topper

I did in #628, though admittedly it was addressed to PR rather than you directly, so you may have missed it. My point was that simply saying that something is egregiously anti-Catholic or offensive is missing the point; engage the truth or falsity of the matter.

And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t sign up to a statement saying that the Pope is anti-Christ, though I can understand and sympathise with what Confessional Lutherans mean when they do.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response,

Sure: the repeated condemnation of Jan Hus; that it is the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned; condemnation of Luther himself. I assume that Confessional Lutherans are offended by those things.

The truth can often be ‘offensive’ to some people, but in my experience, those people are always the ones who are on the wrong side of the truth. Some people are often upset when I post historical facts about the early Reformation, or when I post the opinions of well-known Scholars. However, it isn’t me, personally, who is committing the offense, but rather it is the historical facts. If those facts paint a picture that runs against your predispositions, maybe those predispositions should be questioned.

Of course Lutherans are offended by the condemnation of Luther by the Catholic Church. I ask them regularly if they think that the Church should not have excommunicated him. It seems that nobody is willing to say that; there is just a lot of dancing around. Of course he deserved excommunication and condemnation. If somebody thinks otherwise, please make your case specifically and exactly, so that we can all decide if that case is compelling.

Throughout Christian history, the Church has condemned the various heretics and schismatics that have been disobedient. The Arians were offended by the Church’s condemnation of Arius, and the same can be said of a whole slew of groups which called (or call as in the present sense) their groups after the men who founded their ‘version’ of Christianity.

My point is that obviously it doesn’t matter if Hus or Luther’s condemnations are offensive. The question is whether they should have been condemned or not.

That is precisely the point Novo! I agree. What is the Church supposed to do? Is it supposed to just roll over and proclaim that any ole version of the Gospel is just as good as any other? Or should it fight for the Truth, and oppose those who are, in many cases through no fault of their own, teaching error? A few hurt feelings here and there are NOTHING compared to the importance of God’s Absolute Truth.

IF people actually did believe that that Truth is the MOST IMPORTANT THING, they would absolutely welcome challenges to their beliefs, because the Truth would be more important than their ‘feelings’. In meeting those challenges in that way, they could defend those beliefs and allow everyone to see that their position is strong. On the other hand, if their position is not strong at all, they are probably not going to be all that thrilled at being challenged.

BTW, if you want to do some interesting reading, take a look at the historical facts about Hus and his condemnation by the Church. What shocked me was the striking biographical similarities between Hus and Luther.

Here’s a straight up question for you Novo - Do you think the Church was right to excommunicate Luther? Yes or no? (Followed by your explanation of course).

God Bless You Novo, Topper

 

[PRmerger]

And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t sign up to a statement saying that the Pope is anti-Christ, though I can understand and sympathise with what Confessional Lutherans mean when they do.

Wait…***what? ***

I missed this part of the discussion.

Confessional Lutherans profess that the Pope is the anti-Christ? But you think it means something different than the obvious?

Huh?

 

[commenter]

Hi Mary,

I have something of a hypothetical question for you. Given that we all have the freedom to dialogue with whomever we want here, what would you do (hypothetically of course) if somebody accused you of being a liar on multiple occasions, and refused to apologize? That charge of course, that of being a liar, means that you are supposedly intentionally deceiving readers here, which is an extremely serious matter. How would you approach this hypothetical situation?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Here are some pointers on how** I ** try to respond:

• I am not trying to defend myself; I am affirming my point of view.
• I personally don’t “win” an argument; sometimes people find my ideas worthy of consideration. When I am referring to Christianity, “my” ideas refer to the Catholic faith, as best as I can understand it; I am open to correction on this point, learn new things.
• The more attention people give me, as a person, that often means the less attention they give to my ideas. If people are calling me a liar, that means I have drawn too much attention to myself; away from my ideas. Not good. The solution is not to demand apologies, clarify their image of me - but to lessen the attention on me. I have ideas that are worth considering. When I defend myself, the Catholic faith does not get attended to.
• I try to learn something positive from the posters. I don’t mean learn, in the sense of building my counterargument against the Lutheran poster, but learn, in the sense that I now know some new element of the Truth.
• Read Chesterton; e. g. Orthodoxy or the Everlasting Man. Note the way he does it. He becomes almost invisible in his writing, unlike you and I who are often kind of intrusive, so many readers grasp his insights as their own. It’s not so much him persuading you to win “points” but role modeling, or engaging the reader, in a loving process of thinking clearly. People who read Chesterton carry away that process so they think clearly on other things.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mary,

I’m sure that some would consider me to be infamous. It seems that it has to do with your ‘relationship’ with Martin Luther. His followers especially would agree with the ‘infamous’ thing, with him being granted the label of ‘famous’ of course.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Here you are making the thread about you again.
You are neither famous nor infamous, Topper, since you are anonymous.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Here are some pointers on how** I ** try to respond:

• I am not trying to defend myself; I am affirming my point of view.
• I personally don’t “win” an argument; sometimes people find my ideas worthy of consideration. When I am referring to Christianity, “my” ideas refer to the Catholic faith, as best as I can understand it; I am open to correction on this point, learn new things.
• The more attention people give me, as a person, that often means the less attention they give to my ideas. If people are calling me a liar, that means I have drawn too much attention to myself; away from my ideas. Not good. The solution is not to demand apologies, clarify their image of me - but to lessen the attention on me. I have ideas that are worth considering. When I defend myself, the Catholic faith does not get attended to.
• I try to learn something positive from the posters. I don’t mean learn, in the sense of building my counterargument against the Lutheran poster, but learn, in the sense that I now know some new element of the Truth.
• Read Chesterton; e. g. Orthodoxy or the Everlasting Man. Note the way he does it. He becomes almost invisible in his writing, unlike you and I who are often kind of intrusive, so many readers grasp his insights as their own. It’s not so much him persuading you to win “points” but role modeling, or engaging the reader, in a loving process of thinking clearly. People who read Chesterton carry away that process so they think clearly on other things.

Did you read Chesteron’s “Why I am a Catholic?” It’s very up front, bold and blunt actually in nature… Mary.

Why I am a Catholic - The American Chesterton Society

www.chesterton.org/why-i-am-a-catholic/

G. K. Chesterton
The difficulty of explaining “why I am a Catholic” is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true

 

[JonNC]

Then I’m sure that you can guess what I’m going to say. Confessional Lutherans are required to believe something offensive to your religious sensibilities. Catholics are required to believe something offensive to Confessional Lutherans’ religious sensibilities. Arguments which suggest that which is offensive ought to be removed will get us nowhere. The real issue is truth - if the claims of the Confessions are true then it doesn’t matter that they’re offensive to Catholics; if the claims of Exsurge Domine et al. are true then it doesn’t matter that they’re offensive to Lutherans. Topper’s argument is simply a distraction from the question of the truth of the matter. Lutherans should drop claims that the Pope is Antichrist if it is untrue, without regard to their offensiveness to Catholics or otherwise.

For what it’s worth, I’m neither a Lutheran nor a Roman Catholic, so I have no horse in this race. I don’t think I could sign up to the Lutheran Confessions. I just think that Topper’s argument against “anti-Catholicism” unnecessarily conflates the offence that he and others take at the Confessions’ claims, when he could and should simply focus on their truthfulness.

Thanks, Novo.
I guess we would consider Exsurge Domine offensive, but it is Unam Sanctum -
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. - that relates most closely to the charge of the papacy being opposed to Christ. It is this that the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope seems to refer to:

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

What is interesting is that this is rarely, if ever, brought up by the Lutherans on this forum. Do we find this claim of the papacy offensive? Clearly, as we do the anathemas of Trent. But the fact is that no Catholic on this forum has any say over this. No Catholic can “rescind” this language from their Church’s teaching, and it would by a waste of time to insist that Catholic laity somehow do so. And the same is true of individual Lutherans as it relates to the charges against the papacy in the Lutheran Confessions. Lutheran laity have no say over the matter.

The only way to remove the offensive language between our traditions is through ecumenical dialogue between leaders, because both traditions rely on its leadership to set doctrines, teachings, and designates with whom the communion is in fellowship.
Pray for the day.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Confessional Lutherans profess that the Pope is the anti-Christ? But you think it means something different than the obvious?

To my understanding, and here I defer to those who know the Confessions better than I, they regard the office of the Papacy as anti-Christ. I don’t think they believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, but that his office as understood by ultramontane Roman Catholics (i.e. after the demise of mediaeval conciliarism) is abusive and contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. I believe it comes from equating the Papacy with false prophets and *peseudoaposteloi *in the New Testament.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in an ultramontane Papacy de iure divino, and I worry that dogmatic definitions of Papal supremacy and infallibility are heterodox, but I don’t think it’s helpful or strictly true to call the Papacy anti-Christ.

 

[Novocastrian]

Thanks, Novo.
I guess we would consider Exsurge Domine offensive, but it is Unam Sanctum -
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. - that relates most closely to the charge of the papacy being opposed to Christ. It is this that the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope seems to refer to:

What is interesting is that this is rarely, if ever, brought up by the Lutherans on this forum. Do we find this claim of the papacy offensive? Clearly, as we do the anathemas of Trent. But the fact is that no Catholic on this forum has any say over this. No Catholic can “rescind” this language from their Church’s teaching, and it would by a waste of time to insist that Catholic laity somehow do so. And the same is true of individual Lutherans as it relates to the charges against the papacy in the Lutheran Confessions. Lutheran laity have no say over the matter.

