Which Church??

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

Here is paragraph 43.

Hi Randy,
Let me first say that this charge is conditional, and can change regarding the office of the papacy. I say this so that I am not later accused of personal interpretation of doctrine.

While not being sure what clarifications were suggested, I will say that, if left to me, it would be far more clear, that the synod does not now, nor has it ever, intended this to be a personal charge against any Catholic individuals, including the pope. I would also clarify that a resolution of the teachings, agreeable to both traditions, would make the charge null and void. This is already stated elsewhere, but needs to be clear and concise.

I might personally also say that I see far more “antichristian doctrines” eminating from some protestant groups, liberal and otherwise, than from the CC.

Jon

So, that’s a yes.

 

[JonNC]

So, that’s a yes.

Well, yeah. The qualifier was I wasn’t sure what the suggested clarification was. I’d want it clarified my way.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Steido and/or Jon …help me here:

I continue to be confused on what Lutherans, and in this case LCMS, profess to be Scripture. I thought that the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) themselves do not state a belief in the number of books in the bible and that Lutherans are held to the confessions. This is quite opposite to my experience with all my LCMS family members who hold that there are 66 books in the bible. They are consistent in their belief with LCMS Presidents, who have firmly stated that the bible has 66 books:

President Harrison states that the apocrypha does not have the authority of scripture on this youtube link.

President Barry’s remarks are below from the "What About" series on LCMS.org

First, the Bible is actually a collection of books–66 of them to be exact –from the first book, Genesis, to the last, Revelation. These books cover thousands of years and were written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. There are many different kinds of writing in the Bible: historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, speeches, letters and so on. From a merely human perspective, there is no question that the Bible is a masterpiece of literature.

I’m trying to find the Lutheran “source” that limits scripture to 66 books. I’m not sure where to find it. The belief that the bible is only 66 books seems to be so wide-spread within LCMS. What is the source for this belief?

There really isn’t one, confessionally. Nor is there one that prevents a Lutheran from viewing the DC’s as scriptural. What you won’t find in most Lutheran settings is the use of the DC’s doctrinally.
In many ways, the LCMS is an American Lutheran synod, influenced by the availability of English Bibles from other protestant groups. Fortunately, there seems to be a rediscovering of the DC’s, in the historic Lutheran usage: teaching, liturgy, hymnody, etc.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d want it clarified my way.

Yes, we’ve just got to get that last bit of Protestantism out of you.

 

[PRmerger]

Jon-

I appreciate all that you’ve said, but I do have a question: if the “antichrist” stuff is no longer relevant to Lutherans, why is it still on your church’s website?

I must say that I am astonished to see that statement on an official Lutheran website.

Prior to this thread I would have scoffed at any anti-Lutheran poster who had made the claim that the Lutheran church views the office of the papacy as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist…so I am simply aghast to see it in print.

 

[PRmerger]

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

The above is simply confirmation that it is a great absurdity to claim the name “Catholic” for the Lutheran communion.

There is no such thing as Catholics who are loyal to the office of the papacy, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the power and primacy of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

That would be like saying there are Catholics who view the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the Eucharist as idol-worship. But both groups can still be called “Catholic”.

That’s nonsense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, yeah. The qualifier was I wasn’t sure what the suggested clarification was. I’d want it clarified my way.

Jon

BTW-

Here’s a book you’ll want to buy:

** The “Catholic” Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances**
By Dave Armstrong
socrates58.blogspot.com/

 

[JonNC]

The above is simply confirmation that it is a great absurdity to claim the name “Catholic” for the Lutheran communion.

There is no such thing as Catholics who are loyal to the office of the papacy, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the power and primacy of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

That would be like saying there are Catholics who view the Eucharist as the Body/Blood/Soul and Divinity of Christ, and another subgroup of “Catholics” who view the Eucharist as idol-worship. But both groups can still be called “Catholic”.

That’s nonsense.

Hi PR,
Would you say the same regarding the Orthodox view, which also rejects universal jurisdiction?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,
Would you say the same regarding the Orthodox view, which also rejects universal jurisdiction?

Jon

I would not.

I view their view of the papacy as similar to your view to the Eucharist.

An analogy might help limn what I am trying to articulate:

The Orthodox view on the papacy is to the Catholic view on the papacy
as the Lutheran view on the Eucharist is to the Catholic view on the Eucharist.

Both are strikingly similar. Almost to be indistinguishable from the Catholic view.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Don-

I’m not going to speak for Topper. However, I am curious as to why you view his posts as “hate”? If Topper is aggressively pointing out the problems associated with Lutheran theology and history, perhaps it is not out of hate but out of the firm conviction that when people see these things clearly, they will REJECT them as unsound.

Precisely Randy. I actually believe that ALL people, including Protestants deserve to know the facts surrounding the beginning of ‘their Reformation’. I also believe that they deserve to know the arguments that can be made, from history, against the validity of the “Reformation”, which was really more of a Revolt than a Reformation. The things I point out, the facts and also the opinions, and the line of thinking, are things that Protestants are NEVER going to be exposed to by their own leadership. Thankfully, Protestant Scholars are much more prone to deal with these issues than they were decades ago. Once people have been exposed to the arguments of both sides, they can determine for themselves which is the more compelling.

