Posted on 11/02/2013 12:04:14 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
The Lutheran Small Catechism with Explanation (ESV) provides a classic Protestant look at ecclesiology (how one views the Church), but I find it very unconvincing and full of problems. My conclusion is that the Lutheran alternative does not seem plausible, and it most certainly can not disprove the claims of the Church.
1. Under the question, "What is the holy Christian church?", it answers:
"The holy Christian church is the communion of saints, the total number of those who believe in Christ. All believers in Christ, but only believers, are members of the church (invisible church)."This is sort of true, but what if someone has faith and still intentionally separates themself from the Church by heresy? For example, are Arians members of the Church? They believe in Christ. Are Mormons also members of the Church? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? This kind of vague, "invisible" membership leads to all sorts of problems, and it leads to the loss of absolute truth. (See the very varied views of Protestants.)
A single institutional Church is necessary, because some doctrines are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16) and they need to be consistently preserved and articulated.
2. Under the question, "Why do you say 'I believe' in the church?", it answers:
"A. Because faith, which makes people members of the church, is invisible, the church is invisible to human eyes.On the second part of this answer, I have no complaints. The Holy Spirit certainly does guide the Church. However, on the first point, it cites Luke 17:20-21 and 2 Timothy 2:19 for support, taking both passages out of context. The first passage actually refers to the "end times" and people wondering about when they will be and what they will entail, and this is made clear by the rest of the chapter. The second passage simply points out that, despite heresy being almost everywhere, "the firm foundation of God stands" and "the Lord knows those who are His".B. The Scriptures assure us that the Holy Spirit continues to gather and preserve the church."
The Church is not invisible.
3. This Lutheran Catechism also makes the points that the Church's "one and only head is Christ" and the Church "belongs to Christ and is built on Him alone", but this is misleading and an intentional jab at the Church.
Christ is the now-invisible head of the Church, in that He fills Her with grace and protects Her from grave error, but the Church must have a visible head to represent Him: the Vicar (representative) of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter -- the Pope.
It is true that only Christ could lay the foundation for His Church (1 Corinthians 3:11) and that He is the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20), and the Church absolutely recognizes this. He laid the foundation when He appointed Peter as the visible head of the Church (Matthew 16:18-19) and He is still the cornerstone -- without Christ, the Church would crumble.
Because only Christ can lay the foundation of a Church, Martin Luther had no authority to start his own sect -- unless, of course, there is some sort of evidence that definitively shows that Christ transferred His authority to him. Naturally, this evidence does not exist.
Also, remember that not everyone is "called" to Church leadership (Hebrews 5:1-4).
4. Additionally, this Catechism teaches that "the holy Christian church is to be found where 'the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered' (Augsburg Confession VII 1)".
I absolutely agree with this point, because only an organization that distributes the sacraments is a "Church" in the proper sense, though it may not be in communion with the Church. "Christ's Spirit uses [them] as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #819)
However, even after taking this into account, I also realize that the Lutheran understanding of both the Gospel and the sacraments is distorted.
Lutherans typically believe that there are only two sacraments (Baptism and Communion). Catholics, meanwhile, recognize a total of seven: Baptism, Communion (the Eucharist), Confession (Penance), Confirmation (or Chrismation), Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders. Lutherans usually think of these other five as rites that do not necessarily contain God's grace, but are still historically practiced.
Just one example of the Lutheran sacramental problem is that they hold to sacramental union (Christ is "in, with, and under" the bread and wine), while the Church holds to transubstantiation (the bread and wine become the literal Body and Blood of Christ), which is the traditional view. The Lutheran departure from the historical view seems to reveal "a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Is their emphasis here more important than unity?
Meanwhile, Lutherans also debate over whether or not Confession is a sacrament. Martin Luther said one thing, but the official Defense of the Augsburg Confession says another.
"Nevertheless, it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to such promises as have signs attached to them. The remainder, not being bound to signs, are bare promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the Church of God – baptism and bread; for only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins." - Martin Luther [link]With disagreements over the fundamental natures of the sacraments and their generally invalid claims to apostolic succession (which is necessary for the validity of the sacraments), Lutherans do not have a "Church" in the proper sense."If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament." - Article XIII of the Defense of the Augsburg Confession [link]
5. Protestant ecclesiology has wrecked the doctrinal and visible unity that God demands.
In Galatians 5:16-21, St. Paul condemns "dissensions" and "factions" as "deeds of the flesh" that will result in the causers "not inherit[ing] the kingdom of God," and in Romans 16:17, he teaches that Christians should "turn away from" them. Protestants have, unfortunately, disobeyed this command.
