What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

[Victrixa]

Hi everyone! :wave:

Here I am again with my questions! :)

Well my question says it: What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?

Having reverted back to the RCC in 2000, I have become dependant on Tradition. The RCC (as well as the Orthodox Church) both teach that the Truth is found within the Tradition of the Church. That the Tradition of the Church is the 'rule of faith' and that one must not leave the latter. The early Fathers of the Church (like St.Basil) talked about the 'rule of faith' that Christians must follow so as not to stray into heresy.

I know that Lutheranism teaches that traditions are fine as long as they don't contradict Scripture. But does Lutheranism teach that the Truth comes not only from Scripture but from a certain Tradition as well. A 'rule of faith' which protects the Truth from heresies and error?

If you can answer my questions, I would appreciate it.

God bless and seeking again,

Caroline

[Caelum]

Well, my family history shows being Lutheran all the way back to Norway and the days of the Huguenots, so I just figured..."Hey, not all of my relatives could be wrong"...

Haha, but honestly...before I adopted any one doctrinal belief, I researched all and found that Martin Luther's teachings were the only ones that I held true from A to Z...According to what the bible teaches. Blah.

:prayer:

[CrossWiseMag]

Victrixa,

Although God Himself ultimately did the convincing, on a worldly level, it was the Book of Concord that convinced me that Lutheranism is correct. I have been Lutheran all my life, but always questioned the role of tradition. The RCC argument against Lutheranism has essentially been, "God would not create his church, then wait 1500 years to bring out its teachings." This is a good argument, and one for which I had no answer. Then I began reading the Book of Concord.

It turns out that Lutherans are catholics. The "tradition" which the RCC lauds so mightily is in fact a "Lutheran" tradition. The Book of Concord is filled with quotations from the church fathers, extolling doctrine which we now identify as "Lutheran." It's really an amazing thing to behold.

Maybe most importantly, there are many quotes from the church fathers in which they point to the Holy Scripture as the sole rule and norm of their faith! They do rely on a sort of "living tradition," especially in the East, but they often urge their readers to compare their teachings to Scripture. Where the two contradict, they are urged to follow the holy writings. This is nothing more than the Lutheran position, Sola Scriptura.

Upon discovering these things, I realized the Roman church had control of the political hierarchy, and nothing more, at the time of the Reformation. Even a cursory reading of history in the centuries before the Reformation will show that the church was desperately needful of a thorough purification. When the Roman church excommunicated Luther, it rejected the teaching so evident in its own tradition. The Lutheran Reformation was a conservative Reformation--a return to the past of Christ's church and the pure Gospel of salvation by grace, through faith.

[SPALATIN]

Caroline,

I agree whole heartedly with CWM. I was Lutheran pretty much my whole youth. I stepped away for about 15 years, but found my experience in the throes of American Evangelicalism to be empty. I came back to Lutheranism because like CWM I began to read the Book of Concord and found it really answered many of my questions and had me saying yes, this is what I believe.

Scott

[Flipper]

Having grown up RCC, what convinced me that Lutheranism is the way to go, was when I understood the concept of grace, and that the truth comes from the Bible, not church tradition.

[indeep]

I was a dyed in the wool lutheran for a long period of time, but I had a kind of jump off the cliff and try to fly on my own experience a few years ago, and I fell in with some people who were very charismatic/pentacostal, which opened my eyes to a 'whole new world' of christianity that had never been addressed or even mentioned in my 20 some years of being a lutheran.

In my break years, I attended a number of different churches from AOG to Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian and a few independents. Some I found were great, but I always had a reason for leaving. I never felt really at home in any of them. In the end I gave up attending church altogether because I decided that I knew better than any of them. I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me. I did see, do and experience things that I had never before. In the end it took a life changing experience for me that was God slapping me around a bit and telling me "Hey, this is not a good path that you are taking." And so I went back to church.

I presently attend a Lutheran church because I believe that it fulfills my basic spiritual needs, and affords me an opportunity to outreach to others in that community, and gives me a spiritual home and grounding. Do I seek sources of information outside of this? Absolutely, but I test everything, as I test everything and consider it before I just accept what I hear in Church also. Does Lutheranism have all of the answers? Well, that depends on what is being taught, I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also. This however is not limited to the Lutheran church by any means.

I call myself a christian, and do not affiliate myself directly with any particular denomination, or non-denominational group. I attend a lutheran church for the reasons I have stated above, but also because it is the place where I am most comfortable, I have a lot of friends/support there, and because I can get a lift from my brother. I don't have a car, so that's always an advantage.

I know that this isn't entirely answering the question, but it is just my story.

[CrossWiseMag]

I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me.

You should hold this against those churches. They are preaching a false gospel, and you're not the only one to turn away from the saving Gospel of Christ because of them. It's not just that their message was not for you; their message is not for anyone who seeks the comfort and peace of knowing that Christ has indeed saved them, regardless of their merits or lack of merits.

I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also.

Like what? I wonder if these things are truly Lutheran teachings, or variations on Lutheran doctrine caused by the sinfulness of the teachers in the church.

[indeep]

I was sick of being pushed this way and that, being told that I wasn't a christian if I wasn't baptised by full immersion, or accosted because I didn't speak in tongues. I don't hold this against the churches that I attended, it just wasn't for me.

You should hold this against those churches. They are preaching a false gospel, and you're not the only one to turn away from the saving Gospel of Christ because of them. It's not just that their message was not for you; their message is not for anyone who seeks the comfort and peace of knowing that Christ has indeed saved them, regardless of their merits or lack of merits.

