The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[AmericanJosiah]

If the “norms” set forth in the Confessions and Lutheran Catechism are not infallible

We believe Scripture is. In the words of The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 136), “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He directed.” Lutherans agree. Thus, Scripture is an extension of God as the Authority - and yes, we view God as infallible.

The important thing to note is that Scripture is not myself. God is not me (replace “myself” and “me” with the moniker of your fave teacher or denomination - same point). It is quite different that self looking exclusively at self in the mirror to see if self agrees with self. It is the embrace of an Authority and of a rule/canon/norma normans OUTSIDE, above, beyond self.

IMHO, self alone declaring that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, correct because there’s one - self - that cannot be, actually doesn’t address the issue of correctness at all. It has nothing to do with it. It is not an alternative (and certainly not better) process of norming, it is just a circumvention of the entire issue: self exempting self from the entire issue. Which is why self must require that all just accept whatever one (self) says, “with docility” (CCC 87).

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Newbie2]

Thanks for the explanations, guys. I’m still unclear about the Lutheran viewpoint, but I guess I’ll have to get comfortable with that.

I think I’ll ask my buddy who’s studying to be a Lutheran Minister if he’s had that relevant coursework yet.

Merry Christmas Season!

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370
Jon, chime in whenever you want. So your stance is that they are wrong when their teachings contradict the Confessions, which were written by men such as Martin Luther and his successors? Understood!

The men (the final arbiters for the Lutheran church) - who codified the Lutheran Confessions, which reflect the absolute truths of sacred scripture, must be adhered to, if one wants to belong to the Lutheran church - correct?

Nice try, Joe. No. they are wrong when they contradict the Confessions, because the Confessions rightly reflect scripture. If I contradict the Nicene Creed - also written by men - I am wrong because the Nicene Creed rightly reflects scripture. It is the document, not the writers, that is relevent.

Jon, I wasn’t trying to be clever, I promise. I’m just trying to understand things from your perspective! So, Lutherans can trust the Lutheran writers of the Lutheran Confessions to which you and Josiah must defer, and Lutherans/Catholics can trust the writers of the Nicene Creed to which both Lutherans/Catholics must defer, and all Christians can trust the writers of the holy bible to which all Christians must defer. It is each respective document(s) as opposed tot the writers that are relevant, but not infallible, with the exception of the bible? If the Lutheran Confessions, written by men can be trusted, then surely these men could have been trusted in their day - correct?

Like the Nicene Creed, the Lutheran Confessions reflect the infallible Word of God, but not in an infallible (error free way) - in which only sacred scripture can provide? If that is the case, why the need for either the Nicene Creed or the Lutheran Confessions? My sister would say: take it right to sacred scripture to resolve your differences; the Nicene Creed, the Lutheran Confessions and the CCC are riddled with error and cannot be trust for they were not written by the Apostles, Luke and Mark, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. She believes (is taught to believe) - that the HS stopped guiding the church built by God, upon their demise.

Jon, Why can we trust the writers of the holy bible?

Why can we trust the writers of the Nicene creed?

Why can we trust the writers of the Lutheran Confessions?
Quote:

In other words, if one denies the following, one forfeits one’s right to belong to the Lutheran church? Correct?
Yes, in a theological sense.

In other words: Authority exercised by church leaders. Makes perfect sense to me!

Quote:
And if a member rejects the Augsburg Confession, that member can no longer be a member of the Lutheran church? That certainly makes sense, as is the case with the CC. So clearly, to belong to the CC or the LC, the same criteria is employed, yet Josiah insists that ONLY the CC (as opposed to any protestant church) - is guilty of the following:
I’ll let Josiah speak to that.

OK…You already answered the question anyway!

Quote:
Good point. My point was to illustrate to Josiah, that the LC and the CC have an authoritative system in place, and that that is not exclusive to just the CC. Every Protestant church has the same thing, and I don’t believe that any of theses churches are attempting to “lord it over” anyone. Agreed?
I don’t think I would characterize the CC today in the same way Josiah does. The various ecumenical dialogues speak of a different attitude.

