The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[joe370]

Hey Nom…

Originally Posted by Nominefili View Post
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.

I’d be curious to know about the Lutheran liturgy, so I can compare it to other non-Eucharistic Lutheran liturgies. I know several people who belong to a Lutheran church, and these churches do not believe in the true presence in the Eucharist, as you and Jon do. How would you go about convincing them that they are misinterpreting the bible? In the end, all they have to say is: the bible, as opposed to people, is my sole authority (sola scriptura) - and they would be right, as practising sola scriptura advocates.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6042130]Hey Jon, how’s it going…

Great! I enjoy winter weather, here in the southern mountains. I teach school and my 4th graders are so full of excitement this time of year, I can’t help but be giddy myself.
Thanks for asking.

Yup! They recognize the Catholic sacraments.

But not enough to to permit their members to avail themselves of it.

Regarding Jay, what I meant was: since there is no difference between the EOC and the CC, sacramentally speaking, the decision shouldn’t be that difficult.

Joe, I have seen thread after thread here at CAF where Orthodox and Catholics pound each other about the other’s faulty doctrines. So when you say this, it is really confusing.
I hear the only difference is polity - IOW, the power and primacy of the pope. Is that a huge issue of dogma, as well, and not just politics? I guess we need some of the resident Orthodox to help with this.

Now that is the 64000 dollar question. Which churches in the world today, do not qualify as the true church?

The true church…hmmm… We know that Jesus only built one church ("I will build MY church, as opposed to churches) - ; the question is: where can His one church be found, in the world today? The typical Protestant response (as was mine, once upon a time) - is: all Christian churches comprise the one catholic (universal) - church, small c, built by Jesus Christ on pentecost, which never made any sense to me! Followed up with: (something I did not believe as a former Lutheran) - the man-made RCC apostatized in the 4th century, ruling that church out all together, as part of Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the head and Savior. If that were in fact the case then that would mean that the world is still without the church built by God.

The EOC is an offshoot of the CC, (or vica versa, depending on one’s perspective) - and all PC’s are offshoots of the CC. That means, somewhere out there, in the world today, is the true church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, which traversed the first 4 centuries of Christianity, at which point the reputed man-made RCC came onto the scene, and Jesus’ true church continued to traverse the centuries alongside the reputed apostate RCC, until the Protestant reformation, at which point Jesus’ true church continued to traverse the centuries alongside the Protestant maelstrom, caused by, in my opinion, sola scriptura via anyone’s interpretation, and the sin of man. The question is: where is that true church built by Jesus, that ran parallel to first the CC then the CC and EOC and finally the CC, EOC and the myriad PC’s?

I’ll be honest in telling you that I was not aware of the 4th century thing. My view of Lutheranism is as a reformation Church. If the RCC was apostate from then until the 1500’s, then the Lutheran Church, in sharing that history is, too.
I am not unwilling to say that the undivided Church, prior to the Schism is the one true church, of which the CC has every right to claim to be part of, along with Orthodoxy. As a Lutheran, we too can claim roots in that Church through our roots in the western Church, and the Bishop of Rome.

The EOC is an offshoot of the CC, (or vica versa, depending on one’s perspective)

And this is the 64,000 question for a Lutheran who might be searching. And it cannot be a matter of - “choose one, they’re both the same”.

Apostolic succession was very important to the NT writers and to the early church. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which church was the true Church built by Christ. The litmus test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession, (as everyone knows) - is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in the myriad Protestant denominations, not to, in any way, detract anything from their ministries, of course.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. For example, to make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their demise,

I think you misunderstood my comment about AS being irrelevent. I meant it is irrelevent in determining which is the one true church. Catholics have it, as does Orthodoxy. But so does the PNCC, and some Northern European Lutherans, the ALCC here, and perhaps some others. AS is not a way of telling which is the true Church.
BTW, I am a strong believer in AS, and believe Lutherans who believe it is unimportant are misguided.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

joe370;6042130]Hey Jon, how’s it going…
Great! I enjoy winter weather, here in the southern mountains. I teach school and my 4th graders are so full of excitement this time of year, I can’t help but be giddy myself.
Thanks for asking.

I actually went to college to become a teacher, but decided to go in a different direction at the last minute. My niece’s daughter is in the 4th grade and I can’t believe how fast paced everything is now. They learn so much so quickly. Heck, she knows more about some stuff then I do. LOL…

Quote:
Yup! They recognize the Catholic sacraments.
But not enough to to permit their members to avail themselves of it.

You are right. It really is a shame. However, I could join the EOC and avail myself of the same 7 Sacraments, if I chose to do so. I guess that was really my point.

Quote:
Regarding Jay, what I meant was: since there is no difference between the EOC and the CC, sacramentally speaking, the decision shouldn’t be that difficult.
Joe, I have seen thread after thread here at CAF where Orthodox and Catholics pound each other about the other’s faulty doctrines. So when you say this, it is really confusing.
I hear the only difference is polity - IOW, the power and primacy of the pope. Is that a huge issue of dogma, as well, and not just politics? I guess we need some of the resident Orthodox to help with this.

I too have had amicable run-ins with eastern orthodox Christians here at CAF, and you are right. The 2 churches are in disagreement regarding things like: the filique, indulgences, authority, certain discipline/ritual/rite/cultural tradition differences. The EOC use icons vs the CC which use statues; Catholic priest must be celibate unless they are married converts vs Eastern Orthodox priests who may marry, prior to their ordination (not Bishops though); the CC’s use of unleavened wafer for the Eucharist, vs the EOC use of leavened bread; Easter and Christmas are calculated differently - but the only thing that is really keeping them apart is the primacy of the Pope, and I don’t foresee that ever changing, I am afraid. But I still believe if every Christian would seriously pray for the reunification of these 2 ancient churches, it might just happen. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective, as per James. The Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the matter:

838: "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

**1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”
**

Quote:
Now that is the 64000 dollar question. Which churches in the world today, do not qualify as the true church…

I’ll be honest in telling you that I was not aware of the 4th century thing. My view of Lutheranism is as a reformation Church. If the RCC was apostate from then until the 1500’s, then the Lutheran Church, in sharing that history is, too.
I am not unwilling to say that the undivided Church, prior to the Schism is the one true church, of which the CC has every right to claim to be part of, along with Orthodoxy.

