The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[joe370]

Anyone or anything can claim this (and all cults do - well one, the LDS, dropped this) but it’s the claim of one (self) for one (self), and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with being correct. It ONLY has to do with one (self) exempting one (self) from accountability.

If you are right and the CC is a man-made church, then you are right, however, I wholeheartedly believe that Jesus built the CC, and you have provided zero proof to the contrary.

Jesus left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom he commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, “My Church” (Mt.18). Both St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius were identified as disciples of John, and they refered to Jesus’ church as Catholic, so it only stands to reason that John did too.

In order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 AD) using the Greek word “Katholicos” (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna, he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote,

*“Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). *

Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time, and in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp

“remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of “the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.”

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons. The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, there were zero denominations in the early church, and zero denominations for the first 1500 years of Christianity, just 2 churches: the EOC and the CC???

ONCE AGAIN, there is zero evidence of any denomination (by any or no name) before the 4th century. In the 4th century, at least an elementary, proto denomination developes FOR THE ROMAN EMPIRE, for that single nation (thus, not catholic). It lasts roughly a century before it splits as the OO splits off. Soon thereafter, as the former western part of the Empire falls, there develops an east/west increasing divide and the power stuggle begins. Effectively the split happens in the 8th century but becomes final an official in 1054 (at which time we have at least 3 denominations in what was the former Roman Empire - and perhaps proto denominations beyond). Of course, there were hundreds of thousands of Christians and thousands of congregations.

1. My point is, regarding the catechisms is: they believe that your church and my church, by adding the Lutheran Catechism, or the Catholic Catechism, go on and on and on and on and on, constantly enlarging the corpus.

I was addressing unity. Noting that Lutherans seek such, and that we disagree with The Catholic Church that what Jesus prayed for is that each one be in full unity with one - self exclusively. We see unity as more than just me with me or one denomination with one denomination. Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church officially and currently is in agreement with The Catholic Church in all things that The Catholic Church currently thinks it good to be in agreement on. It has a unity of one: self alone with self alone. It alone agrees with ONE alone - the ONE it sees in the mirror. **So what? ** Is THAT the unity you think Jesus desires?

I think Jesus seeks a unity of faith (which largely exists among Christians since our faith is in Christ), a unity of love (which we have a LOT of work to do to advance that!) and prehaps a unity of dogma (I can think of one verse that suggests that). But again, The LDS agreeing exclusively with The LDS is in all matters of official dogma is hardly Christian unity of dogma (replace LDS with RCC or UMC or whatever - same point). As I revealed in my earlier post, the ability to even pursue that in any formal way ended many, many, many centuries before Luther was born - destroyed by a re-focus on individualism, institutionalism, lording it over each other as the gentiles do, and loud, prideful shouts of “I’m infallible! I’m unaccountable! I’m the sole authority! I’m the sole arbiter! When I speak, Jesus speaks!” Read my post about the sad reality that would almost surely happen if we even TRIED to have a genuine ecumenical council. We have much to do before we can even attempt to seek unity in dogma - nearly 1,500 years of egoism, individualism, institutionalism and shouts of self alone proclaiming self alone to be infallible/unaccountable.

And again, we’d need to determine what this corpus of agreed upon dogma would need to be. Maybe we already did! Maybe it’s the Nicene Creed. And thus, maybe Catholics and Lutherans (and about 80% of Protestants) ALREADY have unity of dogma to the extent that such is required? Ah, but The Catholic Church has been adding and adding and adding. Last in 1950. Some thing yet another issue is about to be declared dogma - in our lifetimes. Will The Catholic Church ever stop adding, inventing, creating, making new dogmas, constantly moving the goal posts, moving more and more into itself with more and more unique dogmas exclusive to just one - itself? No one knows, only that it hasn’t yet.

In any case, we already have unity of faith. We need to work HARD of a unity of love. And we can’t work on a unity of dogma - it’s impossible with the largest denomination insisting “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. Agree with me and then you’ll be right, too. I"m the sole authority. I’m the sole interpreter. I’m the sole arbiter. I’m infallible and thus unaccountable. Everyone and everything else, however, is wrong and fallible and accountabile.” No unity is possible in that mileau, with that attitude.

continued in next post (because of that annoying 6000 character limit, lol)

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

**Continued from above…
**

I am sorry but Martin Luther disagreed with you, and I have already provided quotes of ML at his utter disgust regarding sola scriptura and individual interpretation.

No. You provided NO quotes from Luther where he states that Scripture is not to be the rule/canon/norma normans.

