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.
----------
I think at least part of the problem some of the posters have with understanding Scripture is that they really don’t understand English.
You kind of walked into your own rebuttal there:) Analogies are treacherous things.
Amen! Jesus did emphasize a lot by saying "verily, verily" and "it is WRITTEN..."
It was not an instruction or command. It is a fact and Evangelicals too call her blessed. We just don't pray to her or burn incense to her and craft images of her. Evangelicals know Scriptures well. We know God is a jealous God (Exodus 20) and He wants all worship, thoughts, prayers directed to Him and no other gods.
Is Paul's interpretation of Scriptures up for grabs too? What is so difficult about the plan of salvation laid out in Romans.
In fact, I recommend ROMAN Catholics read the epistle from Paul addressed to them. It will be very liberating.
The papal tiara...LOL. Nor should he be in charge of those ruby shoes either:)
It is important to read all Scriptures in context. James is no exception. Saved by God’s Grace through faith appears multiple times in the NT. James has an important theme in chapter two. Dead faith. Which can be presented as a false faith. Why? The “faith” he presents is an example of bad fruit or the lack thereof. James in 2:23 it is clear Whose Righteousness James addresses:
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
So Whose works is James talking about? Our filthy offerings to God or the works wrought from the Righteousness of God?
When put within the context of the entire chapter we see harmony with what Paul addressed on Grace through faith; which leads us back to the Words of Jesus reference the good tree bears good fruit.
Verse cherry picking is the solace of hyper-fundamentalists. Which I thought was out of the comfort zone for Rome.
I think James is pointing out something VERY important. Faith implies FAITHFULNESS.
Your marriage analogy is wonderful. That is why God created marriage in my opinion. As a holy institution to glorify Him.
Our salvation is a marriage with Christ. We are the bride. We may burn the pot roast now and then but will He divorce us for that? No!
The Roman doctrine believes He will divorce us each time we burn the pot roast and then remarries us when we apologize and cook a good dinner. There is the difference.
I love how Acts gives us accounts of how the first assemblies worshipped. One account has the congregants meeting at a river.
Why would brothers and sisters departed want to sit and be reminded of the world? I would think their gaze is on Christ and singing and praising Him ceaselessly.
Important to note the Roman Catholic definition of saint is not the same as the Biblical definition of saint. So using Revelation from the lens of Rome instead of Scriptures is a non starter. When John penned Revelation there were no Pope ordained saints.
I might add using passages from Revelation as with all prophetic scriptures is perilous without a formed eschatology.
Since the opinion of Rome is to not speculate on Biblical prophecy, then why would Revelation be used to form such an important part of her doctrine? I’ve seen more written and more credence given by Rome to Marian visions and prophecies than Biblical prophesy. So it begs the question why Rome chooses to pluck a few verses from a Bible book it avoids like the plagues therein to promote one of her greatest doctrines.
All prayer belongs to God and God only. Refer to Exodus 20 where God says He is a jealous God.
Please stop promoting the violation of the 1st Commandment.
Catholics could take a hint from that situation. What happened when the apostles wanted to talk to them? It was a no no right? God said to focus on Jesus.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
>>The angels and saints (who, in Luke 20:35-36, Christ says are equal to the angels) are aware of earthly events.<<
So you think the resurrection from the dead has already happened?
Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
It says they will be worthy to obtain that world. They will be like the angels in that they will not die any more. No where in that passage does it indicate that they can hear or communicate with those on earth. Catholics need to stop adding meaning to scripture where it isn’t indicated.
>>their prayers are more effective than the prayers of those that are less righteous<<
We have the righteousness of Christ and you claim that they have more righteousness?
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
>> Nothing imperfect will enter into Heaven.
True believers have already been sanctified and perfected.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrew 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Catholics need to stop adding meaning to scripture and denying what scripture actually says.
Absolutely, they have left this world behind. No where in scripture are we taught that those that have departed this world have anything to do with it or us. The tribulation saints in Revelation ask when their deaths will be avenged but there is no indication that they understood that others were to be martyred also. The Catholic practice and believe of praying to those departed is a made up construct of the RCC and has no basis in scripture.
It’s clear to me. They don’t STUDY the Bible. They just study points of argument where they want to use the Bible for their convenience. I am quite shocked the Roman Catholic Church has gone this far. At least when I was in the church, they admitted tradition took precedence and that the Bible was just too hard for the caveman laymen to understand.
Now they are being armed with bits and pieces out of context portions of Scripture. A Frankenstein approach to the Bible.
Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t read back through this exchange to get the drift. Sorry my foot hit the pedal a little hard. Hope you’ll accept my regret. It’s a little tardy, but just got a chance to respond today —
Yeah, you’re right. I didn’t read back through this exchange to get the drift. Sorry my foot hit the pedal a little hard. Hope you’ll accept my regret. It’s a little tardy, but just got a chance to respond today —
HA!
: )
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.