Tips on Questions to Ask Lutherans

[CutlerB]

Dear community,

Let me say right away: There’s going to be a loooong background story to this before I get to my question. As this year draws to an end, I met up with some good friends of mine yesterday, whom I went to school with. We’ve all just graduated this year and they’ve gone off to university, while I’m spending a year of voluntary service at my Anglican parish. We talked all sorts of stuff, and at one point came to the point of what I wanted to do after that voluntary year. I answered that I wished to study Catholic theology. That’s where things got started.

We were only four people: One “Hardcore” Lutheran (with immense interest in [secular] history), one rather liberal Lutheran, a Jehovah’s Witness (the one mentioned in my other posts) and me, a nominal Anglican with a Catholic heart.

The question came up why I was going to convert to Catholicism. My answer, in short, was: Because of its history, its doctrines, its moral values, its beauty and its comprehensiveness. Or better: Because its true.

After some initial comments from my Witness friend, like “I will never become Catholic! I find their pomp disgusting!”, we chatted a bit more about our experience and I tried to share as much of my journey as I could, without offending anyone. Eventually, we changed the topic. It didn’t turn nasty or so, we simply stopped before things got heated.

A short time after I left, I sent my “Hardcore Lutheran” (sorry for all this labelling) friend a message saying that I hoped we had planted some seeds with our Witness friend, which I honestly think we have. I added that I was confident, that in time, I would see all three of them “come home”. He replied saying: “I think I am home already ”, of course meaning he thinks Lutheranism is the true Christianity. I reminded him that I didn’t think he felt quite at home, as I recall his consideration of conversion during school times.

Anyhow, he made these claims in the course of our message conversation:

1. There are things that we are not capable of grasping rationally. (Meaning truth of doctrine)
2. The question is: “Who split from whom?” and we would both answer that differently.
3. Faith and the faithful are accountable to none other than God, and His living testimony in the world, the Bible.
4. He asked me whether I really wanted to make him believe the “practice of the so called Catholic Church of the Church Fathers” was equivalent to that at the time of her departing from “true doctrine” .

I have not received an answer from him yet, however my points were these. The numbering is not related to the points he made above:

1. The Church of the Apostles and Church Fathers was called Catholic and was clearly Catholic in its belief and practice.
2. Luther split from the Catholic Church, not the other way around.
3. Christ’s Church has His guarantee of existence to the end of time and his protection from teaching error.

Now, my question is this: Can you think of any good questions I could ask him, any points I could make about the veracity of Catholicism? For example, how can I show it was Luther who split from true doctrine? I’d like to keep it as abstract as possible, meaning rather arguments based on reason and history than debating Bible verses.

If you have any ideas, please post them here. Thank you.

I wish you all a Happy New Year and, as they say here in Germany, a “good slip into the New Year”.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Now, my question is this: Can you think of any good questions I could ask him, any points I could make about the veracity of Catholicism? For example, how can I show it was Luther who split from true doctrine?

Well, I might start out by asking what was Luther’s job title prior to inventing the church which still bears his name? Was it, perhaps, a Catholic priest of the Augustinian Order?

Modern Anti-Catholics who rely on sensationalism and ignorance instead of scholarly reason, such as Loraine Boettner and Jack Chick, cling to any historic opponents of Catholic Doctrine as the “historic protestants” in an attempt to establish a continuous independent Christian movement apart from Catholicism. In doing so, they align themselves with heretics such as the Waldensians and the Cathars, despite the fact that they refute core teachings of these heretics.

But Luther was a scholar (he was a university professor). He did not make such absurd claims. He never claimed that his theology had actual historic precedent, but instead claimed that it OUGHT to have historic precedent, except that the “Papists” had suppressed the “truth” for their own purposes (due to some vast conspiracy which spanned millenia - without a doubt the most massive and yet the most successful conspiracy in all of human history. Even today, no proof of this conspiracy has ever been discovered). He claimed to have re-discovered the ancient truths of Christianity, using the Bible alone as his guide (despite the fact that the Bible itself never claims to be such a guide - it never claims to be the sole rule of faith).

Luther used the same Bible that was (ahem) canonized by the Catholic Church, except that it INCLUDED the Epistle of James, the Book of Ester, and Revelation, all of which Luther found inconvenient, and discarded, but are yet found in every modern protestant Bible. And his “editing” of Romans 1:17 (to add the word “alone” to the Biblical text “We are saved by faith”) does not survive in any modern protestant translation.

Luther was a Catholic, as were his parents, and their parents, and their parents before them. How could Lutheranism possibly precede Catholicism?

 

[CutlerB]

Thanks for that.