I have seen a lot of good things being taught in Lutheran churches, but I have heard a lot of very unscriptural, and detrimental things being taught also.

Like what? I wonder if these things are truly Lutheran teachings, or variations on Lutheran doctrine caused by the sinfulness of the teachers in the church.

You're right, in the first part, but I felt disempowered in those situations, and it was easier for me to walk away, than to try and fight. I'm inclined towards the philosophy that we fall into the holes we are shaped to fit. In other words, a church that may be right for me, may not be so for someone else, and vice versa.

(and this relates to the first as well)

As regards your second question, they were not lutheran teachings or doctrine, they were false interpretations of scripture. We had a series of pastors who basically preached that we should effectively be sunday christians unless we had some great need. This was almost doctrine in the church, and they called pastors who were of this bent. Myself and a number of others fought for a long time to try and make changes to what was happening, but we were stymied by this almost institutionalised apathy. In the end, we just left. *sigh* We left, and a number of others have followed, fortunately finding a home in the 'next church over'. This was sort of the start of my leaving the church period, I left, but was still involved in the attempted revolution... :P I look at my parents who are still attending this church not out of ... a sense of belief but because they've become involved in so many things it is difficult to extricate themselves from it all. :sigh:

I don't have a bone to pick with the lutheran church as a whole, but... one's experience shapes one's perspective.

[Willy]

I am not sure that I have ever been convinced that Lutheranism "is the truth." But I am convinced that no other perspective "bears witness to the truth" as poignantly or as deeply as does Lutheranism. For me, human experience helps verify the understandings about life that Lutheranism identifies. Daily life bears witness to the fact that "I am in bondage to sin and cannot free myself."

[filosofer]

Well my question says it: What has convinced you that Lutheranism is the Truth?Study of Scripture over many years (many times through the entire Bible). Especially Matthew, Luke, Romans, 2 Corinthians, galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 John in the NT; and Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, and Zephaniah in the OT.

Then having re-read the Confessions (many times, especially Art. IV of Apology), I accepted what it taught because it agreed with Scripture.

I think this direction is critical. many use the Confessions to judge whether Scripture is correct. But Scripture is the authority which norms the Confessions.

[SPALATIN]

God convinced me that Lutheranism is the truth through the scriptures.

[ByzantineDixie]

Why do I see Lutheransim as the Truth?

I just finished a survey course on Church history...it wasn't hard to see that the Lutheran reform really did bring the articles of faith back to those supported by the early church fathers. I have this mental image of a line which runs along time and represents correct beliefs, truth, if you will.

It isn't hard to see that over time as the RCC became more involved in temporal power their line strayed farther and farther from the truth line--although I do not discount some periods of correction, just insufficient correction. I still don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to comment knowledgeably but I am not yet convinced there are significant differences when one looks at the basics. I think the EO line runs reasonably close to the truth line. I see a breakaway from the RCC line and a return to the truth line...and that return represents Lutheranism (the reform of Catholicism--I don't think the RCC left us as some Lutherans might say). Of all the lines representing all the denominations today I see Lutheranism running closest to the truth line...followed closely by EO then the varying degrees of deviation associated with the other denoms after...with the RCC being pretty far from it (although not as far as some).

Realize the impact of tradition when the tradition is corrupt...corrupted tradition only has the potential of generating further corruption (muliplication factor) unless reform takes place. When corrupt man is involved, there will be corruption. Accordingly, there absolutely must be a norm and rule, and that is Scripture. Building a faith system on top of a corrupted tradition is like the house built on sand.

I can't say I know all of Lutheranism well enough to say it is the absolute Truth...but of what I know, I am convinced it is faithful to the Scriptures...and that is the ONLY, absolutely ONLY reference point I can trust. And frankly, the only reason I can trust the Scriptures is through the faith that has been given to me...so I praise God for that! :clap:

Incidentally, I also enjoyed a period which I call my American Evangelical Bapticostal period...and unlike Scott, I was completely fulfilled in that...but it just wasn't what God had in mind for me. I had to learn that what "I" thought "I" wanted in faith and what "I" liked wasn't necessarily the truth nor was it part of God's plan for my life. I must be the most prideful, selfcentered person on this planet because I seem to get repeated correction in this and its always a surprise!!! :o :help:

God give you His peace

Rose

[SPALATIN]

Why do I see Lutheransim as the Truth?

I just finished a survey course on Church history...it wasn't hard to see that the Lutheran reform really did bring the articles of faith back to those supported by the early church fathers. I have this mental image of a line which runs along time and represents correct beliefs, truth, if you will.

It isn't hard to see that over time as the RCC became more involved in temporal power their line strayed farther and farther from the truth line--although I do not discount some periods of correction, just insufficient correction. I still don't know enough about the Eastern Orthodox church to comment knowledgeably but I am not yet convinced there are significant differences when one looks at the basics. I think the EO line runs reasonably close to the truth line. I see a breakaway from the RCC line and a return to the truth line...and that return represents Lutheranism (the reform of Catholicism--I don't think the RCC left us as some Lutherans might say). Of all the lines representing all the denominations today I see Lutheranism running closest to the truth line...followed closely by EO then the varying degrees of deviation associated with the other denoms after...with the RCC being pretty far from it (although not as far as some).

Realize the impact of tradition when the tradition is corrupt...corrupted tradition only has the potential of generating further corruption (muliplication factor) unless reform takes place. When corrupt man is involved, there will be corruption. Accordingly, there absolutely must be a norm and rule, and that is Scripture. Building a faith system on top of a corrupted tradition is like the house built on sand.

