Which Church??

[Topper17]

It was at Augsburg, where the Lutherans were attempting to negotiate an understanding with the Church that the issue of all the property stolen from the Church was addressed:
**
“Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. ****When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized they said that to do so would be against their consciences. **Charles responded crushingly: ‘The Word of God the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another. He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding of the rights of all, especially those Catholic unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass, the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass,” Carroll, pg. 102

Jon, as for Luther approving Augsburg, yes, he did approve it but then, it was a basically dishonest representation of Lutheran belief.

You brought up Augsburg, probably to prove a point. However, the actual truth about Augsburg does make many points but none of the portray Luther, Melanchthon, or Lutheranism in general in a positive light. These are the kinds of things that are generally ‘under-reported’ in Lutheran histories.

There is here, however, a conflating of SS with PI here. Lutherans have not backtracked on SS.

It is, however, interesting that you claim that “he”, meaning Luther, backtracked. Earlier in this thread, I essentially said the same, noting that he approved the of Augsburg Confession

That is exactly correct Jon and that is exactly the problem. Over the years I have come to the realization that Sola Scriptura is like a lot of other things in Protestantism – everybody uses the term and there is no common definition. In fact, I have seen as many as 5 or 6 competing and conflicting definitions of what “SS’ means, and of course each one of them is supposed to be the ‘right one’.

As for the ‘backtracked’ comment – Luther originally taught Sola Scriptura AND the Right of the Individual to interpret (correctly of course) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was in direct defiance of the teaching of HIS Church, the RCC, that it is the Church which is guided to teach correctly. When Luther finally realized, exactly as he was warned by dozens of better and wiser Theologians, that his SS+PI lead to doctrinal dissension and the formation of heretical sects, then he ‘backtracked’ to the position that it was only HIM that was authorized to interpret and teach. If you agreed with him you were right and if not you were wrong.

In fact, Luther was SO arrogant in his claims to his singular and private authority to interpret that if you continued to defy his opinions, you were proclaimed to be a liar. The Truth (according to Luther) contained in Scripture was SO clear that obviously everybody could see it. Therefore, if you claimed to disagree, you were really a liar. You actually DID agree with Luther (how could you not?), but you were lying in claiming that you didn’t. We have been through this before Jon. Do you need the documentation behind this claim or are you willing to accept it as a historical fact?

Eventually, Lutheranism ‘backtracked’ back to the Catholic Church teaching that it is the Church that is responsible for determining doctrine EXCEPT that they of course meant themselves and not the Church. Very convienient I think the way it all worked out – how the ‘authority’ to teach ended up being somehow ‘transferred’ to a church that didn’t exist for 1500 years.

Of course it can’t. The Catholic Church is one communion. My communion, too, has a central authority. Neither yours nor mine has authority over, say the UMC. To expect one central authority in this sense is like pointing out that the countries of South America do not have one central authority.

First of all Jon, how about if I do all of the analogies from now on. Your South America analogy does not exactly hit the mark. South America is a continent, which is extremely different than the Church which Christ established for ALL people on earth.

Yes, your communion has a central authority, but it is the origin of that authority is in question. You can claim that that is not true, but yet Jon, only 1/0th of 1% of Christianity believes that the LCMS is what you all think it is, the best and most reliable teacher of the Gospel. Didn’t the LCMS start as an offshoot from some other communion in the last 180 years or so? Are we supposed to believe Christianity survived for the first 92% or so of its history but somehow “needed’ the LCMS in order to ‘perfect the Gospel’? Furthermore, you have recently stated that you, personally, have the right to reject your synod if you, personally, determine that it has gone astray. That Jon is a perfect recipe for further denominalization. What you have really stated then is that your Synod ‘has authority’, but ONLY as long as you cede YOUR authority to it. Once you decide to ‘take it back’, the game is over. That is the essence of Private Interpretation, exactly as Luther originally outlined it.

 

[Topper17]

When people ‘get tired’ of being told what to believe, and decide that they ‘know better’, new communions are formed, exactly as happened in 1840 something with the LCMS. Thus, the ‘authority’ of the LCMS is conditional – conditional upon the acquiescence of the individual. That is NOT the way that the Church was founded and it is not the way that the Church existed for the first 1000 years. There was ONLY ONE Church then. There were dissenters of course but they were judged to be heretics, exactly as was Luther.

