Which Church??

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your post.

You are going to far with math logic .Mainline is declining but not P’s overall, especially in other parts of the World. Even so it is tough to show quality over quantity. There will be an outpouring but also a falling away. There will be persecution making early church Roman persecution seem “easy”. Only true Christians will persevere, and the days shortened for their sakes. All denominations will be tested and only strong believers will remain. So the numbers have a lot to take in account

Ben, first of all, the statistics I quoted are not ‘logic’ and they are not my opinion – they are solid facts. How they are to be interpreted is debatable, but those facts need to be dealt with as facts. The fact is that people in countries which have been predominately Lutheran for centuries are FAR more likely to deny the existence of God. The statistical correlation is too strong to deny, indicating that it is the ‘Lutheran influence’ which is responsible for the low percentage of people who belief that there is a God. That being a fact, how do you explain that? I have offered up my opinion and it is for others to do the same so that people can determine which is the more compelling.

Perhaps. Satan also attacks the best (Peter was attacked). He leaves the un born again religious alone ,as in Jesus’s day Jewish /Christian in name only. See how it can go both ways? OK. Catholicism in many places is deep into the culture but again spiritual vitality is difficult to see thru when tradition may be the reason for adherence. Spain used to be very very Catholic, but the women had bigger spiritual roles in home and the men quietly had mistress for divorce was definitely out. See how it can be a mixed bag ? I will say the Church in Spain is declined to where she has a very bad divorce rate in Europe. France is bad but England may have caught up also.businessinsider.com/map-divorce-rates-around-the-world-2014-5 ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Crude_divorce_rate,selected_years,1960%E2%80%932012%281%29%28per_1_000_inhabitants%29_YB14.png

Ben, your comments do not match up well with the facts. The question about the belief that God exists was asked in all of those countries that I listed. You mention France, England and Spain and when you look at the statistics, the ALL bear out my point. With the exception of France as an anomaly (having only a 51% Catholic population). Do a correlation analysis plotting disbelief in God and the percentage of the population that is Lutheran (or Protestant really), and it becomes very clear. I would suggest that a declining in the belief in God is a precursor to a downhill slide in all of the moral indices. Just look at Sweden as a perfect example.

The thing that makes the Scandanvian countries such a great ‘petri dish’ is that in most of them, for hundreds of years, Catholicism was outlawed. Catholic doctrine and morality was illegal. Lutheranism and Salvation by Faith Alone dominated. Now we see the results.

I’m not saying that it is Lutheranism per se that is ‘responsible’ because the results would probably be the same no matter which Protestant communion was forced upon those countries. It just so happens though that is was Lutheranism and that they were enforcing the theology of Martin Luther.

You suggest that ‘mainline’ is declining but not Protestantism overall. My contention that the mainline denominations are only secondary way stop between the Catholic Church on one end of the continuum and disbelief or atheism on the other. That continuum is as follows:

Catholicism - Mainline Protestantism - non-denominationalism - disbelief - full blown atheism.

With Christianity in decline, of course, the mainline denominations are declining while the non-denominational Protestants are increasing.

In general, the ‘slide’ from mainline to non-denominational represents an increase, officially, in the “right” to Luther’s Private Interpretation, which of course is deadly to Christian unity and doctrinal certainty.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper
And you defied your old communion and left it. That was PI too.

That’s true Jon, but my non-denominational ‘communion’ and to a large extent yours, were born out of defiance. As such they had and today have absolutely no credibility when they claim that their communion is responsible for doctrine and not the individual. In the case of my ‘communion’, it was all about the individual. My leaving was not against the teachings of my communion but yours leaving the ELCA was.

In the case of Lutheranism, it is all about Luther’s ‘right’ to defiance, but supposedly nobody else’s. I see that as being hypocritical.

I said that if the LCMS were to defy the confessions, then they should be challenged.

But Jon, who, specifically and exactly would decide that they were defying the confessions. Certainly ‘they’ would claim that they were not. The only way that your statement makes any sense at all would be it is YOU who would challenge them. That is VERY Private Interpretation.

He transferred to the Church Triumphant about 25 years ago. I miss him still.

Sorry to hear that Jon. I lost my father over 40 years ago. I get how you still miss him.