I can't say I know all of Lutheranism well enough to say it is the absolute Truth...but of what I know, I am convinced it is faithful to the Scriptures...and that is the ONLY, absolutely ONLY reference point I can trust. And frankly, the only reason I can trust the Scriptures is through the faith that has been given to me...so I praise God for that! :clap:

Incidentally, I also enjoyed a period which I call my American Evangelical Bapticostal period...and unlike Scott, I was completely fulfilled in that...but it just wasn't what God had in mind for me. I had to learn that what "I" thought "I" wanted in faith and what "I" liked wasn't necessarily the truth nor was it part of God's plan for my life. I must be the most prideful, selfcentered person on this planet because I seem to get repeated correction in this and its always a surprise!!! :o :help:

God give you His peace

Rose
The only thing I will say about my "Baptist" years is that when I was finished I was able to look at those years more objectively than I was before. I had some good years, but there were times I felt uncomfortable. One of those was when I was told that I had to go through an immersion Baptism to belong to a church. I did go through with it, but made sure I told the congregation what I really believed.

[Victrixa]

Luther's Rose (or anyone else),

If I understand well, there is a 'line of Truth' and many times in history, Christians have been straying away from it. Could that 'line of Truth' be the 'rule of faith' that the Early Church Fathers spoke about. That 'rule of faith' would be the Tradition of the Church in which the Truth is preserved from error. Do Lutherans adhere to a certain Tradition in this sense, a 'rule of faith' from which Christians should not stray from or else they'll be in error and believe heresies?

Thanks everyone for your replies! :)

Pax Christi,

Caroline

[Qoheleth]

Lutherans or actually the Lutheran confessors understood themselves to be the continuation of the catholic church in the West. It is amazing how the "reformed catholic church" is confessing, tradtional, sacramentarian, and complete in the word of God without speaking where scripture is silent.

The Lutheran Holy Mass is that of Our heavenly Father giving to us, in the Sacrament of communion, forgiveness and life and then we praising and worshipping his work done within us. Amen

[ByzantineDixie]

Luther's Rose (or anyone else),

If I understand well, there is a 'line of Truth' and many times in history, Christians have been straying away from it. Could that 'line of Truth' be the 'rule of faith' that the Early Church Fathers spoke about. That 'rule of faith' would be the Tradition of the Church in which the Truth is preserved from error. Do Lutherans adhere to a certain Tradition in this sense, a 'rule of faith' from which Christians should not stray from or else they'll be in error and believe heresies?

Thanks everyone for your replies! :)

Pax Christi,

Caroline
Please don't misunderstand...this line thing...its just a mental tool I have contructed to visualize the church through the ages. It has nothing to do with any doctrinal "rule of faith", authority of tradition, etc. The rule, the norm, the authority is scripture...it is that by which all else, including tradition must be measured. Nothing else.

Does that make things more clear? Sorry if I confused you.

Peace

Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

Lutherans or actually the Lutheran confessors understood themselves to be the continuation of the catholic church in the West. It is amazing how the "reformed catholic church" is confessing, tradtional, sacramentarian, and complete in the word of God without speaking where scripture is silent.

The Lutheran Holy Mass is that of Our heavenly Father giving to us, in the Sacrament of communion, forgiveness and life and then we praising and worshipping his work done within us. Amen
Dead on! :thumbsup: -----R

[theologia crucis]

What CrossWiseMag wrote is excellent! I concur. And I agree with filosofer, especially about Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Again, when my wife "forced" me to join her church, I did considerable investigation into various doctrinal statements of various churches, and I found the Lutheran position to clearly be the most Scriptural, and it is very historical, especially when one judges the Patristics by the Scriptures, and not vice versa.

And Rose is correct in post 16.

And Rose, EO is VERY close to RCC. I went to one of their links to EO stuff last night, and their teacing of grace looks very close to the RCC teacing on gratia infusa, and they reject the Lutheran gratuitis Dei favor (see pp 242-254 in Mueller). Not to mention what it said on justification. The two teachings aren't even close. I was hoping to post some of my findings in the EO thread tomorrow night during the debate (if I don't get distracted...).

Robert Preus' book Justification and Rome (from CPH) does an excellent job of going through the differences in sin, grace, justification, etc., between the two camps, or at least between Confessional Lutheranism and Tridentine Catholocism...

[ByzantineDixie]

And Rose, EO is VERY close to RCC. I went to one of their links to EO stuff last night, and their teacing of grace looks very close to the RCC teacing on gratia infusa, and they reject the Lutheran gratuitis Dei favor (see pp 242-254 in Mueller). Not to mention what it said on justification. The two teachings aren't even close. I was hoping to post some of my findings in the EO thread tomorrow night during the debate (if I don't get distracted...).

Robert Preus' book Justification and Rome (from CPH) does an excellent job of going through the differences in sin, grace, justification, etc., between the two camps, or at least between Confessional Lutheranism and Tridentine Catholocism...Alright...I am always ready to learn more...I still have this nagging sense that we don't understand precisely what it is they are saying. I do believe some of the accuracy gets lost in the language and the cultural differences between east and west. I'd rather have a comparison from a neutral source schooled in both Eastern and Western thought...but I realize that's asking alot! ;)

Anyway...I look forward to what you can post. Thanks!-----R

[theologia crucis]

Alright...I am always ready to learn more...I still have this nagging sense that we don't understand precisely what it is they are saying. I do believe some of the accuracy gets lost in the language and the cultural differences between east and west. I'd rather have a comparison from a neutral source schooled in both Eastern and Western thought...but I realize that's asking alot! ;)

Anyway...I look forward to what you can post. Thanks!-----R

That is probably true (the bolded)! My German Lutheran pastor married an Asian woman, and he was a philosphy major, and he talks on a regular basis of the difficulties in communications they have! They just think differently!