The only way to remove the offensive language between our traditions is through ecumenical dialogue between leaders, because both traditions rely on its leadership to set doctrines, teachings, and designates with whom the communion is in fellowship.
Pray for the day.

Jon

Agreed!

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Novo,

Thanks for your response,

The truth can often be ‘offensive’ to some people, but in my experience, those people are always the ones who are on the wrong side of the truth. Some people are often upset when I post historical facts about the early Reformation, or when I post the opinions of well-known Scholars. However, it isn’t me, personally, who is committing the offense, but rather it is the historical facts. If those facts paint a picture that runs against your predispositions, maybe those predispositions should be questioned.

Of course Lutherans are offended by the condemnation of Luther by the Catholic Church. I ask them regularly if they think that the Church should not have excommunicated him. It seems that nobody is willing to say that; there is just a lot of dancing around. Of course he deserved excommunication and condemnation. If somebody thinks otherwise, please make your case specifically and exactly, so that we can all decide if that case is compelling.

Throughout Christian history, the Church has condemned the various heretics and schismatics that have been disobedient. The Arians were offended by the Church’s condemnation of Arius, and the same can be said of a whole slew of groups which called (or call as in the present sense) their groups after the men who founded their ‘version’ of Christianity.

That is precisely the point Novo! I agree. What is the Church supposed to do? Is it supposed to just roll over and proclaim that any ole version of the Gospel is just as good as any other? Or should it fight for the Truth, and oppose those who are, in many cases through no fault of their own, teaching error? A few hurt feelings here and there are NOTHING compared to the importance of God’s Absolute Truth.

IF people actually did believe that that Truth is the MOST IMPORTANT THING, they would absolutely welcome challenges to their beliefs, because the Truth would be more important than their ‘feelings’. In meeting those challenges in that way, they could defend those beliefs and allow everyone to see that their position is strong. On the other hand, if their position is not strong at all, they are probably not going to be all that thrilled at being challenged.

BTW, if you want to do some interesting reading, take a look at the historical facts about Hus and his condemnation by the Church. What shocked me was the striking biographical similarities between Hus and Luther.

Here’s a straight up question for you Novo - Do you think the Church was right to excommunicate Luther? Yes or no? (Followed by your explanation of course).

God Bless You Novo, Topper

My point was that this seems to cut both ways. From my standpoint, both Lutherans and Roman Catholics seem to have ample grounds for offence!

I don’t think Luther should have been condemned the way he was. His concerns were largely legitimate and were not addressed. Including his doctrinal ones.

Hus’s condemnation and burning was a grave crime, and it was the Church at fault, not the Emperor. Hus’s actual teaching seems to have been orthodox; he translated and sympathised with Wycliff, but seems not to have taught Wycliffitism as doctrine. Killing a man under safe conduct is a gross violation of virtually every moral code I can think of. The Emperor did so at the urging of the bishops, backed by the Pope.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13152817]
However, I would like to ask who it is among the various Lutheran communions, specifically and exactly, who is authorized to decide who is ‘orthodox’ and who is not?

If one accepts as orthodox the acceptance and close following of the traditional beliefs and customs of a religion or tradition within a religion, one can see quite well what is and is not orthodox.

It is fairly easy to look at the situation and determine that it is the ELCA who as ‘drifted’, but in reality,

Drifted from what - orthodox Lutheranism.

so has the LCMS, especially when you consider the ‘standard’ to be the teachings of the Church that Christ established. So in reality, when the one communion says that the other is ‘misguided’, the other one can make the exact same claim, and using the exact same language – except as applied to a different ‘other’. What would be interesting would be if the one could use an argument that ONLY THEY could use – one that could not be turned around and used against them.

this would be an interesting argument if you want to discuss whether or not LCMS teaching is compared to the teachings of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But you were speaking of Lutherans, and I think you answered your own question.

The ONLY argument that works is one which divorces itself from Sola Scriptura, and appeals to the Magisterium. And yet, now we are hearing that Lutherans are finding the need for a magisterium (small “m” of course). This after 500 years! This, and without a hint that maybe - just maybe the problem revolves around Martin Luther’s rejection of the Magisterium in the early 16th century. Now they want to create their own magisterium? I applaud this recognition only because I see it as one of the waypoints on the path to becoming Catholic. As a final solution though, a Lutheran magisterium is NOT the answer. Obviously

Finally on topic. :clapping:
Even in the LCMS, I am concerned about the strength of congregationalism.

As for the ‘courage of the leaders of the LCMS’, I would agree that they are on the ‘right side’ of several of the current issues. However, being an SS communion, they have nothing more substantial to stand on than their Confessions, and those Confessions have proven that they cannot protect either Christian Doctrine OR Christian morals.

We shall see.

How many doctrinally independent Lutheran communions are there?