Agreed!

Quote:
The same goes for the CC, as you know. Individual interpretation via the bible as the Christians sole authority does exist, but not in your church or my church, and I can’t seem to get Josiah to believe me. Sure, both of us are free to interpret the bible as long as it agrees with either the Catechism of the Catholic church or the Augsburg Lutheran Confessions.
I would agree to the extent that individuals are free to interpret scripture as they see fit, but to be a COnfessional Lutheran, one must confess Augsburg.

/QUOTE]

And to a Catechism Catholic one must confess the CCC.

Quote:
Catholics believe the CCC is right, but not that it, or our leaders, are infallible. All people are sinners and all people are fallible. Ask a catholic bishop or priest if he’s infallible and he will no doubt chuckle…
Well, only one leader, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. I think it is more the “one Church established by Christ Himself” line that lesds others to belief that Catholic leaders think they are infallible. However, I will accept your analysis

.

Jon, I think you are right about the fact that the CC (and of course the EOC) – claiming to be the *“one Church established by Christ Himself” *- is what leads other Christians (like my sister and Josiah) - to believe that the CC leaders think that they are infallible, which is why they reject the CC. They think to themselves: how silly for any human to make such a claim. It’s too bad they don’t realize the truth, and how silly the notion IS to the CC leaders! The only infallibly active force in the church built by God, is the Holy Spirit!

 

[mark_a]

My point was: simply because one (or even a majority) of individuals who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (or any other Lutheran denomination) hold to a position, it does not for that reason become the official position of the denomination. I don’t know why that has become such a difficult concept for the Catholics here - it’s the same in The Catholic Church.

Thanks again for your response.

I guess what I’m looking for is an example of an undeniable truth specific to a Lutheran denomination.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Jon, I wasn’t trying to be clever, I promise. So, Lutherans can trust the Lutheran writers of the Lutheran Confessions to which you and Josiah must defer

I suspect you are not understanding…

For Lutherans, the infallible/unaccountable Authority is God - and by extension, His inscripturated words (Scriptures). THAT is what we “trust” in the sense of “docilic acceptance.” God is the Authority.

We do not give such authority to the writers of The Lutheran Confessions. They were fallible, sinful mortals. Lutherans are apt to regard the Confessions as a “true exposition of Scripture” because they are normed by Scripture, NOT because of who wrote the Confessions.

And I think you missed the whole point of norma normans and norma normata. Norma normans is the norm that norms, the rule/canon. IN A SENSE, you can probably think of this as Authority in the way Catholics think of that. Norma normata is something which we believe has been normed. It is not the norm (or Authority in the Catholic sense), it is normED. This is why we are careful to call our Confessions “norma normata” and never refer to them as norma normans.

If the Lutheran Confessions, written by men can be trusted, then surely these men could have been trusted in their day - correct?

Again, you seem to be confusing men with Scripture. The “trust” is in Scripture, not Luther or any Lutheran Church Father. Lutherans are apt to agree that the Confessions are a “true exposition of Scripture” BECAUSE they affirm Scripture, not because particular men were infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, to be accepted with docility.

Jon, I think you are right about the fact that the CC (and of course the EOC) – claiming to be the *“one Church established by Christ Himself” *- is what leads other Christians (like my sister and Josiah) - to believe that the CC leaders think that they are infallible, which is why they reject the CC. They think to themselves: how silly for any human to make such a claim. It’s too bad they don’t realize the truth, and how silly the notion IS to the CC leaders! The only infallibly active force in the church built by God, is the Holy Spirit!

Whether it’s “silly” is for each to decide. I only noted that it is a difference in our perspectives. As a former Catholic myself, I know the centrality, the very foundational point this is in Catholicism - and how it is very different in Protestantism. It is why I think some Catholics impose a mileau, a perspective - a VERY Catholic one - onto Protestants, where it just isn’t a part of our framework at all.