Merry Christmas Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

That’s true Jon, but my non-denominational ‘communion’ and to a large extent yours, were born out of defiance. As such they had and today have absolutely no credibility when they claim that their communion is responsible for doctrine and not the individual. In the case of my ‘communion’, it was all about the individual. My leaving was not against the teachings of my communion but yours leaving the ELCA was.

In the case of Lutheranism, it is all about Luther’s ‘right’ to defiance, but supposedly nobody else’s. I see that as being hypocritical.

But Jon, who, specifically and exactly would decide that they were defying the confessions. Certainly ‘they’ would claim that they were not. The only way that your statement makes any sense at all would be it is YOU who would challenge them. That is VERY Private Interpretation.

Sorry to hear that Jon. I lost my father over 40 years ago. I get how you still miss him.

Merry Christmas Jon, Topper

And the CC can be charged with defiance as well, regarding the role of the pope in the early Church.
I wish you a blessed Christmas as well.

Jon

 

[benhur]

I brought this up in another thread but no one commented on it:

What in the world happened to the Catholic Church’s spine? When I read old documents it put down other beliefs as harmful, heretical and leading to death. Now it seems the CC is very fluffy with Islam, Protestantism or whatever else it may be. Of course the CC doesn’t recognize these Religions as ‘true’ but there was a time when the CC argued hard for truth. Now it’s about “All Religions are good!” So this is where I must agree about the hot/cold statement.

Secondly, about the statistics. I also made a thread once about feelings on abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Turns out that practicing Protestants are statistically more unlikely to accept those things. So let’s not pretend Christianity is thriving where Catholicism lives.

Not sure about her stance on Islam, but she certainly has softened her attitude towards “other” christian communities as mentioned in Vat 2. There is a debate within CC if indeed it is a change or that it was really there all the time (that there is salvation in these other christian churches outside of Rome). Then of course is any reasons behind the '‘shift". Is it new due to "maturing’ , a real change and admission to real world or is it also tactical to hold “market share” ? Don’t know, not saying, but there is much old baggage in debaters, including myself.

Many, many “Catholics” reject Catholic beliefs.

Agree. They can do so and remain Catholic, as long as you don’t rock the boat. It does give some flexibility of sorts and a strength and a weakness at the same time for survival.
In the same way, P’s can also have diversity with it’s many churches, a strength and weakness in survival.

 

[benhur]

You are toying with words .

That is all we have here.(and some pictures)

You know what I mean when I write 'truth". If the Holy Spirit is telling Lutherans one thing and Methodists another, where is the ONE truth? Protestantism offers multiple truths from Gods word.

And the spirit tells Orthodox one thing and Catholics another ? And on some things Old Catholics something else ?

The bible is the word of God. Jesus is THE truth.

Amen . And the Good Shepherd . And Holder of the Keys.

If one church does not shepherd his word, then you get the 'factions" that you speak of, which dissolve the concept of one truth.

No, you get factions when one church tries to shepherd all the others , or so I have been told.

I haven’t said that that no truth exists in Protestant faiths as you seem to imply. The issue is consistency.

Consistency within what ? All Catholics ? All Orthodox ? All Southern Baptists ? All JW’s ?

 

[benhur]

You find something wrong with this: find the Church Jesus established and then join it, and conform your views to Christ’s?

No, the question was how do you find it ? How do you know ? Why is “tracing” bishops the way ?

Show me any other churches that can trace their history back to Christ and the Apostles, and I’ll consider it.
(The Orthodox Church, BTW, is essentially the Catholic Church, IMHO.)

If you don’t consider that which is closest (Orthodoxy) and that it is essentially the same (?), then for sure you will not consider that which is next closest, reformed catholics dubbed "protestant’’. PS. I thought Anglicans trace also, not sure, saw it here on CAF, I think.
Merry Christmas

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, the question was how do you find it ? How do you know ? Why is “tracing” bishops the way ?
If you don’t consider that which is closest (Orthodoxy) and that it is essentially the same (?), then for sure you will not consider that which is next closest, reformed catholics dubbed "protestant’’. PS. I thought Anglicans trace also, not sure, saw it here on CAF, I think.
Merry Christmas

Could it not be said that when we trace the history of the Bishops we are inevitably tracing the history of the church? It seems they are often undistinguishable from one another, if we start with men like Ignatius then proceed down the centuries. If you can’t trace yourself to Iraneaus or Clement or John Chrysostom or Athanasius or whomever, can you be rightly said to be part of the church throughout the centuries? That seems the main method by which any traditional Christian knows of their succession, by their inheritance to the church before them. It does seem to be the only way one can rightly be said to be part of that tradition, that body of believers throughout the centuries. Unless we are to believe in a invisible church idea is correct; in which case history, bishops and everything else simply doesn’t matter.