Unity is Christ's prayer for us (John 17:11), so let us become unified again, visibly and invisibly.
"Since Christ suffered for the Church and since the Church is the body of Christ, without doubt the person who divides the Church is convicted of lacerating the body of Christ." - Council of Florence, Session 9 (23 March 1440) [link](All verses are from the NASB translation.)
----------
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
----------
“problem I have is in praying to her...”
The prayer is “pray FOR us sinners” - meaning asking her to join her prayers with ours - the prayers being automatically assumed to be addressed ultimately to Son/Father/Holy Ghost. This is the same as any congregation that is asking a fellow Christian to unite their prayers with our own. Mary is accessible to ask her to join in because she is alive in Christ/ saved/ born again (saved through her faith).
“...no quantity of works can ever justify a man...”
correct - this the Catholic faith
“...fall down and pray to Tom who is a committed Christian...”
The parallel actually is:
If we were to ask Tom, a committed Christian, to help us pray for a sick relative, then what is wrong with it? Mary is simply a committed Christian whose help in prayer we ask for - do non catholics not ask for prayer requests from their fellow Christians?
“correct - this the Catholic faith”
Great! So then I don’t have to pray the rosaries or bow down to Rome.
“The parallel actually is:
If we were to ask Tom, a committed Christian, to help us pray for a sick relative, then what is wrong with it? “
Nothing is wrong with it. Except it’s not a parallel with Mary because you do pray to her, thus requiring that she be omnipresent and omniscient, and you do give honor and worship to her, bowing before her altars, and expecting the things you do for Mary to save you from Jesus Christ.
” Mary is simply a committed Christian”
No she isn’t. According to you, she is the sinless Queen of heaven who is the greatest means by which you can get help from heaven.
I have no problem at all calling Mary blessed, for that she was. However, there is no scriptural basis for praying to Mary or to anyone else other than God. Jesus said "ask of Me" not "ask my mother to talk me into it". Worship offered to anyone or anything other than God is flat out idolatry.
No, it doesn’t. You have never heard a born again Christian claim the good deeds don’t follow a true faith in Christ. Good deeds and the love of Christ naturally follow a true faith in Christ. It is however the faith alone that saves and not those acts. Those acts are merely an indication of a true faith as James said. Paul puts it a little more clearly.
Rom. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
I don’t know if your married or not but claiming to love your spouse with absolutely no acts of love would probably cause your spouse to wonder as well as those around you. It’s the love of a spouse that causes one to want to do nice things for them. So it is with true believers only the good deeds or acts of kindness are inspired by the Holy Spirit indwelling that believer. Paul makes it very clear that it’s the faith alone that saves and not the works. That saved person will then show that faith by the deeds he/she does.
>> Both are interpretations because both positions are in the bible.<<
Not if you take all of scripture into account and put it all in perspective.
The verse doesn’t say and, it says rather (on the contrary). Besides, if Catholics want to take that one verse and use it like they do they had better compare what was said about Mary and what was said about Jael.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
Nice try but clearly shows a lack of understanding. There is no word “church” as we understand it in scripture. The word is “assembly”. Each different location was an assembly of believers who belonged to the body of Christ.
Say WHAT? What did Mary need saved from? I thought the RCC declared her sinless. Oh the double speak!!
Not the ones who have passed from this life they don’t. Nor is that ever found to be true in scripture.
Praying to someone is not at all the same as praying for someone.
Well, I didn't use the Koine εκκλησια (called-out ones) because those who understand it don't need it, and those who don't understand it don't need it, either. So, what's your problem? Each local assembly was a local body of the Christ, of whom He was/is the Head.
Each NT church=assembly was autonomous, making its decisions about itself, not for any other church; or they wouldn't have needed councils to establish agreements on doctrinal matters. If there were a single body of believers with a ruling class of supernumeraries external to the local churches, government could have been from the top down, with one opinion for all.
But it wasn't, so lay your phony argument to rest. I'm just waiting for your next proposition. Bring it out of Scripture, and put your patristics back in their coffins.
