Which Church??

[dcana]

While I believe this thought process does in fact exist in some settings, it certainly is not the idea I as a life-long Lutheran was raised with. I know very well that it is not my place to interpret regarding doctrine, and in fact it is not the role of my pastor either. He is bound to the Confessions, as am I.

Jon

Yes, that is why I said, “at least the great majority of them, which majority is increasing year by year.” The majority is increasing because “mainline” Protestant churches, possibly with explicit creeds and beliefs, are hemorrhaging members, who are becoming “non-denominational” members of “Bible churches”. This trend is nothing but the natural evolution and predictable end of the man-made doctrines of SS and PI. And it will never reverse. To reverse would sort of be like a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course that was why. Between us, this is probably a rather predictable conversation, wouldn’t you think? And I expect you and Topper and any other Catholic worth their Confirmation to express the same belief.

Thanks for playing along.

Now, again, my response is as predictable as was yours, but let me share what the USCCB has said:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Jon

So, in your own words, what is paragraph 107 saying about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist celebrated in the Lutheran Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I believe this thought process does in fact exist in some settings, it certainly is not the idea I as a life-long Lutheran was raised with. I know very well that it is not my place to interpret regarding doctrine, and in fact it is not the role of my pastor either. He is bound to the Confessions, as am I.

Jon

Yes, that is why I said, “at least the great majority of them, which majority is increasing year by year.” The majority is increasing because “mainline” Protestant churches, possibly with explicit creeds and beliefs, are hemorrhaging members, who are becoming “non-denominational” members of “Bible churches”. This trend is nothing but the natural evolution and predictable end of the man-made doctrines of SS and PI. And it will never reverse. To reverse would sort of be like a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Guys-

This won’t be a quick read, but it is really important and relevant to what you are saying here:

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority
By Bryan Cross
calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

 

[dcana]

Many Protestants starting sometime in the 20th century have thrown their hands up in the air and say that doctrine, dogma, and creeds are unimportant. They have come to this conclusion (“idea”, really), again, out of necessity, since they have no means of knowing true teaching from false. That is a most “unbiblical” assertion, found nowhere in Scripture. They are not unimportant according to the above words of the Truth. They make all the difference in the world, since incorrect doctrine can lead to, among many other things, the most important thing, the salvation or loss of souls.

IMO, the primary reason for the “necessity” is the attempt to preserve whatever unity they have left in their 100 member “non-denominational” churches, for example. Moreover, I think they’re running out of storefronts! Sorry, that was unnecessary. I was just trying to make a joke. Well, don’t some “non-denominational” churches have 1,000s or even 10 or 20,000 members? Yes, some do. Of course they’ll probably split in a few years or start losing members to some other non-denominational church, but some do. But all Protestant denominations, if you go back far enough in the past, used to count millions or tens of millions of members.

It’s the “let’s just agree to disagree” principle.

And what about the entire “non-denominational” movement itself in the first place? It’s just further evidence for what I’ve been saying.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for playing along.

So, in your own words, what is paragraph 107 saying about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist celebrated in the Lutheran Church?

I think it means rather clearly what it says, that the Catholic bishops believe that:

the communion between us is real, even though it is imperfect.
Catholics as significant as Cardinal Ratzinger recognize “the salvation-granting
presence of Christ” in our Eucharist, though no one should assume he is equating ours
to the Catholic Eucharist in violation of your communion’s belief.
they view our clergy in terms far different than just laymen playing at clergy.
our clergies, though linked imperfectly, are truly linked.

Note, finally, Cardinal Ratzinger says"** the** salvation-granting presence". Honestly, I don’t know how it translates from the German, but I assume “the” has a more significant emphasis than "a"salvation-granting presence.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Guys-

This won’t be a quick read, but it is really important and relevant to what you are saying here:

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority
By Bryan Cross
calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

Hi Randy,
I’ve read Mathison’s, and I’m still working on this article, but

The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. **In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. **Then, he ‘submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. If it deviates from his own interpretation of Scripture in matters he deems important, he repeats the process of either establishing or choosing an institution or congregation that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important.

With all due respect, Randy, ISTM this is precisely what you did some 35 years ago. I’m not saying its wrong, I’m just saying that anytime someone transfers membership, there is at least some of this involved, and that transfer to the Catholic Church from another tradition is essentially no different.

