We are working on it?

[seajoy]

In another thread an EO mod stated that Martin Luther should have reconciled with the Orthodox church. An LCMS Lutheran then posted "We are working on it."

Is this true? Are there LCMS Lutherans working on joining with the Orthodox?

I find this perplexing and down right scary.

[BigNorsk]

Nothing, how does one say, official, that I know of. Basically it would be one person at a time.

I think in certain segments of the LCMS there is a lot of interest in the Orthodox church. In many cases if they really look into it they kind of follow the path the Reformers took. Trying to come to agreement and finding the disagreements are much deeper than they originally knew.

I'm afraid the Jerusalem Council called to condemn the apparently Calvinistic Bishop at Constantinople pretty well sealed that there will not be agreement.

Individuals can head east or individuals can come west but the groups will not be able to reconcile. Lutherans cannot give up the article on justification, and Orthodox cannot admit they have been wrong all these years.

The one cannot give because of scripture the other because of tradition.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Guess they call it the synod of Jerusalem. Maybe to distinguish it from the first ecumenical council as recorded in Acts.

Schaff's article on the Synod of Jerusalem (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html)is pretty easy reading and tells you all you really need to know.

Schaff doesn't include the text of the 4 questions and answers at the end, they can be read HERE. (http://www.yadtel.net/%7Edanielw/jerusalem.html)

The questions and answers get to be rather important,

Question 1 is whether the Bible should be read in the vulgar language. Which is answered no and that it should only be read by those people with enough education.

Question 2 is whether scripture is clear to the believer, which is answered no.

Question 3 spells out the apochryphal books as scripture.

Question 4 has to do with the worship of the saints. It's interesting to read from today, because they quote scripture saying not to adore or serve anything (serve being latria). Then go on to condemn anyone who says they do more than latria and that they adore the icons and such. You kind of have to keep a translation of the translation going in your head.

And if anyone is just a glutton for punishment and needs to right a paper on something there is an entire book (http://books.google.com/books?id=G1h5ijh3YcwC&dq=synod+of+jerusalem&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=DeUgsSdr0u&sig=aE6S-6REnvJyDYT4b74D3gcqN0Q)on the synod in google books by a J.N. W. B. Robertson.

Marv

[DaSeminarian]

In another thread an EO mod stated that Martin Luther should have reconciled with the Orthodox church. An LCMS Lutheran then posted "We are working on it."

Is this true? Are there LCMS Lutherans working on joining with the Orthodox?

I find this perplexing and down right scary.

To my knowledge the LCMS is NOT working on a relationship with the Orthodox church.

There was an effort by the Tubingen church fathers after Luther died to forge some kind of relationship, but the Orthodox church wouldn't budge on some areas of doctrine.

[Edial]

In another thread an EO mod stated that Martin Luther should have reconciled with the Orthodox church. An LCMS Lutheran then posted "We are working on it."

Is this true? Are there LCMS Lutherans working on joining with the Orthodox?

I find this perplexing and down right scary.
That is why I believe that every Lutheran should be a "WELS" in his/her heart when things like that come up.

We are Lutherans, not RC or EO, not Reformed or Penthecostals.

Our identity is not to be melted into other denominations, but to be a beacon for others.

In my opinion ... :)
Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

It was GratiaCorpusChristi who made the comment. GCC has implied before that he finds the new "Finnish Interpretation" of Luther appealling...I suspect that's what he had in mind, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

The "Finnish Interpretation" makes Justification sound a lot like the EO concept of theosis. It is fraught with difficulties, to say the least, and has not been well received by orthodox (i.e., Confessional) Lutherans.

[DaRev]

Confessional Lutherans are both truly orthodox and truly catholic already. The EO's and the RC's would have to change a LOT of things to get back to where we are.

[seajoy]

Glad to hear this is just a rogue voice and not some real group attempting this.

[Studeclunker]

Ed and Marv, excellently said!:amen:

Revrand, I really like how you said, "...to get back to where we are." That's just the point. Lutherans think that we've gone back before the errors that were institutionalized by the Catholic churches. Yes, I do include the Orthidox churches in this. They too, have strayed off into some of the same errors that the Romans have. Good luck getting them to admit it though...;)

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It was GratiaCorpusChristi who made the comment. GCC has implied before that he finds the new "Finnish Interpretation" of Luther appealling...I suspect that's what he had in mind, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

The "Finnish Interpretation" makes Justification sound a lot like the EO concept of theosis. It is fraught with difficulties, to say the least, and has not been well received by orthodox (i.e., Confessional) Lutherans.
Not putting words in my mouth at all.