Yes, Luther (and Lutherans) are opposed to individual interpretation. I’ts profoundly odd to me that YOU are opposed to it since you are an apologist for the only denomination on the planet (out of thousands Catholics claim exists) that has the most extreme and radical form of such. It alone designates it alone as the sole, individual interpreter. Not only of Scripture but also of Tradition (Read your Catechism # 85). NO OTHER denomination does that (believe me, if the Lutheran one did - you’ll be quoting it!) - just ONE - The Catholic Church. But it doesn’t even leave it at that! It insists WHATEVER it says is to be accepted “with docility” as Jesus speaking (read your Catechism # 87). This we find NOWHERE ELSE in Christianity (even the LDS dropped this about a century ago). Yes, we find it in every cult, but we’re not talking about cults.

Again, if the CC is in favor of individual interpretation, why do all Catholics defer to the authority of the CC, ultimately, when it comes to the interpretation of the bible?

Because The Catholic Church permits NO OTHER interpreter (including you). ONLY one. Itself. Exclusively.

I understand that you believe that the CC taught without error, regarding things such as theotokos, Jesus’ 2 natures, the Trinity, etc, at the early councils, and that error did not creep in until much later, but quite frankly, this just makes me wonder if the CC can teach erroneously at a later date, then perhaps they taught erroneously about the preceding dogmas?

1. I NEVER said that The Catholic Church was EVER infallible/unaccountable. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take your point here to the Mormons.
2. I accept the wisdom of those Ecumenical Councils, yes. But they are not any one denomination and you’re making an absurd leap - that because representatives of a group 1700 years ago were right about something, ergo the representatives of the same group 1700 years later MUST be right about everything. Friend, I agree with Obama that the world is essentially round. I even agree with him that the USA has 50 states. But I disagree with you that ERGO I MUST agree with him on everything - from his fave topings on pizza to his thoughts on religion to his politics on abortion. You have a flawed - every flawed - misconception there. Look, The Catholic Church agrees with The Lutheran Church on EXACTLY the same things that The Lutheran Church agrees with The Catholic Church about - yet The Catholic Church is NOT insisting THEREFORE it MUST agree with Lutheranism on everything. The denomination you are trying to support doesn’t even agree with you on this point.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

Forget all the questions of my other posts, that you overlooked. Please just respond to this post. You said:

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
So, there were zero denominations in the early church, and zero denominations for the first 1500 years of Christianity, just 2 churches: the EOC and the CC???
ONCE AGAIN, there is zero evidence of any denomination (by any or no name) before the 4th century.

For someone who abhors the authority of the CC, you certainly say things like, I reject that, quite a bit. I am going to try and agree with you as much as possible. I agree with the preceding.

In the 4th century, at least an elementary, proto denomination developes FOR THE ROMAN EMPIRE, for that single nation (thus, not catholic).

What was the name of this proto-Christian denomination? So, the CC built by Jesus circa 33AD, was a different church than the CC of Rome? If so,then that means the ecumenical councils that you consider full of wisdom, but still possibly fallible, were actually councils comprised of mere men belonging to a man-made church as opposed to the CC built by Jesus? Interesting. The following is a fluid time line of Catholic Church history (1-500 A.D.). There are many on-line. At which point in this timeline did the RCC rear its ugly head? And, could you please identify this historical Catholic church that continued to flourish alongside the man-made RCC as well as the man-made EOC, from the 1st century to the 16th century, that defined the many dogmas that you embrace as truth???

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

It lasts roughly a century before it splits as the OO splits off. Soon thereafter, as the former western part of the Empire falls, there develops an east/west increasing divide and the power stuggle begins. Effectively the split happens in the 8th century but becomes final an official in 1054 (at which time we have at least 3 denominations in what was the former Roman Empire - and perhaps proto denominations beyond).

By my count, up to this point, there are now 2 churches, and zero denominations. The EOC and the CC.

Of course, there were hundreds of thousands of Christians and thousands of congregations.

Names of these hundreds of thousands of non-EOC and non-CC Christians? Names of these thousands of non-EOC and non-CC congregations?

Quote:

1. My point is, regarding the catechisms is: they believe that your church and my church, by adding the Lutheran Catechism, or the Catholic Catechism, go on and on and on and on and on, constantly enlarging the corpus.

The fact remains, this is what most PC’s believe.

I was addressing unity. Noting that Lutherans seek such, and that we disagree with The Catholic Church that what Jesus prayed for is that each one be in full unity with one - self exclusively.

