The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nominefili
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You appear to exclude the possiblilty that the Holy Spirit has not called or guided Nom into Lutheran seminary. If true, that seems a bit presumptuous.
Not at all! If Nom feels that the Lutheran church is the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth, and believes that he has been called or guided into the Lutheran seminary, then he is truly home. Nothing is impossible with God
Until the day he dad, my dad knew he was called by the Holy Spirit to be a Lutheran pastor.
Then your dad is truly home as well. I am thankful you have been led to the Lutheran Church, and pray you are as blessed by it as I have been in the CC. 👍
I am thankful you have been led to the Catholic Church, and pray you are as blessed by it as I have been in the Lutheran communion, your triumphalist view notwithsatnding. I’d be curious to know if you believe Holy Orthodoxy to be “built by men”.
I have not finished the race; I am still working out “my own salvation with fear and trembling,” as Paul says, so I cannot speak triumphantly - yet. Jesus built just one church and passed on His “Holy Orthodoxy” to His established church, and we can trust His church because the spirit of truth has been guiding His church since Pentecost, and will continue to guide His church until the end of time. Jesus is truth and Jesus chose to channel truth through His established church, as per the holy bible. For me, that church is the CC; for you, that church is the LC. We just chose different paths and no doubt they will coalesce in the end.

Martin Luther said, regarding the Protestant reformation:

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

And that is because the bible became man’s final authority regarding faith and morals.

He also said to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

I couldn’t agree more!

God bless Jon…👍
 
=joe370;6024080]Not at all! If Nom feels that the Lutheran church is the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth, and believes that he has been called or guided into the Lutheran seminary, then he is truly home. Nothing is impossible with God
Then your dad is truly home as well. I am thankful you have been led to the Lutheran Church, and pray you are as blessed by it as I have been in the CC. 👍
Joe, these words were truly a blessing to me. Thanks.
I have not finished the race; I am still working out “my own salvation with fear and trembling,” as Paul says, so I cannot speak triumphantly - yet. Jesus built just one church and passed on His “Holy Orthodoxy” to His established church, and we can trust His church because the spirit of truth has been guiding His church since Pentecost, and will continue to guide His church until the end of time. Jesus is truth and Jesus chose to channel truth through His established church, as per the holy bible. For me, that church is the CC; for you, that church is the LC. We just chose different paths and no doubt they will coalesce in the end.
I totally agree, and I pray that the Catholic and Lutheran paths will merge before the end.
Martin Luther said, regarding the Protestant reformation:
“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
And that is because the bible became man’s final authority regarding faith and morals.
I am not convinced that your cause and effect are certain. This, however, is certain; that the divisions within even western Christianity are the result of human sin, and the hard work of the evil one to keep us from ansering HIs call that all may be one.
He also said to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses:
“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
I couldn’t agree more!
I, too agree.
God bless Jon…👍
And His peace with you,
Jon
 
Hey Jon, hope you are having a good day…
Joe, I can only tell you that if he felt the real presence was a “Catholic heresy”, then he was not a Lutheran. Can’t be. From the Apology to the Augsburg Confession:
…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.
You must beleive in the real presence to be a Lutheran. There is no alternative, or open dialogue, or personal interpretation on the matter. The real presence stands not only in scripture, and in the Lutheran Confessions, but in the entriety of the history of the Church.
I agree with that. I will definitely convey what you have stated to my niece and her husband who attend the holy cross Lutheran church. Thanks for that! 👍
Well, what I mean is: “SCRIPTURE ALONE: The Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.” In your case it is the bible + the Lutheran confessions.
The first part is correct. The bolded is a bit misleading. The Lutheran Confessions rightly reflect scripture. They are not themselves inspired.
Thanks for the clarification!
They exclude teachings if said teachings disagree with their teachings; correct?
Unless they can prove that such teaching is in keeping with scripture.
But that is what every Protestant church leadership says, including my former Lutheran church, especially, in regards to the “supposed” true presence, and they insist that you and I, regarding the teaching of the true presence, must be in keeping with scripture, as they interpret it. We can’t all be right. :confused:
As does the CC, yet the catechism of the Catholic church is a big no-no, unlike the Lutheran confessions. Perhaps the Lutheran church to which you belong feels differently. Do they???
The CCC is only a no-no when it disagrees with scripture.
As is the case with the Lutheran Confession! The question is: who has the authority to arbitrate such a matter, and I am not just talking about the LC or the CC?
I have studied the early church Fathers extensively, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, and I became convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the early Church was indeed Catholic - never to impugn the work of any Protestant church, of course. After all we are all brothers and sisters in Christ! Intellectual honestly and spiritual integrity forced me to make the swim. As the old adage goes: The water is always cooler and cleaner as you draw closer to the source.
Actually, I agree with your point. Most of my disagreements with Rome, and I think most Lutherans would agree, are on what Rome has decreed since the Great Schism, IOW, well down stream from those cooler, cleaner waters.
I use to have the same perspective as you. What decrees, if you don’t mind me asking? If we continue further down stream from those cooler, clean waters, we end up with the biggest man-made doctrine of all time, believed by every non-Catholic, (me too, for a while) - and we have Martin Luther to thank for that, and we already know what he thought about the end-result of that doctrine:

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.” ML
 
In other words: the final benchmark when it comes to truth, regarding any one truth? It doesn’t seem to work though. I have an Evangelical friend who belongs to a Lutheran church that believes/teaches as does the CC regarding the Eucharist, and I have friends that belong to my former Lutheran church as well as other Lutheran churches that adamantly disagree.
One must take caution here. When you say “Lutheran church that believes/teaches as does the CC regarding the Eucharist”, certainly you don’t mean Transubstantiation. Lutherans and Catholics agree that is the body and blood of Christ. We express it differently, however, Catholics using Transubstantiation, and Lutherans using Sacramental Union.
So, it depends on what you mean by agree and disagree. Do we agree on the real presence? Without question. Do we agree on Transubstantiation? No. That said, at least for me, Transubstantiation is far more agreeable than the idea of a symbolic remembrance.
Regarding Transubstantiation, do you believe that there is a change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before…that the bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh? Do you believe that, in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament? If so then you believe in “transubstantiation” which is a Latin word (transsubstantiatio) or Greek word (metousiosis)) which means: the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before. Also, the CC agrees with you; the Eucharist is indeed a sacramental union. Our church’s have a lot in common. 👍
They both defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for “these things,” yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding this doctrine or any doctrine for that matter. Who is right; who is wrong; does it even matter to you?
Would you agree that nothing in Sacred Tradition is opposed to scripture? If yes, then why does Rome and Orthodoxy, who share a devotion to Tradition, disagree on a number of issues and doctrines?
You didn’t answer my question, but that’s cool. Would I agree that nothing in Sacred Tradition is opposed to scripture? The only thing that I could not find in sacred scripture was the assumption of Mary. However, I do believe that the holy spirit guides Jesus’ church and protects the deposit of faith, which includes both sacred tradition and sacred scripture, and he will do this until Jesus returns, as per the bible. Logically speaking, once I understood Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the assumption just made perfect sense. Regarding the EOC and the CC, the only difference, doctrinally speaking, is the Filioque and that pesky authority matter. LOL…They might use different terminology to address certain doctrines but they are essentially the same. It’s funny you should mention that. I was just talking to an eastern orthodox priest the other day (a friend of my boss) - and we were discussing this very topic. For example, both the EOC and the CC believe in Purgatory, but the EOC refrains from defining it so as not to blur the distinction between the alternative fates of Heaven and Hell. The EOC combines with this doctrine, a firm belief in the efficacy of prayer for the dead, which was/is a constant feature of both East and West liturgies.
 
Are there any Lutheran Use Catholic parishes in the works like the Anglican Use ones? Also are AC Lutherans in all of the branches of the Lutheran church? There seems to be many; could they not all unite under one tradition and then move enmasse to Rome? Sorry curious.
 