Simply put Jon, your paradigm seems to accept doctrinal disunity as being unavoidable, and that it is inevitable that it will continue to grow. Paying lip service to the authority of the Church vs. the authority of the individual is NOT enough. Furthermore, it is logically inconsistent to state that doctrine is a matter for the church to determine and not the individual and at the same time, somehow accept Luther’s Revolt.

The problem as I mentioned earlier is that Protestantism overall has absolutely no authority to keep people in line doctrinally and demand that they hold to the faith of their fathers.

**“We have already noted the fundamentally democratic nature of Protestant theology; it is an enterprise that may be undertaken by any person, (1) on the basis of a publically available resource – the Bible. There is no question of any one interpretation being “privileged” or of any secret additional sources of divine knowledge that are accessible only to the initiated and upon which salvation ultimately depends. Nor is there any idea of a spiritual elite: no group of believers has the right to impose its views, whether on account of academic qualifications (the German Lutheran writer Martin Kahler described this as “a papacy of the professors”) (2) or institutional seniority…Protestantism is adamant that the officeholders of the church are accountable to the church’s members for the interpretations of the Bible they offer in their preaching and teaching and that they may be challenged and corrected on it’s basis. (4)

This approach is subversive to the authority of individual preachers and theologians, (4) no matter how venerable, in that it insists that their views must be judged in light of the Bible. Protestantism ultimately grounds itself in the Bible alone, not in any specific interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps anxious that some might come to regard Martin Luther as an infallible guide to Christian, Lutherans drafted the “Formula of Concord” (1577), which insists that no interpretation of Scripture can be defined as normative.” (5)…

So how can any Protestant claim to speak with “authority” when Protestantism subverts that claim by insisting that all Christians are priests and that no case can be made for the present existence or future emergence of any kind of “spiritual elite” who are placed above others? …This would seem to lead to the conclusion that Protestantism is a democratic faith: because the views of every believer are of equal value, it is impossible for authority figures to emerge.

That logic may be sound, but the reality is somewhat different. In practice, authority figures play an important role in Protestantism.” **(6) Alister McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” pg 232-233

McGrath “connects the dots” as well as any Protestant author I have ever read. However, he is still a Protestant, so no matter how contradictory Protestant “theology” is to it’s Practice, McGrath fails to question whether these contradictions are the result of the faulty presumptions upon which Protestantism was built. He may be willing to criticize Luther, the man, but he fails to consider the possibility that where Luther differed with the Church, such as on the “doctrines” of Sola Scriptura, the “right” of Private Interpretation and the “priesthood of all believers” as being the ONLY definition of “priesthood”. As such, it only seems appropriate to provide a few comments that explain some of McGrath’s comments from a Catholic Perspective.

1. We often hear about people who claim that they “do theology”, meaning that they are, among other things, developing their own personal doctrinal beliefs. They do this based on the resources they have at hand; their copy of the Bible, their ability to read and comprehend, their level of education, their knowledge of 2000 year old cultures, their intelligence, their personalities, and ultimately their “conscience”. Even with the limitations that individuals have in regards to the above factors, many Protestants will still presume that their doctrinal beliefs are, if not Perfect, they are at least “better” than those who hold opposing opinions, including other Protestants. In reality, this concept, when taken to it’s “logical endpoint”, could result in as many combinations of doctrinal beliefs as there are people. The “individuality” of Protestantism is becoming greater and greater with each generation and this runs counter to the Scriptural calls for unity of Faith.