Although, I wouldn't call the Finnish Interpretation entirely rejected. I mean, some of the most conservative members of the ELCA (Braaten, Jenson) have seized onto it pretty tightly, as well as a few pastors I know in the LCMS.

What do people find so terribly wrong with the Finnish Interpretation, anyway? It doesn't deny forensic justification, it doesn't deny double imputation, it doesn't deny any of the solas, and far from being based on a few verses from Luther's early homilies on Romans, it's consonant with the many great themes found in On Christian Liberty.

Glad to hear this is just a rogue voice and not some real group attempting this.

A rouge group like Philipp Melanchthon?

Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue was attempted by Melanchthon when he sent a delegation to the court of Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II. They translated the Augsburg Confession into the Greek.

Marv, of course, is right. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672), authoritative (thought not infallibe- that ended with the Great Schism as far as the Orthodox are concerned) over the Orthodox Churches, officially condemned unconditional predestination and justification by faith alone. These are unacceptable. I think predestination could be worked around, as it was largely based on the errant Calvinist understanding involving reprobation, but there's no compromise on the gospel of sola fide.

But c'mon now. Theologically, there are fewer divisions between us and Orthodoxy than between us as Catholicism.

[E.C.]

There was an effort by the Tubingen church fathers after Luther died to forge some kind of relationship, but the Orthodox church wouldn't budge on some areas of doctrine.
At the defense of the Orthodox...

Our beliefs, doctrines, way of worship and way of life, etc; have all been given to us. It (our faith) is a treasure. We do not take from it. We do not add to it.

In short: the Apostles' faith is our faith via the bishops and not adding to it or taking from it. That is why we do not change. We have no reason to change and besides, a lot of things that Reformers went to the EP in Constantinople about were simply not what was believed 1500 years before. Why change it?

[Studeclunker]

There are a number of errors that exist in the Orthidox churches that cannot in any way be traced to the Apostles.

First is the veneration of Icons. The Apostles being Jews, it seems incredible that anyone would even suggest a graven image would be acceptable for any kind of veneration.

Second is the veneration of Saints. Note that I capatalized the word Saints. In this case, one is assuming that someone else besides Christ is approaching the Throne of Glory. Even if it is to intercede with Christ alone, the concept is wrong and not supported by scriptural backing.


Gal 3:26-29
26 Sons and Heirs

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
NKJV

This is a weaker referrence than I would have liked to use. Still, it points out very clearly that all of us are equal in regards to the viewpoint of implied Righteousness and access to the Throne of Glory.

Lastly, apostolic succession. Christ alone had the authority to choose the Apostles. Has anyone ever heard anything about Matthais after the Apostles chose him by lot? Of course not. He wasn't chosen by Christ and therefore not an Apostle. Paul was Christ's choice and proved it by writing over two thirds of the New Testament. I would never go so far as to say that Apostolic succession was bunk, but it is certainly suspect.

There are a dozen other referrences where the Orthidox are off base. Then again, I'm quite sure that the LCMS can be found wanting in some things as well. In fact, if things keep going like they are, the LCMS may be identical to the ELCA before long (Lord help us all!).:cry:

[Edial]

There are a number of errors that exist in the Orthidox churches that cannot in any way be traced to the Apostles.

First is the veneration of Icons. The Apostles being Jews, it seems incredible that anyone would even suggest a graven image would be acceptable for any kind of veneration.

Second is the veneration of Saints. Note that I capatalized the word Saints. In this case, one is assuming that someone else besides Christ is approaching the Throne of Glory. Even if it is to intercede with Christ alone, the concept is wrong and not supported by scriptural backing.


This is a weaker referrence than I would have liked to use. Still, it points out very clearly that all of us are equal in regards to the viewpoint of implied Righteousness and access to the Throne of Glory.