You wouldn’t believe how many PC’s (including my former church and my sisters church) - teach, or at least suggest that the 4th century RCC is a man-made apostate church, often calling her the whore of Babylon from the book of revelation.

As far as sharing the same history, they simply say: “my church is the true reformed church that broke away from the apostate RCC.” I know, it makes no sense to me either. If that were the case, then where was the true church from the 4th century to the 11th century, or the 16th century? All the 16th century man-made churches, no doubt, were not part of Jesus’ original plan when He said: I will build my church and pray that my church (I’m paraphrasing) - is one and united just as my father and I are one, (John 17) - wouldn’t you agree? The seventh day Adventist church, the Mormon church, the Jehovah witness church, and the church to which my sister belongs, as well as all the PC’s that claim that you and I are WRONG about the true presence in the Eucharist, insist that they have every right to claim, to be part of the true church.

 

[joe370]

As a Lutheran, we too can claim roots in that Church through our roots in the western Church, and the Bishop of Rome.

I agree. However, every other PC makes that same claim. I could start a church tomorrow and make the same claim. Something just doesn’t seem right about that, but that’s just me; perhaps I am missing something in my reasoning.

Quote:
The EOC is an offshoot of the CC, (or vica versa, depending on one’s perspective)
And this is the 64,000 question for a Lutheran who might be searching. And it cannot be a matter of - “choose one, they’re both the same”.

Well, if the early church fathers such as the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107), and the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156) refered to Jesus’ established church as the CC throughout the known world, and they did, then I think it is safe to say, nominally speaking, that Jesus’ established church, built on the foundation of the Apostles, was catholic as opposed to eastern orthodox. On one of my earlier posts I cited quite a few 2nd and 3rd century ECF’s using the word catholic to describe Jesus’ one church, and many of them were from the eastern part of the empire.

Quote:
Apostolic succession was very important to the NT writers and to the early church. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which church was the true Church built by Christ. The litmus test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession, (as everyone knows) - is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in the myriad Protestant denominations, not to, in any way, detract anything from their ministries, of course. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. For example, to make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their demise…

I think you misunderstood my comment about AS being irrelevent. I meant it is irrelevent in determining which is the one true church.

Perhaps you could expound a bit more; why is it irrelevant?

Catholics have it, as does Orthodoxy. But so does the PNCC, and some Northern European Lutherans, the ALCC here, and perhaps some others.

How can we know which churches don’t have it???

AS is not a way of telling which is the true Church. BTW, I am a strong believer in AS, and believe Lutherans who believe it is unimportant are misguided.

And I guarantee you that they will say the same thing about you, just as they did/do about me. It’s almost like a no win scenario. Every PC believes that their church is the church built by God, on Pentecost, even after I give them the name of the man who founded their church, and when he founded it.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

I actually went to college to become a teacher, but decided to go in a different direction at the last minute. My niece’s daughter is in the 4th grade and I can’t believe how fast paced everything is now. They learn so much so quickly. Heck, she knows more about some stuff then I do. LOL…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6045950]I agree. However, every other PC makes that same claim. I could start a church tomorrow and make the same claim. Something just doesn’t seem right about that, but that’s just me; perhaps I am missing something in my reasoning.

Don’t the directs roots of Lutheranism in the Catholic Church seem rather obvious?

Well, if the early church fathers such as the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107), and the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156) refered to Jesus’ established church as the CC throughout the known world, and they did, then I think it is safe to say, nominally speaking, that Jesus’ established church, built on the foundation of the Apostles, was catholic as opposed to eastern orthodox. On one of my earlier posts I cited quite a few 2nd and 3rd century ECF’s using the word catholic to describe Jesus’ one church, and many of them were from the eastern part of the empire.

Orthodoxy claims to be the Catholic Church, as well.

Perhaps you could expound a bit more; why is it irrelevant?

Many Churches have Apostolic Succession. Not all of them can be the one true church, right? I can’t just look for AS to find the one true church.

How can we know which churches don’t have it???

Well, the simple answer is communions that cannot trace the line of bishops. My LCMS is not in AS. We make no bones about our presbyter system of ordination. It is sufficient, but by no means preferrable, at leat in my view and that of the confessions.

*AS is not a way of telling which is the true Church. BTW, I am a strong believer in AS, and believe Lutherans who believe it is unimportant are misguided. *

And I guarantee you that they will say the same thing about you, just as they did/do about me. It’s almost like a no win scenario.

If they are Lutheram, not after they read the confessions.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Every PC believes that their church is the church built by God, on Pentecost, even after I give them the name of the man who founded their church, and when he founded it.
And which one is it? OR, was it the undivided Church, now in schism, both east and west and within the west, and needing healing through dialogue and the Holy Spirit?

Jon

 

[romesweethome]

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.

Do Lutherans believe that the thief on the cross went to heaven the very day that Jesus died?
Do Lutherans believe Jesus went to heaven that day?

The reason i ask, is that a popular lutheran pastor in the St Louis area claims this, even though scripture does not support either. He uses this as a proof that a person goes directly to heaven after death, even though scripture never says this.

peace, RSH

 

[JonNC]

Do Lutherans believe that the thief on the cross went to heaven the very day that Jesus died?
Do Lutherans believe Jesus went to heaven that day?