I want to agree but I cannot. Jesus’ wanted just one church with one set of beliefs, for the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, can only teach one truth regarding any one doctrine, which means there can only be one truth regarding baptism, the eucharist, etc etc. I ask you things like: who is teaching what the apostles believed regarding the Eucharist or baptism, and you simply ignore the question.

We see unity as more than just me with me or one denomination with one denomination.

Again, if a person wants to join your church, but refuses to be baptized into your church, can that person still join?

Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church officially and currently is in agreement with The Catholic Church in all things that The Catholic Church currently thinks it good to be in agreement on.

Sadly not all the Lutheran churches can make that same claim, but, from within each exclusive LC, they officially and currently are in agreement with each respective LC, in all things that each respective LC currently thinks it good to be in agreement on…

 

[joe370]

Josiah, each Lutheran church (any PC/evangelical church/non-denominational church, for that matter) - has a unity of one: self alone with self alone. It alone agrees with ONE alone - the ONE it sees in the mirror. So what? AJ, is THAT the unity you think Jesus desires?

I think Jesus seeks a unity of faith (which largely exists among Christians since our faith is in Christ),

Agreed, but not limited to…

…a unity of love (which we have a LOT of work to do to advance that!)

Agreed…

.

…and prehaps a unity of dogma (I can think of one verse that suggests that).

Unity of dogma is only perhaps important? If I start a church and insist that baptism is unnecessary, you, or your church pastor, or any church leader, would have no authority to question me - right?

But again, The LDS agreeing exclusively with The LDS is in all matters of official dogma is hardly Christian unity of dogma (replace LDS with RCC or UMC or whatever - same point).

AJ, the LDS agreeing exclusively with The LDS in all matters of official dogma is hardly Christian unity of dogma (replace LDS with one of the Lutheran churches (one believing in the true presence; one not) - same point). If churches agreeing with one another in all matters of official dogma, doesn’t matter that much, then, like I said, I could start a church and embrace what Marcion or Nestorian taught, and it would be OK, for the simple fact that the CC, the EOC and the LC, any church for that matter, would have no authority over me - correct???

As I revealed in my earlier post, the ability to even pursue that in any formal way ended many, many, many centuries before Luther was born

Disagree. Can the church built by God speak with authority, whatever or where ever that church may be, and of course excluding the CC, the EOC and all the PC’s? Remember, you don’t believe that the CC was founded by Jesus and I don’t believe that your church or any of the PC’s were founded by Jesus.

Certainly every isolated and respective church agrees exclusively with each isolated and respective church, in all matters of official dogma.

• destroyed by a re-focus on individualism, institutionalism, lording it over each other as the gentiles do, and loud, prideful shouts of “I’m infallible! I’m unaccountable! I’m the sole arbiter! When I speak, Jesus speaks!” I’m the sole authority!

No sole authority, or sole arbiter needed - correct? Sola scriptura is all about individualism; that is the very reason why I could start a church and define my own charter and write my own catechism, based on my unique interpretations of the bible. Are you saying that I could not do this, just as Martin Luther did?

 

[joe370]

Read my post about the sad reality that would almost surely happen if we even TRIED to have a genuine ecumenical council.

Already did, and I responded. You have, however, ignored many of my questions, but, like I said, that’s cool.

We have much to do before we can even attempt to seek unity in dogma - nearly 1,500 years of egoism, individualism, institutionalism and shouts of self alone proclaiming self alone to be infallible/unaccountable.

So, the only way unity in dogma can occur, is if the CC alone said: we have decided that we cannot, and never could, teach infallibly (without error regarding faith and morals, including the early ecumenical councils) - and we now understand that we do not possess sole authority or arbitration regarding all that Jesus taught? This would fix the great divide?

And again, we’d need to determine what this corpus of agreed upon dogma would need to be. Maybe we already did! Maybe it’s the Nicene Creed. And thus, maybe Catholics and Lutherans (and about 80% of Protestants) ALREADY have unity of dogma to the extent that such is required?

Just the Nicene creed and not the council of council of Ephesus or the council Chalcedon? In other word, the 2 different interpretations of the Eucharist (thanksgiving) - or the 2 or 3 different interpretations of baptism are OK, and perhaps fall within the required unity of dogma?

Ah, but The Catholic Church has been adding and adding and adding. Last in 1950. Some thing yet another issue is about to be declared dogma - in our lifetimes. Will The Catholic Church ever stop adding, inventing, creating, making new dogmas, constantly moving the goal posts, moving more and more into itself with more and more unique dogmas exclusive to just one - itself? No one knows, only that it hasn’t yet.