Lastly, apostolic succession. Christ alone had the authority to choose the Apostles. Has anyone ever heard anything about Matthais after the Apostles chose him by lot? Of course not. He wasn't chosen by Christ and therefore not an Apostle. Paul was Christ's choice and proved it by writing over two thirds of the New Testament. I would never go so far as to say that Apostolic succession was bunk, but it is certainly suspect.

There are a dozen other referrences where the Orthidox are off base. Then again, I'm quite sure that the LCMS can be found wanting in some things as well. In fact, if things keep going like they are, the LCMS may be identical to the ELCA before long (Lord help us all!).:cry:
Interesting point concerning Matthias.

That is correct, we never heard of him after his election.
He was chosen by lots when the Apostles said that it is the time (in their opinion) to choose and Apostle in place of Judas.
I always noticed that when we say "It is the time" in spiritual things, we usually miss. :D :)

Besides, there supposed to be only 12 Apostles, since there are 12 gates in New Jerusalem.
And Paul is definitely an Apostle.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There are a number of errors that exist in the Orthidox churches that cannot in any way be traced to the Apostles.

First is the veneration of Icons. The Apostles being Jews, it seems incredible that anyone would even suggest a graven image would be acceptable for any kind of veneration.

Second is the veneration of Saints. Note that I capatalized the word Saints. In this case, one is assuming that someone else besides Christ is approaching the Throne of Glory. Even if it is to intercede with Christ alone, the concept is wrong and not supported by scriptural backing.


This is a weaker referrence than I would have liked to use. Still, it points out very clearly that all of us are equal in regards to the viewpoint of implied Righteousness and access to the Throne of Glory.

Lastly, apostolic succession. Christ alone had the authority to choose the Apostles. Has anyone ever heard anything about Matthais after the Apostles chose him by lot? Of course not. He wasn't chosen by Christ and therefore not an Apostle. Paul was Christ's choice and proved it by writing over two thirds of the New Testament. I would never go so far as to say that Apostolic succession was bunk, but it is certainly suspect.

There are a dozen other referrences where the Orthidox are off base. Then again, I'm quite sure that the LCMS can be found wanting in some things as well. In fact, if things keep going like they are, the LCMS may be identical to the ELCA before long (Lord help us all!).:cry:
While I certainly have issues with the Orthodox Church, I have to take issue with your first and third points.

Veneration of icons goes back to the earliest generations of Christians, as evidenced first by drawings in the tunnels under Rome and later by mosaics. Moreover, Jews do not object to use of visual imagry in worship in general (note the cherubim on the ark and on the veil in the tabernacle, and the serpant staff of Moses), but only images of God. And with the incarnation of Christ, even this prohibition is lifted, as the reason for the prohibition was that God did not have a human face like Baal or Marduk or Asherah; but of course, now he does in Jesus Christ. Oh, and you also might want to take it up with Luther, who approved of the iconography of his friend Luis Cranach and was by no means an iconoclast.

As for apostolic succession- I completely agree that our sacraments within the LCMS are valid, and that being part of the historic episcopate has no bearing on whether or not the sacraments 'work.' But the Lutheran reformers were not against apostolic succession or the historic episcopate; not only the Scandanavian Lutherans maintain apostolic succession, but the Apology/Defense of the Augsburg Confession, article 14, expressly states that there's nothing wrong with it.

[Edial]

Why are some Lutherans just looking for some dialogue with other denominations?

What are they planning to find out?
What are they trying to discuss?

I do not understand.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Why are some Lutherans just looking for some dialogue with other denominations?

What are they planning to find out?
What are they trying to discuss?

I do not understand.
Because Christ's final prayer for his people before he went to his death was a prayer for unity.

[KEPLER]

Because Christ's final prayer for his people before he went to his death was a prayer for unity.
SWISH! Nuthin' but net!

[Edial]

Because Christ's final prayer for his people before he went to his death was a prayer for unity.
You mean unity in Christ, not unity in denominations. Right?

JN 17:11...so that they may be one as we are one ...

[Edial]

I found veneration of icons nothing more than an emotional rollercoaster.
And on some occasions, I find that it could get deeper than that.

I remember sometime back, I heard Ave Maria performed in such a magnificent way that I was practically stunned.

I listened to that CD again and again and again.
All my insides were affected. I had tears.
I definitely thought that this must be from God ot somehow associated with God.