 

[Topper17]

1. McGrath points out that Lutherans were concerned about people who could develop the same kind of faith in Luther that He had in Himself. What Protestantism rapidly learned was that, given this “authority” to interpret and teach, any number of “preachers” emerged, all with the “authority” of God to do so. So, they found it necessary to develop “Formulas” and confessions in order to have at least some control over the laypeople. What Lutheran Martin Kahler describes as a “papacy of professors” is a stinging inditment against Luther Himself, the Professor that started the Lutheran church and insisted, at the very least, that His interpretations of Scripture was “good enough” to allow Him to claim that those who disagreed with Him were somehow associated with the antichrist.
2. Rather than the 1500 year old (at the time) understanding of Scripture on the authority of the Priesthood, the Reformers believed that the “preachers” are responsible for teaching what the laypeople want to be taught. In modern day practice, this is very much the case. Individual laypeople, finding that their current “preacher” is teaching something that they, as individuals, deem to be incorrect, vote with their feet, and will either find a church that teaches “properly” or will start their own church. How anyone can see this as anything other than a prescription for heresy is beyond me. No matter hoe many dozens of times I have asked for a logical Protestant explanation for this, I have never gotten anything in return that makes a lick of sense.
3. In reality, there is probably no tougher job in the world than being a Protestant “preacher”, especially the ones that are very well educated and trained. No matter the denomination, they find that unless they forgo their OWN PERSONAL RIGHT TO INTERPRET, and “teach” what people want to hear, they are likely to be subjected to being fired, disciplined, and yet they probably know 10 times more about the Bible than the people who they end up “reporting to” doctrinally.
4. The Formula of Concord is “held to be a faithful interpretation of Lutheranism and the Bible”. Here we see another contradiction, actually two. Protestantism denies that any one interpretation or representation of Scripture is more valid than another, yet one cannot be a Lutheran “preacher” if one “teaches” doctrines that run counter to the Formula. In addition, the writing of the Formula was accomplished by a Lutheran Council and since Luther claimed that Councils could err, obviously that Council (and all others) have no authority to proclaim anything as being “normative”. Clearly that Lutheran Council had every intention of imposing it’s views on others, and in fact, did when they got the chance.
5. In reality Protestantism has ended up with a spiritual elite. Individual Protestant “Preachers” are actually in competition with each other. Those who have TV
   “ministries” are in competition with their counterparts for the hearts (and wallets) of their potential “followers”. Those who “preach” the Word locally are in competition with their counterparts on the next street or down the block. Their individual success is based on keeping or gaining “bottoms” in THEIR respective pews. Likewise local churches are in competition for the best (most inspiring) “preachers”. The church with the most money to pay will attract the best “preacher” because, public speaking ability is very highly valued within Protestantism, sometimes even more than “correct” doctrinal beliefs. Unfortunately, much of Protestantism is not that concerned about doctrinal teaching. They are more interested in gaining the right type of “fellowship” or gaining that “feeling” they get from hearing an inspiring “preaching”.

Protestantism, in it’s results, denies that the Doctrinal Teachings of Christ are important. Individual Protestants would prefer to skirt the issue of whether Luther or Calvin or a hundred Smiths were the ONE who was really teaching according to God’s Will. However, that is ultimately the most important issue and because it was upon Luther that these contradictory beliefs were founded, again, it makes perfect sense to question whether what Luther did (in total) was, in God’s Eyes, “right”.

The positive here is that, as you admit here, the Lutheran stance is similar to that of the Catholic Church, which hopefully provides a sound footing for further dialogue.

It is very similar and yet at the same time, the exact opposite. For 1500 years the Catholic Church taught that IT had the authority to teach and that it was not the individual. After those 15 centuries and Luther’s Revolt, then, (somehow) that authority no longer belonged to the Church, but to, in rapid succession, ALL believers, THEN Martin Luther, and then after his death, the communion that bears his name. So, while our two communions do have a somewhat common belief about authority, the manner in which yours ‘evolved’ is VERY revealing as to it’s legitimacy.

As for further dialogue – your communion makes it extremely clear that mine is teaching false doctrine, and you also make it very clear that a reunion is possible ONLY when we change our doctrines to match yours. Martin Luther would be proud Jon, but the ‘attitude’ that your communion exhibits is not one which is going to allow for any substantive doctrinal agreements.

Since there is no realistic hope for any kind of real progress communion wide, and since the RCC is not going to do what Lutherans since Luther have ‘suggested’, the focus needs to be on individual conversions. In fact, those individual conversions, especially as evidenced with your Theologians, from Lutheranism to either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, are as you know proceeding at a stunning pace. Clearly all those Lutheran Theologians were no longer ‘satisfied’ with Lutheran theology, a fact that all Lutheran laypeople should consider.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benhur]

Could it not be said that when we trace the history of the Bishops we are inevitably tracing the history of the church?