There are definitely some different thought processes between the Eastern and Western minds, but I think I've found some clear statements that easily show we (LC & EO) do NOT mean the same thing when it comes to specific theological issues...

Good night, all! I get to take my daughter to lunch tomorrow! I'm so excited!

[AngelusSax]

What has convinced me that Lutheranism is the truth?

Well, Lutheranism, as far as I can tell, is straight from the Bible. So basically, the Bible convinced me that Lutheranism is the Truth.

That, and whenever I put my Lutheranism in practice, I find I lead a more blessed life. I figure that coincidences happen when God is wanting to remain anonymous... (old joke, I know).

[sculpturegirl]

I have grown up in a rather charismatic, but independent Christian home. My folks are awesome God-fearing people. When I moved out to Maryland, from Michigan, I had no church body and no denomination. I went to a bunch of churches and feeling unsatisfied, stopped going to church all together for about 2 years. Finally the hunger became so great that I decided to try again. I study medieval studies and art at school, so I knew a lot about the Reformation. I make statuary for the Catholic Church and am very attracted to it, but couldn't reconcile the doctrine of the church with scripture. I remember this video in my Wester Civ. class in college about Martin Luther and I was sobbing throughout the whole class- I was so moved. I thought that I would try a Lutheran church. The folks there were so genuinely welcoming, not just that cold "Nice to have you here." I immediately felt a part.

I started reading the Book of Concord and the writings of Martin Luther and was blown away. As a young person I was so intense about the Lord's Supper and never felt satisfied in the protestant churches' manner of doing it as a memorial once in awhile. I craved it! I went to a Lutheran church during college and saw how they all went up to the altar to receive from one loaf and drink from one cup and was so deeply moved. (I didn't partake myself becaue of closed communion. I understood well the reasons for closed communion and wasn't at all put off by it.) I always have talked about the "priesthood of all believers," which I do believe came from Martin Luther. On top of it all, I have continually come in contact with Lutherans who have demonstracted such fruit and peace and love in their lives. So, here I stand.

I am still having some troubles reconciling in my mind infant baptism, being raised a credo-baptist and all. I have never thought those baptisms invalid nor wrong. I am tryinig to reorient my thinking to be in line with the Word.

That is what I love most about Lutheranism- its constant driving back to the Word!

[filosofer]

Lutherans or actually the Lutheran confessors understood themselves to be the continuation of the catholic church in the West. It is amazing how the "reformed catholic church" is confessing, tradtional, sacramentarian, and complete in the word of God without speaking where scripture is silent.

The Lutheran Holy Mass is that of Our heavenly Father giving to us, in the Sacrament of communion, forgiveness and life and then we praising and worshipping his work done within us. Amen
I would agree except for the use of one word: sacramentarian. Historically that terms does not reflect Lutheran teaching. It was the word used to describe the Reformed regarding the Lord's Supper.

[Bradford]

I would agree except for the use of one word: sacramentarian. Historically that terms does not reflect Lutheran teaching. It was the word used to describe the Reformed regarding the Lord's Supper.
I believe the word he meant was "sacramental"?

[Qoheleth]

Yes, Sacramental would be more accurate.

[Victrixa]

Thanks all for the responses! They are very helpful! :)

Many of you say that Lutheranism is in line with Scripture. But many other denominations look to the Bible as their sole authority concerning matters of Truth and they don't come to the same conclusions, Scripturally and doctrinally speaking. How do you know that Lutheranism has the right interpretation of Scripture? On what does Lutheranism base itself to say that it has the right interpretation of Scripture? This is what I keep wondering about. As you all know, in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, what ensures the Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics of the Truth is Tradition, this 'rule of faith' in which Truth is apparently preserved from heresies or error. It's a 'rule of faith' which, says St.Basil, ECF, by which all Christians are to abide by so as not to err...

How can you all convince me that Lutheranism has the right interpretation of Scripture? On what does Lutheranism base itself? I know you mentioned the Early Church Fathers, I will take that into consideration. I will also read the Book of Concord, online of course, since I don't own one at home. :)

I am still seeking, my friends, that's why I ask so many questions. I am still seeking because I do question Catholicism right now (again!). I just need to be convinced. I do find Lutheranism very intelligent. That's why I am very interested by it.

Thanks for your patience and for taking the time to answer me. I appreciate very much! (more than you can imagine!) :)

Love in Christ,

Caroline

[AngelusSax]

On what does Lutheranism base itself to say that it has the right interpretation of Scripture?Well, I suppose Lutheran teachings are more "intellectual" in nature than "emotional".

I don't know much about many denominations, but I do know a bit about Baptists (half of my family is, and my fiancé used to be before she converted to Lutheranism).

I will use an example, hopefully in a successful attempt to illustrate my meaning of "intellectual" over "emotional".

One main difference I can think of is how one is saved. Baptists emphasize a person asking Jesus into their heart, and feeling that conversion experience. Lutherans, on the other hand, emphasize "saved by Grace, of God, not of ourselves." That is, God saves us by His grace. God provides it.

Scripture tells us we must trust Jesus as our Savior. This trust comes from teaching, and not an emotional rush (as some of my Baptist friends have described it). The problem I, as a Lutheran, find with the "emotional" side, where a person asks Jesus into their heart, etc., is that it is something like: When I ask, when I decide, when I feel, that's when I'll be saved.

Is salvation something we do, or something we're given? If we're given salvation, then it is not up to us to ask for it. It is merely up to us to accept the Gift of Grace. But if we must seek it, if we must decide, usually as a result of an emotional rush, then it is of us.