I DO follow the “logic” that IF God himself founded a specific denomination and IF God promised that it would infallibly follow His leading and IF God would reveal dogmas He kept out of the Bible to it exclusively and IF God exempted it exclusively from accountability - then YES, it makes good sense that that singular denomination would be correct and should be accepted “with docility” as the Authority. I DO follow every bit of that. The “issue” of course is 1) It’s all just circular arguments; ALL conditional statements are true IF the condition is true. But the only one even such much as claiming the conditions are true is the singular Catholic Church. 2) All this is actually entirely moot to the issue of Authority or Truth. It’s just the exemption of one (self) from those issues.

But again, while I realize all that is critical, foundational, central to The Catholic Church as it attempts to justify the claims of itself alone for power, authority, lordship, unaccountability; while all this is critical to why it alone claims that it alone must be accepted “with docility,” these are moot issues outside of The Catholic Church. No other is making those claims or insisting on such docility. For Protestants, the authority is not self or a denomination. And no human being or human denomination is regarded as infallible/unaccountable.

I’m sorry you took offense at my statement that in Catholicism, the central issue is what denomination has the unquestioned, unaccountable Authority. I’m sorry that offended you, but in my years in Catholicism, I learned powerfully that THAT is the central issue. And read the posts by Catholics here to Protestants - that IS the “card” that keeps being played. Over and over. As if it were the trump card that wins the hand. We end up talking past each other because for Protestants, the issue is not “who alone can speak with Authority?” The issue is, “is that correct?” In doctrine, that’s probaby going to be framed as, “Is that the correct exposition of Scripture?” since GOD is the Authority - not simply one so claiming that self is.

.

.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6097419]Jon, I wasn’t trying to be clever, I promise.

Even if you were, the conversation has been comity and charity and good will, making it in good spirit anyway, so I wasn’t at all offended.

I’m just trying to understand things from your perspective! So, Lutherans can trust the Lutheran writers of the Lutheran Confessions to which you and Josiah must defer, and Lutherans/Catholics can trust the writers of the Nicene Creed to which both Lutherans/Catholics must defer, and all Christians can trust the writers of the holy bible to which all Christians must defer. It is each respective document(s) as opposed tot the writers that are relevant, but not infallible, with the exception of the bible? If the Lutheran Confessions, written by men can be trusted, then surely these men could have been trusted in their day - correct?

Do you agree with what you just wrote?

I would say that many did trust the reformers. Many did not. Such is the trajedy of that era, and something we, sadly, are still living with today.

Like the Nicene Creed, the Lutheran Confessions reflect the infallible Word of God, but not in an infallible (error free way) - in which only sacred scripture can provide? If that is the case, why the need for either the Nicene Creed or the Lutheran Confessions? My sister would say: take it right to sacred scripture to resolve your differences; the Nicene Creed, the Lutheran Confessions and the CCC are riddled with error and cannot be trust for they were not written by the Apostles, Luke and Mark, who were guided by the Holy Spirit. She believes (is taught to believe) - that the HS stopped guiding the church built by God, upon their demise.

But that is, indeed, why they were written. Ask any Catholic here at CAF why dogma comes about. Usually it is an attempt to refute heresy or mistaken teachings or understandings. So your sister, assuming you portray her attitude correctly, is always and forever trying to reinvent the wheel, when much smarter and more learned people than her or I have already properly reflected scripture.

Jon, Why can we trust the writers of the holy bible?

It is the inspired word of God, for the most part written by people who were there. It is a matter of faith. I do not trust the writers of the Quran, or the Humanist Manifesto, as I do not have faith in them.

Why can we trust the writers of the Nicene creed?

Why can we trust the writers of the Lutheran Confessions?

Because we can and, for Lutherans and I think Catholics, do measure their writings against the word of God.

In other words: Authority exercised by church leaders. Makes perfect sense to me!