Further, I am a life-long Lutheran, raised in the home of a Lutheran pastor, educated at a Lutheran college. To the extent that I have not transferred my membership from the general Lutheran tradition, I have not succumbed to this scenario.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

With all due respect, Randy, ISTM this is precisely what you did some 35 years ago. I’m not saying its wrong, I’m just saying that anytime someone transfers membership, there is at least some of this involved, and that transfer to the Catholic Church from another tradition is essentially no different.

Further, I am a life-long Lutheran, raised in the home of a Lutheran pastor, educated at a Lutheran college. To the extent that I have not transferred my membership from the general Lutheran tradition, I have not succumbed to this scenario.

Jon

No worries. The article will explain clearly the distinction between the person who finds the Protestant denomination that most nearly lines up with his own personal interpretation of scripture, and the person who finds the Catholic Church.

As the son of a Lutheran pastor and a life-long Lutheran who was educated at a Lutheran college, I’m not surprised that Lutheran theology most nearly lines up with your interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation IS Lutheran because that’s what you have been taught, and thus far, you have not found sufficient reason to reject it. However, if your interpretation changes, you will have no alternative but to change your membership.

There are many interpretations of scripture, many confessions to choose from. But Catholicism is not one of them. What one encounters when one finds the Catholic Church is not an interpretation of scripture, tradition and history but the Church of scripture, tradition and history itself.

IOW, Jon, the confessions of the Lutheran and Anglican churches provide unique and distinct interpretations of what specific groups believe (or believed) at a specific point in time. You choose the interpretation that seems best to you.

But when you encounter Catholicism, you encounter real, flesh-and-blood bishops who have received real authority from Christ through the laying on of hands from one generation to the next for 2,000 years. Catholicism is not merely the largest clump of like-minded individuals who share a similar opinion when reading Mt. 16:18-19 or John 6; it is the body of Christ which was formed initially on the day of Pentecost and has continued in existence to this very day.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12651022]No worries. The article will explain clearly the distinction between the person who finds the Protestant denomination that most nearly lines up with his own personal interpretation of scripture, and the person who finds the Catholic Church.

Haven’t had the chance to finish yet, but when I do, I’ll comment.

As the son of a Lutheran pastor and a life-long Lutheran who was educated at a Lutheran college, I’m not surprised that Lutheran theology most nearly lines up with your interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation IS Lutheran because that’s what you have been taught, and thus far,** you have not found sufficient reason to reject it. ** However, if your interpretation changes, you will have no alternative but to change your membership.

The bold part is significant, considering the recent post I made in response to Topper. But beyond that, I think you make an important point here, and I’d like to make a distinction here between, “if my interpretation changes”, and “if my communion’s position changes”. While I remained within the Lutheran tradition, I found the changes in certain positions in the ELCA such that I was more comfortable in the LCMS. Some might interpret that as a change in membership.
Regardless, I’ve always said it is possible that Lutheranism could push me out. I think that is the case with some of those who have become Catholic or Orthodox. Russ Saltzman seems to fall into that category.

What I have always sought - since seminary on - is to be in a church that finally gives expression to the catholicity of the Augsburg Confession. There is no Lutheran expression doing that. Most of my 17 years as editor of Forum Letter was spent, so it seems, showing Lutherans how far we have fallen from the practice of parish life described in our own confession.

There are many interpretations of scripture, many confessions to choose from. But Catholicism is not one of them. What one encounters when one finds the Catholic Church is not an interpretation of scripture, tradition and history but the Church of scripture, tradition and history itself.

I think a Catholic might obviously feel that way.

IOW, Jon, the confessions of the Lutheran and Anglican churches provide unique and distinct interpretations of what specific groups believe (or believed) at a specific point in time. You choose the interpretation that seems best to you.

But when you encounter Catholicism, you encounter real, flesh-and-blood bishops who have received real authority from Christ through the laying on of hands from one generation to the next for 2,000 years. Catholicism is not merely the largest clump of like-minded individuals who share a similar opinion when reading Mt. 16:18-19 or John 6; it is the body of Christ which was formed initially on the day of Pentecost and has continued in existence to this very day.