The reason i ask, is that a popular lutheran pastor in the St Louis area claims this, even though scripture does not support either. He uses this as a proof that a person goes directly to heaven after death, even though scripture never says this.

peace, RSH

Obviously, Lutherans don’t believe Jesus went directly to heaven, as we confess the Apostles Creed. In addition, the thief did not die that day, as they broke his legs, but not Christ’s because he was already dead, when taking them down in honor of the sabbath.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

I too have had amicable run-ins with eastern orthodox Christians here at CAF, and you are right. The 2 churches are in disagreement regarding things like: the filique, indulgences, authority…

My sense as a concerned Christian who is currently neither Catholic nor Orthodox is that Catholics seem to take your view, and Orthodox seem to take the view that there is much that divides you. On some of the things you mentioned, it seems the biggies are the doctrinal issues, like the Filioque, indulgences, and perhaps even transubstantiation, not to mentions universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. The practices and disciplines, priestly celibacy, etc. not so much. Curiously, it is the cultural traditions, liturgy, etc. that so closely links Lutherans and Catholics.

I agree with you with one exception. Regarding the Eucharist, the EOC and the CC are in agreement. The Eucharist is at the center of the Mass for both. It is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the midst of the Divine Liturgy, with the rest of the church. They both believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of the Christ, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The EOC however, has never described exactly how this occurs, or gone into the detail that the CC has. The doctrine of transubstantiation (which states what happens, not how it happens) - was formulated after the schism took place, and the EOC’s have never formally affirmed or denied it, preferring to state simply that it is a “Mystery.” However, they do speak in official church documents of a “change” (“metousiosis”) - of the bread and wine. Metousiosis is the Greek form of the word Transubstantiation. Examples of such documents are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:

"In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

You wouldn’t believe how many PC’s (including my former church and my sisters church) - teach, or at least suggest that the 4th century RCC is a man-made apostate church, often calling her the whore of Babylon from the book of revelation.

As far as sharing the same history, they simply say: “my church is the true reformed church that broke away from the apostate RCC.” I know, it makes no sense to me either. If that were the case, then where was the true church from the 4th century to the 11th century, or the 16th century? All the 16th century man-made churches, no doubt, were not part of Jesus’ original plan when He said: I will build my church and pray that my church (I’m paraphrasing) - is one and united just as my father and I are one, (John 17) - wouldn’t you agree? The seventh day Adventist church, the Mormon church, the Jehovah witness church, and the church to which my sister belongs, as well as all the PC’s that claim that you and I are WRONG about the true presence in the Eucharist, insist that they have every right to claim, to be part of the true church.

Well, the LCMS states that the Christian Church is there in any trinitarian Church. MAny, sadly, mix error with truth. But the 4th century apostate stuff seems silly, and totally without merit.

I truly believe that all churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ to which He is the head and savior. I just believe that the closer one gets to the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, the closer one gets to the fullness of truth. You will never get any PC to admit that they are teaching erroneously. They will simply deflect it back on to you.

Jon, are there any Lutheran churches (other than the one to which my niece belongs) - that interpret the words: this is my body, as, this is a symbol of my body? If not, I’d be curious to see what my niece and her husband think about that.

Joe…

 

[joe370]

Jon…

=joe370;6045950]I agree. However, every other PC makes that same claim. I could start a church tomorrow and make the same claim. Something just doesn’t seem right about that, but that’s just me; perhaps I am missing something in my reasoning.

Don’t the directs roots of Lutheranism in the Catholic Church seem rather obvious?

Absolutely. Lutheranism can trace her origin all the way back to the Apostles through the RCC. Martin Luther was a catholic priest, but he did, eventually establish another church and the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and its accompanying individual interpretation of Sacred Scripture, which seems to conflict with many passages, such as:

“Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you.” Hebrews 13:17

As a former Lutheran, (clearly I didn’t belong to the true Lutheran church) - the question I had to ask myself was: If the CC possesses zero authority to teach, then where does Martin Luther’s self proclaimed authority come from? The bible tells us that prophecy (teaching, in this context) - is to be done by men moved by the holy spirit:

*“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
2Peter 1:20-21 *

I use to think that that included every Christian, once baptized (or at least I was taught that as a kid) - but it occured to me that these men moved by the HS are the very men who were transformed on Pentecost by the HS, and they entrusted this deposit to reliable men, who were also moved by the holy spirit, qualifying them to teach others, ergo, apostolic succession:

*"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 2 Timothy 2
*

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Martin Luther reject the traditions of the CC?

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2Thessalonians 2:15

I was also stunned to find out that he added the word alone to the following verse:

*"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith [alone] - without the deeds of the law. He also declared good works were useless for salvation, much to my surprise. James 2:24-26 *

He also wrote a series of pamphlets in which he declared that the priesthood and the Episcopal Office must be done away with. Acts 6:5,14:22,20:28, Tit 1:5, James 5:14. And, at the same time said:

*“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?” *

 

[joe370]

Quote:
Well, if the early church fathers such as the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107), and the eastern (Greek) - Apostolic father, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156) refered to Jesus’ established church as the CC…

Orthodoxy claims to be the Catholic Church, as well.

Technically, they are catholic, for they can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostles, which begs the question: why do they go by the name EOC?

Quote:
Perhaps you could expound a bit more; why is it irrelevant?
Many Churches have Apostolic Succession. Not all of them can be the one true church, right?

I can’t just look for AS to find the one true church.