I received a reply just before you posted, and I will quote it here:

I asked: “What authority did Luther have to define true doctrine?”
Reply: “It’s not that much about authority as it is about logical and scripturally provable arguments. I’d even say Tradition is valid in this case.”

So might I add this question: Why is it about authority?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I asked: “What authority did Luther have to define true doctrine?”
Reply: “It’s not that much about authority as it is about logical and scripturally provable arguments. I’d even say Tradition is valid in this case.”

Whose logic? Whose proof? Whose Tradition?

These are all subjective standards. If logic and Scriptural proof and Tradition were objective standards then everyone would believe the same thing (because we would all respect the same logic and Scripture and Tradition). But we all know that there are hundreds (or probably thousands) of faiths who all claim to be Christian and logically (in their minds) follow the teachings of Scripture (as they interpret them) and respect their own particular Tradition (even though it may be only decades old).

So might I add this question: Why is it about authority?

Because authority is objective.

That does not necessarily mean it is correct. Human authority has often been wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States once ruled that Negros were private property and had no rights (the infamous and shameful Dred Scott decision). Years later, the Court reversed that decision (the Supreme Court has actually reversed itself more than 250 times - on average more than once per year of its existence - a pretty shabby record for the highest Court in the land).

Human authority is fallible. Divine authority is not. If divine authority is vested (by God) in human instruments, it is infallible. Which means (unlike the human authority of the Supreme Court) it cannot ever be reversed.

In the protestant faiths, we see human authority at work. We see the authority of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Wesley. We see that the followers of these authorities have split and divided themselves time and time again, despite the fact that they all claim the same original Scripture and Tradition.

The Catholic Faith stands apart. The Catholic Faith has survived for 2000 years (the most ancient protestant counterparts have been around for only a quarter of this time). The Catholic Faith is rather unique in claiming that Her Doctrine is immutable - it cannot ever change, and it never has, and never will. Most protestant faiths (including many denominations that consider themselves “Lutheran”) are quite comfortable with the idea of doctrinal change (such as ordained women).

 

[CB_Catholic]

Thanks for that.

I received a reply just before you posted, and I will quote it here:

I asked: “What authority did Luther have to define true doctrine?”
Reply: “It’s not that much about authority as it is about logical and scripturally provable arguments. I’d even say Tradition is valid in this case.”

So might I add this question: Why is it about authority?

Because Jesus made it about authority, and that is found in the Bible. It was He who gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose. Jesus Himself set up who was to be in charge of His Church on Earth–the Apostles and their successors.

If someone does not like that, they have only the Lord to blame.

 

[CutlerB]

Whose logic? Whose proof? Whose Tradition?

These are all subjective standards. If logic and Scriptural proof and Tradition were objective standards then everyone would believe the same thing (because we would all respect the same logic and Scripture and Tradition).

Well, I understand it to some extent, but I do think logic is objective. It is merely a mater of time to sort out the other side’s fallacies. I guess that’s what my friend would say.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Well, I understand it to some extent, but I do think logic is objective. It is merely a mater of time to sort out the other side’s fallacies. I guess that’s what my friend would say.

The opponents of Catholicism have had 2000 years to sort out its fallacies.

Humanly speaking, the fallacies of the Church are legion. Our Lord was born in a manger (a feeding trough for animals). He grew up in exile. He eventually returned to the land of his fathers as a tradesman’s apprentice. He abandoned his trade to pursue a religious ministry among his own people, many of whom rejected him, and he attracted only twelve dedicated followers (one of whom would later betray him - an 8% total failure). He was put on trial for his life by a Roman Procurator (Pontius Pilate), who made an offer to the crowd to save either him or another criminal, and the crowd condemned Jesus. He was scourged and died on a Roman cross.

For nearly three centuries, being a Catholic in the Roman Empire was a capital crime. There were periods where Catholics were not seriously pursued, and there were periods of substantial persecution (such as under Nero, Trajan, or Diocletian). But there was never a time in which you could openly declare yourself a Christian and not be killed (usually in nasty ways).

Constantine (and Maximilius) issued the Edict of Milan in 312 which ended religious persecution in the Roman Empire, and Constantine declared himself a Christian - a follower of a Roman condemned and executed criminal. Jesus won, without ever firing a shot. Logically, it is absurd. The fallacies were readily apparent to everyone - then and now. And, yet, Jesus won. And he still wins.

 

[capablanca911]

I would ask for him to show where in history Eastern Orthodox churches split from Lutherans.

If the Apostles were Lutheran, then the RC and the EO should be splits from the Lutheran church.

I would then move on to which Councils and Synods he accepts. If he accepts any of them ask him who has primacy, the Patriarch of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. Then inquire who those Lutheran Patriarchs are today.