This is inaccurate, but you are clearly set in your ways, and that’s cool. Like you said: no person or church leader has any right to tell you that you are wrong, if the CC can’t! For 300 years no Christian believed in the Trinity, or the hypostatic union or theotokos, and many didn’t even after these dogmas were defined, but they do now. It’s not that the CC added anything; they simply clarified what was already believed, but only in a very loose and undefined manner. Sola scriptura is a Lutheran doctrine, which was never taught by Jesus Christ. That was added, invented, in response to church authority.

In any case, we already have unity of faith. We need to work HARD of a unity of love. And we can’t work on a unity of dogma - it’s impossible with the largest denomination insisting “I’m right so ergo I’m right when I say I’m right so I’m right. Agree with me and then you’ll be right, too. I"m the sole authority. I’m the sole interpreter. I’m the sole arbiter. I’m infallible and thus unaccountable. Everyone and everything else, however, is wrong and fallible and accountabile.” No unity is possible in that mileau, with that attitude.

You remind me of my sister so much. She prays for my soul because apparently I am in big trouble for belonging to a man-made apostate church that wants to lord it over me.

If I were to decide to leave the CC, I wouldn’t know where to begin, in search of a new church. Prior to becoming a catholic, I went to different PC’s, and I would bring my personal beliefs, based on my interpretation of the bible, into the church, which supposedly claims zero authority, yet I was never accepted by the community leaders because my interpretations clashed with theirs.

AJ, important question: would your church accept me and my personal beliefs, based on the bible alone, even if they clashed with theirs??? If you say no then your make your church leaders the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter of sacred scripture; if you say yes, maybe I will check your church out. Remember, I am just as stubborn as you when it comes to what I believe. LOL…

continued in next post (because of that annoying 6000 character limit, lol)

I too hate that pesky 6000 character limit…LOL…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

In the 4th century, at least an elementary, proto denomination developes FOR THE ROMAN EMPIRE, for that single nation (thus, not catholic).

What was the name of this proto-Christian denomination?

I don’t know, it matters not. The point I made is that there is zero evidence that ANY denomination by ANY or NO legal moniker existed prior to the 4th century. That, obviously, includes the denomination that today has the name, “The Catholic Church.”

So, the CC built by Jesus circa 33AD

There’s no evidence that Jesus “built” The Catholic Church - or any other denomination. I realize that two Christian denominations (and all the cults) claim such for self alone (The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) but neither has any evidence whatsoever to support the claim, but neither needs any since both insists that there is ONE that is incapable of errror (self) so logically, self MUST be correct (regardless of any substantiation) since self alone CANNOT be wrong. Both exempt one (self exclusively) from accountability.

If so,then that means the ecumenical councils that you consider full of wisdom, but still possibly fallible, were actually councils comprised of mere men belonging to a man-made church as opposed to the CC built by Jesus? Interesting.

Of course, that’s not remotely what I have posted. The Christians who participated in those Councils were a part of the church Jesus founded since they were Christians - thus a part of the church that is one, holy, catholic, the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. I strongly suspect that all of them (at least at Nicea) were officially registered in congregations that LATER would be a part of either The Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church (most the later), but what congregation noted their official registration is altogether moot.

And again, I disagree with your rubric that if one is correct at one point they MUST logically be infallible/unaccountable in ALL matters. Again, I suspect you agree with President Obama that there are 50 US States, but you reject his passionate support of abortion on demand - thus you accept something he affirms but not EVERYTHING he affirms, and you do not accept that because he affirms that there are 50 States, ergo he MUST be the sole authority, sole interpreter, sole arbiter, infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, speaking for Jesus, and we must accept WHATEVER he says “with docility.”

At which point in this timeline did the RCC rear its ugly head?

It’s a beautiful head, but I don’t know that it’s possible to pin that down. But, of course, it’s not for me to do. It is The Catholic Church that normally would need to substantiate that Jesus specifically founded the specific, singular, particular, geopolitical, legal denominational and institutional entity which is today The Catholic Church. But since it exempts itself from accountability, it exempts itself from this as well.

We can substantiate historically that there were congregations already in the first century. They are actually mentioned and described in the New Testament. But we have no evidence of any denomination until the 4th century. Not that such matters from the perspective of The Catholic Church since the claims of itself exclusively are correct since it cannot be incorrect, thus it’s correct. You are required by it to accept whatever “with docility” and you do.

It lasts roughly a century before it splits as the OO splits off. Soon thereafter, as the former western part of the Empire falls, there develops an east/west increasing divide and the power stuggle begins. Effectively the split happens in the 8th century but becomes final an official in 1054 (at which time we have at least 3 denominations in what was the former Roman Empire - and perhaps proto denominations beyond).