=joe370;6027027]Hey Jon, hope you are having a good day…
Avery good day. Hope the same for you.
But that is what every Protestant church leadership says, including my former Lutheran church, especially, in regards to the “supposed” true presence, and they insist that you and I, regarding the teaching of the true presence, must be in keeping with scripture, as they interpret it. We can’t all be right. :confused:
You’re right. We can’t all be right. And you, as a Catholic, believe you are right, AND in keeping with scripture, because the Magisterium and pope ,and Tradition tell you so.
I believe I am right because Augsburg says I’m right, and Augsburg rightly reflects scripture. All the other guys are wrong. 😃
As is the case with the Lutheran Confession! The question is: who has the authority to arbitrate such a matter, and I am not just talking about the LC or the CC?
Indeed. That seems, at least to this Lutheran, to be the biggest question between us.
I use to have the same perspective as you. What decrees, if you don’t mind me asking?
I think Transubstantiation is one, as is papal infallibility and supremacy.
If we continue further down stream from those cooler, clean waters, we end up with the biggest man-made doctrine of all time, believed by every non-Catholic, (me too, for a while) - and we have Martin Luther to thank for that, and we already know what he thought about the end-result of that doctrine:
Which is? Sola Scriptura? Remember, not all non-catholic Christians practice SS. And in fact, many who say they don’t, really don’t.

Jon
 
=joe370;6027036]Regarding Transubstantiation, do you believe that there is a change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before…that the bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh? Do you believe that, in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament? If so then you believe in “transubstantiation” which is a Latin word (transsubstantiatio) or Greek word (metousiosis)) which means: the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before. Also, the CC agrees with you; the Eucharist is indeed a sacramental union. Our church’s have a lot in common. 👍
I’ll refer you back to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which says:
"… we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament." The bread and wine are seen, but we receive the body and blood of Christ. It is a mystery how this happens. I really like the quote of John of Damascus “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”
Joe said:
They both defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for “these things,” yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding this doctrine or any doctrine for that matter. Who is right; who is wrong; does it even matter to you?
Jon responded:
Would you agree that nothing in Sacred Tradition is opposed to scripture? If yes, then why does Rome and Orthodoxy, who share a devotion to Tradition, disagree on a number of issues and doctrines?
You didn’t answer my question, but that’s cool.
No, it is not cool if I wasn’t clear in my response. Less cryptically, Rome and the Orthodox share a devotion, and yet they too disagree. I would contend, then, that it is not the practice of sola scriptura that has led to division within Christ’s Church, but instead human sin, and may we all be forgiven for it, and our eyes opened to His call for unity.
Would I agree that nothing in Sacred Tradition is opposed to scripture? The only thing that I could not find in sacred scripture was the assumption of Mary.
This statement, in a way, is a statement of sola scriptura, that you believe that everything taught in your communion conforms to scripture. The only difference is you believe, as you state next, that Tradition and the Magisterium/pope are equal to scripture (three legged stool), because the HS protects them.
We, too, have Tradition (much of it the same as yours) and teachers. We just don’t view ours as being on a level with scripture.
However, I do believe that the holy spirit guides Jesus’ church and protects the deposit of faith, which includes both sacred tradition and sacred scripture, and he will do this until Jesus returns, as per the bible. Logically speaking, once I understood Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the assumption just made perfect sense. Regarding the EOC and the CC, the only difference, doctrinally speaking, is the Filioque and that pesky authority matter. LOL…They might use different terminology to address certain doctrines but they are essentially the same. It’s funny you should mention that. I was just talking to an eastern orthodox priest the other day (a friend of my boss) - and we were discussing this very topic. For example, both the EOC and the CC believe in Purgatory, but the EOC refrains from defining it so as not to blur the distinction between the alternative fates of Heaven and Hell. The EOC combines with this doctrine, a firm belief in the efficacy of prayer for the dead, which was/is a constant feature of both East and West liturgies.
And this is my issue: until Rome and Orthodoxy are on the same page with authority (and these other things), I cannot know which, if either, is right. Were they to reconcile, then I would view this as an undeniable and irresistable sign of the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Jon
 
Are there any Lutheran Use Catholic parishes in the works like the Anglican Use ones? Also are AC Lutherans in all of the branches of the Lutheran church? There seems to be many; could they not all unite under one tradition and then move enmasse to Rome? Sorry curious.
Not that I am aware of, except maybe the ALCC. But even they I think use novus ordo.
There is no reason to believe that right now Lutherans enmasse would reconcile. Were the pope to state that the Augsburg Confession was a truly Catholic confession of faith, it would be interesting to see what would happen.