What? No Lutheran Patriarchs? How is Lutheranism the pillar and ground of truth when there is already a contradiction on who makes up the church?

 

[Annie39]

As an ex-Lutheran (LCMS) I would just ask him why he believes in the Bible. Ask him if he knows where the bible came from. When he learns that it came from the Catholic Church which gathered books from around Christendom and determined which ones could be read in the Liturgy because they taught the true faith, then you can ask him if he believes that those Bishops had the authority to determine the canon. If he does ask him why. They were, after all merely men giving their opinions. Thats a good beginning, have used it meself.

Annie

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;10187494]As an ex-Lutheran (LCMS) I would just ask him why he believes in the Bible.

This Lutheran doesn’t believe in the Bible. That would be idolatry. I believe in the Trune God.

Ask him if he knows where the bible came from.

Ant well-catechized Lutheran should havea working knowledge of scripture and its origins within the Church.

When he learns that it came from the Catholic Church which gathered books from around Christendom and determined which ones could be read in the Liturgy because they taught the true faith, then you can ask him if he believes that those Bishops had the authority to determine the canon.

Well, part of the problem is they didn’t exactly determine the canon prior to Trent. Prior to Trent, and since, there are various canons of scripture even outside western non-catholic canons. Those bishops had authority as the Church.

If he does ask him why. They were, after all merely men giving their opinions. Thats a good beginning, have used it meself.

An ordained priest (all orders have their start in presbyter) is a mere man. Since Lutherans accept the early councils, it seems this line of approach may not work well with us. I’m somewhat suuprised, Annie, by this post and another regarding confession/Holy Absolution, that you were once LCMS.

Jon

Annie

 

[mackbrislawn]

Well, I understand it to some extent, but I do think logic is objective. It is merely a mater of time to sort out the other side’s fallacies. I guess that’s what my friend would say.

Logic is only as good as the postulates and assumptions you operate from. And these postulates are not always objective, but subjective. Another person, using the same logic, but with different assumptions, will arrive at different conclusions.

Protestants begin with different assumptions and intitial assertions that are themselves unproven. Catholics have different ones–often the arguments of both seem nonsensical to the other. The discussions occur at too high a level, so the arguments just go past one another and only agitate the molecules of the air.

 

[Rosinante]

Dear community,

…

Now, my question is this: Can you think of any good questions I could ask him, any points I could make about the veracity of Catholicism? For example, how can I show it was Luther who split from true doctrine? I’d like to keep it as abstract as possible, meaning rather arguments based on reason and history than debating Bible verses.

If you have any ideas, please post them here. Thank you.

I wish you all a Happy New Year and, as they say here in Germany, a “good slip into the New Year”.

Here are the questions I propose:

1. So much was prophesized in the Bible…why wasn’t the Bible itself prophesized?
2. …especially given the centrality and tantamount authority protestants seek to yied to it, to the exclusion of, the actual Church that Yeshua actually established?
3. If it was Yeshua’s intent to reduce the Faith He founded to a writing, why didn’t he write it Himself? Why not just write the Bible himself, and hand them to his Apostles, with the insturction: “copy, and distrubute liberally”.
4. Why did He choose Apostles, at all?
5. Was Marty a prophet?
6. Why did the Church Fathers require the Prophet Martin Luther, to supposedly set them straight with regards to the Bible which they themselves assembled, and preserved against all kinds of attacks, thourgh FIFTEETEEN centuries, before the enlightened prophet taugh us how to use scripture properly, if he wasn’t a prophet?

(NOTE: presumably, he’ll at least own that Marty was no prophet–but then, I may be yielding too much credit to your friend–pro’s come in so many differeing degrees of wrongness, there’s no telling…).

If he claims Marty was a prophet, then ask where in the Bible was Marty, or even a type of Marty, prophesized–(other than in the negative–as in, false prophets, and disciples following him no more, after he proclaims the Eucharist in John 6:66);

1. Why is it that the Eastern Churches, also of Apostolic origin, reflect the Latin Rite in its sacramentality, Marian devotion, and most every other aspect (save the papacy)?
2. Why isn’t sola scriputura prophesized or even mentioned, or even described, in the Bible? Why does he (your freind, that is–presumably, I should add) condemn ‘traditions of men’, while simultaneously subscribing to one (sola scriptura) as the foundation of his faith?

Just a few rhetorical questions to help put things into perspective…

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

^^^follow up:

I usually elaborate on #3, with the observation that Yeshua was cleary highly literate, and well-versed in scripture–teaching the elders when he was merely 12 y/o, and so frequently (almost casually) making reference to the OT–yet the only record in the Bible itself of Yeshua writing anything down at all, is in the sand, with his finger (or a stick?).

