Make the Case

[Colabomb]

As many of you know, I am searching.

Can you make the case for being the Apostolic Church? Using both Scripture (most importantly) and Tradition (Least importantly)?

Can you show that the Teachings of Lutheranism are the Teachings of the Apostles?

This is not an accusation, but the question of a seeker.

[MORTANIUS]

Apostolic Church?

I'm not going to explain what we are because that is self-explanatory (CHRISTIANS)

Many who have had Apostolic lineage have strayed, corrected themselves, and strayed again etc etc.

Apostolic Succession is not a foundation of Faith. It is an ecclessiastic tradition. It is a good tradition, but does not disqualify or validate anyone. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS are what matters.

[ByzantineDixie]

Apostolic Church?


:scratch: Hmmm....don't we talk about one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in our creed? If the Lutheran church is not apostolic then I suggest anyone entrusting their souls to [the teachings of] the Lutheran church make a run for it and start looking for the one that is!

[theologia crucis]

Colabomb,

I don't have the time to write out a response, but I will point you to one resource that addresses your question on "apostolic", from a theological and historical perspective:

Of course, how do you define "apostolic"?

Anyway, the book is the We Confess Anthology
by Herman Sasse, translated by Norman Nagel
Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, MO, 1999.

It should be still available here (www.cph.org), but you might be able to get it cheaper someplace else.

There are two articles in this book that address your apostolic question: "I Believe in the Apostolic Church" (Section 1, pp 88-99), and "Apostolic Succession" (Section 3, pp 84-107).

There are some other articles that also reflect the Lutheran depth of understanding of Christ, such as "The Theology of the Cross" (section 1, pp 36-54, probably my favorite section in the whole book!), and all of section 2, which mainly deals with the Sacraments, the Lord's Supper in particular.

Also, you can find the Book of Concord online, and compare the assertions made in it with the Scriptures. Get other confessions from other bodies and compare them as well. I did that, and it is why I am absolutely a diehard Lutheran, and why I am convinced the Lutheran Church carries on faithfully the doctrine (and subsequently the practice) of the Apostles, that is, proclaiming Jesus Christ and Him crucified, our only salvation.

Is the Lutheran Church the visible church? There is no visible church. However, she does have all the marks of the church...

[Qoheleth]

There is no visible church.

ummm, there was a visible church at Pentecost...right? Has it become invisible now?

Q

[MORTANIUS]

:scratch: Hmmm....don't we talk about one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in our creed? If the Lutheran church is not apostolic then I suggest anyone entrusting their souls to [the teachings of] the Lutheran church make a run for it and start looking for the one that is!

I think you misunderstood. Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Church are similar but not the same thing.

Many believe that Apostlic Tradition is a direct lineage that justifies a Church being "Apostolic" while others who lack this succession are not "Apostolic".

When we read the Creed (as you mention) we are declaring what it is we believe, which is Apostolic. I agree with you.

However, Apostolic Tradition is something else. Sometimes it is a political rather than a religious term that provides argument for the "who is right" arguments between denominations.

[ByzantineDixie]

I think you misunderstood. Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Church are similar but not the same thing.



But the OP didn't say anything about Apostolic Succession...he asked about the roles of Scripture and Tradition and holding to the teachings of the apostles. So my comment remains...if one discovers the church body with which they are affiliated is not apostolic...one better deal with it.

Which leads me to ask the question...if the apostle's church wasn't invisible...would an invisible church be apostolic?

[TheologiaCrucis]

But the OP didn't say anything about Apostolic Succession...he asked about the roles of Scripture and Tradition and holding to the teachings of the apostles. So my comment remains...if one discovers the church body with which they are affiliated is not apostolic...one better deal with it.

Which leads me to ask the question...if the apostle's church wasn't invisible...would an invisible church be apostolic?

I am led to believe that when talking about being "apostolic church" in this sense, one is dealing with mainly a confession rather than an actual, visible church.
To answer the question, I would say an invisible church could be apostolic as long as it is based on the confessions of the apostles a.k.a. the Scriptures.
Maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I think this accurately describes how I feel.

[Colabomb]

I was referring more to the teachings of the Apostles than apostolic succession. Following their teaching is more important to me than following their successors. (Actually their successors would be those that teach their doctrine, so in essence I would be following both.)

[MORTANIUS]

Many have use the Creed, but many have also recited it in vain becaues they do not understand it.

[ByzantineDixie]

Many have use the Creed, but many have also recited it in vain becaues they do not understand it.

So--what criteria does one use to decide who understands the creed correctly?

[BigNorsk]

The basic question should be what does it mean to be apostolic. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches teach that it mean to have an undivided succession leading back to the apostles.

That isn't it's meaning at all. If you look at the word apostle it is a transliteration, not a translation of the Greek word. If you actually translate it it means messenger or one who is sent.