By my count, up to this point, there are now 2 churches, and zero denominations. The EOC and the CC.

For The Roman Empire, for that singular nation, yes, in the 4th century, there seems to have been one denomination. The EO considers it EO, the CC considers it CC, but yes, I agree with you - for THAT singular century in THAT singular nation, there was one denomination it’s just there’s no agreement on which one it was. But that’s moot to whether Jesus specifically founded a denomination 300 years earlier (or 1800 years later in the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). And yes, outside that nation, there were congregations not a part of that controversal denomination and thus it was in no sense “catholic.” There were congregations in Ethiopa, Sudan, as far as India.

Continues in next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from the post above…

I was addressing unity. Noting that Lutherans seek such, and that we disagree with The Catholic Church that what Jesus prayed for is that each one be in full unity with one - self exclusively.

Jesus’ wanted just one church with one set of beliefs, for the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, can only teach one truth regarding any one doctrine, which means there can only be one truth regarding baptism, the eucharist, etc etc.

1. There IS one church. Always has been, still is, always will be - for all eternity. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And the lord of Christ’s church is Christ Jesus. He said NOTHING about how many congregations He desired or how many denominations those congregations could form.
2. Jesus desires a unity of faith (which exists) and a unity of love (which does not). There is one verse I can think of that might mean He wants us to be united in dogma. But how big is that corpus, what is to be regarded as dogma? Whether US health care should include a public option? If the wine in the Eucharist is to be white or red? Whether limbo is dogma or heresy? WHAT, exactly, is to be regarded as dogma? Well, while The Lutheran Church has not changed one letter, one comma, one word of such in over 500 years (and none of that was in any sense new), and the Eastern Orthodox Church as not changed one letter, one comma in over 1200 years, and the Oriental Orthodox has not done this is over 1500 years, The Catholic Church last did this in 1950 and many believe will do it yet again soon - adding, constantly, to the corpus of dogmas, with ever more unique views, unique to just one denomination: itself. That’s the FIRST issue we need to address: WHAT do we all need to agree on, and WHAT can have varient opinions concerning? I think we MAY have already decided that with the embrace of The Nicene Creed but perhaps not.

3 ONCE we agree on WHAT needs to be agreed upon, then we need to embrace the arbitration (and the rule/canon/norma normans it will use) to achieve that. Obviously, sadly, that cannot be an Ecumenical Council (the last true one being over 1,200 years ago) for the reasons I already explained. Catholicism destroyed any possibility of that during all the pope’s wars for power and lordship, creating an atmosphere of pride, institutionalism, individualism, and a REFUSAL to examine its positions since it alone declared that it alone is infallible/unaccountable, that it alone is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals), that it alone is the sole interpreter, that it alone is the sole arbiter. Truth is no longer on the table, the Catholic Church removed it and replaced it with claims of power (of one - itself), lordship (of one - itself), and unaccountability (of one - itself). As I’ve noted repeatedly, SADLY, some of the denominations that flow from The Catholic Church inherited a bit of this from The Catholic Church (though none fully). We have a LOT of work to do because we can even BEGIN to form a unity of dogma. Perhaps step one is for The Catholic Church to stop moving the goal posts, stop this perpetual making of more dogmas. And it needs to reverse it’s 1500 year advancement of ever more pride, individualism, institutionalism, and claims of self alone for self alone.

We see unity as more than just me with me or one denomination with one denomination.

Yes, we all know that The Catholic Church officially and currently is in agreement with The Catholic Church in all things that The Catholic Church currently thinks it good to be in agreement on. At least as much can be said for all other denominations, too. So what? Heck, I usually agree with myself (officially and currently anyway - in those matters where I think it good to agree), but I don’t see any Catholic shouting: AH! Then Josiah MUST be correct, MUST be infallible/unaccountable, the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, when Josiah speaks Jesus speaks!"

.

Sadly not all the Lutheran churches can make that same claim, but, from within each exclusive LC, they officially and currently are in agreement with each respective LC, in all things that each respective LC currently thinks it good to be in agreement on…

Yes, but there’s no Lutheran denomination that insists that it and it itself alone, exclusively, is the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else) the Vicar of Christ, the mouth of Jesus, that all must accept whatever it says “with docility.” Friend, we all know that if you could find the same as CCC 85 and 87 in ANY Protestant Catechism, you would have quoted it here. You haven’t because none such exist in ANY Christian denomination except one - yours. It USE to exist in the LDS (for the same reason it does in the RCC) but they dropped it over a century ago. It’s found in ALL the cults but we’re not talking about cults here but Christian denominations.