Then I kind of said to myself: "Eddie, what are you doing? Look how you are affected by simple music. There is something wrong with this".

And swoosh, all these feelings just flew away. :)

But at that time it was very, very hard to resist that pull that I felt.
And at the time, it was also very hard to accept the thoughts that this magnificent emotional feeling was not necessarily some type of a revelation from God. :)

Peoples' emotions are just too easy to manipulate ... by other people or even demons.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[E.C.]

First is the veneration of Icons. The Apostles being Jews, it seems incredible that anyone would even suggest a graven image would be acceptable for any kind of veneration.
Actually, St. Luke wrote the first icon. It was of the Theotokos. On this I should note that all icons of the Theotokos also have Christ in them. Most of the time as a little toddler.

Second is the veneration of Saints. Note that I capatalized the word Saints. In this case, one is assuming that someone else besides Christ is approaching the Throne of Glory. Even if it is to intercede with Christ alone, the concept is wrong and not supported by scriptural backing.
If I remember correctly, the Augsburg Confession (or a similar Lutheran work) states that one can venerate Saints, however the view is that they're (Lutherans) not sure if venerating Saints does any good or not.

St. Ignatius of Antioch was glorified after his martyrdom. However, since obviously Apostolic Tradition is not enough to answer this, I can find Scripture backing in due time.

Besides, when we venerate the Saints, we are honoring them. A Saint's day is like one's birthday. On one's birthday, is one "in the spotlight" so to speak? Besides, when one prays with the Saints, one is asking them to pray for oneself. How is this different from asking one's friend to pray for oneself?

Lastly, apostolic succession. Christ alone had the authority to choose the Apostles. Has anyone ever heard anything about Matthais after the Apostles chose him by lot? Of course not. He wasn't chosen by Christ and therefore not an Apostle. Paul was Christ's choice and proved it by writing over two thirds of the New Testament. I would never go so far as to say that Apostolic succession was bunk, but it is certainly suspect.
And he gave that authority to the Apostles. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles. They (bishops) are to look over (not lord over) their flock. St. Mark was the bishop of Alexandria. What is to happen their after his martyrdom? Are the faithful of the area supposed to run-a muck? How are they to stay faithful without somebody to look over to make sure they are on the good path, so to say?

Another thing to point out is that had it not been for Apostolic Succession (as well as a letter from one of those early Church Fathers) than the Gnostics would have succeeded. Now, as we know, the Gnostics had claimed to have "secret knowledge" from the Apostles. When you have bishops (i.e. the successors to the Apostles) than how can some "secret knowledge" have gone to somebody else outside of those the Apostles chose to succeed them and those who succeeded the successors? One of the early Church Fathers took the list of successors from one of the main patriarchal sees (I believe it was Rome or Antioch, I can't recall right now) and wrote a letter that basically said "hey, these people (bishops) succeeded St. Mark. None of them were Gnostics. Therefore the Gnostics are wrong."

Besides, don't Lutherans claim Apostolic Succession?:scratch:

As for St. Matthias, there is a source or two that say he went to Ethiopia.

Then I kind of said to myself: "Eddie, what are you doing? Look how you are affected by simple music. There is something wrong with this".
Ah, shame. Shame that you think there is something wrong with having some moments when one is at peace with oneself.

There was this time when I was serving in the altar at Divine Liturgy. It was festal matins (matins is basically morning prayer. Festal means it was one of the feasts) and when the priest reads the Gospel in the nave, the altar servers stand around. Some holding candles, some holding the fans (Orthodox thing). I was holding the candle one time and I was overcome with such... joy and peace. I later told my stepmom and she said that it was a moment with God. Which reminds me, I should tell my priest about it.

[Melethiel]

Regarding Saints:

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2, 1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.


4] Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefold honor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought to give thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy; because He has shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers or other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are the greatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be praised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises faithful businessmen, 5] Matt. 25, 21. 23. The second service is the strengthening of our faith; when we see the denial forgiven Peter, we also are encouraged to believe the more that grace6]truly superabounds over sin, Rom. 5, 20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of faith, then of the other virtues, which every one should imitate according to his calling. 7] These true honors the adversaries do not require. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though it would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary.
8] Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1, 12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9]Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15, 14.
Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10] yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one? 11] Some plainly ascribe divinity to the saints, namely, that they discern the silent thoughts of the minds in us. They dispute concerning morning and evening knowledge, perhaps because they doubt whether they hear us in the morning or the evening. They invent these things, not in order to treat the saints with honor, but to defend lucrative services. 12] Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does not have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the saints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it. Therefore 13] the adversaries ought not to force us to an uncertain matter, because a prayer without faith is not prayer. For when they cite the example of the Church, it is evident that this is a new custom in the Church; for although the old prayers make mention of the saints, yet they do not invoke the saints. Although also this new invocation in the Church is dissimilar to the invocation of individuals.


On Ecclesiastical Order:

24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

Ed - what do you mean, "simple music"? Music has great power...see quote in signature.

[Edial]

...Ed - what do you mean, "simple music"? Music has great power...see quote in signature.
:D :D :) .
Music certainly has great power.
But when Martin Luther made these comment there was no punk rock.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

:D :D :) .
Music certainly has great power.
But when Martin Luther made these comment there was no punk rock.
Yeah, and there's no punk rock in Orthodoxy, that's for sure...

[Edial]

Yeah, and there's no punk rock in Orthodoxy, that's for sure...
Sure, chanting has it's own allure. :)

[KEPLER]

Punk Is Not Dead!!!

***where's my mohawk smiley?***

-:-)

[DaRev]

***where's my mohawk smiley?***

You mean this one?

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/musik/music-smiley-005.gif

[C.F.W. Walther]

Besides, don't Lutherans claim Apostolic Succession?The only source of Apostolic succession that I can see that the RCC or EO uses is the laying on of hands after the new choice of Apostles. To us this is just a blessing by God and through the Apostles and not a "sucession" as you would call it. We still do it today with the installation of new pastors after they have received a "call".

[DaRev]

The "Apostolic Succession" claimed by the RCC and the EO is basically a myth. History shows that the lines have been broken numerous times and that no one can even agree on what the lines are supposed to be.

[Edial]

The only source of Apostolic succession that I can see that the RCC or EO uses is the laying on of hands after the new choice of Apostles. To us this is just a blessing by God and through the Apostles and not a "sucession" as you would call it. We still do it today with the installation of new pastors after they have received a "call".
Exactly, Rad.
Very simple.

One got a call.
But the response to a call is another matter.

Even Judas was chosen ...

JN 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Every Pastor knows that not every Pastor that was called IS a Pastor of God.

So it is with the Popes and the Patriarchs.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

The "Apostolic Succession" claimed by the RCC and the EO is basically a myth. History shows that the lines have been broken numerous times and that no one can even agree on what the lines are supposed to be.
The fact that there are TWO separate successions, one from RCC and one from EO makes their TOTAL claim to be simply unbelievable.

Thanks,
Ed

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The only source of Apostolic succession that I can see that the RCC or EO uses is the laying on of hands after the new choice of Apostles. To us this is just a blessing by God and through the Apostles and not a "sucession" as you would call it. We still do it today with the installation of new pastors after they have received a "call".
The Augsberg Confession, section 14 on Ecclesiastical Polity, refers to Apostolic Succession and speaks of it positively, although it refers to it as a human tradition and makes it clear that whereever the gospel is preached through the Word and applied through the Sacraments, there is the church.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The "Apostolic Succession" claimed by the RCC and the EO is basically a myth. History shows that the lines have been broken numerous times and that no one can even agree on what the lines are supposed to be.
Yeah.

I have no doubt that, through the circulation of bishops and priests down through the ages, there's been enough cross-fertilization between genuinely 'apostolic' bishops and others. But I never, ever understood the Catholic claim that Anglicans didn't have apostolic succession because their bishops require confirmation by the British monarch. The objection basically runs that confirmation by secular authority invalidates the line. So.... there's no historic episcopate, then, right? Because I seem to recall this period called feudalism...

[DaRev]

Even in the RCC there have been broken lines of popes. Numerous times in history there have been more than one who claimed the succession. There's no way to tell if any of them really had it, thus there is no way to tell if it had indeed been passed on beyond any of them.

[Luther073082]

Even in the RCC there have been broken lines of popes. Numerous times in history there have been more than one who claimed the succession. There's no way to tell if any of them really had it, thus there is no way to tell if it had indeed been passed on beyond any of them.