We recognize that there has always been and will always be only one christian church, who is a messenger sent out into the world to proclaim the gospel.

Proclaiming the good news to the world is what is meant by being Apostolic. In more recent times the word evangelical has come to be more widely used as a substitute for apostolic. When the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation used the term evangelical to describe themselves, this is just what they were referring to. Being messengers sent out to proclaim the good news to world.

You could have substituted evangelical for apostolic at the time of the Reformation, but it has become a bit too associated with certain groups to really be used that way now.

You could rewrite the Nicene Creed to read thus. "We believe in one holy church encompassing all who believe in Jesus Christ, who are sent as God's messengers to the world."

That's fairly quick and dirty, but you get the idea.

I hope that helps.
Marv

[MORTANIUS]

So--what criteria does one use to decide who understands the creed correctly?

You totally misunderstand my point.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the conditions of what is Apostolic.

The question posed was what makes us Apostolic. I introduced the point about Apostolic Succession for the reason that people should not be mislead to believe lineage/succession validates anything.

Furthermore, reciting the Creed doesn't make everyone Apostolic if you consider deviations of faith.

One can read the Creed and deviate from faith, doctrine etc.

My point once again to this issue is not that we are not the Apostolic Church. It is to stress that "Apostolic" doesn't always define what was set forth by the Apostles.

For example, gay marriage/blessings. While we can read the Creed in Church, we still have a surprising number of Lutherans who wish to accomodate gay marriage/blessings and clergy. Is this Apostolic? Nope.

We can't dilude ourselves with terms that carry no meaning.

In order to understand what the Creed represents, you have to understand who Christ is, and the Lords purpose for us. It is not a validation of who we are, but to that which we belong.

So then, what is Apostolic Succession? A validation. What is the Apostlic Church? It is that which has been set forth by Christ through the discipleship of his twelve servants.

Are we done butting heads?

[MORTANIUS]

You could rewrite the Nicene Creed to read thus. "We believe in one holy church encompassing all who believe in Jesus Christ, who are sent as God's messengers to the world."


Marv

BigNorsk, are you stating this point hypothetically? I hope so because the entire point of the reformation wasn't to redefine Christianity, it was to recover Christianity from distortions made by Roman Catholicism at the time.
If I misunderstood you, I appologize, but altering the Creed to understand it better means we didn't understand it at all. It speaks for itself.

Its not so much about what the term Apostle means, as so much as how the term is being used to justify legitimacy of denominations these days. The Creed represents what the term means perfectly, but we should not alter anything because others distort its meaning.

Just as with the term Evangelism. We dare not abandon this word and its meaning to those who have used it to label themselves in a similar fashion as those who use "Apostolic" to legitimize themselves against others.

Semantics!!!! :doh:

[ByzantineDixie]

Are we done butting heads?

I am extremely sorry that you took my statements as butting heads. I really wasn't trying to pick on what you said so much as use your comments to spur discussion. I really have to do something about the way I have been communicating lately...this isn't the first time my intentions were misunderstood. Again...:sorry:

I had a place I was hoping to go with this conversation...so did you. Unfortunately neither one of us were headed to the same place. For me Apostolic Succession was a red herring as it applied to the OP...I am not going to say that were I wanted to go wasn't a red herring either...I am sure it was. But hey, we all have our issues we like to discuss, right?

Peace

[MORTANIUS]

I am extremely sorry that you took my statements as butting heads. I really wasn't trying to pick on what you said so much as use your comments to spur discussion. I really have to do something about the way I have been communicating lately...this isn't the first time my intentions were misunderstood. Again...:sorry:

I had a place I was hoping to go with this conversation...so did you. Unfortunately neither one of us were headed to the same place. For me Apostolic Succession was a red herring as it applied to the OP...I am not going to say that were I wanted to go wasn't a red herring either...I am sure it was. But hey, we all have our issues we like to discuss, right?

Peace

I realize you are not picking on me, but your pressing questions did make me explain myself a little more than I initially did.

No worries Rose. I don't mind butting heads. This is how we strengthen ourselves and each other, to be better and strong Christians. No worries ;)

[Qoheleth]

I was referring more to the teachings of the Apostles than apostolic succession. Following their teaching is more important to me than following their successors. (Actually their successors would be those that teach their doctrine, so in essence I would be following both.)

Indeed, to be faithful to one, must needs to be faithful to the other.


The Church is called "Apostolic" because the Apostles placed the historical beginning of the Church.

The Apostles preserved and transmitted to the Church the Christian teaching of faith and life in the form in which they had received it from their Master and Lord. Giving in themselves the example of the fulfillment of the commandments of the Gospel, they handed down to the faithful the teaching of Christ by word of mouth and in the Sacred Scriptures so that it might be preserved, confessed, and lived.

The Apostles established, according to the commandment of the Lord, the Church’s sacred rites. They placed the beginning of the performance of the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, of baptism, and of ordination.