And AGAIN, your apologetic that “Protestants are almost as bad as The Catholic Church - they just don’t boldly stated it like The Catholic Church does!” is hardly a defense. You are simply pointing fingers back at your denomination.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Leopold]

What is your view on the incorruptibility of certain saints?

 

[joe370]

A summation of the Lutheran catechism:

Lutheran catechism believes that the bible is infallible. It cannot fail. It is entirely trustworthy, because it has its origin in the God ‘who does not lie’ (Tit 1:2). The Lutheran Confessions apply the word ‘infallible’ (Ger. unfehlbar) to Scripture, calling it ‘the pure, infallible, and unalterable Word of God’ In the 14th century Wycliffe spoke of Scripture as ‘the infallible rule of truth.’ And in the early 15th century ‘the great Gerson’, as the Confessors later acclaimed him, described Scripture as ‘the sufficient and infallible rule for directing the entire body of the church.’

In looking to the bible as the only infallible source and norm, the church reflects Scripture’s own claim that both testaments – ‘the apostles and the prophets’ - constitute the foundation upon which she stands firm (Eph 2:20). Those prophets proclaimed not their own opinions, but ‘were carried along by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet 1:20-21). The Apostles regarded Scripture both in its parts and in its entirety as ‘God-breathed’, possessed of the power and sufficiency ‘to make wise for salvation’, and therefore ‘profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim 3:15-16).

It amply demonstrates that when we accept the Bible as the only ‘infallible’ source for all matters of belief, teaching and life, we are simply following the belief, practice and express will of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church. In doing so, we do not thereby neglect - still less disparage - other sources: creation, tradition, reason, experience. But we recognise the fallibility of these other sources, and therefore subject them to the infallible norm as their definitive judge. We are rightly wary of any moves that throw into question the applicability of the attribute ‘infallible’ to Scripture. Every Lutheran should be only too ready to commit him or herself anew every day to submit to Scripture and its teachings as God’s unfailing, unerring Word. For such submission alone is fully congruent with the Bible’s divine authorship, its Christic content, and its salvific goal.

OK, that is the gist of it. Josiah, are the following statements absolutely correct?

1. Absolutely no lay man or Lutheran church leader, regardless of denomination, can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God?
2. Absolutely no Lutheran church leader, regardless of denomination, is the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter of the infallible Word of God, and absolutely no Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1. Absolutely no lay man or Lutheran church leader, regardless of denomination, can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God?

Correct. The insistence of self alone as the sole interpreter and that self alone is infallible is found in only one: The Catholic Church (CCC 85 and 87 for starters). It used to be an insistence of The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints but it dropped that about a century ago. Of course, it’s foundational in all cults.

1. Absolutely no Lutheran church leader, regardless of denomination, is the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter of the infallible Word of God, and absolutely no Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else?

Correct. Again, there is only ONE that so claims: The Catholic Church insists that there’s only one that is such. Itself.

.

 

[mark_a]

I’m not aware that WELS has any official position on that.
I know that LCMS does not. Never has.

What makes a position “official” by any of the Lutheran Branches?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What makes a position “official” by any of the Lutheran Branches?

It would depend on the Lutheran denomination, but generally - a formal declaration affirmed by the denomination in convention.

.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by mark a View Post
What makes a position “official” by any of the Lutheran Branches?

It would depend on the Lutheran denomination, but generally - a formal declaration affirmed by the denomination in convention.

However, since this official, formal declaration, affirmed by the Lutheran church convention, regardless of denomination, is not the sole authority, interpreter or arbiter, this formal declaration affirmed by each respective Lutheran church convention, is not binding to anyone or any church outside these respective LC’s. Moreover, these official declarations are never to be considered infallible, for the simple fact that no Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else. Correct???

In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible? All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner. Correct???

 

[Newbie2]

That’s where I get a little fuzzy on Lutheran theology, and have yet to receive an adequate explanation:

OK, I get that Lutherans believe (I used to be LCMS) that Scripture is the sole authority on matters of faith.

But who’s to say what the correct interpretation of Scripture IS, if there’s no authority, even in the Lutheran Church, to correctly interpret as the Almighty intended, difficult parts of Scripture?

I’ve heard the answer that the Holy Spirit is the authority, but that is an inadequate answer as there are Lutheran ministers no doubt that would say they are guided by the HS, each coming up with (slight or radical) differences in interpretation. Of course, yes proper interpretation is guided by the HS, on that Catholics would agree, but is there an earthly authority recognized by Lutherans to use in matters of interpretation of Scripture?