Then we agree on this point?

And to a Catechism Catholic one must confess the CCC.

Indeed they should.

Jon, I think you are right about the fact that the CC (and of course the EOC) – claiming to be the *“one Church established by Christ Himself” *- is what leads other Christians (like my sister and Josiah) - to believe that the CC leaders think that they are infallible, which is why they reject the CC. They think to themselves: how silly for any human to make such a claim. It’s too bad they don’t realize the truth, and how silly the notion IS to the CC leaders! The only infallibly active force in the church built by God, is the Holy Spirit

I wouldn’t presume to talk for them, but for me, I would expect the authority of the Bishop of Rome to reflect the teachings of the ECF’s and early councils. Like our Orthodox siblings, I believe these documents do not reflect universal jurisdiction and infallibility when speak ex cathedra, and that is a significant issue for me. I am careful, however, to separate that issue from the high respect and honor he has had through the centuries, and should have today, particularly the last few.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

You know, for a movement (Lutheranism) that started out with the honest intention to “reform” a wayward Church, what I get out of this thread is that modern day Lutherans (at least the participators of this thread) are comparable to what Ronald Reagan said about George H. W. Bush. “He doesn’t stand for anything.”

Thank God for the PCA and Baptists. At least we know where they stand.

 

[Newbie2]

You know, for a movement (Lutheranism) that started out with the honest intention to “reform” a wayward Church, what I get out of this thread is that modern day Lutherans (at least the participators of this thread) are comparable to what Ronald Reagan said about George H. W. Bush. “He doesn’t stand for anything.”

Thank God for the PCA and Baptists. At least we know where they stand.

I’d have to disagree. Lutherans, in my experience anyway (at least the LCMS brand ) are the closest to Catholics. If they could just get over this little magesterial authority obstacle, then everything would fall into place.

Seriously, though, I think the objection to magisterial authority stems in part from Luther’s rebellion from that authority, and it carried over into modern-day Lutheranism.

Pretty much most if not all of the other objections to Catholic dogma and doctrine would fall away if Lutherans accepted what Catholics accept as far as authority and Tradition (Big T), doncha think?

 

[JonNC]

You know, for a movement (Lutheranism) that started out with the honest intention to “reform” a wayward Church, what I get out of this thread is that modern day Lutherans (at least the participators of this thread) are comparable to what Ronald Reagan said about George H. W. Bush. “He doesn’t stand for anything.”

.

Thanks, Mark.
Perhaps you could be more specific. In what way do we not stand for anything?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’d have to disagree. Lutherans, in my experience anyway (at least the LCMS brand ) are the closest to Catholics. If they could just get over this little magesterial authority obstacle, then everything would fall into place.

Seriously, though, I think the objection to magisterial authority stems in part from Luther’s rebellion from that authority, and it carried over into modern-day Lutheranism.

Pretty much most if not all of the other objections to Catholic dogma and doctrine would fall away if Lutherans accepted what Catholics accept as far as authority and Tradition (Big T), doncha think?

Maybe, but our concern is that Magisterial authority as it is practiced doesn’t match Tradition, and I suspect our Orthodox siblings would agree. Maybe one of them is monitoring this thread and will chime in. Resolve this issue, and likely the face of Christianity changes dramatically, at least between Catholic, Orthodox, and liturgical, first genereation Protestant churches like Lutheran and Anglicans.

Jon

 

[joe370]

I’m just trying to understand things from your perspective! So, Lutherans can trust the Lutheran writers of the Lutheran Confessions to which you and Josiah must defer, and Lutherans/Catholics can trust the writers of the Nicene Creed to which both Lutherans/Catholics must defer, and all Christians can trust the writers of the holy bible to which all Christians must defer. It is each respective document(s) as opposed to the writers that are relevant, but not infallible, with the exception of the bible? If the Lutheran Confessions, written by men can be trusted, then surely these men could have been trusted in their day - correct?