So, Apostolic succession which can be traced all the way back to the Apostles, will not help one find the church built by Jesus, on the foundation of the Apostles? If apostolic succession is/was irrelevant, then perhaps the protestant consensus is correct and Jesus’ Church ceased to exist soon after the last Apostle died? LOL…

As a former Lutheran (not the true Lutheran church to which you belong) - It occured to me that, before the Apostles passed on, they started a system, commanded by Jesus Christ, to pass the baton to successors. This was to insure the perpetuity of the church which Jesus Christ founded, and that system would require Apostolic Succession, to guard and protect the deposit of faith. When Jesus Christ vested in the Apostles special authority, surely this special apostolic authority was meant to be passed down in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church, until the end of time?

Was this authority passed on to Martin Luther, Zwingi, Calvin, Knox, etc. etc…If so, which one? Jesus said to His apostolic church:

• “And I send forth upon you the promise of My Father. But wait here in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” *

Was this spiritual “power” to be passed on to the Apostles’ successors, in perpetuity, or was it to change hands? Jesus said:

• “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.”

The Apostles did not live long enough to “make disciples of all nations.” They didn’t make disciples of the U.S. or Mexico, or Canada or Brazil… If not the Apostles, then perhaps their successors? Succession just seems logical, to me anyway. When someone jumps out of that continuum, they are free to re-define things as they see fit, and that is exactly what happened once the reformers established the holy bible as everyone’s exclusive authority. Of course, like you said, sin played a big role in it, on both sides of the table. Martin Luther certainly was in the right to rebuff the indulgence abuses, which were rectified shortly thereafter.

Jesus said to just one church, built on the foundation of the Apostles:

*“He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”

“As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

“Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”

“And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to them, that they might be one, even as We are One; I in them and Thou in Me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and Thou hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me.”

“…He breathed upon them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’”
*

To which church in the world today, was Jesus referring, regarding the preceding passages, was the question that changed my life. Paul said to Titus:

*“For this reason I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set right anything that is defective and shouldst appoint presbyters in every city, as I myself directed thee to do.”
*

Succession certainly seemed important to Paul. Again, Timothy said:

*"…and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others."
*

Clearly Paul was concerned with protecting the teachings of Jesus Christ via the succession of trustworthy men, “moved by the holy spirit.” How can the truth be passed on in a trustworthy manner, and with authority, unless there is a succession of trustworthy teachers, moved by the holy spirit, starting on Pentecost?

Logically, if this line of succession is ever broken, then it is every man for himself, in passing on what they believe to be the true gospel, and clearly this has not worked out. Just look at all the churches we see in the world today, basing their teachings on the authority of the holy bible. Since the advent of the PR, we see a proliferation of Protestant churches, which now number in the thousands. Isn’t the following verse enough to prove that Apostolic Succession was important to the apostles?

*"…And his ministry let another take." *

 

[joe370]

Continued…

A few early church fathers - apostolic succession:

St. Clement of Rome, bishop and apostolic father of the catholic church; first letter to the Corinthians 80 AD: “The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.”

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now…”

Irenaeus, against heresies - 180 A.D:

“The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the successions of Bishops, by which successions the Bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere.”

“For all these [heretics] are of a much later date than are the Bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches.”

Clement of Alexandria, who is the rich man that is saved - 200 AD:
*
“After the death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back to Ephesus from the island of Patmos; and upon being invited, he went even to the neighbouring cities of the pagans, here to appoint Bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there to ordain to the clerical estate such as were designated by the Spirit.”*

Tertullian, the demurrer against heretics - 200 AD:

"Moreover, if there be any (heresies) bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to be handed down by the Apostles… we can say to them: let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles."

Quote:
How can we know which churches don’t have it???
Well, the simple answer is communions that cannot trace the line of bishops.

My LCMS is not in AS. We make no bones about our presbyter system of ordination. It is sufficient, but by no means preferrable, at leat in my view and that of the confessions.

That’s cool. You are the first person (for me anyway) - that has admited that your church is not in AS.

Quote:
AS is not a way of telling which is the true Church. BTW, I am a strong believer in AS, and believe Lutherans who believe it is unimportant are misguided.

And I guarantee you that they will say the same thing about you, just as they did/do about me. It’s almost like a no win scenario.
If they are Lutheram, not after they read the confessions.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Quote:
The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

In what way is AS important to you?

They will still insist that you and I are the ones misguided. Simply go to one of the many protestant forums and test it; I did, once upon a time, and I was given the boot. BTW, almost all PC’s reject the ministerial priesthood, with the exception of the Lutheran church, I believe? Excluding my former Lutheran church of course.

Every PC believes that their church is the church built by God, on Pentecost, even after I give them the name of the man who founded their church, and when he founded it.

And which one is it?

OR, was it the undivided Church, now in schism, both east and west and within the west, and needing healing through dialogue and the Holy Spirit?

Well, in my humble opinion, which seems to be the scholarly consensus, Jesus established just one church, built on the foundation of the apostles, which went by the name catholic by the turn of the 1st century, for good reason, and by the turn of the 1st millennium, Jesus’ church split in 2, and by the turn of the 16th century…well, you know the rest. You are so right, Jesus’ divided church is in dire need of healing through dialogue and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

See my response to joe370 and please note again my use of the word “mandatory.” I’m not saying that these things don’t have anecdotal support in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. My problem with what Rome is done is that they have defined these things as dogma binding on all the faithful unlike what the Orthodox have done.

What you call as Rome, I believe you are addressing Peter’s Chair in the Pope not the Bishop of Rome?