 

[Chong]

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If we look at the statement,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus renamed Simon son of Jonah, Peter. Then he said on that rock he’d build His church. Which rock was he referring to? If we did a literature review of the subject, Simon Peter was not the main subject, the main subject was WHO PEOPLE SAID JESUS WAS. By concentrating on Peter, we deviate from the original objective of Jesus. If the objective of Jesus was to give Peter the keys and make him the head of the church, he’d not have asked the question of who people said he was.
Jesus was known in a small country of Israel by then. His church was to be made up of all those who believed in Him. Knowing who Christ would be through a divine revelation from the Father.

 

[Chong]

If I’m not mistaken I think your words sound similar to what Calvin said. It doesn’t matter what you do, you can be the best person but if your not in the book your not going to heaven.

I think God sees all that we do, I also think some people have gotten their names removed even added to the book of life, because of their conversion to God, thanks to his mercy.
But with that conversion comes truth and following it.

What I mean is that, a single church group may not claim to be the ONLY true church. However, there are marks of a true church.
In Revelation 1-3, Jesus judges 7 different churches, if you compare what he says to each one of them, you’ll find that there are some that are extremely evil while 2, Smyrna & Philadelphia stand out for Christ despite persecutions and false teachings.
All these churches, none could claim as the sole church of Christ. They all belong to Christ, To Jesus, what matters is “overcoming…”.
I have been asking myself why Jesus sampled 7 churches, and not only one, or 2. We know that No. 7 is significant in God’s symbolism of completion. These 7 individual churches are a sample of the world-wide congregations of believers. Each congregation (individual church) has a uniqueness that is guided by its leaders. Despite the church being called Catholic, what the priests teach, preach & practice is not identical in all other places. The challenges are different and if judged by Jesus Himself, He would have something against or a commendation.

So, “which church” depends on how an individual church setting overcomes the specific challenges facing them in relation to the Word of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we look at the statement,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus renamed Simon son of Jonah, Peter. Then he said on that rock he’d build His church. Which rock was he referring to? If we did a literature review of the subject, Simon Peter was not the main subject, the main subject was WHO PEOPLE SAID JESUS WAS. By concentrating on Peter, we deviate from the original objective of Jesus. If the objective of Jesus was to give Peter the keys and make him the head of the church, he’d not have asked the question of who people said he was.
Jesus was known in a small country of Israel by then. His church was to be made up of all those who believed in Him. Knowing who Christ would be through a divine revelation from the Father.

No and I assure you thats not a literature review. Its reading what you want to hear into a verse to dismiss the acknowledgement of it. Jesus was speaking specifically to Peter as He Blessed Him= Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

So no He spoke of Peter and his faith and he were blessed and the Church is built on both faith and person. Many Protestants agree, patristic witing agrees, history agrees and thats why the Church is the sole interpreter of scripture. Perfect example above.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Davidic line is passed spiritually in Matthew to the person of Jesus Christ who passed this spiritual blessing to Peter both person and faith. The Keys represent authority which are given to Peter. The same formula is represented through scripture for example in Acts.

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) –

“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) –

“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament –

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

 

[Porknpie]

No, the question was how do you find it ? How do you know ?

If you don’t consider that which is closest (Orthodoxy) and that it is essentially the same (?)

One thought would be to find the Church with the same number of books in their bible as the early Church affirmed, repeatedly. Catholics and our close brothers the Orthodox both have “at least” 73 books in our bibles. They do have a few more, but we are in complete agreement on 73, inclusive of the deuterocanonicals. Neither removed any books, first compiled and affirmed by the Church in 382 ad.