Yep, the anti-popes. . .

Historically it just kind of fell to whoever would live longer or whoever was stronger and he would be written in history as the true pope. Or at least the pope that was least objectionable.

Also not to mention the time one pope with an axe to grind dug up the last pope's remains and put them on trial for heresy.

[E.C.]

Sorry, I've been offline for a few days. Needed the break! :D

The only source of Apostolic succession that I can see that the RCC or EO uses is the laying on of hands after the new choice of Apostles. To us this is just a blessing by God and through the Apostles and not a "sucession" as you would call it. We still do it today with the installation of new pastors after they have received a "call".
Ar, the job the bishops have is to look over their area, not lord over. The laying is still done. When an Orthodox bishop is concencrated, I believe it is three bishops that do the concencrated (well, God uses the bishops, but you know what I mean :))

The "Apostolic Succession" claimed by the RCC and the EO is basically a myth. History shows that the lines have been broken numerous times and that no one can even agree on what the lines are supposed to be.
Actually, Reverend, when is a time when the line was "broken"? The only example that I can recall right now is after Chalcedon when the dispute was in Alexandria. If because there are two or three claiming the legitimate line means that it is a myth, doesn't that also mean that the early Church's claims to be the real faith, when combating heretics like the Gnostics since both claimed to be the real faith, wouldn't that make the faith a myth?

The fact that there are TWO separate successions, one from RCC and one from EO makes their TOTAL claim to be simply unbelievable.
No, it just means there is disagreement due to politics. Keep in mind that before, it was just The Church and not the _______ Church.

[DaRev]

Actually, Reverend, when is a time when the line was "broken"? The only example that I can recall right now is after Chalcedon when the dispute was in Alexandria. If because there are two or three claiming the legitimate line means that it is a myth, doesn't that also mean that the early Church's claims to be the real faith, when combating heretics like the Gnostics since both claimed to be the real faith, wouldn't that make the faith a myth?

I don't see how you could possibly relate "Apsotolic succession", a man-made idea, with faith which is a gift from God. :doh:

[E.C.]

I don't see how you could possibly relate "Apsotolic succession", a man-made idea, with faith which is a gift from God. :doh:
You were saying that since Roman Catholics and Orthodox both claim Apostolic Succession and that there are areas where the line "splits" (Jerusalem for example) due to politics, Apostolic Succession must be a myth.

I was merely taking the example of the early Church and the Gnostics doing the same thing as what you say the Roman Catholics and Orthodox are doing: claiming the same thing.

Since the Roman Catholics and Orthodox claim the same thing: to have legitimate Succession; and the early Church and the Gnostics claimed the same thing: to be the legitimate Faith from the Apostles.
By your logic, wouldn't that mean that our Faith is only a myth?


By the way, both the faith and Apostolic Succession are from God. One directly, the other indirectly. Remember, the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and chose those who they believed (under Holy Spirit's guidance) worthy to look over the faithful in an area.

[DaRev]

Since the Roman Catholics and Orthodox claim the same thing: to have legitimate Succession; and the early Church and the Gnostics claimed the same thing: to be the legitimate Faith from the Apostles.
By your logic, wouldn't that mean that our Faith is only a myth?


By the way, both the faith and Apostolic Succession are from God. One directly, the other indirectly. Remember, the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and chose those who they believed (under Holy Spirit's guidance) worthy to look over the faithful in an area.

No. They are two completely different things. You cannot equate the two.

There are breaks in the "succession" all over the place.

Besides, faith as a gift of God is Biblical. "Apostolic succession" as a sign of the "true" Church is not.

[E.C.]

No. They are two completely different things. You cannot equate the two.

There are breaks in the "succession" all over the place.

Besides, faith as a gift of God is Biblical. "Apostolic succession" as a sign of the "true" Church is not.
Even in the Bible, it says that the Apostles appointed successors. The succession has continued even to this day.

What is it that you mean by breaks? Do you mean places like Alexandria where there are two folks claiming to be the successors? The Coptic Pope and the Greek Orthodox patriarch?

Or do you mean places where the succession is no more due to extermination of Christians?