Yes, but which way do you go when there is a fork in that road ? At first you follow Tertullian, then we rightly do not . Then we divide with those bishops who have different Christology. Then we divide bishops over papacy or the great schism. Then we divide bishops with Huss, Luther . I mean bishops who were once “proper” tracing all of a sudden are not, but they are all bishops. Some go this way and some that way at every fork.

Unless we are to believe in a invisible church idea is correct; in which case history, bishops and everything else simply doesn’t matter.

Straw man. The problem is quite visible as is the church.

 

[benhur]

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.

It is certainly something to discern. Not sure it is carte blanche after that for determining one true church. One thing at a time. It is odd to say 73 is ok or 75 or but not 66 for all three do exclude some books of the septuagint, from whence they all derive. The final affirmation of books came after Luther (Trent) and even he held views that quite a few other good Catholics had as contemporaries and thru out the ages.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, but which way do you go when there is a fork in that road ? At first you follow Tertullian, then we rightly do not . Then we divide with those bishops who have different Christology. Then we divide bishops over papacy or the great schism. Then we divide bishops with Huss, Luther . I mean bishops who were once “proper” tracing all of a sudden are not, but they are all bishops. Some go this way and some that way at every fork.Straw man. The problem is quite visible as is the church.

Granted there have been heretics in my churches past who were legitimately ordained bishops, to those earliest times in fact. I do not think however this impedes the essential point, that in the bishops we see the history of the church. This question I think proper to ask you is, were any of the men you claim theological affinity with, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom or Gregory Naziansus, were they bishops of your church? I think the Catholic and Orthodox Christian proudly says they were of “my church” but can you say the same? Are they your bishops to whom you owe part of your doctrine or beliefs? Or are they just Christians of the past who got things right, only part of the church insofar as they form the invisible church? There seems a definite difference between the two positions. One carries more weight.

I also do not see how my comment was a straw man. I sincerely think the logic of the invisible church, which is tied to a sola scriptura reading of the bible, which is the hallmark of Protestant theology, ultimately has to say to the past: “We appreciate your service and you have done many things for the church, but we need remind you that we have the bible and the correct reading of it. We aren’t bound to follow a doctrine you all followed because we have scripture as our final rule and guide.” It depends on the church ultimately how far they take that statement. I grant that the Lutheran has a stronger respect for the fathers than say the Baptist might, but can the Lutheran say they are necessary? Necessary in order to understand scripture? I’ll let you answer that.

 

[benhur]

Granted there have been heretics in my churches past who were legitimately ordained bishops, to those earliest times in fact. I do not think however this impedes the essential point, that in the bishops we see the history of the church.

This question I think proper to ask you is, were any of the men you claim theological affinity with, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom or Gregory Naziansus, were they bishops of your church?

 

[steve_b]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

Everybody knows who started each heresy in history, and when they were started. Protestantism is one of those heresies. The Great Heresies** . **No mystery here about the founders of these heresies. It wasn’t God.

We know who and when the Catholic Church was started #34

When everybody comes to the end of their days in this life, there won’t be any more argument over this topic.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Actually some say we are reformed Catholics (dubbed protestant by CC) so yes they are our bishops also. I can not break for them anymore than breaking from David or Abraham.

So the Lutheran church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church mentioned in the creed?

 

[joe371]

If you go on line you will see all kinds of Protestants stating the the Catholic Church is not the true Church. Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? One Protestant web site says that1 Tim. 3:15 (the Church is the pillar of truth) means Christianity as a whole.That can’t be so because there needs to be consistency of truth, and mega denominations dont lend themselves to that. What is the Protestant “church?”

Well, ask that person if he/she is a sola scriptura advocate. If yes, then ask them where in scripture alone does scripture say that Jesus’ Church, the pillar and foundation of truth - “means Christianity as a whole”?

Ask them where in scripture alone does scripture claim that the Catholic Church is not the true Church?