Thanks for the insight into your experience.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for the insight into your experience.

Jon

Happy to provide it, but what I’m driving at today, Jon, is the idea that either a man has legitimate authority to act in a specific manner or in the name of a specific group or he does not.

For example, a police officer acts “in the name of the law” or as an “officer of the court”. He is vested with the authority to arrest a person who is breaking the law or even to use deadly force, if necessary, without penalty to himself for having acted in a manner that would be a crime if performed by someone else.

Agreed?

So, Catholic priests make the sacraments available to the faithful because they have been authorized to do so by the bishops who were authorized by other bishops before them who were authorized by still other bishops before them all the way back to Jesus.

Because the Bible does not authorize any and all believers to say mass or to forgive sins in the name of God, the pastor of Harvest Bible Fellowship is no more able to make Jesus really and truly present in the Eucharistic elements than you are to perform a valid wedding ceremony or I am to arrest a bank robber simply by virtue of the fact that I read a criminal justice textbook in college or watched a few episodes of Law and Order.

Without real delegated authority, from Jesus to Apostles to Bishops to priests, neither does the pastor of your Church have the authority to make your communion services what you want them to be.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,
Just some thoughts about some of the things you’ve posted in this thread.

Regarding your charge that the Formula of Concord posted here.

The Formula of Concord was written in 1576, well over forty years after the presentation of the CA at Augsburg. It was written in response to certain controversies within Lutheranism, and was not directed at the Catholic Church.

First of all Jon, I have posted probably 20 times more information about the Augsburg Confession on this thread than I have about the Formula of Concord. All I have really said about the Formula is that it is one of the most anti-Catholic documents in Christian history. Given your ecumenical leanings I am finally beginning to understand how you can refuse to admit this, but your refusal does not change the facts. It is.

As you know, my position on the Augsburg Confession is that it was an intentionally dishonest representation of Lutheran beliefs, and for the record, I have substantiated that position extremely well (if I do say so myself ). I have also posted several quotes from Melanchthon about Lutheran beliefs that are clearly baldfaced lies.

I find it telling that rather than deal with my position on the Augsburg Confession and those quotes, you have chosen to defend the Formula, which has not at all been my focus.

As you have seen me say many times, I am perfectly happy to have people read our two ‘versions’ and decide for themselves which is the more compelling.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Further, it was written well after the deaths of Luther and Melanchthon.

So to say that the Formula of Concord finally revealed some secret deception perpetrated by Luther and Melanchthon simply doesn’t square with the facts of history.

clclutheran.org/atlanta/bibleclass/bookofconcord/formulaofconcordstudy.html

Again, I have to tell you that I never claimed that the Formula was dishonest. Seriously, I don’t think you want to actually discuss Lutheran and Melancthon’s honestly. Their blatant dishonesty in regards to their official sanctioning of Philipp’s bigamy is very well known. In addition, they were more than willing to intentionally misrepresent Augustine’s beliefs on justification, and this within a year of the dishonest Augsburg Confession.

The following is from an (of course excellent) Dave Armstrong article -

“Philip Melanchthon, in his letter to Johann Brenz (May 1531), illustrates how the Protestants had departed from patristic precedent:

‘Avert your eyes from such a regeneration of man and from the Law and look only to the promises and to Christ . . . Augustine is not in agreement with the doctrine of Paul, though he comes nearer to it than do the Schoolmen.** I quote Augustine as in entire agreement, although he does not sufficiently explain the righteousness of faith; this I do because of public opinion concerning him.’**

(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, six volumes, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 2nd edition, 1914, vol. 4, 459-460)

Grisar, on p. 459, states that “The letter was written by Melanchthon to Johann Brenz, but it had the entire approval of Luther, who even appended a few words to it. While clearly throwing overboard Augustine, it is nevertheless anxious to retain him.”

The documentation Grisar gives is “end of May, 1531”, Luthers Briefwechsel, 9, p. 18. This eleven-volume work was edited by L. Enders: Frankfurt & Stuttgart, 1884-1907; also 12 volumes, edited by G. Kawerau, Leipzig, 1910. Or is that also a biased source, since it is probably Lutheran and thus tilted toward Luther?”

