Tips on Questions to Ask Lutherans

[JonNC]

=Rosinante;10201707]Of course you do. The moment you subscribe to sola scriptura–the Bible as sole and tantamount authority–you 'blindly follow the prophet Martin Luther.

Well, gee. Thanks for telling me what I believe.

Luther was not a prophet, btw.

Christ did not leave his followers a ‘bible’, or a book, or a writing of any kind;** he left us a Church.** Christ did not prophesize the bible, or a writing or the like–he prophesized the paraclete.

Absolutely. And He also said often, “it is written…”

The prophet Martin Luther on the other hand, upon some undisclosed revelatoin, discerned an autonoumous authority in the Bible, upon which he built his own church, which bears his name–and upon which foundation any Tom, Dick or Harry that seeks to build his or her own private profit center in the name of Jesus Christ, and call it a ‘church’, may do so.

Source please.

The Church that Christ built on the Foundation of Petros, remains so.

And?

Jon

 

[CutlerB]

Could we get back on topic?

 

[JonNC]

Could we get back on topic?

Sure. Here’s the thing one ought to ask a Lutheran, in fact, what a Lutheran should ask himself/herself daily.
Is there a reason today to remain outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome?
Are the basic disputes of the Lutheran Reformation era or subsequent disagreements still cause enough to remain outside communion with the Bishop of Rome?

If a Lutheran can answer “no” to both of these questions, then said Lutheran ought to return to such a communion.

Unfortunately, I cannot yet answer “no” to both of these questions.

Jon

 

[CutlerB]

Sure. Here’s the thing one ought to ask a Lutheran, in fact, what a Lutheran should ask himself/herself daily.
Is there a reason today to remain outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome?
Are the basic disputes of the Lutheran Reformation era or subsequent disagreements still cause enough to remain outside communion with the Bishop of Rome?

If a Lutheran can answer “no” to both of these questions, then said Lutheran ought to return to such a communion.

Unfortunately, I cannot yet answer “no” to both of these questions.

Jon

Thanks may I ask, which of the two you can answer with no?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks may I ask, which of the two you can answer with no?

Well, it isn’t the questions, but the doctrine, essentially this one, because all other disputes, in my opinion(I’m not speaking for any other Lutheran) are resolved when this one is - the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

And some think we blindly follow Luther. We don’t. We follow Christ crucified. The name “Lutheran” was a perjorative by the reformers’ apponents, not unlike** Roman**Catholic.

Jon

It still seems un-biblical to have a church named after a human individual. So that is a question I would ask to members of churches named after a man. Doesn’t a church named after a man such as Luther, Wesley, et al, connote the scriptural impropriety of following a man?

Perhaps the better church name would be Followers of Christ Cricified, or something like that.

 

[Rosinante]

Well, gee. Thanks for telling me what I believe.

Luther was not a prophet, btw.

If Luther wasn’t a prophet, why do you subscribe to his doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’, over the Sacred Tradition accepted and passed on by the Church Fathers?

Absolutely. And he also said ofte “it is written…”.

…but he DIDN’T write anything down himself, nor did he make so much as a side-ways indication (let alone a prophecy) that His Faith would be reduced to a writing, nor that the authority he delegated to the Apostles would expire upon the final reduction to a writing, or that the Church He build upon petros would be displaced by a book, or collection of books…

Source please.

What are you asking me to source? Luther’s apperent revelation? If there were any revelation, it was never disclosed–not that I’m aware of, anyway (hence ‘undisclosed’). If your asking me to ‘source’ the private profit centers–why that’s original to me. I could copyright (or trademark?) that puppy, if I felt so inclined–within this context, that is (maybe i’m mistaken here–perhaps someone has employed the term previosly…). But I suppose you figure that the privately profitable aspect of protestant churches, is merely a convenient conincidence. …or is it ‘autonomous authority of the bible’? Isn’t that essentially what sola scriptura claims?

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

Well, it isn’t the questions, but the doctrine, essentially this one, because all other disputes, in my opinion(I’m not speaking for any other Lutheran) are resolved when this one is - the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

If that were true, then you’d be better served joining one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which may claim apostolic origin, yet do not subscripe to the Papal supremacy.