It seems to me that we’re becoming a society in which no one can say anything to our about anyone without someone claiming that it is “hate speech”. And really, isn’t that just a means of silencing someone when you really don’t like what they are saying?

Exactly Randy! I did a couple of posts a few months ago on the “Ben Affleck” syndrome – the newly proclaimed ‘right’ to NOT have your beliefs and opinions challenged. Anything that is in disagreement with a certain point of view is called ‘hate speech’ or some sort of ‘ism’. Because nobody wants to be labeled a ‘hater’ or some kind of ‘ist’, they are supposed to back off. As shown in a very recent post, Luther believed that he could silence his opponents by vilifying them, but all he was really doing was revealing his character and the weakness of his arguments.

If Topper is in error, if he has his facts wrong, then you should be able to disprove his points and silence him by the superiority of your arguments. THAT is how these things should be settled, IMO. This is an apologetics forum, for cryin’ out loud. That’s why we’re here. Be honest, except when your church is in the hot seat, you enjoy it, too! :yup:

Exactly Randy. In fact, this is actually a Catholic apologetics forum (for St. Peter’s Sake). One of the things that I have noticed over the years is that Catholics are MUCH more prone to argue with actual facts and logical arguments, whereas Protestants are much more prone to argue with generalizations and ‘feelings’. Catholics tend to want to discuss specifics and Protestants want avoid specifics. (Just a generalization of course.)

Every day, I devote time here to explaining to non-Catholics what Catholics believe and why, and sometimes, well, often this also means poking holes in their own understanding. I’m not doing this to convince anyone that they should not be a Christian; I’m doing it in order to help them see that to be a Christian in its fullest sense means being a member of the Church that He chose to build upon Peter. Is that hate? Or is that actually love?

Exactly Randy. I want people to experience the absolute JOY that I have since I did my swimming in the 80’s. Luther’s doctrines of SS plus the ‘right of the individual’ has led to nothing but doctrinal dissension and confusion. I don’t know how people cannot see that – (Topper makes a very Martin Luther-like statement)

 

[Topper17]

I know what I am accused of (by Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and non-believers alike), but I don’t think that my detractors are accurate in their assessments of my motives. (I do admit that they have a point when it comes to my approach, and I’m trying to control the sharpness of my -]tongue/-] -]keyboard/-] words.)

Need I say again – Exactly……… Remember though that when people disagreed with Luther, he impugned their motives, up to and including (often) claiming that they were willingly in league with Satan. (As always, documentation upon request).

If History and Luther’s writings show him to be a rather poor Christian Theologian (which it does), are we as Catholics supposed to avoid that topic? In addition, we constantly hear how Lutherans don’t really ‘follow Luther’, that he is simply one of a large list of Theologians who ‘contributed’ to Lutheranism and Protestantism. But criticize Martin and watch out. He was considered a sort of Old Testament Prophet (literally) in the early days of Lutheranism. (References available upon request – as always).

Finally, I can’t find the exact quote, so I’ll have to paraphrase: We (you included) do apologetics for two reasons: one is for the benefit of those with whom we share the truth; the other is out of a desire for self-preservation. And by this latter point I mean that if we do not stem the tide of unbelief, the world around us will fall further and further into darkness, and we ourselves will suffer as a result.

Luther’s SS+PI has caused quite enough damage. Protestantism is slipping from the Confessional to the independent Private Interpretation variety and Christian Doctrine is suffering as a result.

People come here to CA, including many Protestants, because they are considering the Catholic Church. The vast majority of the people here never say a word. There was a thread I was on a few months ago which had 1000 views a day, and maybe 25 posts a day. People are here searching for the Truth, and Randy, the things that you and I and many others post are things that they are NEVER going to hear in their own churches.

In my opinion, because of their Confessions, there is no possibility that Lutheranism will EVER become unified with the Church. Therefore, the battle is one soul at a time. It is the individual who must be convinced and if providing evidence and logic that indicates that their belief system is “problematic”, so be it. If arguments can be offered which are more compelling than mine, fine, but to complain about my arguments without specifics, then I am fine with that too, because all that proves is that there is no credible response. Either way……. If a specific argument is provided against my (our) positions, that would allow for an actual debate and that would be the best possible scenario. That would REALLY give people the opportunity to weigh the arguments of each side and be guided accordingly. However, if the goal is to keep people from hearing both sides………well……………………

In short, this ‘stuff’ is WAY TOO IMPORTANT to worry about a few ruffled feathers. This is not to say that these conversations should not be conducted with mutual respect of course.

I am find it rather humorous and telling at being accused of hate speech while at the same time being called “a truly wretched individual”. Luther of course would be thrilled with this particular approach. I have no choice but to point to this insult as evidence of Luther’s ‘spirt’ living on.

Luther considered his opponents to be evil if they persisted in their disagreement. (documentation and references upon request as always). Since they were evil, there was absolutely no moral issue with vilifying them and defeating them by ANY means.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

And let me add that a search of the Book of Concord finds here:

A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537

Has this been formally repudiated by Lutherans worldwide?