Jon
 
Hey Jon…

We seem to be in agreement regarding the Eucharist! 👍

I said:
They both defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for “these things,” yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding this doctrine or any doctrine for that matter. Who is right; who is wrong; does it even matter to you?

You said:
No, it is not cool if I wasn’t clear in my response. Less cryptically, Rome and the Orthodox share a devotion, and yet they too disagree. I would contend, then, that it is not the practice of sola scriptura that has led to division within Christ’s Church, but instead human sin, and may we all be forgiven for it, and our eyes opened to His call for unity.
I definitely agree with you regarding the evil one and sin, which has definitely played the quintessential role in dividing Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to which He is the head and Savior. For example, dring the lay investiture crisis when the imperial system was infecting Jesus’ mystical Body, Satan was ceaseless in his/its efforts to dismantle/destroy Jesus’ one church and would have loved to alter the deposit of faith, but to no avail, and that is because, ultimately, the holy Spirit is the guardian of the deposit of faith and Jesus is the Savior of His Body, the church.

Jon, wouldn’t you consider the the fact that the bible as the Christians only authority, via individual interpretation, has played a role in the fracture of Jesus’ Body, the church? As I mentioned before: Regarding things such as the Eucharist (true presence vs a symbol) - Baptism (by water vs water baptism being unnecessary) - justification by faith alone (vs "faith without works is dead) - the blessed mother Mary’ perpetual virginity, (believed by Martin Luther) - etc. etc. - all Protestant churches defer to sacred scripture as their final authority for these things, yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding these doctrines, or any doctrine for that matter. How can we know who is right and who is wrong? All these church leaders, speaking authoritatively, insist that their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is the correct one?
Quote:
Would I agree that nothing in Sacred Tradition is opposed to scripture? The only thing that I could not find in sacred scripture was the assumption of Mary.
This statement, in a way, is a statement of sola scriptura, that you believe that everything taught in your communion conforms to scripture.
Not at all! Just because it conforms to sacred scripture does not mean that I believe that sacred scripture is my final authority vis-a-vis faith and morals.
The only difference is you believe, as you state next, that Tradition and the Magisterium/pope are equal to scripture (three legged stool), because the HS protects them.
We, too, have Tradition (much of it the same as yours) and teachers. We just don’t view ours as being on a level with scripture.
The bible tells us that Jesus left us with a teaching church:

*“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The Magisterium is this teaching office of the Church in my humble opinion. Authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether these traditions are written or oral, have been entrusted to the living, teaching office of Jesus’ Church, as per Jesus Christ. The magisters of the CC are servants to the word of God and teach only what has been handed on to it. Catholic teachers do not view themselves as being on a level with sacred scripture. However, If God is the author of Sacred Scripture and the divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down by the fledgling church leaders of Jesus’ established church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then surely under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, Jesus’ established church had/has the authority to interpret what was written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
And this is my issue: until Rome and Orthodoxy are on the same page with authority (and these other things), I cannot know which, if either, is right. Were they to reconcile, then I would view this as an undeniable and irresistable sign of the movement of the Holy Spirit.
Surely the same applies to all of the Protestant churches as well? Until all of the protestant churches are on the same page regarding the interpretation of the bible, I cannot know which one is right, or where truth can be found? Surely the one stands in stark contrast to the other. The CC and the EOC are truly united when it comes to belief with one exception, and that is because they both embrace Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. By the time Jesus’ one church split, (thanks to the sin of fallible humans) - giving way to the CC and the EOC, matters of doctrine were settled. This is not the case in the protestant sphere. I could start a church tomorrow and jettison the Trinity as a heretical doctrine and there is nothing anyone could do, for the bible would be my only authority. One could try but one would fail, just as long as I could persuade my flock. Something just doesn’t seem right about that. My sister belongs to the apostle Brown ministries and insists that baptism is unnecessary, even after I showed her all of the scriptural passages that prove her pastor wrong, and Pastor Browns church is thriving.
 