No idea. Most synods are in fellowship with many other synods worldwide. The LCMS, for example, has partner synods around the world.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

To my understanding, and here I defer to those who know the Confessions better than I, they regard the office of the Papacy as anti-Christ. I don’t think they believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, but that his office as understood by ultramontane Roman Catholics (i.e. after the demise of mediaeval conciliarism) is abusive and contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. I believe it comes from equating the Papacy with false prophets and *peseudoaposteloi *in the New Testament.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in an ultramontane Papacy de iure divino, and I worry that dogmatic definitions of Papal supremacy and infallibility are heterodox, but I don’t think it’s helpful or strictly true to call the Papacy anti-Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Good grief, the topic is NOT Topper. Discuss the topic not the TOPPER.
Mary.

I agree, Mary , that Topper is not and should not be the topic.

OTOH, if a Lutheran joined this forum, and professed that it was his goal to “reveal” events and actions of popes past because Catholic leadership had failed to properly teach the laity of these flaws, and further continued to bring that topic up in numerous threads, claiming that one has to understand their flaws before one can understand the topic, and further claim that that he would continue to oppose Catholicism until offensive language was “rescinded” by that Catholic Church, I suspect he would clearly be “the topic”.

And rightly so!

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I agree, Mary , that Topper is not and should not be the topic.

OTOH, if a Lutheran joined this forum, and professed that it was his goal to “reveal” events and actions of popes past because Catholic leadership had failed to properly teach the laity of these flaws, and further continued to bring that topic up in numerous threads, claiming that one has to understand their flaws before one can understand the topic, and further claim that that he would continue to oppose Catholicism until offensive language was “rescinded” by that Catholic Church, I suspect he would clearly be “the topic”.

And rightly so!

Jon

I disagree.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I disagree.
Mary.

So, it would be OK for a Lutheran to do this?

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

So, it would be OK for a Lutheran to do this?

Jon

We’re not the moderator. I personally would not care if a Lutheran did as such. I don’t believe any poster here has been a perfect model poster myself included

Mary.

 

[PRmerger]

To my understanding, and here I defer to those who know the Confessions better than I, they regard the office of the Papacy as anti-Christ. I don’t think they believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, but that his office as understood by ultramontane Roman Catholics (i.e. after the demise of mediaeval conciliarism) is abusive and contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. I believe it comes from equating the Papacy with false prophets and *peseudoaposteloi *in the New Testament.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in an ultramontane Papacy de iure divino, and I worry that dogmatic definitions of Papal supremacy and infallibility are heterodox, but I don’t think it’s helpful or strictly true to call the Papacy anti-Christ.

Thank you for your explanation.

That they don’t view the Pope as* the* Anti-Christ is reassuring, but the fact that they view the office as the anti Christ troubles me greatly.

I typically don’t spend too much time arguing (what I thought was) the minutiae of Lutheran vs Catholic theology, for I always assumed that Lutherans were almost Catholics. In almost every way.

But I am bothered indeed by this news that the office that our Holy Father, Pope Francis, holds is viewed as the anti-Christ.

 

[JonNC]

We’re not the moderator. I personally would not care if a Lutheran did as such. I don’t believe any poster here has been a perfect model poster myself included

Mary.

I didn’t claim any poster was, including myself. But OK. I would care, and I would challenge a Lutheran who did so.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Thank you for your explanation.

That they don’t view the Pope as* the* Anti-Christ is reassuring, but the fact that they view the office as the anti Christ troubles me greatly.

I typically don’t spend too much time arguing (what I thought was) the minutiae of Lutheran vs Catholic theology, for I always assumed that Lutherans were almost Catholics. In almost every way.

But I am bothered indeed by this news that the office that our Holy Father, Pope Francis, holds is viewed as the anti-Christ.

You’re welcome

In some ways, I think the problem is precisely that Lutherans are so similar. It highlights the few remaining differences, and makes each one feel like a great betrayal of an otherwise shared faith. I think it’s how Anglicans tend to feel about Apostolicae Curae, and how Romans feel about the ordination of women.

Indeed. As Lutherans are, as Jon has intimated, bothered that Unam Sanctam is still considered binding, etc.

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you for your explanation.

That they don’t view the Pope as* the* Anti-Christ is reassuring, but the fact that they view the office as the anti Christ troubles me greatly.

I typically don’t spend too much time arguing (what I thought was) the minutiae of Lutheran vs Catholic theology, for I always assumed that Lutherans were almost Catholics. In almost every way.

But I am bothered indeed by this news that the office that our Holy Father, Pope Francis, holds is viewed as the anti-Christ.

From the LCMS official website as of today:
Of the Antichrist
43.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.)

Please see our Frequently Asked Question on the subject/topic. Click on the “LCMS Views” tab and choose “The Bible.”

return to top

Of Open Questions