Do you agree with what you just wrote?

Yup! However, I believe that all authority was given to Christ and Christ then conferred His authority on His church leaders in His stead, commissioning them to go to the ends of the earth, in His name, building up and governing His Church, and we are to obey our leaders and defer to their authority just as the the early Christians did when Paul said:

*“Obey your leaders and defer to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
*

If we are to defer to the bible only as our one and only authority, then I guess Paul didn’t get the memo. I believe that Jesus endowed His church leaders (regardless of the century) - via the power of the holy spirit of course, with the discernment of Gods will and that they are incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals only. If I didn’t, I would have to consider the possibility that the 4th century Trinitarian dogma could actually be fallible, or that the 4th century doctrine of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Jesus, which was adopted as orthodox doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon ) - could very well be a fallible teaching as well. After all, many rejected this doctrine after it was defined by the CC. I would also have to consider the possibility that the Council of Ephesus, which decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos (which was met with opposition) - because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human, could also have been fallible in its pronouncement. If the infallibility of these early ecumenical councils are called into question, then so are the preceding doctrines defined therein. The question is: how did all these fallible CC leaders (who came together at certain times in history) - define these doctrines as infallibly accurate teachings of truth? Perhaps the holy spirit had something to do with it!

The Jews once asked Jesus:

“And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (Matt. 21:23)

This was indeed a legitimate question, and one that any sincere Christian ought to ask of anyone who claims to be a a shepherd of God’s flock, appointed by Jesus Christ Himself, and, as Josiah as basically stated: Scripture tells us that this position is never self-appointed. That is, no man can merely take it upon himself, of his own initiative, to start shepherding God’s flock:

“And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.” (Heb. 5:4)

It goes without saying that the one (Jesus) - who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself, and the same applied to the Apostles who conferred their authority, and were of course superior in authority to the ones they commissioned, such as Titus and Timothy, who were told to do the same. Surely this biblical paradigm was to continued until Jesus’ return? This scriptural pattern can be ascertained by observing the mission of Jesus Christ. It is a pattern of divine succession via the power of the holy spirit:

God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ: “…these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” John 5:36

Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles: “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” John 20:21

Jesus sends His Apostles: “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority.”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18)

The Apostles then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a superior authority, Jesus Christ. The bible attest to the unique authoritative status of the Apostles in several ways. The Apostles possessed the gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. The bible clearly establishes how the gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The question I had to ask myself as a former Lutheran, was this: after the demise of the original 12 Apostles, how was this gospel and apostolic authority to be passed on?

continued…

 

[joe370]

Continued…

Was it even passed on? After the death of the last Apostle, could/can any individual who feels “called” by God, simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off? The biblical answer to this question is clearly no. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually reproduce and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation, and this was/is to be done in perpetuity. As per the bible, it seems to go like this:

God is the source of this mission and authority. He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”)
.

Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, (in the same way and with the same authority) - so I send you…” “…go and make disciples.”

The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like Timothy and Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15) The 2nd and 3rd apostolic generation was expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, and so on and so on. The first generation of Apostles take care to not only pass along the message, but also to create new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message:

*“And when they (Paul and Barnabus) - had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23)

“This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit. 1:5)

“…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)
Note the appearance of the word “entrust” in this last passage. Paul expects that Timothy will “guard what has been entrusted” to him, and then later “entrust” that same mission and authority “to faithful men.”