Continued…

During the Protestant reformation, the reformers that spearhead it, separated themselves from one of those three legs of stability. They rejected the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, (which is the Latin word for teach; perhaps you knew that, but I never did as a former Lutheran) - the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They purposely chopped off one leg of the stool, and by doing so, they lost the authority of the CC and replaced it with the bible, or so I thought? Not so! They all taught/teach with the same amount of authority as did/does the CC, and that is why men such as Luther, Calvin, Knox and Zwingli… parted ways, almost immediately. They lost the arbitrator of disputes between opposing viewpoints regarding faith and morals and put that arbitration in the hands of every Christian, regardless of denomination. The Protestant reformers cut themselves off from the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth, and established new churches and reputedly new and improved pillars and foundations of truths, and this domino effect, sadly, has yet to be halted.

Throughout Scripture, there is scattered yet a second leg of the Catholic Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition) - to which the reformers could not lay claim, for they lost it when they separated from the CC. It is this holy Tradition, Apostolic Tradition, (GOD’s Traditions vs man’s tradition) - for which Jesus’ established Church was commanded to keep, and which she had already protected and preserved, for almost 1500 years by the time of the reformation.

Psa 44:1, Isa 40:8, Isa 59:21, John 15:20, Acts 20:35, 1 Cor 2:13, 1Cor 11:2, Phil 2:16, Phil 4:9, 2 Thess 2:15. 2Tim 1:13-14, 2Tim 2:2, 2Tim 3:14, 2Tim 4:3, and 1Pet 1:25

As a youngster, I was told by many protestants that it was the CC man-made traditions which were/are condemned by Holy Scripture.

*Matt 15:2-9, Mark 7:3-13, 1Cor 2:13, Col 2:8, 1Tim 1:4, and Tit 1:14, *

But none of these verses pointed to the church built by God. The fledgling Protestant churches, to fill this authoritative void, turned/turn to the only resource they have left, the Holy Bible, a product of the Catholic Church, (or perhaps it was another church, to which no Protestant will identify) - all the while speaking with authority, as do each and every Christian pastor/minister, regardless of denomination. If the holy Bible is the Christians one and only authority or norm, then everyone, regardless of denomination, should stop teaching authoritatively, from their pulpits and simply defer to the Word of God, logically speaking; wouldn’t you agree? That was my thinking as a former Lutheran.

During my exhaustive search for truth, I came to realize that the reformers had cut off both legs from the stool, (excluding your church of course, when it comes to tradition) - BTW, which traditions does your church embrace, if you don’t mind me asking? Now they had only one wobbly leg left to balance on, and balance they did, but not for very long, not even for one year. Since the authority of the CC for bible interpretation was no longer available (or should I say rejected) - to the reformers and those who followed them, the reformers made a fateful decision that would result in a disaster that grew so fast that they could no longer control. They had decided that everyone could go his own way regarding bible interpretation. This was yet another man made tradition forbidden by Holy Scripture:

Acts 8:26-40, 2 Peter 1:19-21, and 2 Peter 3:16

By removing 2 legs of the stool, Protestants were now left with no choice but to declare that the Bible was the sole source of authority, and they proceeded to perpetuate a false man made tradition called “Sola Scriptura”, or “Bible Alone.”

I came to realize that the Bible is nothing more than Tradition written down. For the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no New Testament as we know it today. The bible alone as our one and only authority would have been impossible for the first 400 years of Christianity; perhaps even so, until the invention of the printing press, in the 15th century. Jesus did not found a book. He founded a teaching Church and every church regardless of denomination, is equipped with teachers, to which their flock rely on for edification, thereby invalidating the man-made doctrine, sola scriptura. The only difference between the CC and the myriad PC’s is the fact that Protestants defer to sacred scripture alone and Catholics defer to both SS and ST.
 