Your right - there needs to be consistency of truth; so ask yourself: how did God achieve this? You won’t find the answer in scripture alone, as everyone’s final “norm” for discerning truth. That man-made tradition has seriously fractured Jesus’ Church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response and I hope that you and your family are having a wonderful Christmas. Sorry it my response to you took so long to get back to you.

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

There are a couple of points that need to be addressed here Jon. As you well know, the Catholic Church found it necessary to condemn heretical beliefs constantly during the first 15 centuries of the history of the Church. Those condemnations resulted in excommunications and anathemas being proclaimed by various Councils and Popes. As such, there was great deal of precedence for the excommunication of Martin Luther and the anathemas of Trent. There is none for the “right” to defy the teachings of the Church. That being said, which side do you think the historical precedence favors?

Given that Luther proclaimed doctrines that were FAR different from that of the Church, including the Church of the Fathers, then the burden must be laid on HIM (and on subsequent Lutheranism) to prove that their doctrines were a valid interpretation of the Gospel. After all, it is always up to the new and radical to prove itself over and above the well established a time tested judgments.

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.

That’s fine Jon, and normally that works perfectly for me, but when an explanation is so counter to the literal text, it does warrant questioning. That being said, given that you would like me to accept your explanation of your Lutheran documents, I would like ask you a couple of very specific question about your Confession and the official position of the LCMS.

First of all, as posted earlier, the official teaching of the LCMS, right there on your website, speaks of the ‘Pope and his dominion’ have ‘fulfilled’ the prophecies of the Antichrist.

What I would like to know Jon is who the Pope’s ‘dominion’ is (or are). Clearly this ‘dominion’ is something other than the Pope as a person and something different than the office of the Pope. So – what is the “dominion”?

**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,” **(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.” **

Again, the ‘dominion’ is obviously something different than the Pope. What is it, specifically and exactly?

 

[Topper17]

Next comes hopefully a Lutheran explanation as who the ‘adherents’ are in 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…”

Jon, could you please tell me who these ‘adherents’ are that bear all the marks of the Antichrist. I ask because it seems that it must include people like me. After all, I am one who agrees with the Pope and defends his doctrine. Doesn’t that mean according to your Confession that I have become guilty of the blood of the godly, and defile myself……?

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.

Private interpretation would be one thing Jon, but the obvious literal reading of the actual text of your Confessional documents is another. If there is some other way to understand these specific texts, then please explain them.

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.

I think Jon that your specific answers to my very specific question will clear a lot of this up. But since you brought up Trent, I know that you have been informed that those anathemas don’t apply to any living person – not a one. So for you to bring them up is rather odd, especially when, so far, on these threads, I have not been able to get a straight answer as to who the ‘adherents’ or the ‘dominion’ are.

BTW, by your answer above are we to understand that a pope becomes the Antichrist, (sort of automatically) upon his elevation to the Papacy? If so, is that supposed to be less offensive than the idea of the Pope himself being the Antichrist?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

Next comes hopefully a Lutheran explanation as who the ‘adherents’ are in 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…”

Jon, could you please tell me who these ‘adherents’ are that bear all the marks of the Antichrist. I ask because it seems that it must include people like me. After all, I am one who agrees with the Pope and defends his doctrine. Doesn’t that mean according to your Confession that I have become guilty of the blood of the godly, and defile myself……?

I’m guilty, too.

 

[benhur]

So the Lutheran church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church mentioned in the creed?

Well, are Lutherans one, even universal in believing the creed ? Is the creed apostolic ? All visible churches after the creed can follow it’s signers in being one, catholic, holy and apostolic in it’s creed belief’s.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well, are Lutherans one, even universal in believing the creed ? Is the creed apostolic ? All visible churches after the creed can follow it’s signers in being one, catholic, holy and apostolic in it’s creed belief’s.

Can they really? Did the fathers who adhered to the creed believe in a concept of church which involved different visible communions that might be all connected spiritually even if they are not connected visibly? I think if we judge by the harsh words against heretics each side had to say against each other, they believed the church to be primarily found in their own communion and not in the realm of those outside of it, even if the disagreement seems mild, like say the Coptic schism.

Hence why I asked the question, if you have a different idea of what church is from those fathers (which I think is the case with all protestants) how can you claim to be heirs to them? That they are your fathers from your church? This is especially prudent when it comes to matters of what the church is.