What the Pope and the magisterium has done, was defend the apostolic teachings. The problem is not, with the dogma or doctrines of the Apostolic Faith, that the Popes and Bishops have protected and defended from antiquity. You have a problem with " authority" as does some of the Orthodox Church’s in schism with Peter’s chair being excercised in the Popes, not all Orthodox Church’s are in schism with the Pope. I would follow your argument, if it did not come from men; But my Catholic Faith is based on what Jesus has spoken in time when he gave Peter the keys and the authority to bind and loose on earth and he, Jesus will do the same from heaven; Peter in the Popes have binded the faithful to the apostolic faith, and so has Jesus from heaven.

Matthew 16:Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, **you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

Unless those Orthodox in schism with the Popes God given authority, and your personal views of the Popes never possessing and or excercising their God given authority from antiquity, and prove that Jesus words from sacred scripture, do not mean what has been practiced since Peter and the apostles, until today in the Popes and the successors in the apostles? then any other interpretation in opposition to Peter and his successors in the Popes authority to bind and loose comes from man and rejection of God’s authority.

The doctines of the Catholic Faith follow sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition of the Apostles. The apostolic faith becomes binding for the faithful in a doctrine, when the apostolic belief’s come under attack, so as to protect the faithful from being moved by every wind of doctrine that has come in every age. The Popes and the Magisterium was placed on earth by Jesus himself our King and Lord, to feed, tend and bring back the faithful should they fall away.

The Orthodox in schism with Peter’s chair in the Popes have no binding authority or keys over the entire flock of Jesus (see John 21;15-17) these only have binding authority and keys to their immediate members (flock). When the Apostolic faith has come under attack, you never find an Orthodox church in schism with the Pope ever dictating or excercising the authority of Peter’s chair from history, only the Pope’s and the Magisterium which makes up the successors to the apostles in communion with the Popes.

It is easy to argue or object to authority in times of peace. But when the Catholic Church was persecuted and her members killed for the faith, history records the Popes being sought after and the successors to the apostles in communion with the Popes being martyred, never the Orthodox in schism with Peter’s authority in the Popes.

I would just call your attention to the truth of your objection to the authority of the Popes and the magisterium, not the apostolic faith believed by all Catholics including the Orthodox in schism with Peter’s authority. Seeing this truth, now your arguments make more sense to me, because they deal with authority not the 2000 year old One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6048823]Hey Jon…
I agree with you with one exception. Regarding the Eucharist, the EOC and the CC are in agreement. The Eucharist is at the center of the Mass for both. It is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the midst of the Divine Liturgy, with the rest of the church. They both believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of the Christ, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The EOC however, has never described exactly how this occurs, or gone into the detail that the CC has. The doctrine of transubstantiation (which states what happens, not how it happens) - was formulated after the schism took place, and the EOC’s have never formally affirmed or denied it, preferring to state simply that it is a “Mystery.” However, they do speak in official church documents of a “change” (“metousiosis”) - of the bread and wine. Metousiosis is the Greek form of the word Transubstantiation. Examples of such documents are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:

This was my understanding as well, but I have seen other Orthodox reject Transub. I agree with them; it is a mystery.

"In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world

.
Just to clarify, Lutherans reject impanation. Maybe I’m the one off the Lutheran reservation, but with the exception what is in read, I agree with the description here of what the nature of the real presence is.

I truly believe that all churches comprise the Mystical Body of Christ to which He is the head and savior. I just believe that the closer one gets to the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, the closer one gets to the fullness of truth.

So, are you saying we must look back to the early Church? I agree.

You will never get any PC to admit that they are teaching erroneously. They will simply deflect it back on to you.

Well, were I to think the Lutheran Church was teaching erroneously, I’d have to leave. Of course they wouldn’t admit to error and still stay.

Jon, are there any Lutheran churches (other than the one to which my niece belongs) - that interpret the words: this is my body, as, this is a symbol of my body? If not, I’d be curious to see what my niece and her husband think about that.

Joe, what branch of Lutheranism was your Church? I know of no Lutheran synod (body) that would even dare describe the Eucharist with the word symbolic.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6049005]
So, Apostolic succession which can be traced all the way back to the Apostles, will not help one find the church built by Jesus, on the foundation of the Apostles? If apostolic succession is/was irrelevant, then perhaps the protestant consensus is correct and Jesus’ Church ceased to exist soon after the last Apostle died? LOL…

As a former Lutheran (not the true Lutheran church to which you belong) - It occured to me that, before the Apostles passed on, they started a system, commanded by Jesus Christ, to pass the baton to successors. This was to insure the perpetuity of the church which Jesus Christ founded, and that system would require Apostolic Succession, to guard and protect the deposit of faith. When Jesus Christ vested in the Apostles special authority, surely this special apostolic authority was meant to be passed down in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church, until the end of time?

Now you know, Joe, that at one time there was just one order - presbyter. And bishops were eventually chosen locally. The Bishop of Rome was not perceived to have universal jurisdiction, and in fact the early councils gave him his jurisdiction - the west. How we view authority differs in the amount, and not the source.

I could also say that the Church failed to properly exercise its charge to protect the deposit of faith, as AS failed to prevent Schism and abuses.

Was this authority passed on to Martin Luther, Zwingi, Calvin, Knox, etc. etc…If so, which one? Jesus said to His apostolic church:

Don’t know, don’t care about Zwingli, Calvin, and the rest. Luther never claimed any kind of authority. In fact, he never held any kind of authority position within Lutheranism. But I will say that had the authority of the time recognized the legitimate claims Luther did make about abuses, and not been more worried about money for building St. Peter’s, perhaps the whole reformation thing would have simply been an internal reform.

The Apostles did not live long enough to “make disciples of all nations.” They didn’t make disciples of the U.S. or Mexico, or Canada or Brazil… If not the Apostles, then perhaps their successors? Succession just seems logical, to me anyway. When someone jumps out of that continuum, they are free to re-define things as they see fit, and that is exactly what happened once the reformers established the holy bible as everyone’s exclusive authority. Of course, like you said, sin played a big role in it, on both sides of the table. Martin Luther certainly was in the right to rebuff the indulgence abuses, which were rectified shortly thereafter.