Continued…

I also came to realize that the supposed new and improved one legged stool, fell to the ground and shattered into many pieces. Individual interpretation of Holy Scripture immediately resulted in squabbles and splits, which eventually gave way to the titanic fracture we see today in Protestantism. Martin Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland, and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox parted company and formed the Presbyterian’s in 1560. John Smith started the Baptist church, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739… By 1600 there were over 200 splits. By 1900, there were over a thousand. Now there are thousands of splits in the Body of Christ. The splits are continuing to this very day with an estimated “3-5” new splits every week. Furthermore, all of the major Protestant churches are splitting within themselves. All of this fanaticism was caused by the man-made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Holy Scripture, both of which were started by the reformers, in my humble opinion, and absolutely, sin played a big role in it. Martin Luther lamented when he saw the damage that individual interpretation of Scripture had done to his Protestant movement. The one legged stool of Protestantism was in a state of disarray almost intermediately. It has now shattered into thousands of pieces, and there is no one in the Protestant world who has the authority to put the pieces together again for the simple fact that the bible is their only authority, but, no doubt, Jesus has the power to keep the whole thing together. Eventually, I came to realize that a stool needs three legs to stand firm. It cannot stand on one for long. As soon as the winds of change rise, another church pops up, adding just another split to Jesus’ Mystical Body, no doubt causing Jesus to shed tears. The Bible clearly says to keep the traditions of GOD and the Apostles, and to condemn the keeping of man-made traditions, as shown above. I always thought it was strange that Protestantism condemns the keeping and preservation of all traditions by the Catholic Church, while at the same time, turning to and following two man-made traditions of their own making.

Jon, I agree with you regarding sin, and that sin is the cause of all the division. After all, Satan, (who is the father of lies and a sinner from the very beginning) - has a plan and that is to divide Jesus’ Mystical Body and ultimately conquer Jesus, but we all know how this battle will end, thank God! The question is not who (for we already have that answer) - but what is the root cause of all of this chaos? Surely it was the implementation of the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and with it, the private interpretation of Holy Scripture, again, forbidden in 2Pet 1:20 and 2Pet 3:16. Since the inception of this new man-made doctrine, all Christians regardless of denomination, can freely interpret the “Constitution of GOD’s Law”, the Holy Bible, as they see fit, bringing upon themselves splits, disunity, infighting, and chaos. In my opinion, it would be a very strange thing if GOD had given us an inerrant and authoritative book, but failed to give us an authoritative, infallible interpreter for it? Not that I am giving any of the fallible, sinful and errant CC leaders sole credit for this miracle; we have the holy Spirit Who is guiding Jesus’ established church in perpetuity, to thank for that! 👍 How God does this without affecting the free will of these sinful, fallible people, I will never know!

Martin Luther played a pivotal role in my conversion when he said things like:

*“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.” *

I am pretty sure that you agree with ML’s statement, but I have yet to run into a protestant who would agree with ML. Nowhere in Scripture is it written that Scripture itself is the Christians sole authority, nor does it say it is “self Sufficient,” as so many non-Catholics insist, including my former Pastor and my sisters pastor. Martin Luther looked around and lamented when he saw the damage that Sola Scriptura and private interpretation of Holy Scripture was doing to his reformation, and made the following remarks. By this time, Zwingli, had run in this direction, Munzer in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction etc., all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flock with them:

*“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
*

Most non-Catholic churches declare that the Holy Spirit is teaching them the truth, and who am I to suggest otherwise? However, there can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine - right? Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, everyone claimed/claims to be guided by the HS, How can the Holy Spirit be in each of the hundreds of churches, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? Why would He do it?
 
Jon, the following denominations via sola scriptura, teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching if the holy spirit is guiding each respective church? I am not trying to be disparaging, just trying to understand:
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell other Lutherans and Baptists, etc. - it is only a symbol?
  2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
  3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
  4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell other Lutherans and Baptists etc. - she had other children?
  5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, once saved always saved, and then tell the CC that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
  6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
  7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
God bless, Joe…
 
I have noticed a trend on the forums - people do not seem to understand what Lutherans believe. So I wanted to make a thread to consolidate any questions or comments you might have about Lutheranism. It could be about our doctrine, our history, the differences between our Synods, what to expect in a Lutheran liturgy, etc. Anything you can think of! I (and I’m sure my fellow Lutherans) would be happy to explain our beliefs and teach about our faith.
Hi!! I have a question!!!

So- Martin Luther- guy that started…lutheran—ism (lol sorry)

He was a Catholic? Right? Was ex-communicated from the catholic church…

Knowing that, do you feel in the slightest, that there could be a chance that Lutheranism is wrong? I mean, if the guy who started your religion is a rebel of the catholic church- and then STARTED his own religion…does Christ ever give anybody the authority to start their own religion?? or change-add to-subtract from it?

If Lutheranism and Catholicsm came about at the same time, I could see one arguing that they had the first church and the true faith- but when its clear as day that you dont hold those titles- do you ever get doubts? or do you just turn a blind eye??