If not, exactly what has Topper done wrong by bringing these dark passages from your church into the light of day?

As you know, we are supposed to discuss the subject here on these forums, NOT each other. And yet, as you have seen, there are people here who would MUCH rather discuss ME (Topper) than denominalization, or Luther’s role in such, or the divisiveness of own their actual Confessions and synod pronouncements.

If people want to refute the facts I present, then they should do so, specifically and exactly. If they want to present their own opinions so that they can be compared to what I post, then they should do so.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

It’s all pretty telling.

 

[JonNC]

I would not.

I view their view of the papacy as similar to your view to the Eucharist.

An analogy might help limn what I am trying to articulate:

The Orthodox view on the papacy is to the Catholic view on the papacy
as the Lutheran view on the Eucharist is to the Catholic view on the Eucharist.

Both are strikingly similar. Almost to be indistinguishable from the Catholic view.

Perhaps, and yet this has been the crux of a thousand year schism. I will tell you this, personally, a solution of that schism is the solution to division in Christendom.

goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow.

That’s four exactly’s and one precisely.

I don’t know whether to be proud of how exacting I’m being or concerned that I’m not being precise enough.

 

[PRmerger]

I would not.

I view their view of the papacy as similar to your view to the Eucharist.

An analogy might help limn what I am trying to articulate:

The Orthodox view on the papacy is to the Catholic view on the papacy
as the Lutheran view on the Eucharist is to the Catholic view on the Eucharist.

Both are strikingly similar. Almost to be indistinguishable from the Catholic view.

I would add that the very troubling statement from the Lutheran website regarding the office of the papacy is analogous to a Christian denomination having on their website that their view of the Eucharist is that it fulfills the prophecies of the anti-Christ.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.[/INDENT]

Revise Trent?

This is not the only document which indicates that the ONLY way that there will be a reunion between Catholics and Lutherans will be IF the Catholic Church changes it’s teachings:

**Luther and the Mass
Justification and the Joint Declaration **
by Daniel Preus, then the First VP of the LCMS

“This article ends with a declaration True Lutherans will never take pleasure in discord. But neither will they surrender truth that is so clear and necessary for the church. If the Lutheran Church today wishes to hold to the gospel of Christ correctly and faithfully, she cannot afford to ignore actual differences in doctrine, especially when those differences impinge so directly on the gospel itself. The Roman and Lutheran teachings on the Lord’s Supper not only divide us in our understanding of the sacrament of the altar. They represent two differing soteriologies, and no less in our day than in Luther’s. It is difficult to know what long-term effect the Joint Declaration will have on Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. **One thing is sure we have no consensus now on the doctrine of justification, nor will there ever be consensus as long as the Roman mass remains a sacrifice.” **

Daniel Preus is a contributing editor for Logia. Formerly director of the Concordia Historical Institute, he is (was actually when he wrote this) First Vice President of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.

Here we have the First VP of the LCMS stating that there will never be consensus between Lutherans and Catholics as long as the Catholic Mass remains a sacrifice.

Luther’s “ecumenical approach” lives on to this day.

For those who don’t understand the nature of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Mass will FOREVER be a sacrifice – so there you have it. It will never cave in to demands to change that or any other dogmatic teaching, In all of these various Lutheran pronouncements that I have seen, I have never seen one which indicates that Lutheranism would give in on any issue, but rather than it is expected that the Church would be required to.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

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

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

 

[Porknpie]

There really isn’t one, confessionally. Nor is there one that prevents a Lutheran from viewing the DC’s as scriptural. What you won’t find in most Lutheran settings is the use of the DC’s doctrinally.
In many ways, the LCMS is an American Lutheran synod, influenced by the availability of English Bibles from other protestant groups. Fortunately, there seems to be a rediscovering of the DC’s, in the historic Lutheran usage: teaching, liturgy, hymnody, etc.

Jon

Thanks Jon. Are there Lutheran settings then that use the DC’s either as scripture or doctrinally that you are aware of, if not in the USA, then Europe?

I’m thinking that** this may be a nice gift **for my LCMS relatives. But it is expensive for only being 7 books (although I’m wondering how it can be 520 pages?) ! You can get the whole St. Ignatius Study Bible for less!

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon. Are there Lutheran settings then that use the DC’s either as scripture or doctrinally that you are aware of, if not in the USA, then Europe?

I’m thinking that** this may be a nice gift **for my LCMS relatives. But it is expensive for only being 7 books (although I’m wondering how it can be 520 pages?) ! You can get the whole St. Ignatius Study Bible for less!

Father K might be a better source for your question.
I have the LCMS publication and I love it. It is an excellent tool to reacquaint Lutherans to the DCs. It has more than the 7
Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Thank you
Actually not surprised. I have read or looked at a few books and was kind of surprised to say the least of his language. I will add that his contemporary Catholic responses were almost as “vivid”.

I disagree ben. In terms of vile language and offensive charges, Luther was in a class by himself, with both Protestants and Catholics in agreement on this fact.

God Blees you ben, Topper, documentation upon request of course.