But not shortly enough thereafter for Father Martin to even witness it, and long after his excommunication for daring to challenge these abuses (not doctrines).

I’m not certain what you mean by “everyone’s exclusive authority”. Please explain.

Jesus said to just one church, built on the foundation of the Apostles:

And there were already two 500 years before Luther arrived, and at least 5 with AS today!!

“He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”

Even if I were to accept the idea that this scripture is intended specifically for the Catholic Church of the Bishop of Rome, I would still contend that I do not reject her, nor do I reject the other partriarchs, but as a reformationist, seek dialogue for reconciliation.

To which church in the world today, was Jesus referring, regarding the preceding passages, was the question that changed my life. Paul said to Titus:

I would say the pre-schism, undivided Church, which again leaves me, as a Lutheran to ask, if Lutheranism is wrong, to whom shall I go? If AS is the key, I could go to Rome, Orthdoxy, PNCC, Scandinavian Lutheranism, ALCC, other old Catholics, etc.
Frankly, after over 2 years here, I am not convinced that any of these are the one true church, over and above the others.

Succession certainly seemed important to Paul. Again, Timothy said:

Clearly Paul was concerned with protecting the teachings of Jesus Christ via the succession of trustworthy men, “moved by the holy spirit.” How can the truth be passed on in a trustworthy manner, and with authority, unless there is a succession of trustworthy teachers, moved by the holy spirit, starting on Pentecost?

No argument.

Logically, if this line of succession is ever broken, then it is every man for himself, in passing on what they believe to be the true gospel, and clearly this has not worked out. Just look at all the churches we see in the world today, basing their teachings on the authority of the holy bible. Since the advent of the PR, we see a proliferation of Protestant churches, which now number in the thousands. Isn’t the following verse enough to prove that Apostolic Succession was important to the apostles?

You seem to think, Joe, that I will defend “Protestantism”, whatever that is. I support an undivided Church, but that hasn’t been the case for 1,000 years. The line may not be broken, but it is divided. Again, show me that your line is the one true church, over and above the others.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;6049005]
So, Apostolic succession which can be traced all the way back to the Apostles, will not help one find the church built by Jesus, on the foundation of the Apostles? If apostolic succession is/was irrelevant, then perhaps the protestant consensus is correct and Jesus’ Church ceased to exist soon after the last Apostle died? LOL…

As a former Lutheran (not the true Lutheran church to which you belong) - It occured to me that, before the Apostles passed on, they started a system, commanded by Jesus Christ, to pass the baton to successors. This was to insure the perpetuity of the church which Jesus Christ founded, and that system would require Apostolic Succession, to guard and protect the deposit of faith. When Jesus Christ vested in the Apostles special authority, surely this special apostolic authority was meant to be passed down in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church, until the end of time?

Now you know, Joe, that at one time there was just one order - presbyter. And bishops were eventually chosen locally. The Bishop of Rome was not perceived to have universal jurisdiction, and in fact the early councils gave him his jurisdiction - the west. How we view authority differs in the amount, and not the source.

I could also say that the Church failed to properly exercise its charge to protect the deposit of faith, as AS failed to prevent Schism and abuses.

Agreed, regarding the 3 fold ministry. In the first and second centuries, the threefold order of Episcopate, Presbyterate, and Diaconate, were used interchangeably. And the bishop of Rome was not perceived to have universal jurisdiction - yet. After all, Christianity was illegal, and Christians were being persecuted from time to time, until the 4th century, and a sustained governing structure was, no doubt, an insurmountable task. That notwithstanding, Christianity, against all odds, was still flourishing and expanding everywhere, and the need for a hierarchical system became absolutely necessary, and we can see this inevitable evolution when we read the writings of the ECF’s.

Jon, if the CC is the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, and the CC failed to properly exercise its charge to protect the deposit of faith, then logically speaking, the holy spirit failed, as well, to guide Jesus’ church into all truth - yes, no? I really do believe that Jesus did and can successfully sustain and guide His church and protect the deposit of faith, until His glorious return,in spite of all the apostate individuals, over the centuries, attempting to dismantle and destroy Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church, to which he is the head and savior. After all, the anti-Christ never ceases in his onslaught/plan to destroy Christ’s Body, to no avail of course.

Should I believe that the great east-west schism, or the abuses, eventually compromised the deposit of faith? Gosh, I hope not! If so, where can I go to find the preserved/protected deposit of faith? Someone has to have authority, as per the holy bible; if not the CC then who?

Again, regarding that 3 fold ministry, Ignatius of Antioch, (100 AD) - in his Letters, makes it clear that in a given local Church, there is one bishop, a council of presbyters, and the deacons: *"All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God (Smyrnaeans 8), *and there is no doubt among scholars as to the genuineness of the seven Letters in the current collection. Although Clement ( a disciple of Peter) - uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably, there is evidence that he has in mind the same kind of Church structure as described by Ignatius. This letter was occasioned by dissent within the Corinthian Church, regarding a revolt against the current presbytery. In arguing that the Corinthians should submit to their appointed leaders, Clement speaks of the proper order in the Church in terms of the Old Testament ministers of the altar:

*“So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, for they follow the laws of the Master and do no sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”
*

