What Protestant group was the first to *intentionally abandon Apostolic Succession?

[po18guy]

I was well aware of the origins of the Lutheran name. However, I agree with you, Steve B is that Luther could have EASILY had the named changed but he did not. I believe he loved having the denomination named after him.

I bet he would roll over in his grave today at the state of the Lutheran Church with the LCMS, ELCA, WELS etc.

Each of the “reformers” had egos massive enough that they not only disagreed with Christ’s Church, but with each other. In record time, they split and split and split…

This has greatly discredited Christianity, and its decline (combined with Islam’s rise) is ample evidence of that.

 

[JonNC]

Each of the “reformers” had egos massive enough that they not only disagreed with Christ’s Church,

Source. How do you know, specifically, that each of them had a “massive ego”? Did they say so? Did they write about it?
Is this a comparison? IOW, are you saying that Eck, for example, was a humble servant of the Church with no ego? Are you saying that popes of that era in general and Pope Leo X specifically were not driven by ego?
It is one thing to disagree with them, but quite another to claim to know this.

but with each other. In record time, they split and split and split…

Who split with each other? “To split” implies that, at one point, they were together. When were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Manz all in one communion together in order to split and split and split?

This has greatly discredited Christianity

And the Great Schism did not?
Is Christ that easily discredited?

 

[JonNC]

MaryT777:

I believe he loved having the denomination named after him.

Lots of necromantic mind readers online today.

I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8.. - Luther

 

[JonNC]

It seems pretty clear that he was given the care and feeding of the flock, without any restrictions.

But I do agree with you, the whole concept of “supremacy” is very bothersome to me, and seems to fly in the face of the Scriptures, in which Jesus specifically addresses issues of servant leadership rather than “lord it over”.

I think that Jesus trained Peter from the beginning to be that visible sign of unity that was needed by the Church. That responsibility was passed to his successors, and I think we still need it today as much as ever!

It is much easier to be in unity with a leader who is humble than one who is arrogant.

I absolutely agree. The issue is, what does Christ mean? How is the successor of St Peter in Rome , or Antioch, to exercise this care and feeding?
Is this supremacy, or as in the early Church, pastoral? Christ’s words imply a pastoral leadership.

 

[MaryT777]

Luther’s words do no hold the same ‘weight’ to a Catholic as they do a Lutheran. We do not hold him up as some grand interpreter of the Word.

 

[guanophore]

The issue is, what does Christ mean? How is the successor of St Peter in Rome , or Antioch, to exercise this care and feeding?
Is this supremacy, or as in the early Church, pastoral? Christ’s words imply a pastoral leadership.

Indeed, but it is not limited to a certain “jurisdiction”. One can be responsible for the whole flock of God without claiming supremacy.

 

[guanophore]

Luther’s words do no hold the same ‘weight’ to a Catholic as they do a Lutheran. We do not hold him up as some grand interpreter of the Word.

Honestly, I don’t think that Lutherans do either.

That being said, when one reads Luther’s Catechism and his commentaries on Scripture, one will find they are much more Catholic than most modern American Evangelical views.

 

[MaryT777]

No reformer in MY opinion had a bigger ego than Luther

Luther would truly roll over in his grave at the state of the ELCA Church claiming to be Lutheran and signing the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Catholic Church

Lutherans can’t even agree among themselves what one need to adhere to to be a “True” Lutheran. The Synods very widely and some don’t even have altar and pulpit fellowship with another Lutheran Synod.

I

 

[MaryT777]

Yes I agree. The Pastors though profess belief in the teachings of the Concord Book. The section on the Primacy of Peter which states the Pope is the Antichrist was problematic for me as a Catholic!~ duh. The blatantly hateful and disturbing language from Luther about Catholics in that section left my hair standing on end it seemed to just be full of hatred and animosity toward the Church Catholic.

I spent two years studying the LCMS doctrine after my divorce and came RUNNING back to Rome. The Church itself though was in huge discord over the Benke dispute after the 911 event, and the resulting division in the Church was too much for me to even believe. It was very sad.

That said the Pastor was a wonderful Christian man and spent countless hours of his time helping me with questions and recommending reading material. I was at Worship in the LCMS for two years and attended the Catholic Church as well albeit I never Communed in the LCMS of course.

I loved my time studying with the Lutherans and met many people who are still friends to this day.

I look forward to the day when Unity will be restored most likely not on this side of heaven in my opinion.