From: “The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine (with Dr. Edwin Tait)”, by Dave Armstrong, Thursday, May 27, 2004

That being said Jon, the issue is still the dishonest nature of the Augsburg Confession. I recognize how you, as a Lutheran, are in an extremely tight spot here given the evidence. To admit as much would be to call into question the foundational Confession of Lutheranism.

The evidence surrounding the Augsburg Confession screams that it be viewed as the “Doctrines of Man”. As you point out, even from the very beginning there has been no real agreement within Lutheranism on some very important matters, and as you know, the Formula of Concord did not exactly solve that problem.

Again, the fundamental problem and the fatal flaw built into Lutheran theology is Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation, both of which Luther ‘installed’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

In fact, many of these issues were discussed during the colloquies at Augsburg between Eck and Melanchthon.
To claim that these issues were not present at Augsburg, or that Eck and others did not know about these differences in belief does not square with the historical facts. Melanchthon was not deceiving anyone, nor was he trying to.

As we have seen Jon, people were not fooled by Melanchthon’s dishonest representation at Augsburg. OF COURSE Eck knew that the Augsburg Confession was dishonest. If you have evidence about what Eck and others knew or didn’t know at Augsburg, that you thing supports your cause, then please, please just post it. Unless you actually post something of some substance………well……………………

Further, it is clear from historical facts that there was no attempt by Luther and Melanchthon to deceive or hide what the reformers believed. There was no conspiracy to hide beliefs.

There has been a great deal of information posted here on this thread Jon which speaks exactly to whether there was an attempt to deceive. As such, people are going to be able to judge for themselves how well your above statement fits with the facts.

Maybe we should review the significance of the issues which Melanchthon chose NOT to address in the Confession.

**“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 fact, there was disagreement amongst the Lutherans regarding Melanchthon’s willingness to concede in order to acquire reconciliation.

Which of course is not the point I was making, but in fact is one that actually does contribute to my overall case against Lutheranism. There is also that issue of Melanchthon’s straying from Lutheran doctrine and the fact that HE was the one who wrote your Confession. You have identified him as being the equivalent with the ELCA, and yet you defend the Confession.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Which of course is not the point I was making, but in fact is one that actually does contribute to my overall case against Lutheranism. There is also that issue of Melanchthon’s straying from Lutheran doctrine and the fact that HE was the one who wrote your Confession. You have identified him as being the equivalent with the ELCA, and yet you defend the Confession.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

When I was younger, the ELCA had not yet drifted away from Lutheran orthodoxy. It was later. Similarly with Melanchthon, it was later that he drifted. In fact, I find his description of our teaching on the real presence in the Apology to be clearly orthodox, but even in this he later drifted.

I defend the CA for the reasons I have given: in Articles I through XXI, I can say without reluctance, “this is most certainly true”.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Absolutely aware the Catholic teaching on the Lutheran Eucharist. And you are right to believe and confess that teaching as a Catholic.

Yes, I plan to continue to speak what I understand to be the truth of the Augsburg Confession and its teachings. As I said, regarding Article I through XXI, each and every one, “this is most certainly true.”

I understand Jon, that as a Lutheran you are held to belief in the Augsburg Confession. I would suggest though that after all that has been revealed, that ‘belief’ has to be a little harder than it was say, a month ago.

Given the manner in which the Confession was written, and defended, it is extremely clear that it is simply another in a long line of humanly inspired documents. If you have some argument as to why we should see the Augsburg Confession as being ‘authorized’ by God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, then please do so. Absent such an explanation, we should let the facts speak for themselves.

The Confession says:

“this is most certainly true.”

I ask - Specifically and exactly should we believe that the Confession is ‘most certainly true’?

You are the one who continues to tell us that you are considering conversion, and by doing so, are admitting, at least that emerging side of you thinks that the Augsburg Confession is a Doctrine of Man and is not True. After all, you would not be even remotely considering conversion if you have complete and total ‘faith’ in your (current) Confession.

ISTM that you have no grounds to complain about objections to your Confessions when you yourself advertise that you are considering abandoning them.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12651292]
As we have seen Jon, people were not fooled by Melanchthon’s dishonest representation at Augsburg. OF COURSE Eck knew that the Augsburg Confession was dishonest. If you have evidence about what Eck and others knew or didn’t know at Augsburg, that you thing supports your cause, then please, please just post it. Unless you actually post something of some substance………well……………………

You are the one who said the CA was a dishonest attempt to deceive, that it left things out. The fact is, as I have shown, the issues you claim were kept hidden in fact were not.