Here, Clement is describing the proper order of the Church, but he does so using the imagery of the Old Testament. The high priest represents the bishop. (This terminology is still used in the EOC). The priests represent the presbytery, and the Levites represent the deacons. Notice also that Clement specifically mentions the role of the laity. Therefore, for Clement, the Church has a four-fold structure: bishop, presbyters, deacons, and laity.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Regarding the bishop of Rome, Irenaeus uses the succession of bishops in the various local Churches as an argument against the Gnostics’ claims to have special knowledge handed down secretly from the Apostles. He speaks of the succession of both presbyters and bishops. However, when he gets around to actually listing the succession of bishops for a particular Church, he uses Rome as his example; he gives a single line of succession. That is, he describes one bishop succeeding another. There is no suggestion of multiple successions. It is Irenaeus who formally identifies Clement as the author of the letter from the Church of Rome to the Corinthians:

*“The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions form the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus, after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sotor having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth (III.3.3).”
*

This letter was actually read at Mass. It is evident that while the terminology regarding the offices of bishop and presbyter remained somewhat fluid in the first and second centuries, the offices themselves were not interchangeable. Clement and Irenaeus, like Ignatius, know of only one bishop in a church, at a time. Justin elaborates in his first Apology. In describing the Eucharistic celebration to the emperor he writes:

“And on the day which is called the Sun’s Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer, bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly offers up prayers and thanksgivings [Lit. eucharists] to the best of his power, and the people assent with Amen.”

Notice that he describes the leader of the Church’s worship as the president. This is extremely important. Obviously an assembly can have only one president. Regardless of how many presbyters may have been present, only one of them could have presided. Ignatius also speaks of the place of the bishop in the Church in terms of the Eucharist:

*“Take great care to keep one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us by His Blood; one sanctuary, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants. Thus all your acts may be done accordingly to God’s will (Philadelphians 4).”
*

*“Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ may be, there is the catholic Church (Smyrnaeans 8).”
*

Quote:
Was this authority passed on to Martin Luther, Zwingi, Calvin, Knox, etc. etc…If so, which one? Jesus said to His apostolic church:

Don’t know, don’t care about Zwingli, Calvin, and the rest. Luther never claimed any kind of authority…

Many Zwingi, Calvin, Knox advocates would say the same about you and me. I know ML never claimed any kind of authority, but he did, in a way, usurp authority by transfering said authority from the CC to the holy bible via individual interpretation, which is a violstion of sacred scripture.

Regarding the indulgence abuses, simony, I totally agree with you. Certain men in the CC at this time were perverting the “house of the living God,” and I would have hated to be in their shoes when they finally met their maker. If this is reason enough to leave the CC, I can certainly provide many indiscretions/abuses wrought by ML and the rest of the reformers, but that’s not my thing. I am more of a uniter as opposed to a divider, like you; hate the sin not the sinner - right?

But not shortly enough thereafter for Father Martin to even witness it, and long after his excommunication for daring to challenge these abuses (not doctrines).

Agreed! Is this why apostolic succession is considered invalid in protestant circles? Actually the CC underwent a major reformation, and in doing so, cleaned house, so to speak, and no doubt, we have ML’s persistent will to thank.

 

[joe370]

I’m not certain what you mean by “everyone’s exclusive authority”. Please explain.

Well, sola scriptura via individual interpretation is the protestant mantra, as per ML. If the bible as opposed to a bishop, priest, minister, pastor, is the Christians one and only authority, then no one has the authority to question anyone - right? Or am I missing something?

Quote:
Jesus said to just one church, built on the foundation of the Apostles:
And there were already two 500 years before Luther arrived, and at least 5 with AS today!!

Agreed, but for me, the key was to find that one church built circa AD 33, on the foundation of the Apostles, (regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) - to which Jesus said, I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. I wanted to find the church to which Jesus said: And I also say to you that you are Peter, (Kepha) - and on this rock (kepha) - I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, (as opposed to the church built on the foundation of the 16th century reformation) - regardless of individual apostasies that took/take place in God’s House.

Quote:
“He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”

Even if I were to accept the idea that this scripture is intended specifically for the Catholic Church of the Bishop of Rome, I would still contend that I do not reject her, nor do I reject the other partriarchs, but as a reformationist, seek dialogue for reconciliation.

Amen brother. It’s that kind of thinking that could mend the Christian chasm. You and I think alike.

Quote:
To which church in the world today, was Jesus referring, regarding the preceding passages, was the question that changed my life. Paul said to Titus:

I would say the pre-schism, undivided Church, which again leaves me, as a Lutheran to ask, if Lutheranism is wrong, to whom shall I go? If AS is the key, I could go to Rome, Orthdoxy, PNCC, Scandinavian Lutheranism, ALCC, other old Catholics, etc. Frankly, after over 2 years here, I am not convinced that any of these are the one true church, over and above the others.

I would never say that Lutheranism is wrong. If you feel that the Lutheran church is where you should be, then that is all that matters, in my opinion. My goal was simple; I simply wanted/needed to find the church built by God, and I feel that I have. I love all churches, regardless of denomination. They draw non-Christians to the fold, and that is awesome.

Quote:
Succession certainly seemed important to Paul. Again, Timothy said:

Clearly Paul was concerned with protecting the teachings of Jesus Christ via the succession of trustworthy men, “moved by the holy spirit.” How can the truth be passed on in a trustworthy manner, and with authority, unless there is a succession of trustworthy teachers, moved by the holy spirit, starting on Pentecost?

No argument.

These were the questions that kept me up at night, prior to my conversion. LOL…

Quote:
Logically, if this line of succession is ever broken, then it is every man for himself, in passing on what they believe to be the true gospel, and clearly this has not worked out. Just look at all the churches we see in the world today, basing their teachings on the authority of the holy bible. Since the advent of the PR, we see a proliferation of Protestant churches, which now number in the thousands. Isn’t the following verse enough to prove that Apostolic Succession was important to the apostles?