So one way I would no for sure that my Church had an issue was if they proclaimed that the written Word of God contained only 66 books, the result of a man-made incision of the 16th century.

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that you’re no different than anyone else in choosing a Church that “makes sense” to them.

Well, if you mean by “make sense” that I found the Church that Christ established and conformed my views to His, then…ok.

But there’s a lot of things the Church teaches that don’t “make sense” to me, and if I used the paradigm of church shopping that is used by most of you Protestant folks–find the church that agrees with what I believe– I would definitely be in a different church.

I’d find a church that conformed to my own views.

But, alas, that would be the epitome of creating a church in my own image, no?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,
There are also claims made by the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome outside of ecumenical council. In many ways, it can be said we are chips off the old block, except the Catholic church and EO have been doing this for 1,000 years.
With my limited time today, and this week due to family being in town,

First of all Jon, Blessings to you and all of yours during this Christmas season. I too have my son and his family coming in from out of state, so we will all be together.

let’s be clear:
The LCMS (and all Lutheranism AFAIK) doesn’t now, nor has it ever depicted or claimed that the Pope is the AntiChrist.

** The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ. However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the
papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
**

[file:///C:/Users/jschleifer/Downloads/The_Bible.pdf](file:///C:/Users/jschleifer/Downloads/The_Bible.pdf)

The LCMS does not now, nor has it ever accused members of the Catholic Church as being the AntiChrist.

Jon, I want to be very clear also, clear as to the actual literal text of your Confession.

The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE

“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since **he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. **

59]**But those who agree with the Pope,and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, **whom the **Pope [and his adherents] **persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”

#39 makes it very clear that ‘all the marks of antichrist’ are on ‘Roman pontiffs, with their adherents’. #57 makes it very clear that the Pope – ‘him’ is antichrist. The ‘him’ is personal. There is absolutely NO mention of the ‘office’ in this document. #59 again mentions the Pope AND his ‘adherents’.

Just who, specifically and exactly, are we supposed to believe that these ‘adherents’ are, IF NOT Catholics loyal to the Church with the Bishop of Rome at It’s head? Is there some ‘creative way’ to interpret these statements other than referring to Catholics in general? Are we supposed to believe that ‘adherents’ refers to the Pope’s head lice or something?

The Catholic Church still teaches the same ‘Godless doctrines’ that it was teaching when Melanchthon wrote this ‘gem’. Somehow the Church managed to resist the temptation to succumb to this ‘opportunity’. (What could the leadership of the Church possibly have been thinking?)

 

[Topper17]

The treatise that Melanchthon authored is STILL an authoritative doctrinal statement of the Lutheran church which Lutherans are supposed to hold to. Personally I am not interested in the semantics necessary to attempt to make the Confession say something that it clearly doesn’t say. Neither am I interested in whether the ‘antichrist label’ supposedly applies ‘only’ to the office of the papacy or, as it appears from a literal reading, directly to the Pope. At this point, they are both enormously ridiculous and offensive.
As for the LCMS, the following is the official statement of an LCMS Synod and it makes it very clear:

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod
Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

Of the Antichrist

1. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) **Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” **(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Please note Jon that this official document of the LCMS makes absolutely NO mention of the ‘office’ of the Papacy.

Further, part of the issue with the term Antichrist is its change as a result of Dispensationalists (premillenial).

Is that supposed to be less offensive to Catholics?

IX. Is the LCMS Position the Same as the Fundamentalists?

• Absolutely not!
• Fundamentalists and Evangelicals differ on many issues, particularly on their relationship to the Roman Catholic church. Fundamentalists are generally anti-papal; Evangelicals are generally more ecumenical. Some have even signed a statement on common moral issues “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” in the 1990s.

So, somehow the LCMS represents fundameltalists as being ‘anti-papal’ and Evangelicals as being ‘generally more ecumenical’. As a Catholic I find this to be a strange comment, (and unbelievable), given that in that “other” LCMS text that states that:

“the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” and "that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.”

Also Jon, someday I would really like to have a Lutheran explain to me who the ‘adherents’ are.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm
Catholics, as much as any other trinitarian communion, are Christian.
What’s remarkable about your comment here, Topper, is the notion that, while Lutherans recognized the need for the Church to determine doctrine, others for some reason did not, and this was Luther’s fault.