This Pastor had a great sense of humor and said “I can’t wait to get to heaven when we’ll find out who was wrong.” LOL LOL. He wrote the Reformation Polka which is available online.

I ask for prayers for this Pastor who had to retire from active ministry due to complications of MS.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks,Steve. Great article, I must admit.
And yet,I do not see anything that goes beyond what the early Church taught about it, without the “development”.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s words do no hold the same ‘weight’ to a Catholic as they do a Lutheran. We do not hold him up as some grand interpreter of the Word.

I’m not asking you to do so. I’m just pointing out that what you said, “I believe he loved having the denomination named after him.” is patently and demonstrably false. I would further say that, unless you have a source where he says that he loved it, you should recognize your accusation as false.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The issue is, what does Christ mean? How is the successor of St Peter in Rome , or Antioch, to exercise this care and feeding?
Is this supremacy, or as in the early Church, pastoral? Christ’s words imply a pastoral leadership.

Indeed, but it is not limited to a certain “jurisdiction”. One can be responsible for the whole flock of God without claiming supremacy.

I agree. So, how does that mesh with current Catholic claims , leaving infallibility ex cathedra aside?

 

[JonNC]

Yes I agree. The Pastors though profess belief in the teachings of the Concord Book. The section on the Primacy of Peter which states the Pope is the Antichrist was problematic for me as a Catholic!~ duh. The blatantly hateful and disturbing language from Luther about Catholics in that section left my hair standing on end it seemed to just be full of hatred and animosity toward the Church Catholic.

It is no less hateful than Unam Sanctam, which makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.

But not being Lutheran or Roman, I can utterly reject both statements as false and contrary to the teachings of Christ.

 

[steve-b]

ltwin:

MaryT777:

I believe he loved having the denomination named after him.

Lots of necromantic mind readers online today.

I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8.**. - Luther

Jon

That quote ( BTW, not properly referenced) looks like it came from this article by quoting “Admonition Against Insurrection,” from Luther in the year 1522 is even that title correct? Or should it be “Admonition against insurrection and rebellion”?

For some history,

Luther wrote that piece AFTER he was condemned for NOT renouncing his errors in 1520 so was then excommunicated in 1521 . Now he writes THAT piece in 1522! Seems a bit odd, him writing against insurrection at this point in his life when that’s what he just did… Is he now trying to do damage control with his followers. It’s interesting, that the scriptures he so quickly sites he thinks justifies his actions, condemn the very division(s) he caused. Not to mention his attack on the papacy, the office of Peter that Jesus Himself established.

that said

in 1534 Luther completes his own bible, … bible lite… as in He took 7 canonical books and reclassified them as NOT canonical books ergo removing 7 books from scripture. AND to this day, all Protestants regardless of stripe, followed Luther on that. All Protestant bibles have 66 books NOT 73

ISTM, one could argue, that when one leaves Peter, and the Church he is over, they not only leave what Jesus established personally, and gave ALL His promises to it, ergo us who remain faithfully “in” His Church, they who leave, also leave behind, succession and those promises as well until they return. They who leave, start a new succession. One of error. Another name for that error = Heresy. And as in this case looking back in history
the Great Heresies in history … ARE

 

[gazelam]

So which Protestant group/theology was the first to intentionally abandon these historic Christian notions? Was it the Presbyterians or Congregationalists, for example? Calvin himself?

Perhaps the Hussites?

 

[steve-b]

Thanks,Steve. Great article, I must admit.
And yet,I do not see anything that goes beyond what the early Church taught about it, without the “development”.

Papal Supremacy

To your link

The term “orthodox” means correct thinking, true, etc

IMO

To leave what Jesus established, i.e. leave Peter or Peter’s successors, and therefore leave those in union with Peter is by definition leaving the Catholic Church that Jesus established. THAT action is committing grave error. Therefore it is NOT orthodox behavior.

Here’s my question

How then

can organizations who follow such activity, call themselves orthodox or Orthodox? ISTM, it is a contradiction of the term

Your thoughts?

 

[AugustTherese]

Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine.

Large and Small Catechism of Martin Luther. Well, that’s got to be Christ’s doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

That quote ( BTW, not properly referenced) looks like it came from this article by quoting “ Admonition Against Insurrection, ” from Luther in the year 1522 is even that title correct? Or should it be “Admonition against insurrection and rebellion” ?

You are correct, and I apologize for failing to link, because in many ways it speaks well, first to Mary’s claim, and now to yours.
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/nameLuth.htm

Some quotes from it.
In this first quote, Walther speaks to the calumny we sometimes see here, that Lutherans follow Luther, or think of him as a prophet, etc.