ABSOLUTELY not meant to offend…serious questions…I mean, you could argue that this scripture REALLY meant this or that- everyone has their own interpretations…but…what made Martin Luthers singular interpretation THE correct one?
 
Hi!! I have a question!!!

So- Martin Luther- guy that started…lutheran—ism (lol sorry)

He was a Catholic? Right? Was ex-communicated from the catholic church…

Knowing that, do you feel in the slightest, that there could be a chance that Lutheranism is wrong? I mean, if the guy who started your religion is a rebel of the catholic church- and then STARTED his own religion…does Christ ever give anybody the authority to start their own religion?? or change-add to-subtract from it?

If Lutheranism and Catholicsm came about at the same time, I could see one arguing that they had the first church and the true faith- but when its clear as day that you dont hold those titles- do you ever get doubts? or do you just turn a blind eye??

ABSOLUTELY not meant to offend…serious questions…I mean, you could argue that this scripture REALLY meant this or that- everyone has their own interpretations…but…what made Martin Luthers singular interpretation THE correct one?
Hi, Charlotte,

I’ll try to answer at least some of the points you raised. First, though, I would like to clear up one bit of terminology. Luther did not start his own religion. Luther was always a Christian – an adherent of the Christian faith. He was not Muslim, he was not Hindu or whatever. He was baptized as a Christian and remained a Christian throughout his life.

Lutheranism did not just spring up when Luther posted his 95 Theses. Lutheran belief shares its foundations with Catholicism. The early Lutherans (and those of us who have come after them) retained much that had been handed down over the previous 15 centuries – Holy Scripture, the three ecumenical creeds, the belief that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist, the liturgy of the Mass, etc. We believe as fervently as Catholics that Jesus Christ is the source of our salvation. We, too, study the Early Church Fathers as we attempt to know God and his will for us more fully.

As Lutherans, we believe that we have the true faith. At the same time, we don’t believe that we are the only ones who have it. It is shared among all Christians although, sadly, a lot of time is spent by many insisting that “we” have the most accurate version of that true faith.

That said, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church. I just don’t believe that, as a Lutheran, I am missing anything by being a Lutheran.
 
Hi, Charlotte,

I’ll try to answer at least some of the points you raised. First, though, I would like to clear up one bit of terminology. Luther did not start his own religion. Luther was always a Christian – an adherent of the Christian faith. He was not Muslim, he was not Hindu or whatever. He was baptized as a Christian and remained a Christian throughout his life.

Lutheranism did not just spring up when Luther posted his 95 Theses. Lutheran belief shares its foundations with Catholicism. The early Lutherans (and those of us who have come after them) retained much that had been handed down over the previous 15 centuries – Holy Scripture, the three ecumenical creeds, the belief that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist, the liturgy of the Mass, etc. We believe as fervently as Catholics that Jesus Christ is the source of our salvation. We, too, study the Early Church Fathers as we attempt to know God and his will for us more fully.

As Lutherans, we believe that we have the true faith. At the same time, we don’t believe that we are the only ones who have it. It is shared among all Christians although, sadly, a lot of time is spent by many insisting that “we” have the most accurate version of that true faith.

That said, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church. I just don’t believe that, as a Lutheran, I am missing anything by being a Lutheran.
So, whats the difference? If you believe all the same things as catholics- believe in Jesus Christ and that He is the only source of salvation, then why the divide? Where is it that you differ? And how do you reconcile that- with the fact that you are not supposed to ‘subtract’ from Christ’s teachings?
 
So, whats the difference? If you believe all the same things as catholics- believe in Jesus Christ and that He is the only source of salvation, then why the divide? Where is it that you differ? And how do you reconcile that- with the fact that you are not supposed to ‘subtract’ from Christ’s teachings?
The difference is that while you say we have subtracted things, we would say that Rome has added things that were not a part of the early church - a mandatory belief in the immaculate conception of Mary, a mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, a mandatory belief in indulgences, etc.
 
I wonder what Lutherans and Anglicans think today; when they view the past event and see the present state of their religious communities, when King Henry VIII wrote against Lutheranism and refuted Martin Luther’s new protestant theology, when King Henry defended the Pope, and the 7 sacraments of the Church.