 

[PRmerger]

Can they really? Did the fathers who adhered to the creed believe in a concept of church which involved different visible communions that might be all connected spiritually even if they are not connected visibly? I think if we judge by the harsh words against heretics each side had to say against each other, they believed the church to be primarily found in their own communion and not in the realm of those outside of it, even if the disagreement seems mild, like say the Coptic schism.

Hence why I asked the question, if you have a different idea of what church is from those fathers (which I think is the case with all protestants) how can you claim to be heirs to them? That they are your fathers from your church? This is especially prudent when it comes to matters of what the church is.

Every single Protestant ought to read this and think about it…

 

[benhur]

Can they really? Did the fathers who adhered to the creed believe in a concept of church which involved different visible communions that might be all connected spiritually even if they are not connected visibly?

Don’t know . Did they ? They (it) did not specify in the creed. It seems if you indeed believed in the creed’s twenty elements you were part of the universal church, irregardless of head bishop, succession doctrine views.

which focus on I think if we judge by the harsh words against heretics each side had to say against each other, they believed the church to be primarily found in their own communion and not in the realm of those outside of it, even if the disagreement seems mild,

Yes, we have examples of that in NT scripture, but they were not mild differences, and again did not deal with papal doctrine, even doctrine that separates us now. It was more do you believe that Christ came in the flesh, do you deny the Christ, and do you live a holy, loving life, submitting one to another.

Hence why I asked the question, if you have a different idea of what church is from those fathers (which I think is the case with all protestants)

I think it is not the case. If one is prudent one sees the first fathers did not dialogue in our terms or paradigm (P’s vs C’s). As stated, the apostles creed is quite “neutral” as are other writings. Many would say the “dialogue” evolved over centuries, even millennia, and at some point for sure towards Catholicism. So it was in OT. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees claimed sonship to Abraham though they were miles apart doctrinally by Christ’s time.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your response.

I’m guilty, too.

So you too recognize yourself as a willing member of the ‘evil empire’? I guess we have both had to decide what to do with our ‘guilt’, and it seems that we have come to the same decision. We will oppose that which considers us an ‘adherent’ and expose it for what it is, hopefully causing people to consider all sides of the debate, especially the one that they might never have heard.

As for the whole 'antichrist thing, one really has to wonder what is behind such an over the top and unnecessary accusation. As most know, I am no big fan of Martin Luther but I have never accused him to be the antichrist. The reason - of course is that I don’t consider him to be the anti-Christ, but just as importantly, I realize that calling Luther the antichrist would make me look like a hateful fool. That being said, how are we supposed to view Luther’s claim that the Pope was the antichrist? What could possibly have driven such an unnecessary, over-the-top and completely ridiculous claim? The short answer is hate. The long answer is well – it’s pretty darned long.

Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, Jr. makes the following comment on the subject:

“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36.

Edwards is one of my favorite Lutheran Scholars. He is extremely honest in his assessments and does not try to spin these kinds of things so that they are unrecognizable in comparison with the truth.

It is that hatred which drove Luther to make the ridiculous charge of the Pope being the antichrist. For the record, Luther never claimed that it was ‘only’ the OFFICE of the Papacy which was the antichrist. Likewise the Lutheran confessions never mention the “office”, either, but refer to ‘him’ and ‘he’.

The reason that the Lutheran Confessions refer to the Pope as the antichrist is because they are founded on Luther’s hatred for ALL things Catholic. This hatred led Luther, and subsequently his followers, to vocabulary excessive in it’s ‘abuse and calumny’:

“He sends to the Devil all who do not entirely agree with him. In all his fault-finding there is an immense amount of personal animosity, and very little that is friendly and paternal . . . Too many - are the preachers who have gathered out of Luther’s books quite a vocabulary of abuse, which they fire off from their pulpits . . . Through the evil example of such preachers the habit of reviling and slandering is spreading . . . and most clergymen nowadays who wish to appear good ‘evangelicals’ season their preaching with abuse and calumny.” Fellow Protestant revolutionary Henrich Bullinger, (Janssen, III, 211), from Dave Armstrong’s Article: “The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragic Initial Impact”, March 08, 2007