There can be no other reason why Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Titus and Timothy) - explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9) - than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

Although many Protestant pastors apply Paul’s words to themselves, they were in fact, written to Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate Pastor and Scripture:

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

The scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? Who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority. But, who is the “man of God?” Many claim to be the “man of God” but a short assessment of the scriptural use of the title will reveal that this is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself willynilly:

Moses - “This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.” (Deut. 33:1)

“Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, ‘You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.’” (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - “Then the woman came and told her husband, ‘A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name…’ Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, ‘O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.’” (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - “The servant answered Saul again, ‘Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.’” (1 Sam. 9:8)

Elijah - “And she said to Elijah, ‘What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!’” (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - “And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out… When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.” (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded.” (2 Chr. 8:14)

And of course Timothy - “But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” (1 Tim. 6:11)

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” (me for example if I decided to start a church) - can be any Christian without distinction, the bible itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through divine intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and Timothy).
From this assessment of the phrase “man of God” (there are perhaps a dozen or so more passages) - we see that what holds true for “pastors” holds true for the “man of God." It is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is conferred upon a man by a higher authority. A man must be called by God to hold this title of “man of God.”

Many Protestant Pastors, (such as my sisters) - will say, “I have been called by God to be a pastor.” Well, let us see if that passes the scriptural litmus test. Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate bishop, ambassador of Christ, or Pastor: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: Being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession) or being called directly by God. If there is a third way, I am all ears? We saw examples of this in scripture already: Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession, and Moses was appointed to his position directly by God, with no human mediation. As to the first method, (the only method of the 2 that can be considered) - apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands, as per the bible: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14) When Paul imposed his hands on Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the god news.

And, as has already been noted, only a superior can do this: not by self appointment, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess. Now, the majority of Protestant pastors reject outright the notion of apostolic succession, even though I believe that I have shown, from sacred scripture, that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the gospel message, and so only one option remains for “apostle Brown,” a Protestant pastor of the church to which my sister belongs: to claim to have been appointed directly by God, as Moses was (that is, by extraordinary means). To those who would make such a claim, I issue this admonition: you had better be sure of your claim. Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves. In the book of Acts, illegitimate leaders attempted to confuse the Christians by claiming that circumcision was necessary for salvation. The Council of Jerusalem commented on this, saying:

“…we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions…” (Acts 15:24)

Note what is presumed here: that it was wrong of these men to act in such a way without first having received their commission, their “instructions,” from those in legitimate authority.

The bible is clear about the office of teacher: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others.” James 3:1

I once asked my sister: Are you certain that the “man of God” who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in opposition with God’s appointed authorities?

To which she replied: Joe, the only man who shepherds my soul is Jesus, which begs the question: why the need for Pastor Brown or any Pastors for that matter, if she is correct?

 

[joe370]

Maybe, but our concern is that Magisterial authority as it is practiced doesn’t match Tradition, and I suspect our Orthodox siblings would agree. Maybe one of them is monitoring this thread and will chime in. Resolve this issue, and likely the face of Christianity changes dramatically, at least between Catholic, Orthodox, and liturgical, first genereation Protestant churches like Lutheran and Anglicans.

Jon

Jon would a eastern orthodox priest suffice, for a friend of mine just happens to be one?

 

[JonNC]

Jon would a eastern orthodox priest suffice, for a friend of mine just happens to be one?

Sure.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6101137]Yup! However, I believe that all authority was given to Christ and Christ then conferred His authority on His church leaders in His stead, commissioning them to go to the ends of the earth, in His name, building up and governing His Church, and we are to obey our leaders and defer to their authority just as the the early Christians did when Paul said:

*“Obey your leaders and defer to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
*

And I would encourage every Lutheran to do so, as well.

If we are to defer to the bible only as our one and only authority, then I guess Paul didn’t get the memo. I believe that Jesus endowed His church leaders (regardless of the century) - via the power of the holy spirit of course, with the discernment of Gods will and that they are incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals only. If I didn’t, I would have to consider the possibility that the 4th century Trinitarian dogma could actually be fallible, or that the 4th century doctrine of the hypostatic union (the two natures of Jesus, which was adopted as orthodox doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon ) - could very well be a fallible teaching as well. After all, many rejected this doctrine after it was defined by the CC. I would also have to consider the possibility that the Council of Ephesus, which decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos (which was met with opposition) - because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human, could also have been fallible in its pronouncement. If the infallibility of these early ecumenical councils are called into question, then so are the preceding doctrines defined therein. The question is: how did all these fallible CC leaders (who came together at certain times in history) - define these doctrines as infallibly accurate teachings of truth? Perhaps the holy spirit had something to do with it!