Yet we are taught that we are saved by grace through faith, so no man may boast because of his own works.

In short, Baptists say we must ask Jesus into our heart, feel the conversion experience (something that happens naturally when one asks Him into one's heart). Lutherans say that we must trust Jesus, believe in him, but that comes from the Holy Spirit. It's a gift from God, one that we don't ask for, but one we receive in full gladness.

That's the best I can think of for explanation right this moment. I may have more for you later.

[filosofer]

This is what I keep wondering about. As you all know, in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, what ensures the Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics of the Truth is Tradition, this 'rule of faith' in which Truth is apparently preserved from heresies or error. It's a 'rule of faith' which, says St.Basil, ECF, by which all Christians are to abide by so as not to err...Hi, Caroline. Two problems with this approach:

1. The "tradition' becomes the trump card OVER Scripture. That is why the RCC includes the doctrine of continuing revelation, and can make doctrinal proclamations that are nowhere in the Scriptures.

2. The fallacy of the "rule of Faith" as articulated by Basil is that they equate that rule of Faith with their particular church body, whether RCC or EO. But that is not the intent of Basil's quote. Nor is that the position of the Lutheran Confessions. Luther (and the Confessions) demonstrate that what they "believe, teach, and confess" is what the Church has taught. Of any of the Reformers, Luther was most familiar with the ECF. He went through many of the same struggles, and came to same conclusions. At that point he saw that the RCC, and to a lesser extent the EO, was not in line with the "rule of Faith" as a clear understanding of the Scriptures.

[SiSSYGAL]

I was raised in a liberal tradition that allowed me to study a variety of Christian doctrine. I believe Lutheranism is correct--not to the exclusion of other Christian doctrine that is also correct--but due to the fact that there doesn't seem to be an emphasis on a piece of the Bible to the exclusion of other Biblical passages. The Lutherans keep this balance by keeping the liturgical seasons and subjects. It makes the pastors teach all of the Bible and study from all of it throughout a three year period. It is my preference to be in all of God's Word vs my perception (right or wrong) that pastors from other denominations allow themselves to have pet subjects and pet sermons because the church does not follow a prescribed path of worship.
I have a solid sense in the Lutheran Church that I am experienceing the WHOLE truth.
God Bless,
Sally

[Phoebe]

The Holy Spirit convinced me.

[theologia crucis]

Caroline,

There are probably three main things that set the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture against all the other "Protestant" interpretations:

1.) The proper distinction between Law & Gospel. I don't know of any other group that does this like we do. It is the key to unlocking the Scriptures. I don't know how to emphasize this enough.

2.) The Christocentricity of the Scriptures. Some groups do somewhat better at this. But, from everything I've read, nobody finds Christ as much in the Scriptures as we do [there's gotta be a better way to write that...]. Why? They don't see how the Law is what drives us to Christ, and through faith in Christ, he has completely fulfilled the Law in our stead, and took the punishment that we so richly deserve. And not all see Christ in the types in the OT, etc.

3.) We don't allow reason to go beyond the Scriptures. This is the big distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists, two sola scriptura groups. Scripture clearly preaches election to salvation, but never once mentions another election to damnation. So that's what Lutherans believe, teach and confess. However, Calvinists say that this is not logical, (which it is not to the human mind!) so they say God does condemn some to damnation from eternity, because that is what makes sense (even though it is not Scriptural).

What other kinds of examples or further expositions do you want? We'll be glad to help!

In Christ,

Mark

[theologia crucis]

Hey Rose, I got started, but thanks to numerous interuptions, I haven't finished yet, but I hope to have something up by Sunday (EO stuff).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[ByzantineDixie]

Hey Rose, I got started, but thanks to numerous interuptions, I haven't finished yet, but I hope to have something up by Sunday (EO stuff).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...
Hey Theo, that's quite OK. I look very forward to what you are able to post...I have some reading material on the subject I hope to get to Sunday as well. Perhaps both will take my understanding to the same place!

I have to get going to class but I also hope to comeback and comment on the "rule of faith" problem. Unfortunately, its a long way to Atlanta and I had better get going!

Y'all have a GREAT day in HIM!

Rose

[cenimo]

indeep

call myself a christian, and do not affiliate myself directly with any particular denomination, or non-denominational group. I attend a lutheran church for the reasons I have stated above, but also because it is the place where I am most comfortable...
That whole post was excellent, but especially that quoted above.
I truly believe there would be a lot less division between Christians if everyone would go visit 'the other guy's' church once in a while.

[KagomeShuko]

For me, pretty much three words make the Lutheran church a comfortable place:

All Are Welcome.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

As I reviewed this it occured to me that filo made the correct case for the "rule of faith" and the fallacies in its application. I want to take that concept one step further to emphasize the problems we now see because of these fallacies, particularly on the RCC side. If this offends anyone, please know that is not my intention. I am just presenting my case for the ultimate rule being Scripture.

On the EO side...there seems to be an inordinate dependency on traditon however it also seems that for the EO tradition is sacred and revered so long as it does not trump scripture. (If you know this to be incorrect, please advise...I am merely repeating some things I have read.) So the "rule of faith" then remains Scripture, and to be inclusive, interpretation of Scripture is left in the hands of the EO "church". (Although Lutherans ought not be too smug about this...our interpretations have been done for us and are represented in the Book of Concord. But...as with the EO, the Book of Concord, tradition, etc., in the Lutheran church are measured against Scripture...Scripture remains the rule.)