The one thing that really gets me right now, is how one who, more or less, represents a Lutheran community is placing the Bible above Holy Tradition and being like every other Protestant in the world by brushing things they do not agree with off as "unbiblical".

[DaRev]

The one thing that really gets me right now, is how one who, more or less, represents a Lutheran community is placing the Bible above Holy Tradition and being like every other Protestant in the world by brushing things they do not agree with off as "unbiblical".

The Bible IS above "holy Tradition". And Lutherans certainly do not agree with things that are unbiblical. Why should that surprise you? :scratch:

[Melethiel]

The one thing that really gets me right now, is how one who, more or less, represents a Lutheran community is placing the Bible above Holy Tradition
We DO place the Scriptures above Tradition. Where did you get the impression we don't?

[E.C.]

We DO place the Scriptures above Tradition. Where did you get the impression we don't?
This also answers the Reverend's question.

A number of things.

A friend of mine, who is Lutheran, and I were talking and we agreed that many Protestants are a bit messed up for abandoning Tradition.

I remember a few Lutherans on CF said that they consider themselves as "Evangelical Catholic" and many Lutherans I've come across on the internet in various websites claim to be "as close to Catholicism without being Roman Catholic".

To me, this means that there are similarities between Lutheranism and Catholicism. So naturally I made an educated guess that Lutherans are not like typical Bible worshiping Protestants and actually do have some respect for Tradition especially when in the Apostolic Churches sub forum a Lutheran went in asking why Lutherans are not included in Apostolic Churches since he said "Lutherans have Apostolic Succession".

In short: educational guess proved false.


DaRev, this does surprise me because Lutherans are one of few Protestants that I hold in somewhat high regard. It surprises me that Lutherans (who, generally speaking, know their Christian history) would forget the fact that it was Holy Tradition that canonized the Bible i.e. it was Holy Apostolic Tradition that helped form the New Testament canon.

[Melethiel]

We do respect Tradition. Highly. We're NOT "Bible-worshipping Protestants." I personally consider myself Evangelical Catholic, not Protestant.

We still, however, place Scripture above Tradition.

[DaRev]

"Tradition" is a fine thing, as long as it jives with Scripture. Those traditions that don't are rejected.

[E.C.]

"Tradition" is a fine thing, as long as it jives with Scripture. Those traditions that don't are rejected.
But Apostolic Succession is something that does jive with Scripture.

So really, why call it a myth?:scratch:

[Jim47]

But Apostolic Succession is something that does jive with Scripture.

So really, why call it a myth?:scratch:



Because its nothing more then a man made teaching and has no biblical support what so ever.

Only Christ could call Apostles and there have been none since nor a reason to have any. We have the completed work of God's Word for our guidance and that takes precedence over anything else.

[Edial]

But Apostolic Succession is something that does jive with Scripture.

So really, why call it a myth?:scratch:
It does not really jive with Scripture. :)

Apostle Paul defined what Apostle means ...

2CO 12:12 The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance.

This means that in order to be an apostle one needs to perform signs, wonders and miracles quiet often and this needs to be witnessed by the general public.

The NT however has a gift of apostleship.
It is diffetent from being an apostle.
And that gift could be obtained by any believer as Holy Spirit determins.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Jim47]

It does not really jive with Scripture. :)

Apostle Paul defined what Apostle means ...

2CO 12:12 The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance.

This means that in order to be an apostle one needs to perform signs, wonders and miracles quiet often and this needs to be witnessed by the general public.

The NT however has a gift of apostleship.
It is diffetent from being an apostle.
And that gift could be obtained by any believer as Holy Spirit determins.

Thanks, :)
Ed


Thats only part of it Ed, and the lesser important part. Only those who were called directly by Christ to be called Apostles can claim to be Apostles. A call from another man does not make one an apostle, only a called servant of Christ and His ministry.

[Edial]

Thats only part of it Ed, and the lesser important part. Only those who were called directly by Christ to be called Apostles can claim to be Apostles. A call from another man does not make one an apostle, only a called servant of Christ and His ministry.
Oh yeah. :doh:
Forgot that one ...

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Lutherans, lets all keep in mind that the confessions (Apology, XIV, to be precise) do say that however human the traditions of apostolic succession and episcopate, they were still rightly instituted as a good and proper form of church government...