I agree with your view here. Remember, these were acts of the unified Church, which isn’t the case today. When Rome sets doctrine or dogma today, it does so without the other patriarchs.

The Apostles then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a superior authority, Jesus Christ. The bible attest to the unique authoritative status of the Apostles in several ways. The Apostles possessed the gospel message precisely because it was “entrusted” to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. The bible clearly establishes how the gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The question I had to ask myself as a former Lutheran, was this: after the demise of the original 12 Apostles, how was this gospel and apostolic authority to be passed on?

Good question. Also, what happens when corruption and abuse place limits on those called to serve. And what Lutherans did, as a result, was return to the early practice of presbyter ordination, by divine law.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The bible is clear about the office of teacher: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others.” James 3:1

I once asked my sister: Are you certain that the “man of God” who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? Or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in opposition with God’s appointed authorities?

To which she replied: Joe, the only man who shepherds my soul is Jesus, which begs the question: why the need for Pastor Brown or any Pastors for that matter, if she is correct?

IMHO, you seem to be focused entirely on the issue of “authority” (assuming such means infalliblity - something NEVER remotely implied) but entirely ignoring responsiliblity and accountability. They are BOTH to be affirmed…

Over and over and over, we have the stern, warning directly form God to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that lead many astray - and NOWHERE is The Catholic Church exempted from that. YES - we are to submit to human authorities. NO - that does not imply they are infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, exempt from all the divine warnings. There is a tension here that I think The Catholic Church acknowledges in every single case - secular and sacred - but ONE: itself.

You’re raising the issue of “is she correct?” is a Protestant question - one we are permitted to ask. Read your Catechism # 87. The Catholic Church demands that there is ONE human authority you are to exempt and exclude from such: Itself. Alone. Exclusively. Accountability (and the whole issue of norming that presents) is simply circumvented and laid aside. For one. Self. And friend, IF it “concerns” you that someone insists they are right cuz they just are - then IMHO, your concern is not with Protestantism, it is with Catholicism. We embrace accountability, humility, community; we insist that ALL are subject to a Rule/canon OUTSIDE and ABOVE them and to an arbitration beyond them. It is The Catholic Church that insists the Church is essentially one - itself, that there is ONE that cannot err - itself, that there is ONE exempt from accountability - itself. That here is ONE authority - itself. That there is ONE arbiter for the correctness of the teachings of The Cahtolic Church - itself. The Catholic Church: “Accept whatever I alone teach - with docility.” If you reject that in teachers, then you might consider if you should be consistent in that?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Newbie2]

You’re raising the issue of “is she correct?” is a Protestant question - one we are permitted to ask. Read your Catechism # 87. The Catholic Church demands that there is ONE human authority you are to exempt and exclude from such: Itself.

• Josiah

.

Incorrect.

Cherry-picking out of the Catechism is like Cherry-picking out of Scripture. The Catechism needs to be considered in the whole, as does Scripture. (Now I’m not equating Scripture and the CCC in the sense that Scripture is the direct, divinely inspired word of God…the CCC is not the directly inspired word of God.)

You err, AJ, in that you say the Catholic Church considers herself a human authority, which is not the case.

 

[joe370]

IMHO, you seem to be focused entirely on the issue of “authority” (assuming such means infalliblity - something NEVER remotely implied) but entirely ignoring responsiliblity and accountability. They are BOTH to be affirmed…

How is the CC unaccountable?

If I can trust that Jesus’ church leaders, teaching in His stead, are sharing with me the very truths regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, then they are teaching infallibly (without error). For example. If they are correct about the following then they taught infallibly. If they are incorrect then they taught/teach fallibly:

The true presence in the Eucharist.