**“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

And yet many of these were mentioned and discussed during the colloquies.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12651409]
The Confession says:

“this is most certainly true.”

I ask - Specifically and exactly should we believe that the Confession is ‘most certainly true’?

Topper, quite honestly, what you wish to believe or not believe is up to you, not me. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m not here prosyletizing. Believe what you want.

You are the one who continues to tell us that you are considering conversion, and by doing so, are admitting, at least that emerging side of you thinks that the Augsburg Confession is a Doctrine of Man and is not True. After all, you would not be even remotely considering conversion if you have complete and total ‘faith’ in your (current) Confession.

I have not said I was “considering conversion”. What I’ve said is that, under one of three circumstances, I would convert. They are:

1. if our communions were to reconcile
2. if the CC and EO were to reconcile
3. if the CC were to accept the CA as a Catholic confession, as Cr. Ratzinger once pondered.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12651275]

First of all Jon, I have posted probably 20 times more information about the Augsburg Confession on this thread than I have about the Formula of Concord.

And you are free to do so.

All I have really said about the Formula is that it is one of the most anti-Catholic documents in Christian history.
Given your ecumenical leanings I am finally beginning to understand how you can refuse to admit this, but your refusal does not change the facts. It is.

I’m sure you think so.

As you know, my position on the Augsburg Confession is that it was an intentionally dishonest representation of Lutheran beliefs, and for the record, I have substantiated that position extremely well (if I do say so myself ). I have also posted several quotes from Melanchthon about Lutheran beliefs that are clearly baldfaced lies.

Yes, I know that is your position.

I find it telling that rather than deal with my position on the Augsburg Confession and those quotes, you have chosen to defend the Formula, which has not at all been my focus.

I actually did defend the CA, and simply pointed out that your charge that the Formula of Concord (both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration) were essentially directed at internal disagreements, not at the CC.

As you have seen me say many times, I am perfectly happy to have people read our two ‘versions’ and decide for themselves which is the more compelling.

Good for you. I might add that those people have yet to see you offer any kind of positive alternative to CA. I’m sure you will, however, and I look forward to reading it.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi sped,

Hi, Randy,

What is the difference between “later theologians standing on the shoulder of giants” and those that rose in the era of the Reformation? Luther had no intention of causing the rift that happened. He wanted to bring out a discussion of practices that he saw problematic at that time - ie., the granting of indulgences for money.

I know that catholic theologian felt he went too far but what would have happened if they would have sat down and actually had a debate with Luther about the 95 theses?

Be gentle with me…

Have you ever heard of the Leipzig Debate of 1519, which was about 18 months before Luther was excommunicated? In that Debate, probably the most important debate in Christian History, Luther debated Jon Eck for 7 days. The reason that the vast majority of Protestants have heard about this debate is that Luther was soundly defeated by Eck. It wasn’t so much his opinions which were defeated, although they were, it was that Luther was so wrong on the FACTS upon which his opinions were based.

Believe me sped, IF Luther had actually won over Eck or even ‘broken even’, you would have learned all the details. But you didn’t, because the Leipzig Debate runs counter to the upholding of the ‘Legend of Luther’.

The actual facts of Leipzig show that Luther bungled the Debate and in fact was not a good theologian.

God Bless You sped, Topper

 

[Even_So]

The majority of Protestants basically divorce the Mystical Body of Christ from the Physical Body of Christ (aka the Church).

But then why do we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations today?

.

Must be anything not Catholic is a Protestant denomination, including those who do not believe in God?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

When you and I confess that we “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”, we do not say “Churches”. It depends on the use of the word. I have no problem with referring to different churches, but there is one one Church within which one will find different churches and traditions.

Jon

Nothing taught by Christ, or the Apostles, or the Scriptures, or the Fathers, indicates that there can be different ‘communions’, each of them teaching competing and conflicting doctrines. In the early Church, those ‘conflicting communions’ were called heresies, exactly as they were called in the 16th century.

God Bless You Jon, Topper