The Apostles established in the Church the grace-given succession of the episcopate, and through it the succession of the whole grace-given ministry of the church hierarchy, which is called to be stewards of the Mysteries of God, in accordance with 1 Cor. 4:1.

"The Apostles established the beginning of the canonical structure of the Church’s life, being concerned that everything should be done decently and in order; an example of this is given in the fourteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which contains directions for the assemblies where church services are celebrated." (Michael Pomazansky)



Its not so much about what the term Apostle means, as so much as how the term is being used to justify legitimacy of denominations these days.

Apostolic succession does not “legitimatize” anything. It simply announces that the faith once delivered has been delivered. As such, two components are necessary—tracing back to the beginning, and holding to the catholic faith. “Legitimacy” is a Western concept delivered via Augustine and rests on legal terms.


Q

[MORTANIUS]

I'm not trying to define "Apostolic" as you point out. All I'm saying is how people should not rely or be confused or even limit the meaning of what is Apostolic.

In some cases (especially among Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians) "Apostolic" is often used to reinforce the ecclesiastic structure and authority of their priesthood and their absolute authority and authenticity as compared to others.

Sheesh!:doh:

[BigNorsk]

This must be the thread where we try to convince Colabomb he made a mistake.

There is a strong parallel in Scripture to the claim of the churches that hold to Apostolic succession being what it means to be the Apostolic church versus those that hold to the faith of the Apostles and the revelation of God that comes through them to us.

It is in Galatians.

Galatians 3:5-29 NET
(5) Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?
(6) Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,
(7) so then, understand that those who believe are the sons of Abraham.
(8) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel to Abraham ahead of time, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you."
(9) So then those who believe are blessed along with Abraham the believer.
(10) For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law."
(11) Now it is clear no one is justified before God by the law, becausethe righteous one will live by faith.
(12) But the law is not based on faith, but the one who does the works of the law will live by them.
(13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree")
(14) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.
(15) Brothers and sisters, I offer an example from everyday life: When a covenant has been ratified, even though it is only a human contract, no one can set it aside or add anything to it.
(16) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, "and to the descendants," referring to many, but "and to your descendant," referring to one, who is Christ.
(17) What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise.
(18) For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.
(19) Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the descendant to whom the promise had been made. It was administered through angels by an intermediary.
(20) Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one.
(21) Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
(22) But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to those who believe.
(23) Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners until the coming faith would be revealed.
(24) Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith.
(25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
(26) For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.
(27) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
(28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
(29) And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise.

The Jews put their faith in the fact they were decended from Abraham by blood. They put their faith in the sign of circumcision. However, God through Paul tells us that it is not those who are decendants by blood but those who are decendants by faith who are the children of Abraham.

So too is it those decended from the Apostles through the laying on of hands or the people who keep the faith of the Apostles who are the real Apostolic church. If circumcision given by God as the sign of the covenant with Abraham was not effective, how can the laying on of hands pass on the church?

Oh to be sure, if it is passed on by the laying on of hands are we to believe that the Lutheran ministers did not have hands laid upon them when they were ordained priests? The Catholic church certainly does that now, did it not do it then? Is there any real difference between a bishop and a priest other than the bishop is designated a leader in order to maintain order? So if the laying on of hands is really the way to tell the true church, the Lutherans have as much of a claim as anyone else, yet the true church is made up of those who believe in Jesus Christ. Not those who believe in Jesus Christ with the approval of the bishops. No office of the church was ever given that could withold the church and God's grace from others, everything was given to proclaim the gospel and to build up the body of Christ.

I hope that is a little clearer.
Marv

[Qoheleth]

So if the laying on of hands is really the way to tell the true church, the Lutherans have as much of a claim as anyone else, yet the true church is made up of those who believe in Jesus Christ. Not those who believe in Jesus Christ with the approval of the bishops. No office of the church was ever given that could withold the church and God's grace from others, everything was given to proclaim the gospel and to build up the body of Christ.

And the real context is that (i'll repeat this again)...

To get a handle on how the Confessions treat the topic, one should read the Treatise on the Primacy and Power of the Pope. The major contention of the Confessions was that the post-apostolic distinction between bishop and presbyter (priest) is of human origin; note, this does not call into question that both bishop and priest are divinely ordained in the church, but that the way their duties are assigned is reckoned to be of human origin. The major contention of the Treatise is that the ordination which is performed by a pastor (meaning, the head priest in a larger parish, rather like Rome uses the term "pastor" today) is valid by divine right.

Note that the Lutherans had their backs against the wall on this. They WANTED to keep the ancient canonical order (see Apology XIV), but when the Roman bishops flat out refused to ordain them priests, they turned to an argument made by Jerome that asserted that bishops and priests shared the same competence in regards to ordination and that assigned ordination to the bishops was primarily an act of good order, not an act of divine necessity.

Q