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.
----------
You will like this one:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yzqTFNfeDnE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DyzqTFNfeDnE
Not a problem. I figured that was the case.
More on this later, perhaps tomorrow; but briefly, you have presented an application, not an interpretation, which is not a satisfactory use of the prescription for correctly using Scripture. What you have done here is eisegesis, not exegesis, of the passages, and the result is a theory unsupported by Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Everyone who can say “amen” to the apostles creed would be a good starting point - and all the main protestant denominations do.
Actually, I’m very proud that Christ is not “orthodox” in our modern meaning of the word. But of course, the meaning of the term in theological terms is quite different.
I must disagree. I think an overemphasis on evangelism (telling people what you believe) instead of apologetics (telling them why you believe it) has been and still is a major reason for the decline of Christianity in the western world. It has resulted in the faith losing a lot of its intellectual credibility, and while that doesnt matter too much for individuals, in the long term it makes it increasingly difficult to “reach” the secular world.
Not all.
Baptists do not at all use it, because the "Apostles'" Creed (which it is not) has the word:
-- "Catholic" (for Romanists)(proper adjective describing the proper noun Church),
or :
--"catholic" (for Roman-derived Protestant Reformers)(describing the common noun "church")
which its original parent, the Roman Creed, did not.
Because Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, they implicitly and explicitly reject the word "catholic" in any statement of the Biblical pattern for a New Testament church. So do many other local non-Catholic, non-Protestant, non-denominational churches, for the same reason. However, most of them would probably accept the old Roman Creed as an acceptable statement of The Faith.
There is something in between the two. The power of attraction. If folks like what they see in you, they may want to investigate the source of your strength. Attending Divine Liturgy leaves no mystery as to what we believe. Actually we can credit Islam and Communism for the didactic nature of The Liturgy.
But I still think apologetics is neglected.
But yes, I accept that the older form of the so-called apostles creed is probably a clearer example of my definition.
Well, I think not, for very few Christ-professors are aware that the Kingdom of Heaven (which is visible and exists on the Earth) is differentiated from the Kingdom of The God (which is invisible to worldlings and is not of this world system). The Kingdom of Heaven is composed of both unregenerated believers (professors) and regenerated believers (possessers); whereas the citizenry of the Kingdom of The God is composed only of born-again, Spirit-indwelt, blood-saved believer-disciple-priests undergoing a spiritual maturation process, and who already know beyond the shadow of a doubt their eternal destination.
Some very excellent, valid points here to be remembered. Thanks!
non catholics don’t like the Hail Mary, fine; but don’t label it as unscriptural.
I am Lutheran. When the Rosary is said the first thing recited is a prayer to God and Jesus. I really don’t remember how it goes
Mary was assumed into Heaven the RCC has a holy day, the Day of the Assumption.
How many times a week does a thread go off topic on Mary, transubstantiation and infant baptism?
I can’t seem to remember a thread that didn’t go off topic on Mary, transubstantiation and infant baptism.
Please show the scripture that teaches that.
This is a Roman Catholic belief. not mine. but I will still look
“...I don’t remember how it goes...”
Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with you - Luke 1:28
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (v. 42) Jesus.
Holy Mary (holy as in “you have found favor with God”,v 30) Mother of God (”mother of my Lord”, v. 43)
Pray for us sinners (in the same way as we Christians pray for each other) Now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
All scriptural. There are scripture verses that refer to the apostles praying for one another that I won’t look up right now but they aren’t difficult to find, and we modern Christians still pray for each other.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
U2May we be grateful for what will still have. We must pray for our Country. God Bless America!
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.