Jon, as you know, neither the RCC nor the EOs EVER taught Private Interpretation or ANYTHING that remotely resembles it. Beginning in 1517 and up until roughly 1525 Martin Luther actually DID practice and teach it. Denominalization began almost immediately, even before Luther’s return from the Wartburg. Now after 500 more years we still have the RCC and the EO but now some tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

How in the world do you somehow NOT see Luther as bearing responsibility for the horrific results of his teaching of Sola Scripture PLUS Private Interpretation? If not primarily Luther, then on what do you blame this rampant unity killing denominalization?

You and I have discussed this before, and leaving aside an implied failure of the Catholic Church to convince people otherwise, one must assume that Luther had some sort of power over non-Lutherans that he did not have over Lutherans.
The fact is that people make their own decisions. Luther was not “Lord Voldemort” with the “imperious curse”, nor were Calvin and others so much unthinking lemmings.

I find it interesting that you have a difficult time making the connection between Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation and the doctrinal dissension of Protestantism, but somehow manage to bring up the idea of some sort of ‘implied failure of the Catholic Church”. You will remember of course that the Catholics of Luther’s time warned him that his teaching of Private Interpretation was going to lead to EXACTLY what it has. That being the case, I guess they did fail to keep Luther from teaching heresy. We bad!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus renamed Simon son of Jonah, Peter. Then he said on that rock he’d build His church. Which rock was he referring to? If we did a literature review of the subject, Simon Peter was not the main subject, the main subject was WHO PEOPLE SAID JESUS WAS.

:nope:

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are six of the more than two dozen quotes I have from Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann (Anglican)

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . **Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter **. . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Frank E. Gaebelein

The Greek makes the distinction between petros' and petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ``petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368.

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Topper17]

The fact is that during those approximately 7 years that Luther practiced and taught PI, he set a precident that has been followed not at least 30,000 times. Reputable Protestant Scholars don’t have the problem making the connection:

**"Two of the great legacies of the Reformation were the principal of private interpretation and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular…… **
**
It was Luther himself who brought the issue of private interpretation of the Bible into sharp focus in the sixteenth century. Hidden beneath the famous response of the Reformer to the ecclesiastical and imperial authorities at the Diet of Worms was the implicit principal of private interpretation. **

When asked to recant of his writings, Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” Notice that Luther said “unless I am convinced…….”** In earlier debates at Leipzig and Augsburg, Luther had dared to presume to interpret Scripture contrary to interpretations rendered by Popes and by church councils. ****That he would be so presumptuous led to the repeated charge of arrogance by church officials. **Luther did not take these charges lightly but agonized over them. He believed that he could be wrong but maintained that the Pope and councils could also err. For him only one source of truth was free from error. He said, “The Scriptures never err.” Thus, unless the leaders of the church could convince him of his error, he felt duty-bound to follow what his own conscience was convinced Scripture taught. With this controversy the principal of private interpretation was born and baptized with fire.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, pg. 33-4.

You give Luther far too little ‘credit’ for the Reformation, greatly underestimate his influence, and in fact diminish his ‘role’ in the doctrinal disunity than the historic record would suggest appropriate. Noted Protestant Scholar points directly at Luther as being responsible for Private Interpretation. Many Protestant Scholars, including Lutherans are willing to make the connection.

BTW Jon, I would like to get your take on the shocking statistics that show that the people in predominately Lutheran countries are far less likely to believe that there is a God.

May God Bless You Jon, and May You and Yours Have a Wonderful Christmas, Topper

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The challenges are different and if judged by Jesus Himself, He would have something against or a commendation.

Bold mine. PLEASE elaborate.

 

[JonNC]

Is that supposed to be less offensive to Catholics?

No, no more or less so than the offensiveness to Lutherans of the anathemas directed toward us from Trent.

Here’s what I do expect. When a Catholic on this website or elsewhere has provided me with the CATHOLIC understanding of their teachings, I accept their explanation. I expect the same in return.