…but somehow, from this biblical foundation, and no express prophecy, we get…sola scriptura???

It’s just not terribly compelling.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

One other point worth noting:

The 6 books Marty gratuitously amputated from the Catholic OT, were in the Septuagint–which was the version of scripture (OT) used by Yeshua and the Apostles. In fact, there are approximately 135 references to the Septuagint in the NT, to the exclusion of the re-constituted Hebrew Bible. I say ‘reconstituted’, because the original Hebrew texts were lost after the diaspora of the Jews, upon the fall of J’salem in 70 AD.

The Hebrew OT–which btw, St, Jerome also used in preparing the Latin Vulgate (and he also proposed eliminating the 6 books, but was over ruled by Pope Damasus)–was reconstituted in approx. 200 AD, from the Greek Septuagint–since its original drafting was considered accurate, and legitimate (prepared under the supervision and approval of the 12tribes of Israel, all of wihch were represented in its preperation).

The reconstitued Hebrew OT, eliminated those 6 books, along with some other subtle changes, expressly in order to make them less Cristilogical–recall, this is 200 AD–and Christianity is considered a large threat to Judaism–and largely an internal threat at that, since Christianity emits from Judaism. Hence, any texts which could lend themselves towards cristilogical interpretation, would be somewhat problematic to the Jewish authorities (…which is largely why Pope Damasus insisted on keeping those books in).

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

This Lutheran doesn’t believe in the Bible. That would be idolatry. I believe in the Trune God.

…

Well, part of the problem is they didn’t exactly determine the canon prior to Trent. Prior to Trent, and since, there are various canons of scripture even outside western non-catholic canons. Those bishops had authority as the Church.

…

Jon

Annie

No accurate. What the Church did at Trent, was to confirm what was commonly accepted as the Cannon.

Latin Vulgate??? St. Jerome??? It dates back to the 4th century. This is the version St. Augustine used, when ever he referred to scripture.

The Church didn’t just concoct a cannon in order to refute the Reformers’ contention–She revisted her own history–humbly inquiring if She had perhaps, somehow, gotten it wrong…and determined against such…

…and thereby confirmed what had always been accepted–for over 1,000 years, as Cannon.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[jerome_ky]

Now, my question is this: Can you think of any good questions I could ask him, any points I could make about the veracity of Catholicism?

This isn’t abstract but I think it’s a great point to make. Saw it first in The Catholic Perspective on Paul by Taylor Marshall. From 1 Cor 1:11-13:

For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

What’s the name of your friend’s church? Lutheran? Isn’t that someone’s name?

Non-Catholics think we blindly follow the Pope, but it isn’t just the Pope, it’s a succession going back to the foundation laid by Christ.

 

[JonNC]

This isn’t abstract but I think it’s a great point to make. Saw it first in The Catholic Perspective on Paul by Taylor Marshall. From 1 Cor 1:11-13:

For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

What’s the name of your friend’s church? Lutheran? Isn’t that someone’s name?

Non-Catholics think we blindly follow the Pope, but it isn’t just the Pope, it’s a succession going back to the foundation laid by Christ.

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

 

[Anthony_V]

I would engage in a conversation about grace, and perhaps reflect on this poem:

The Pulley
By George Herbert

When God at first made man,
Having a glass of blessings standing by;
Let us (said he) pour on him all we can;
Let all the world’s riches which dispersed lie,
Contract into a span.

So strength first made a way;
Then beauty flowed, then wisdom, honour,
pleasure:
When almost all was out, God made a stay,
Perceiving that alone of all his treasure
Rest in the bottom lay.

For if I should (said he)
Bestow this jewel also on my creature,
He would adore my gifts instead of me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature;
So both should losers be.

Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlessness:
Let him be rich and weary, that at least,
If goodness lead him not, yet weariness may toss him to my breast.

Some topics to hit on would be, “did grace exist before the Fall? Why or why not?” “How did Adam and Eve’s friendship with God come about? Was this something natural, or by grace (supernatural)?” “Is a communion with God proportionate to the capacity of any natural [created] thing?” “What does the image of God, imago Dei, mean?”

Here are two quotes from St. Augustine, a saint which both traditions greatly esteem:

“…You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You.”
“Don’t you believe in man there is a deep so profound to be hidden even to him who it is?”

I typically associate those two quotes with the imago Dei– the natural desire to see God, (to understand the image which man see himself as merely a reflection), and how even the image imprinted onto us is beyond our own capacity to fully understand.

 

[Rosinante]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

Let them unfold the roll of their Bishops…

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”
Tertullian,Prescription against the Heretics,33(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

VIVAT JESUS!