Secondly, I have yet to get an adequate explanation of “by who’s authority was the canon of Scripture put together?” Again, the answer, “The Holy Spirit” is inadequate, because it was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the HS did not present to us a list of what should be included in Scripture, nor does it anywhere in Scripture list what books were to be included.

I should also say that I genuinely am looking for an answer to these questions; by “inadequate”, I mean that the answers that I’ve seen so far do not address the questions, not that I disagree with the answers. Having grown up Lutheran, I never took the time or effort to look into these questions.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

However, since this official, formal declaration, affirmed by the Lutheran church convention, regardless of denomination, is not the sole authority, interpreter or arbiter, this formal declaration affirmed by each respective Lutheran church convention, is not binding to anyone or any church outside these respective LC’s.

True. It’s the same in all denominations. Rulings of the Magisterium of The Catholic Church are not “binding” to those not officially registered in congregations legally associated with The Catholic Church either.

The question was: What makes something an official position of the denomination? I stated such would vary among the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, but generally the convention as a whole speaks for the denomination. Of course, doctrine is spelled out in The Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord of 1580).

Moreover, these official declarations are never to be considered infallible, for the simple fact that no Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else. Correct???

Again, aside from all cults, there is only ONE denomination where self alone declares that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error (at least in certain areas and under certain conditions). Such a declaration of self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible/iunaccountable or incapable of error - it’s purely a circumvention of such, an evasion of the issue, a replacement of the issue of truth with the issue of self claiming power/lordship for self.

In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible? All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner. Correct???

None has the ego or desire to evade accountability to want to do that. Aside from all cults, there is only ONE that sense the need to evade accountability.

Now, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything. Especially if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err. Read any of the cults on this point? Read Brigham Young? Read the LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie’s work, “On the Authority of The Church?” Yup, anything or anyone can claim absolutely anything, but such doesn’t make it true - except to self if self excludes self from accountability for such, self alone declaring self alone to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, all must accept whatever “with docility.”

Pursuing unity in dogma with such is impossible. Self alone will agree with self alone in all matters that self along currently concludes is right to agree upon - and nothing can address that since self alone demands that self alone CANNOT be wrong. Read CCC 87 for starters.

.

 

[JonNC]

=Newbie2;6086595]That’s where I get a little fuzzy on Lutheran theology, and have yet to receive an adequate explanation:

OK, I get that Lutherans believe (I used to be LCMS) that Scripture is the sole authority on matters of faith.

But who’s to say what the correct interpretation of Scripture IS, if there’s no authority, even in the Lutheran Church, to correctly interpret as the Almighty intended, difficult parts of Scripture?

Martin Chemnitz says even the obvious passages of scripture. In the LCMS, it is the synodical convention. In the ELCA it is the Churchwide Assembly, in the Catholic Church, it is the Magisterium. But your question remains, since we don’t have true ecumenical councils anymore - that is how the early Church did it - by whom or how is scripture correctly interpreted.

Secondly, I have yet to get an adequate explanation of “by who’s authority was the canon of Scripture put together?” Again, the answer, “The Holy Spirit” is inadequate, because it was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the HS did not present to us a list of what should be included in Scripture, nor does it anywhere in Scripture list what books were to be included.

That is another good question, since the canon has not been agreed upon for centuries before Luther. The Orthodox canon is different from the Catholic canon. Catholics for centuries could not agree on it (see Jerome and Cajetan as just two examples). Trent doesn’t solve the question, since it was not truly ecumenical.

I should also say that I genuinely am looking for an answer to these questions; by “inadequate”, I mean that the answers that I’ve seen so far do not address the questions, not that I disagree with the answers. Having grown up Lutheran, I never took the time or effort to look into these questions.

I’ve seen you post long enough to know that your sincerity is beyond question. I hope mine is, too, because my questions above are genuine, as well.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Josiah, you said:

Now, ANYONE or ANYTHING can claim anything.

Agreed!

Especially if such alone claims that self alone is not accountable for such since self alone CANNOT err.

Agreed! All people are fallible (prone to err). and all people should be held accountable for their actions, and, I understand that anything or anyone can claim absolutely anything, but such doesn’t make it true - except to self if self excludes self from accountability for such, and that self alone cannot declare self alone to be infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, and self alone must never insist that all must accept whatever “with docility.” Only Jesus, speaking through the church He built!

Pursuing unity in dogma with such is impossible.

Pursuing unity in the dogmas handed down to the Apostles by God, to be passed on through each generation, until the end of time, is NOT impossible.