Dude! Lighten up. If you didn’t notice I was responding to the comment “So Jesus preached polygamy?” as if multiple “assemblies” meant multiple wives. I only pinged you because it was in response to your post.
Of course we know that but the RCC has so twisted the meaning of scripture and the followers of that organization have swallowed the lies hook line and sinker it seems.
"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1).
If everyone followed Paul as he received direct revelations from the risen Christ to form the Body of Christ, there would BE no doctrinal issues to be settled by councils.
The only council that could have possibly mattered is the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The one that differentiated between the gospel of the circumcision (Peter and the 11's kingdom gospel) and the gospel of the uncircumcision (Paul's gospel): Law and Grace. Which is what Acts is about: the transition from a kingdom of believers to a Body of believers.
It’s important to note that asking the saints to pray for us is NOT “unbiblical.”
From here: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/09/15/its-biblical-to-ask-saints-to-pray-for-us/
There is nothing wrong with asking the heavenly saints to pray for us.
Many Protestants argue that asking the saints to pray for us is “unbiblical,” while throwing around verses like 1 Timothy 2:5. But they are incorrect.
1 Timothy 2:5 — the infamous “one mediator between God and men” verse — refers to salvation, not prayer. The verse reminds us that it is only because of the graces found through Christ (God Himself) that we are able to have any real relationship with God and reach Heaven. It does not, however, absolutely negate relations with angels or heavenly saints. After all, it was an angel (Gabriel) that spoke to Mary before Christ was conceived in her body, not God Himself.
I was raised in several Protestant denominations. They all placed a major emphasis on Christians praying for each other — which is encouraged in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and other passages. I would contend that a heavenly saint, one who is holy and in Heaven with God, would have a lot more sway with God than a rebellious sinner on earth would.
To put that another way, if someone asked you to do something for them, would you not be more likely to help them if they were your best friend, as opposed to a complete stranger? Of course, you may very well be willing to do something for a complete stranger, but you would probably be more willing to do something for your best friend.
And there is evidence in the Bible of the saints praying to God.
“Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.” – Revelation 8:3-4
The word for “saints” in that passage comes from the Greek word hagios. Thayer’s New Testament Greek-English Lexicon says that the best definition of hagios is “most holy thing, a saint”. This would seem to undermine the Protestant assertion that “saints” in this context can only refer to people on earth.
Now, what would the saints be praying for? Themselves? Doubtful. They are in Heaven, so they do not need anything, as eternal life with God is perfect. That really only leaves one option: they are praying for us. And because they are praying for us anyway, how could it be wrong to ask them to pray for us about something specific? It is like interacting with a DJ at an event. He’s playing music anyway, so what is the harm in asking him to play your favorite song?
Here’s my Scripture-based defense of the practice that should answer most Protestant objections:
Matthew 17:3-4 & Luke 9:28-31.
Moses and Elijah (who are clearly heavenly saints, not “saints” in the way Paul would sometimes use the word) are with Christ during the Transfiguration.
Revelation 6:9-11.
The martyrs can talk to God.
From those three passages, we can gather that the saints in Heaven interact with God.
Luke 15:10.
The angels and saints (who, in Luke 20:35-36, Christ says are equal to the angels) are aware of earthly events.
1 Timothy 2:1 & James 5:16.
It is good for Christians to pray for one another.
Now, if the saints interact with God and are aware of earthly events (and can therefore hear us), why wouldn’t they pray for us, considering that it is good for Christians (which the angels and saints definitely are) to pray for one another?
Revelation 21:27.
Nothing imperfect will enter into Heaven.
Psalm 66:18 & James 5:16.
God ignores the prayers of the wicked, and the prayers of the righteous are effective.
Because the saints have reached perfection (they are in Heaven), their prayers are more effective than the prayers of those that are less righteous, so that’s why one might ask them to pray instead of asking another Christian on earth or simply doing it themselves.
- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/09/15/its-biblical-to-ask-saints-to-pray-for-us/#sthash.LpREwkEa.dpuf
What an utterly awful denial of what scripture says we are given.
I John 3:24: John writes: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us."
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Deny it if you wish but there can be no closer relationship and “sway” then the very Spirit of God in our hearts. It’s an utter shame to hear Catholics who claim to be Christians denying the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The RCC success at separating their followers from Christ is sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.