BTW–just…out of charity–here is a selection of quotes from early Church Fathers, regarding the See of St. Peter:

“Peter was proncounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…”
Agatho Pope,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople,(A.D. 680),in NPNF2,XIV:328-339

"It was right indeed that he(Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches."
Ambrosiaster,Commentary on Galatians,PL 17:344 (A.D. 384),in SPP,62

" ’Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church’, Wherefore where Peter the Church is…"
Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,40:30 (AD 395),in DOP,184

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.”
Ambrose,Commentary on the Psalms,43:40(AD 397),in GILES,145

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.”
Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15(A.D. 337),in SPP,58

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’. And he receive the world in charge…”
Asterius,Homily 8(A.D. 400),in GILES,145-146

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.”
Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182

“Peter bore the person of the church”
Augustine, Sermon 149:7(inter A.D. 391-430),in SPP,69

"Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church."
Basil,In Isaias,2:66(A.D. 375),in SPP,55

“Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles”
Basil of Seleucia,Oratio 25(ante A.D. 468),in FOC,II:49

" ’Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, ‘It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?’ He answered, ‘It is true O king!’ Then says he, ‘Can you show any such power given to your Columba?’ Colman answered, ‘None.’ Then added the king,"Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?'They both answered,'We do.’ "
Bede Venerable, AD 700, Ecclesiastical History,3:5(A.D. 700),in RCH,I:271

“ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore,*** tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God***.”
Cassian John,Contra Nestorium,3:12(A.D. 430),in SPP,61

…

cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[CutlerB]

Friends, in all charity, I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the topic. Could we please return?

 

[Rosinante]

Friends, in all charity, I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the topic. Could we please return?

Questions to ask Lutherans–and discussing the basis of Lutheran theology–sola scrptura–I’m off topic? Certainly didn’t intend to, and frankly, I don’t think I’m that astray, but…

…it is your thread. I’ll respect your wishes.

In charity, of course…

VIVAT JESUS!.

 

[Rosinante]

Sorry…complete misfire. Wrong button.

 

[CutlerB]

Questions to ask Lutherans–and discussing the basis of Lutheran theology–sola scrptura–I’m off topic? Certainly didn’t intend to, and frankly, I don’t think I’m that astray, but…

…it is your thread. I’ll respect your wishes.

In charity, of course…

VIVAT JESUS!.

Well yes, questions on Sola Scriptura are fine, but I didn’t think of debating the questions here, that’s what I mean.

 

[JonNC]

Friends, in all charity, I am not sure whether this has anything to do with the topic. Could we please return?

Cutler,
If you wish to discuss this further, I’m here.

And, of course, I’m also open to participation on other threads regarding some of the other topics brought up here.

Jon

 

[Truthstalker]

I’ve been thinking about this thread.

I guess something bothers me about the fundamental approach: how can I destroy Lutheranism? How can I show that it is wrong? There is a search, it seems, for the one question that will “wake someone up to the truth of Catholicism” as if faith is entirely rational. I am a Christian in heart and soul and mind and body. I would think a better approach would be to show the excellencies of your own faith and not criticize his. I really don’t appreciate it when someone comes up to me in Wal-Mart and starts criticizing what is in my grocery cart, not that that happens. You need to establish the groundwork for being able to say that your faith is better. Too often the approach seems to be if you can destroy someone’s Lutheranism or Calvinism or whatever (by expressing contempt and hatred for the Reformers) then they will somehow automatically become Catholic (if you succeeded in destroying their faith, there is no guarantee they would become Catholic. They might simply abandon Christianity). In encountering people like this repeatedly on this forum, my consistent reaction is to detest them and whatever sick faith they are operating from. It is not what attracts me to Catholicism. There are things that do, and there are people (now banned, mostly) who played a part in my deciding not to convert to Catholicism because of their behavior on this forum.

There are still some whose testimony seems to be “I was a dirty Anti-Catholic. Now I am Catholic and I hate Protestants. Praise God.”

Think about your approach. An adversarial approach can create resentment, anger and obstinancy, even if you are right.