Now that both communities (Lutherans/Anglicans) seperated themselves from communion with Peter’s Chair in the Popes broke off from apostolic succession invalidating the sacaraments and holy orders? What is a Lutheran’s position of KIng Henry’s protest against Lutheranism when the King defended the Pope and the Catholic Teachings in the sacraments?
 
The difference is that while you say we have subtracted things, we would say that Rome has added things that were not a part of the early church - a mandatory belief in the immaculate conception of Mary, a mandatory belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, a mandatory belief in indulgences, etc.
Greetings IowaJay; Rome did not add the immaculate conception of Mary, the Pope and the magisterium (successors to the apostles) clarified, and defined what was already believed in Mary’s immaculate conception making this apostolic Faith a doctrine of faith.

The reason you dont see much speech about Mary’s immaculate conception is because it was never brought under scrutiny or doubted by the early church Fathers. This apostolic faith dies down when man decides to make himself a god and remove god from humanity doubting that god exists in the affairs of humanity. What resulted from this new age of thinking gave birth to that anti-christ called “communism”. It was then that God revealed proof that he exists in the affairs of man, by revealing the Immaculate conception of Mary.

If you do a research of how communism fell, you will find the Immaculate conception defeating communism. Pope John Paul II (the Marian Pope) proclaimed behind communistic walls that it was ok to believe in God, and do not be afraid. Then the walls of communism began to fall.

The Catholic church does not proclaim any apostolic faith into a dogma or doctrine unless it comes under attack. For example the “Trinity” doctrine of the Catholic church does not become a doctrine or dogma until heretics and heresy’s entered the CatholicChurch that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ some 400 years later after the resurrection.

The jurisdiction of the Pope is not his to proclaim, but Jesus himself who gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of God and his successors in the unbroken succession of every Pope that ever lived since Peter. Indulgence is a practice of the faith, I dont understand the force of mandatory behind it. I do know however that it was abused by German Priests where Martin Luther was from.

Just a persepective
 
=joe370;6035199]Jon, the following denominations via sola scriptura, teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching if the holy spirit is guiding each respective church? I am not trying to be disparaging, just trying to understand:
Hi Joe, You’ve posted a lot, but I’ll start here, and try to get to the others later. I’ll start by saying that I think we’ve touched on some of this already, in that differences between Christian communions do not come necessarily from sola scriptura, nor from an inconsistency of the Holy Spirit, but instead from human sin on all of our parts. If it was only because of SS, then communions that do not practice sola scriptura, Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans and Methodists, would all agree. One must also remember that some have distorted the practice of Sola Scriptura, scripture alone, which does not exclude the historic teachings of the Church and Tradition, to solo scriptura, scripture isolated, which, I think foolishly, does.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell other Lutherans and Baptists, etc. - it is only a symbol?
First, the HolySpirit does not tell Lutherans it is a symbol. Someone who does not believe in the real prsence is not, cannot be, a Lutheran. As for others, I would simply say that their teachings rightly reflect neither scripture, nor the historic teaching of the Church.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
You will have to ask them. I do not know by what method either came to their teachings. That may sound flip, but I don’t mean it that way. I am simply saying that, just as there are differences between Catholics and Lutherans, there are differences between Methodists and Baptists. Why does the HS lead Latin Rite Catholic priests into the discipline of celibacy, but not Eastern Catholics?
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
See above, however it probably true that Presbyterians practice the Lord’s Day in keeping with the whole historic Church.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell other Lutherans and Baptists etc. - she had other children?
Lutherans generally consider this adiaphora. It isn’t an article of faith, scripture is not explicit, and belief one way or another is not necessary for salvation. The fact that I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin and my pastor does not does not divide us. I do not know how Baptists come to their teachings.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, once saved always saved, and then tell the CC that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
OSAS is not sola fide. A more important point is that the Holy Spirit seems to be leading Lutherans and Catholics closer together in an understanding of how we are justified.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
Again, I do not know how Pentecostals arrive at their teachings, but they are wrong.
  1. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
While I do not doubt that mormons are followers of Christ, in the strict sense, Christians believe in the Trinity. I do not know how Mormons arrive at their teaching, but they are wrong.

To reiterate, the Holy Spirit is not inconsistent. Human sin blinds us from unity.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top