You seem to think, Joe, that I will defend “Protestantism”, whatever that is. I support an undivided Church, but that hasn’t been the case for 1,000 years. The line may not be broken, but it is divided. Again, show me that your line is the one true church, over and above the others.

Jon, I don’t think that at all; if it came off that way, I apologize. :thumbsup:Just because there hasn’t been an undivided church for 1000 years doesn’t mean that the church built by God doesn’t exist -right? According to the bible, it has to still be here! Jesus said that He would be with His church forever, until the end of time. Regarding the one church built by Christ, the ECF’s of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries all refered to Jesus’ church as the CC. If you and I lived in the 1st century, 5th century or the 10th century we would have belonged to the CC, and I know that means very little to most Protestants, but it meant everything to this former Protestant. I say with the utmost respect for the Lutheran churches, that these Lutheran churches didn’t exist until the 16th century. The question I asked myself as a former Lutheran was: If the LC (or any PC for that matter) - is the church built by God, then Christians for the first 1500 years, were without a church, and that really bothered me.

 

[joe370]

The following church leaders (just to name a few) - were bishops in the east as opposed to the west, and they didn’t refer to Jesus’ church as eastern orthodox. If Ignatius had said: "…just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [EOC or Lutheran Church,] I would be a Christian belonging to either the EOC or the Lutheran church, without a doubt:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, (disciple of John) - Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2, AD 107.

*Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist, which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

In his ( Letter to The Philadelphians, Chap. 3, about 50-117 A.D. ) Saint Ignatius of Antioch, wrote:

*" . . . For, all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop. *And those, too, will belong to God who have returned, repentant, to the unity of the Church so as to live in accordance with Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, brethren. No one who follows another into schism inherits the kingdom of God ( 1 Cor. 6:9 ). No one who follows heretical doctrine is on the side of the passion.

St. Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, & 16:2, AD 156.

When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world..

In his seven books, ( Stromate is, VII, XVI, 107, before 215 A. D. ), Early Greek Theologian, Clement of Alexandria, head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt wrote:

" . . . There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous holy ] according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church. The Church brings together the faithful ] by the will of the one God through the one Lord, into the unity of the one faith . . . "

*And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.

**

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Well, sola scriptura via individual interpretation is the protestant mantra, as per ML.

IMHO, you are.

Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It has nothing to do with interpretation (although that gets involved in the arbitration using Sola Scriptura).

Lutherans actually end to reject individual interpretation. The Catholic Church insists upon it, however (CCC # 85, 87, etc.).

The HUGE, constant focus on power, authority, lordship over overs is a central Catholic theme; it’s not outside of Catholicism. Lutherans approach all this with a strong embrace of humility, accountability and community. I embrace that the church has authority to arbitrate - but the church is not limited to me or to my denomination (or any other, including The Catholic Church). Authority is not as simply as self declaring self to be the sole Authority - infallible and unaccountable; right cuz one can’t be wrong (self). That might be convenient (as lone as all other accepts such with docility - CCC 87) but it actually as nothing to do with being authoritative or correct.

Agreed, but for me, the key was to find that one church built circa AD 33, on the foundation of the Apostles, (regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) - to which Jesus said, I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. I wanted to find the church to which Jesus said: And I also say to you that you are Peter, (Kepha) - and on this rock (kepha) - I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, (as opposed to the church built on the foundation of the 16th century reformation) - regardless of individual apostasies that took/take place in God’s House.

I believe that Jesus founded His church. I actually think it came into existence at the Annunciation when Mary believed. And yes, it’s always (and ever will be) one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of believers.

I don’t think that Jesus founded The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in 33 AD. I think that C.F.W. Walther (and others) did in 1847. But all that is entirely moot to anything. Christians are not a specific denomination, I believe that Christians are people. People with the gift of faith. People whom God has brought into His church via Baptism and His gift of faith. It actually as nothing to do with what congregation in which they may or may not hold official membership or what denomination that congregation may be legally affiliated with. In my congregation ARE Christians (and thus those are a small, tiny part of His church), of course.

Just because there hasn’t been an undivided church for 1000 years doesn’t mean that the church built by God doesn’t exist -right?

IMHO, the church has been united all along, and still is. When I say that the church is ONE - I literally mean that. I think we ARE one, by virtue of our ONE faith in Christ as our Savior.

Institutionally, there has never been one congregation or one denomination. Institutionally, we’ve never been one. There was one denomination for The Roman Empire (but not beyond it!) for about 100 years, but that’s probably as close as we’ve ever come to one institution (at least for one country/nation). Today, there are millions of congregations and thousands of denominations. And of course, much of the church isn’t (officially) a part of any congregation. And lots of congregations aren’t a part of any denomination.

Theologically, we’ve also never been one. We see disunity in the Gospels, in Acts, in the Epistles - indeed, the Epistles were written in large part BECAUSE disunity existed. There’s probably no period in the history of Christianity when there was more diversity of theological thought than in those first 2 or 3 centuries after Christ. Even a lot of things nearly all take for granted (things proclaimed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds) were highly controversal and strongly debated in those early years. I think sometimes Catholics will take some comfort in the reality that The Catholic Church agrees with itself - so that there is no OFFICIAL dispute within itself, at least in formal, official matters. I could dispute that, but I “get it.” However, the same is generally true for all denominations. My denomination officially agrees with itself in all matters that it thinks it should be in agreement about, too. Self usually agrees with self. I’m not sure this is theological unity, however. I’d LIKE us 2.2 billion Christians to be in greater agreement, but frankly, I"m not sure how that’s going to happen in Christiandom that has so embraced pride, institutionalism, etc.

• Josiah (one who moved from Catholic to Lutheran, lol)…

.