Roland Bainton who is normally willing to give Luther the benefit of the doubt comments on Luther’s hatred:

“The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the papists. **His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was little else that could be done. **Another public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came to others also passed him by. **He compensated by hurling vitriol. Toward the end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.” ** Bainton, pg. 395

It was out of this unrestrained hatred that the Lutheran Confessions were born. That language today is a significant impediment to any reconciliation effort and will need to be dealt with prior to any kind of substantive progress. The question that leaves us with though is maybe the most important:

Is it even possible for Lutheranism to retract that offensive language or reword it somehow officially, or would that be to ‘admit too much’?

What do you think Randy – do you think that it is even possible for Lutheranism to alter it’s Confessions?

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[benhur]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your response.

So you too recognize yourself as a willing member of the ‘evil empire’? I guess we have both had to decide what to do with our ‘guilt’, and it seems that we have come to the same decision. We will oppose that which considers us an ‘adherent’ and expose it for what it is, hopefully causing people to consider all sides of the debate, especially the one that they might never have heard.

As for the whole 'antichrist thing, one really has to wonder what is behind such an over the top and unnecessary accusation. As most know, I am no big fan of Martin Luther but I have never accused him to be the antichrist. The reason - of course is that I don’t consider him to be the anti-Christ, but just as importantly, I realize that calling Luther the antichrist would make me look like a hateful fool. That being said, how are we supposed to view Luther’s claim that the Pope was the antichrist? What could possibly have driven such an unnecessary, over-the-top and completely ridiculous claim? The short answer is hate. The long answer is well – it’s pretty darned long.

Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, Jr. makes the following comment on the subject:

“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36.

Edwards is one of my favorite Lutheran Scholars. He is extremely honest in his assessments and does not try to spin these kinds of things so that they are unrecognizable in comparison with the truth.

It is that hatred which drove Luther to make the ridiculous charge of the Pope being the antichrist. For the record, Luther never claimed that it was ‘only’ the OFFICE of the Papacy which was the antichrist. Likewise the Lutheran confessions never mention the “office”, either, but refer to ‘him’ and ‘he’.

The reason that the Lutheran Confessions refer to the Pope as the antichrist is because they are founded on Luther’s hatred for ALL things Catholic. This hatred led Luther, and subsequently his followers, to vocabulary excessive in it’s ‘abuse and calumny’:

“He sends to the Devil all who do not entirely agree with him. In all his fault-finding there is an immense amount of personal animosity, and very little that is friendly and paternal . . . Too many - are the preachers who have gathered out of Luther’s books quite a vocabulary of abuse, which they fire off from their pulpits . . . Through the evil example of such preachers the habit of reviling and slandering is spreading . . . and most clergymen nowadays who wish to appear good ‘evangelicals’ season their preaching with abuse and calumny.” Fellow Protestant revolutionary Henrich Bullinger, (Janssen, III, 211), from Dave Armstrong’s Article: “The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragic Initial Impact”, March 08, 2007

Roland Bainton who is normally willing to give Luther the benefit of the doubt comments on Luther’s hatred:

“The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the papists. **His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was little else that could be done. **Another public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came to others also passed him by. He compensated by hurling vitriol. Toward the end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.” Bainton, pg. 395

It was out of this unrestrained hatred that the Lutheran Confessions were born. That language today is a significant impediment to any reconciliation effort and will need to be dealt with prior to any kind of substantive progress. The question that leaves us with though is maybe the most important:

Is it even possible for Lutheranism to retract that offensive language or reword it somehow officially, or would that be to ‘admit too much’?

What do you think Randy – do you think that it is even possible for Lutheranism to alter it’s Confessions?

God Bless You Randy, Topper

Thanks for info. Is that full context of the author , simple hate or the deeds and representations ? Does not Jesus commend a church for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians (Rev 2:6) ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for info. Is that full context of the author , simple hate or the deeds and representations ? Does not Jesus commend a church for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians (Rev 2:6) ?

If Rome condemned highway robbery or wholesale adultery, pious Protestants would begin to think that there is a good deal to be said for them. – Adrian Fortescue