Therefore, we do not call ourselves Lutherans after him in the same way that we are called Christians on account of Christ. We are not called such because we believe in Luther. As highly as we treasure this vigorous witness, in our church we still do not accept so much as a word in matters of faith simply because Luther said it. Rather, we accept his words only in the instance that it can be shown written clearly in the Word of God. We do not accept him as any apostle or prophet but rather we know that he was subject to error and sin like other men. He is not the head of our church. He is not our pope. Therefore whoever accepts everything in blind faith simply because Luther said it is separated from the true Lutheran church as far as earth is from heaven and day is from night.

And the following quote refutes the claim that Luther or Lutheranssaw this a new doctrine, or even Luther’s doctrine. He did not and they do not

So finally we ask ourselves, do we call ourselves Lutherans in order to show that we cling to a new doctrine which Luther first 300 years ago brought forward? And do we thereby show that we want to belong to a new church, which was instituted by itself? May that never be so! We name ourselves not at the Arians are named after Arius, or as the Dominicans after Dominicus. Luther did not preach any new doctrine but rather the ancient doctrine of the eternal gospel. He did not stray from the ancient true church, which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. He only left, yes, actually was thrown out, of that church which had fallen and misused the name of the ‘catholic’ church in order to bind the conscience with their laws of men.

It seems to me it is polemical laziness to attack Luther the man. Instead, Christian charity dictates we evaluate what he taught and what Lutherans teach. Otherwise, we perpetuate the divisions we claim to detest.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine.

Large and Small Catechism of Martin Luther. Well, that’s got to be Christ’s doctrine.

You claim to have been Lutheran, are you familiar with what they actually claim.

Therefore, we do not call ourselves Lutherans after him in the same way that we are called Christians on account of Christ. We are not called such because we believe in Luther. As highly as we treasure this vigorous witness, in our church we still do not accept so much as a word in matters of faith simply because Luther said it. Rather, we accept his words only in the instance that it can be shown written clearly in the Word of God. We do not accept him as any apostle or prophet but rather we know that he was subject to error and sin like other men. He is not the head of our church. He is not our pope. Therefore whoever accepts everything in blind faith simply because Luther said it is separated from the true Lutheran church as far as earth is from heaven and day is from night.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That quote ( BTW, not properly referenced) looks like it came from this article by quoting “ Admonition Against Insurrection, ” from Luther in the year 1522 is even that title correct? Or should it be “Admonition against insurrection and rebellion” ?

You are correct, and I apologize for failing to link, because in many ways it speaks well, first to Mary’s claim, and now to yours.
Concerning the Name "Lutheran"

Some quotes from it.
In this first quote, Walther speaks to the calumny we sometimes see here, that Lutherans follow Luther, or think of him as a prophet, etc.

Therefore, we do not call ourselves Lutherans after him in the same way that we are called Christians on account of Christ. We are not called such because we believe in Luther. As highly as we treasure this vigorous witness, in our church we still do not accept so much as a word in matters of faith simply because Luther said it. Rather, we accept his words only in the instance that it can be shown written clearly in the Word of God. We do not accept him as any apostle or prophet but rather we know that he was subject to error and sin like other men. He is not the head of our church. He is not our pope. Therefore whoever accepts everything in blind faith simply because Luther said it is separated from the true Lutheran church as far as earth is from heaven and day is from night.

And the following quote refutes the claim that Luther or Lutheranssaw this a new doctrine, or even Luther’s doctrine. He did not and they do not

So finally we ask ourselves, do we call ourselves Lutherans in order to show that we cling to a new doctrine which Luther first 300 years ago brought forward? And do we thereby show that we want to belong to a new church, which was instituted by itself? May that never be so! We name ourselves not at the Arians are named after Arius, or as the Dominicans after Dominicus. Luther did not preach any new doctrine but rather the ancient doctrine of the eternal gospel. He did not stray from the ancient true church, which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. He only left, yes, actually was thrown out, of that church which had fallen and misused the name of the ‘catholic’ church in order to bind the conscience with their laws of men.

It seems to me it is polemical laziness to attack Luther the man. Instead, Christian charity dictates we evaluate what he taught and what Lutherans teach. Otherwise, we perpetuate the divisions we claim to detest.

Luther screwed up BIG TIME. He refused to change his errors, and he went off and did the very thing he said was wrong. Insurrection and rebellion