I have explained, using official Lutheran explanations and others from Lutheran clergy. If you choose to not believe what they and I say about our teaching, and wish only to use your own private interpretation regarding our teachings, for whatever reason, then it is not worth my time, nor the wear and tear on my keyboard to try to convince you further.

Here are the facts: our communion and synod are quite specific that the charge of anti- Christ against the office of the papacy is:

1. specific to particular teachings regarding the power and primacy of the papacy.
2. historically condition regarding those teachings
3. not directed at individual popes, or individual members of the Catholic Church (unlike the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which start with. “If any one saith,…” and finish with, “let** him** be anathema.”, and are therefore specifically directed at individuals.)

You may believe or disbelieve as you choose.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your post. Sorry it took me so long to resond.

Hi Topper,

Early on in this thread I pointed out that the Lutheran approach since the Augsburg Confession is to place doctrine outside of personal interpretation. McGrath seems to here confirm what I was saying.

First of all Jon, the Augsburg Confession was not exactly an honest representation of Lutheran belief of the time. In fact, it intentionally avoided several Lutheran beliefs in an effort to achieve some sort of reunion.

“By July it was clear that on matters of doctrine the Lutherans at Augsburg were dissimulating, concealing their real beliefs in the hope if avoiding a final breach without making genuine concessions. On July 6** Melanchthon made the incredible statement: “We have no dogmas which differ from the Roman Church……We reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are prepared to remain in allegiance to the Church if only the Pope does not repudiate us,” As it happened, on the very same day Luther, in an exposition to Archbishop Albert of Mainz**, declared: **“Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils’” ** Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 103

“It made no mention of Luther’s teaching on the authority of the Pope, predestination, the priesthood of all believers, indelible sacramental ordination, the number of sacraments, and purgatory, nor of his condemnation of all Masses as public or private. There were enormous omissions as everyone present [at Augsburg] knew.” Carroll, pg. 102

In other words, Melanchthon absolutely lied about the Augsburg Confession not being in disagreement with Catholic teaching, and that is in addition to the Confession itself being a basically dishonest depiction of Lutheran belief. That Luther approved it does not speak well of him either.

As such Jon, you will have to understand how (and why) I am not particularly impressed with the Augsburg Confession.

For the record it was also at Augsburg that Luther wrote to Melanchthon (Aug 26th):

“This talk of compromise…. It is a scandal to God…**I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in doctrine, since it is utterly impossible unless the Pope wishes to take away his power.” ** In subsequent letters he declared that no religious settlement was possible so long as the Pope remained and the Mass was unchanged.

Jon – this is the astonishing level of arrogance that is necessary to proclaim Sola Scriptura AND the “right to Private Interpretation for all. Of course by this time Luther had eliminated the “for all’ portion, claiming it only for those who agreed with him.

It was prior to Augsburg that Luther had made written recommendations that the secular authorities should “appropriate” (meaning steal) the property of the Church. This recommendation of course was followed – in spades.
**
“I advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries . . .** it is not a case of greed opposing the spiritual possessions, but of Christian faith opposing the monasteries . . .** I am writing this for those only who understand the Gospel and who have the right to take such action in their own lands, cities and jurisdiction . . . **

. . . the third way is best, namely, to devote all remaning possessions to the common fund of a common chest, out of which gifts and loans might be made, in Christian love, to all the needy in the land, whether nobles or commons . . .

I am setting down this advice in accordance with Christian love for Christians alone. We must expect greed to creep in here and there . . . it is better that greed take too much in an orderly way than that the whole thing become common plunder, as it happened in Bohemia. Let everyone examine himself to see what he should take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common chest.

In the third place: the same procedure should be followed with respect to abbacies, foundations, and chapters in control of lands, cities and other possessions. For such bishops and foundations are neither bishops nor foundations; they are really at bottom temporal lords sailing under a spiritual name . . .

In the fourth place: part of the possessions of the monasteries and foundations . . . are based upon usury, which now calls itself everywhere “interest,” and which has in but a few years swallowed up the whole world . . . God says, “I hate robbery for burnt offering.” [Is 61:8] . . .

But whosoever will not follow this advice nor curb his greed, of him I wash my hands.
(Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest, PE, IV, 92-98, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XII, 11-30; EA, XXII, 106-130; citations from 93-98)

TBC