On the the RCC side however, there is not such a discipline. Doctrine has been developed regarding things that have never been mentioned in Scripture.

indulgences
purgatory
immaculate conception of Mary
infallibility of the pope
supremacy of the pope
assumption of Mary
How can this doctrine be developed outside of Scripture?...the pope has given himself the authority to do this. Can the pope be trusted? Read a little church history and see some of the difficulties the popes have had with temptation. See some of the papal decrees that have been overturned. So how can one trust a rule that has historically been fouled? The rule must be the gold standard...the unimpeachable reference. History shows us that is 1) not the pope and 2) not the RCC. Both have suffered some black marks.

But what remains unimpeachable? What remains unencumbered by "black marks" and human fallibilties...the Word.

Caroline...it appears the obstacle you have with embracing the Word as the rule is the multiple interpretations of Scripture. What corrupt and fallible man does to mess things up should not in anyway reflect on the perfect rule. The standard, Scripture, remains unchanged by the taint of misinterpretation.

I wish I knew where to go next regarding bibical interpretation...I am going to leave that to someone else who may have a better handle on it, but I will close with what I have seen. Biblical interpretation will always be wrong if it is based on an incorrect understanding of God's means of saving his people. If interpretation is focused on the saving work of Christ alone, the risks of misinterpretation are minimized. If interpretation is focused on anything else...error will follow. And if interpretation is contorted by corrupt tradition? The results have the potential of even being more damaging.

Caroline, none of us can convince you that Lutheranism is the ultimate truth. I don't even think that is a particularly worthy goal. The Holy Spirit has to guide your faith. Remember that God is not the author of confusion. If you are suffering from confusion it is the result of sin or the torment of Satan. Some prayer and fasting will do far more to bring clarity than the mixed messages you will see in this forum.

Sister, I love you and I will pray for you as you struggle with this.

In Him-----R

[filosofer]

Well done, Rose. :)

[indeep]

indeep

That whole post was excellent, but especially that quoted above.
I truly believe there would be a lot less division between Christians if everyone would go visit 'the other guy's' church once in a while.
[/size][/color][/font]
I am all for ecumenicalism, but I believe that there is a danger in accepting whole-heartedly practices which may not be biblical/theologically correct. On the other hand, I think a time is coming when there will be more important things to worry about than what the different denominations believe.

I didn't know a lot about other denominations before I went on my little quest, and so I went out there and looked at everything... Perhaps it is ironic then that I ended up back where I started (basically).

[sculpturegirl]

I am all for ecumenicalism, but I believe that there is a danger in accepting whole-heartedly practices which may not be biblical/theologically correct. On the other hand, I think a time is coming when there will be more important things to worry about than what the different denominations believe.

I didn't know a lot about other denominations before I went on my little quest, and so I went out there and looked at everything... Perhaps it is ironic then that I ended up back where I started (basically).
Have you ever read "The Alchemist" by Paolo Coelo? Sometimes we find our treasure right where we started, but it takes the journey to realize that it has been there all along.

[indeep]

No, I haven't read that book, it's on my to do list now... :)

[sculpturegirl]

It is really short and can be read in a day or two. It is very impactful :)

[Victrixa]

2. The fallacy of the "rule of Faith" as articulated by Basil is that they equate that rule of Faith with their particular church body, whether RCC or EO. But that is not the intent of Basil's quote. Nor is that the position of the Lutheran Confessions. Luther (and the Confessions) demonstrate that what they "believe, teach, and confess" is what the Church has taught. Of any of the Reformers, Luther was most familiar with the ECF. He went through many of the same struggles, and came to same conclusions. At that point he saw that the RCC, and to a lesser extent the EO, was not in line with the "rule of Faith" as a clear understanding of the Scriptures.

Hi filosofer :wave:

But that is not the intent of Basil's quote.

Then, filo, what does St.Basil mean? Check http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_tradition_florovsky.htm

Thank you in advance! :hug: (I sincerely want to know...)

Anyone else can answer who is able to answer! :)

Love in Christ,

Caroline

[Victrixa]

On the EO side...there seems to be an inordinate dependency on traditon however it also seems that for the EO tradition is sacred and revered so long as it does not trump scripture. (If you know this to be incorrect, please advise...I am merely repeating some things I have read.) So the "rule of faith" then remains Scripture, and to be inclusive, interpretation of Scripture is left in the hands of the EO "church". (Although Lutherans ought not be too smug about this...our interpretations have been done for us and are represented in the Book of Concord. But...as with the EO, the Book of Concord, tradition, etc., in the Lutheran church are measured against Scripture...Scripture remains the rule.)

On the the RCC side however, there is not such a discipline. Doctrine has been developed regarding things that have never been mentioned in Scripture.
indulgences
purgatory
immaculate conception of Mary
infallibility of the pope
supremacy of the pope
assumption of Mary

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well?

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians? What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three...

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)?

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?

Rose, or anyone else, can you help me?

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely seeking,

Caroline

[JVAC]

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well?

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians? What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three...

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)?

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?

Rose, or anyone else, can you help me?

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely seeking,

CarolineOne of the earliest Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, does extol the virtue of the episcopate as authority but does not concede any power to Rome over his church in antioch, which was started and headed by St. Peter. Infact the earliest writings attributing a Rome as a special See is St. Iraneus's Adversus Hereticos (Against Heresies) where he cites Rome as the source of Apostolic Succession because that is where the two blessed Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred. St. Iraneus clearly did this to establish his authority to write against the gnostics. Yet it can be deduced from ECF writings that Rome was the church people looked to because of it's wealth, it's location, and it's martyrs. An argument can be placed that Rome is the first among equals, but not for pre-eminance. Infact there are written records of other bishops telling the Roman bishop that he is in error. In fact, St. Paul confronted St. Peter himself, when St. Peter "was clearly in the wrong" (Gal); so if St. Peter could be wrong how much more could his successors?