O

riginally Posted by joe370 View Post
However, since this official, formal declaration, affirmed by the Lutheran church convention, regardless of denomination, is not the sole authority, interpreter or arbiter, this formal declaration affirmed by each respective Lutheran church convention, is not binding to anyone or any church outside these respective LC’s.

True…

Excellent starting point for me!

The question was: What makes something an official position of the denomination? I stated such would vary among the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, but generally the convention as a whole speaks for the denomination. Of course, doctrine is spelled out in The Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord of 1580).

So, since the official, formal declaration, affirmed by the Lutheran convention as a whole, is not the sole authority, interpreter or arbiter, this formal declaration affirmed by the Lutheran convention as a whole, is not binding to anyone or any church outside the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, which, generally speaking, defer to the convention as a whole, to speak for the 300 + Lutheran denominations.

Correct?

I know that doctrine is spelled out in The Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord of 1580), BUT, the Lutheran Confessions (the Book of Concord of 1580) - is not binding to anyone or any church outside the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world.

Correct?

Quote:
Moreover, these official declarations are never to be considered infallible, for the simple fact that no Lutheran church, regardless of denomination, is incapable of error (in official matters of faith and morals - or anything else. Correct???

Again, aside from all cults, there is only ONE denomination where self alone declares that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, INCAPABLE of error (at least in certain areas and under certain conditions). Such a declaration of self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible/iunaccountable or incapable of error - it’s purely a circumvention of such, an evasion of the issue, a replacement of the issue of truth with the issue of self claiming power/lordship for self.

if there are no churches incapable of error regarding faith and morals, (always the possibility of error) - and self exclusively for self exclusively obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with self BEING infallible (incapable of error regarding the teachings of Jesus) - then attaining the truth regarding any one doctrine, remains elusive? If you disagree, then please tell me how one can know truth if no one and no church is incapable of error regarding faith and morals?

So, the answer to the following question is correct???

These official declarations, (in matters of faith and morals) - affirmed by the convention as a whole, speaking for the 300 + Lutheran denominations around the world, are never to be considered infallible, (without error).

Quote:
In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole interpreter/authority of the infallible bible? All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner. Correct???

None has the ego or desire to evade accountability to want to do that. Aside from all cults, there is only ONE that sense the need to evade accountability.

I understand! The 300 + Lutheran churches do not have the ego or desire to evade accountability to want to do that, and that, aside from all cults, there is only ONE that sense the need to evade accountability.

However, you didn’t answer the questions!!! What is your answer to the following 2 question:

In other words, each one of these respective Lutheran churches, regardless of denomination, cannot insist that their church alone is the sole arbiter/interpreter/authority of the infallible bible?

All other PC’s, regardless of denomination, can also arbitrate authoritatively and interpret the infallible bible (albeit not solely; only from within their sphere of influence) - as they see fit, in a non-infallible manner?

 

[joe370]

That’s where I get a little fuzzy on Lutheran theology, and have yet to receive an adequate explanation:

OK, I get that Lutherans believe (I used to be LCMS) that Scripture is the sole authority on matters of faith.

I understand your position and have yet to hear an answer that was satisfactory. Ultimately, the typical Lutheran answer (as per the Lutheran Confessions) - will always be: Lutherans view the Lutheran Confessions to be a standard by which all teaching and practice in their churches must be judged. This is because Lutherans have already become convinced that these Confessions are a correct exposition of the infallible Word of God, the ultimate authority and standard of Christian truth.

The typical Protestant (outside the LC) - will always be, in my experience: the bible is the Christians one and only authority, but like you said: if there’s no authority, even in the Lutheran Church, (as well as the CC, all churches for that matter) - to correctly interpret the infallible Word of God, as the Almighty intended, then what’s the point of having an infallible bible? Moreover, if each church, regardless of denomination, is being guided by the HS to teach, as per Matthew 28, and there can only be one truth regarding any one truth, then which church is it? For example, is it the church that believes Jesus said, this is a symbol of my body or is it the church that believes Jesus said, this is my body?

As far as the codification/canonization of the bible, I am told that the CC had nothing to do with that, with the exception of JonNC.

 

[Newbie2]

Once upon a time, I emailed the LCMC off their website, and posed the same two questions, being very careful not to sound like I was challenging their teachings, but in a spirit of understanding. After a couple of back-and forths, nobody there could give me any further explanation beyond referring me back to the doctrine part of their website, which gives nothing further than they believe Scripture to be the infallible word of God.

I would think someone, somewhere in the LCMS “hierarchy” has an explanation/answer. It would be difficult for me to believe that they would not make a reasonable attempt to back up their belief in this area. Maybe it’s a matter of finding that person.