The Trinity.

Jesus’ 2 natures.

Theotokos.

Many early Christians refused to believe these teachings (with the exception of the Eucharist, which is rejected by most Protestants today) - once they were infallibly defined by the church council. Again, if they did not infallibly define these dogmas then there is a chance that these teachings are erroneous. They are either fallible or infallible just as 2+2= 4 is an infallible statement; 2+2=5 is a fallible statement.

Over and over and over, we have the stern, warning directly form God to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that lead many astray - and NOWHERE is The Catholic Church exempted from that.

 

[joe370]

Read your Catechism # 87.

For the 4th time, I have read it, and posted it:

*87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. *

Yes, all Christians belonging to the CC are ready and willing to be taught; are teachable, and are willing to yield to supervision, direction, or management. This is very biblical and is the reason why the CC has remained one and united for almost 2000 years, in spite of the internal corruption that has left its nasty mark. The Devil hates Jesus’ Mystical Body, but the Devil will never succeed at destroying Jesus’ Mystical Body. The devil has won some battles but in the end, we all know who wins the war! The CC is not not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

CCC 86

The Catholic Church demands that there is ONE human authority you are to exempt and exclude from such: Itself. Alone. Exclusively.

Of course, as does every other Protestant church, if one wants to belong to one of the many Protestant churches. Every PC demands that a Christian must defer to their church authority regarding their church charter (eg, the Lutheran Confessions) - and if one doesn’t, one is excluded from the assembly. The CC embraces all Protestants as brothers and sisters and believes that salvation is possible for both catholics and protestants.

Accountability (and the whole issue of norming that presents) is simply circumvented and laid aside. For one. Self.

No accountability in the CC? Examples…? Pope John Paul apologized to the Jewish people; He said:

*“We humbly ask for forgiveness for the part that each of us with his or her behaviors has played in such evils thus contributing to disrupting the face of the church. At the same time, as we confess our sins let us forgive the faults committed by others towards us.”
*

I call that accountability.

And friend, IF it “concerns” you that someone insists they are right cuz they just are - then IMHO, your concern is not with Protestantism, it is with Catholicism.

I don’t believe that the CC is “right cuz they just are.” My journey (and it was not a short one) - has led me to believe that the CC is the church built by God circa AD 33. I believe the CC is right cuz I have faith that God is her Divine guardian/custodian, protecting the deposit of faith in spite of the fallible members comprising the CC. I will always believe this!

We embrace accountability, humility, community; we insist that ALL are subject to a Rule/canon OUTSIDE and ABOVE them and to an arbitration beyond them.

As does the CC. However, the bible was not the Christians final arbitrator for the first 400 years of Christianity, or the first 1500 years of Christianity, nor is it today. The bible as the Christians final arbitrator has clearly divided Christianity. BTW, when protestants interpret the bible and establish official charters such as the Lutheran Confessions, and challenge the interpretation of others, they are arbitrating. One must adhere to the Lutheran Confessions to belong to the Lutheran church.

People in authority (not the bible) - settled disputes and differences at the various councils, when other people were denying things like the Trinity or Jesus’ 2 natures. Sure, they used the bible to prove their point, but no where in the bible does the bible tell us the Jesus and the HS are one, (the father and the son as one is biblical) - so tell me, why should I believe that the Father, Son and the HS are one?

It is The Catholic Church that insists the Church is essentially one - itself, that there is ONE that cannot err - itself, that there is ONE exempt from accountability - itself.

Again the CC is full of nothing but fallible people, who can and do err, but when they came together in the past, somehow these fallible people defined dogma which excluded errors. All the credit goes to the Infallible HS. The CC is not exempt from accountability.

That here is ONE authority - itself. That there is ONE arbiter for the correctness of the teachings of The Cahtolic Church - itself. The Catholic Church: “Accept whatever I alone teach - with docility.” If you reject that in teachers, then you might consider if you should be consistent in that?

Covered this already!