St. Cyprian of Carthage in the latter 200's could be interpreted to ascribing something special to the Roman Bishop. However, he was in danger of losing his See, a powerful one at the time, the only other western patriarch, and obviously was playing up the other western patriarch to resecure his See. I don't know how much is flattery and how much is sound dogma though.

Papal infallability is a dogma that is deffinately ill-founded. Tradition does infact say that Rome is special but not that it is supreme. The Roman Bishop is not the Bishop of the world, he is merely the first Bishop of many. The Sees of Antioch and Jersualem were prime in the Earliest times, and then spread to be Rome, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus. In fact the See of Ephesus could be sited as the other See, comprable to Rome, because it was Founded by St. John.

If Rome were to deny infallability and come back to being the first of equals, the Eastern Church would return to communion with them (and I am possitive they would recognize the validity of filioque) and all the historic sees would again be in communion as it was in the begining with no one Pope over all, but instead an Ecumenical understanding among patriarchs that traces to the apostles.

-James

[SPALATIN]

If you look at all of Biblical History you will see that it is in our nature to want a leader. One who we can look up to. The Jews had been ruled by Judges for several centuries with God being their leader, but they wanted an earthly king to lead them and God gave them Saul who was a good leader until he tried to usurp the high priest role and made a sacrifice. It was then that God stepped in and over threw Saul and gave them David.

The church had no specific leader until after the 5th century when the Bishop of Rome started to become the Pontifex Maximus or Pope (latin for Papa). Many think that it was invented by those who had a greed for power. The Medici family had several members become Pope during the middle ages.

[CrossWiseMag]

Whether the Pope is given authority over other bishops is a bit of a red herring, it seems to me. The question is whether that authority is divinely instituted, or instituted by man. The Lutheran reformers made the case, in the Treatist on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (in the Lutheran confessions), that this power was instituted by man. It's all well and good to have order in the church. But any authority given by man (as shown through historical reference in the Treatise) must be secondary to God's authority. Because the Papal office had corrupted the doctrine of justification, which is the center of the Gospel, the Pope relinquished any divine authority in the church, and was left with only man-instituted authority.

[Carrye]

The question is whether that authority is divinely instituted, or instituted by man.
What if it was both, in the person of Jesus Christ? I bring that up only because that's often the dichotomy that's set. If it's divine, it's good; but if it's human, it's not. That logic too, because of the Incarnation, doesn't quite work.

[CrossWiseMag]

Let's say it this way, then. If it's divine, it's good. If it's sinful human, it's bad. There's no indication that Christ instituted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Even some of the church most revered fathers read the famous "Rock" passage as referring to Peter's confession, not Peter himself.

Chrysostom: "Christ says 'on this rock,' not 'on Peter.' For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter's faith.

Hilary: "The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: 'You are the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church."

[SPALATIN]

Let's say it this way, then. If it's divine, it's good. If it's sinful human, it's bad. There's no indication that Christ instituted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Even some of the church most revered fathers read the famous "Rock" passage as referring to Peter's confession, not Peter himself.

Chrysostom: "Christ says 'on this rock,' not 'on Peter.' For truly he has built his church not upon the man but upon Peter's faith.

Hilary: "The Father revealed this to Peter so that he might declare: 'You are the Son of the living God.' Upon this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built. This faith is the foundation of the church."
Just an addendum to what you are talking about. Too many let Peter's name which means Rock to be what they are talking about. That is where the confusion lies.

[ByzantineDixie]

The EOs believe in a kind of assumption of Mary, don't they? And in a sort of immaculate conception of Mary as well? I honestly don't know much about what the EO believe but I have heard some claim a "kind of cleansing" for Mary prior to conception and I have heard some say they believe in the Assumption...however...I don't know that EOers are required to believe in things that are not kerygma? In the RCC these beliefs have become dogma and failure to accept them as promulgated is considered heresy and grounds for excommunication. In my estimation this is a huge difference.

Wasn't it considered heretical to personally interpret Scripture outside the Tradition of the Church at the time of the first Christians? Only if the interpretation was not agreed upon by others. ;) Lots of theologians in the early church interpreted Scripture outside of the tradition of the church...some of it was accepted, some was not. Interpretation did not stop with the early church nor did accepted interpretation always align with tradition, look at Aquinas...his views were novel and yet still adopted by the RCC (although not until after his death).

What would this Tradition be, according to you? What is heresy or what was this heresy? What is Truth? Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Jesus is the Truth, right? Is there something else to Truth?

Please, I would appreciate it, give me a definition of what Truth, heresy and Tradition are. The first Christians referred to all three... I am not particularly good at definitions...perhaps someone else might do a nice job with this?

And didn't the Church Fathers talk about the supremacy of Peter and the presidency of the Church in Rome? In what way was Peter supreme or in what way did he hold the primacy? I think scholars agree that Peter did hold the primacy in Rome, but in what way, according to you and to the knowledge you have gained? What was Peter's role? He wasn't meant to be a Pope? What about apostolic succession? Didn't the Church Fathers emphasize on apostolic succession (St.Augustine, for example)? I think James did an excellent job with this. I believe the first hint of apostolic succession was alluded to in I Clement--which, interestingly enough, was the first document specifically determined to be excluded from the canon.

Are you aware of any forged documents which were created in the 9th Century to 'prove' the Papacy? Were the writings of the Church Fathers changed to prove the Papacy? Know anything about that? Is it true?Nope--never heard of such a thing. Makes me a bit leary though...sounds like something Jack Chick might have come up with....:sigh:

Caroline...I met with my friend Francois today and we discussed the terrible state of the church in Quebec. I think he is starting to sense his own need for a life in Christ and laments how his fellow Quebecois have drifted so far from the faith. He says many are angry at the church because of the actions of a few wayward priests. We need to pray for Christ's healing and for reconciliation. We are all sinners...living on the edge of a knife...and need to understand that any one of us can fall in a very visible way. We need to be there to help pick each other up and encourage each other in Christ.

I pray for Christ's peace for you, my friend.

:prayer: Rose

[Victrixa]

Caroline...I met with my friend Francois today and we discussed the terrible state of the church in Quebec. I think he is starting to sense his own need for a life in Christ and laments how his fellow Quebecois have drifted so far from the faith. He says many are angry at the church because of the actions of a few wayward priests. We need to pray for Christ's healing and for reconciliation. We are all sinners...living on the edge of a knife...and need to understand that any one of us can fall in a very visible way. We need to be there to help pick each other up and encourage each other in Christ.

I pray for Christ's peace for you, my friend.

Thank you Rose for taking the time to respond. I know it's been a long time since I last posted on TC-CL. A huge hug for you. :hug:

And yes, many Quebecers are really angry at the Church. Not just because of priests who have not behaved properly, but for many other reasons too. I won't get into that now....

Yes, it's true, I would qualify the Catholic Church in Quebec as lukewarm. The Masses are always nice, since liturgy and the Eucharist are beautiful, but I find that the Word of God is too often watered-down. I receive a watered-down Gospel too many times and it bugs me (and my hubby as well). The homelies are often good but there is room for improvement. What I have noticed is that the priests do not wish to offend anyone who comes to church. There are so very few practicing Catholics that the priests do not wish to offend the few who do come to church. They don't want to empty the churches even more. Some parish priests even do things that are against the Canon of the Church in order to attract more people to church. You'll never hear (oh so rarely, it never happened to me) a priest talking about sin and the necessity to repent from one's sins. All you hear is 'God loves you, God loves us' but nothing on 'God is just and hates sin'. A Gospel which pleases everyone is what is really preached. Like I said, many of the messages/homelies are good but watered-down.

I'm used to fire and brimstone messages, lol! I'm used to meat. I'm spiritually hungry. I'm not getting what I want spiritually (in terms of the Word). All I recieve is milk and I have reached the stage of solid food/meat many years ago. :sigh: It can be frustrating. I find that the Catholics here do not know what being the Church really means. No fellowship, no Bible studies, no meat from the Word (or very rarely). I really miss all that which I experienced as a Protestant. I've never been so isolated as a Christian. It seems no one from the parish cares. :(

I am unable to reach a state of peace in my situation. I lost the peace I had in Christ. I'm extremely exhausted spiritually and this exhaustion has reached my every day life (other things are bothering me too). I am confused, indeed. All the different historical versions of the Church and doctrines are confusing me.... argh!

Thanks for your prayers, Rose! :clap:

Thank you everyone for your responses! :hug: Anyone who has information related to my questions can continue to respond in this thread! I appreciate all the information I can get. I can only read so much.

Love in Christ,

Caroline

[SPALATIN]

Thank you Rose for taking the time to respond. I know it's been a long time since I last posted on TC-CL. A huge hug for you. :hug:

And yes, many Quebecers are really angry at the Church. Not just because of priests who have not behaved properly, but for many other reasons too. I won't get into that now....

Yes, it's true, I would qualify the Catholic Church in Quebec as lukewarm. The Masses are always nice, since liturgy and the Eucharist are beautiful, but I find that the Word of God is too often watered-down. I receive a watered-down Gospel too many times and it bugs me (and my hubby as well). The homelies are often good but there is room for improvement. What I have noticed is that the priests do not wish to offend anyone who comes to church. There are so very few practicing Catholics that the priests do not wish to offend the few who do come to church. They don't want to empty the churches even more. Some parish priests even do things that are against the Canon of the Church in order to attract more people to church. You'll never hear (oh so rarely, it never happened to me) a priest talking about sin and the necessity to repent from one's sins. All you hear is 'God loves you, God loves us' but nothing on 'God is just and hates sin'. A Gospel which pleases everyone is what is really preached. Like I said, many of the messages/homelies are good but watered-down.

I'm used to fire and brimstone messages, lol! I'm used to meat. I'm spiritually hungry. I'm not getting what I want spiritually (in terms of the Word). All I recieve is milk and I have reached the stage of solid food/meat many years ago. :sigh: It can be frustrating. I find that the Catholics here do not know what being the Church really means. No fellowship, no Bible studies, no meat from the Word (or very rarely). I really miss all that which I experienced as a Protestant. I've never been so isolated as a Christian. It seems no one from the parish cares. :(

I am unable to reach a state of peace in my situation. I lost the peace I had in Christ. I'm extremely exhausted spiritually and this exhaustion has reached my every day life (other things are bothering me too). I am confused, indeed. All the different historical versions of the Church and doctrines are confusing me.... argh!

Thanks for your prayers, Rose! :clap:

Thank you everyone for your responses! :hug: Anyone who has information related to my questions can continue to respond in this thread! I appreciate all the information I can get. I can only read so much.

Love in Christ,

Caroline
Caroline,

Here is a link to click on for some very good devotionals that might give you the "meat" that you are looking for and are not receiving at your church.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus/index.html

[Victrixa]

Thank you Scott! :hug: