Do you affirm the fundamentals?

[Myychael]

Lutherans don't have dress codes. The use of vestments by clergy and lay ministers isn't a "dress code".

The Lutheran Confessions are found in the Book of Concord, which includes Luther's Small and Large Catechisms; but arguably the most important confessional text in Lutheranism is the Augsburg Confession. This was the confession read out loud at Augsburg before the Holy Roman Emperor in which the Lutherans set the record straight as to what they (we) believed, in contrast to what many were saying against them. In the Augsburg Confession we read this:

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

We are thoroughly Catholic in our faith and practice; what is rejected are those things which were regarded as late innovations, abuses, and in some cases those things which while not inherently problematic were done away with in order to avoid abuse. But as to what had been taught and confessed by the unanimous confession of the historic catholic Church, we did not do away with it.



Lutheranism doesn't believe in "the rapture" because no such doctrine existed until the early 19th century.

-CryptoLutheran

Im familiar with M Luther when i came out of the JW i read and listened to R.C.Sproul Ligonier ministry
Alister Beg is also a favorite of mine Charles Stanley, i Have read writings of what i could find Polycarp,Irenaeus and others through time the Vestments dont bother me that much you probably been raised as Lutheran forgive this bold type ive hit something i guess
I have studied Calvinism almost a hole year John Pipe,R.C Sproul and others read and read
i know GODS in charge and im saved I could not come to a 100% Calvinist view but there are very strong points.The Father really put a monkey wrench in the works with Jesus and his mother Mary GOD in the flesh a baby im sure he had to be cleaned up Jesus eat your Peas
the creator walking around barefoot and sandals that amazes me most Thank you for your time
I reall dont see much difference in Vestments and wearing a Suite its not the outside of a man
that matters its the inside of a man I dont believe i could pray to Mary but i know enough about
those days she lived that she was held in very high regard I could fall up in a Lutheran Congregation and praise GOD. I have had a stroke a few years and im getting older and the effects are more worse at times i ramble at times if this seems like that im sorry.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you consider the virgin birth to be an unscientific allegory that should not be taken as it reads because no scientist can do it? (Nor is it ever observed to occur in nature?)

No, I accept the virgin birth as a fact of Jesus' life.

Or do you use the term "allegory" to describe any event recorded in sacred history that an atheist would not accept as it reads?

No. Determining the genre of a piece of Scripture doesn't depend on what an atheist thinks, it depends on the text and its features, and its reception by communities of faith over the millennia.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't see Scripture as lying or imperfect on its own terms. I just object to allegories being read as a science textbook, for example.

What are you referring to as allegories? Jesus clearly indicated that the story of Jonah was a true story and Paul cites Adam and the garden as being true.

No one denies that the parables and other stories that are clearly stated to be allegory are allegory.

 

[bling]

Substitutionary atonement is in the Bible

No it is not!

You are basing that assumption on requiring the meaning of “For” to be “instead of” in some very select verses. I am not saying it could not mean “instead of”, but in the other 1000+ times “for” is used in scripture I do not find it meaning “instead of”.

At the cross there is what I consider people standing in for us “our substitutes”: the Jewish leadership, the soldiers, the masses, maybe one of the disciples who ran away, maybe one of thieves, or others, but to be so bold as to say Christ toke my place and did what I would do is way out there.

1 Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed"

Again, tons of scripture will talk about Christ being our sacrifice, but the sacrifice was not considered a replacement for the sinner (how can a bag of flour be considered a replacement for the sinner). The Jews do not talk about their sacrifices taking their place.

1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world"

Again “Atonement Sacrifice” is not the sinner’s part being played in the atonement process, please go back and study Lev. 5.

Isaiah 53
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

I am very familiar with Is. 53, but again it does not mean Jesus took our place, but does describe what happened.

Is. 53:10

I think we run into the same problem we run into when talking about “joy” and “happiness”.

We are to be joyful to share in the suffering of Christ, but that does not mean it is a happy time for us.

God can take great joy in what Christ did for God’s beloved humans and the cross was the most glorious time for Christ (showing his greatest Love for us), so God can be proud of what His son did with a real joy.

We can be “joyful” in having all our possessions taken for the cause of Christ, but that does not mean we desire that to happen?

Scripture does not say: “God murdered Christ” but does say:

Acts 2: 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

God allowed wicked people to torture humiliate and murder a willing Christ. God and/or Christ could have stopped this at any time, but just as they do not stop most other sins from happening they did not stop this tragedy from happening. Sin has purpose, so God most of the time allows it to fulfill its purpose. The tragedy of Christ going to the cross was/is a huge help for man’s fulfilling man’s earthly objective, but that does not mean God caused it.

Is. 53: 10 did not “prove” me wrong it says:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief;

when he makes himself an offering for sin,

he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days;

the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; (RSV)

In NIV and other translations say: “Lord’s will to crush…”

Some would suggest by Is. 53:10 God gets pleasure from seeing innocent people tortured and murdered, so is that what you are suggesting or does it say something else?

Is God blood thirty, have some “need” for bloody sacrifices?

From my study I would suggest the most likely interpretation given the context of Is. 53 is God is pleased with Christ allowing Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered for sinful man out of Love for sinful man. This does “please” God to see such Love for man in Christ.

There was no alternative to God’s divine plan for helping humans to fulfill their objective that did not include Christ going to the cross.

It would give great pleasure to God to have Christ go along with that plan even at a huge price to both Christ and God.

Is. 53: 10 Does not say: “Christ would suffer for the pleasure of God”, which is not the same as saying say: “Christ’s suffer pleased God”. It all has to do with the reason behind the “pleasure” God is receiving from Christ’s actions which Is. 53:10 does not address, so translators translate it different ways.

1. Just because Christ is willing does not resolve the issue of PS being unjust and unfair. No one believes the “whipping boy” system is fair and/or just.

2. The “justification” for the “Whipping Boy System” was the teacher/judge could not punish the guilty party, so the teacher/judge punished the Whipping boy to relieve the built up anger of the teacher/judge. God does not have such an immature anger problem.

3. A child’s disobedience needs both forgiving and disciplining. The forgiving is done exclusively by God, but the torturous murder of Christ does not replace the needed disciplining of the disobedient child?

4. Everyone agrees that the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ was an unjust act, the PS explanation for God’s involvement in this injustice seems to be in order for God to justify not punishing the repentant? There are lots of problems with that explanation since the end never justifies the means and the disobedient child is still not being disciplined.

5. PS has the ransom payment being made by God to God, but that is not logical. God is not the kidnapper, holding children hostage. There is not some universal law concerning kidnapping that requires any payment, so God would not have to pay himself anything. Then you have payment itself: “the torturous murder of Christ”, why in the world would that have “value” to God?

6. PS has this torturous death happening between God and Christ for humans, with man’s involvement peripheral to what is happening. In other words this could have all happened with the same results without man’s involvement. There is the moral influence involved but according to PS that is not the reason.

7. There is the added problem with PS of resolving why everyone is not atoned for? Was Christ’s “payment” not great enough for everyone or where all sins atoned, but not forgiven?

8. Faith is repeatedly tied to the atonement, but if the atonement happened with or without man’s involvement where does faith come into play with the atonement itself?

9. PS appears to be reason God can forgive sins, but God has forgiven sins without any idea of Christ going to the cross. God’s Love to forgive sins is thought to be limited by the need for Christ to go to the cross.

10. PS is partly based on the idea that the sacrifices under the Old Law and Moses’ willing sacrifice, were substitutions for the people or person providing the sacrifice. From scripture Moses was not trying to substitute himself for the people (that is a misinterpretation). The Bible also never expresses the idea that the sacrifices themselves were substitutes for the people and even early Jewish writings do not suggest the people looked upon these sacrifices as being replacements for themselves. It is never suggested that it is symbolically the people’s blood that is being shed. The “priests” to some degree were being substitutes for the people, but it is not suggested the sacrifice itself became a substitute for the priest. All these sacrifices as but shadows of what Christ would provide.

This just creates another huge issue: You say Christ paid the “fine” completely 100%, so we owe nothing, yet we also know God forgave our sins 100%, so we owe nothing. To suggest both are needed by God makes God’s forgiveness much less or totally insignificant or it makes Christ’s payment to God virtually not needed or of little significance. The answer given is “Will that is just the way it is”? (Totally illogical and yet the cross is something we really need to understand).

 

[Tallguy88]

The classic example is the creation narrative in Genesis. I understand it as a way of teaching us truth about who God is (creator), who we are (creation), the relationship between us, and so forth. I don't understand it as telling us we need to reject the best cosmology, biology and so forth of our day.

How do you reconcile an allegorical Adam with Original Sin?

 

[Paidiske]

What are you referring to as allegories? Jesus clearly indicated that the story of Jonah was a true story and Paul cites Adam and the garden as being true.

No one denies that the parables and other stories that are clearly stated to be allegory are allegory.

I don't think NT authors referring to those Scriptures to make a point means that we need to read them as "true" on a surface level.

How do you reconcile an allegorical Adam with Original Sin?

All humans share in the brokenness of a tendency to sin. I see the story of Adam as reflecting on that shared human nature, not necessarily being a historical account of how it came to be. (And if it were "true" in that literal sense, as a story it has significant problems; such as the question of inbreeding amongst Adam's immediate descendants etc etc).

My position is not remarkable, and as I understand it, would sit very agreeably with the Catholic positions on such things (it should, since several of my Biblical studies lecturers were Catholics).

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't think NT authors referring to those Scriptures to make a point means that we need to read them as "true" on a surface level.



All humans share in the brokenness of a tendency to sin. I see the story of Adam as reflecting on that shared human nature, not necessarily being a historical account of how it came to be. (And if it were "true" in that literal sense, as a story it has significant problems; such as the question of inbreeding amongst Adam's immediate descendants etc etc).

My position is not remarkable, and as I understand it, would sit very agreeably with the Catholic positions on such things (it should, since several of my Biblical studies lecturers were Catholics).

Catholics are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Fall. They are not required to believe in Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Paidiske]

Catholics are required to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Fall. They are not required to believe in Young Earth Creationism.

Citation for the first part of that?

 

[Tallguy88]

Citation for the first part of that?

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII

 

[Tallguy88]

A tract on the subject directed towards lay people (it still has an imprimantur and nihil obstat, though)

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers

 

[Paidiske]

That's really interesting - I hadn't come across that before. I would say that certainly wasn't what some of my lecturers were teaching. I wonder how they would justify their position?

For Anglicans, though, original sin has a very different place in our thought about human nature; and while we do use the term I think for us it has a different "flavour," and does not require every human being to be a literal descendent of a literal Adam.

 

[Tallguy88]

That's really interesting - I hadn't come across that before. I would say that certainly wasn't what some of my lecturers were teaching. I wonder how they would justify their position?

I'd say either 1) they didn't know or 2) they knew but dissented.

For Anglicans, though, original sin has a very different place in our thought about human nature; and while we do use the term I think for us it has a different "flavour," and does not require every human being to be a literal descendent of a literal Adam.

My understanding is that it depends on jurisdiction. Like I think the ACNA is traditional in it's theology, compared to the ECUSA. Don't know about jurisdictions outside the USA.

 

[Tutorman]

No you can’t in my opinion, Paul could not be talking about scripture that didn’t exist. Wishful thinking at best for someone trying to prove the unprovable.

I agree. I heard many evangelicals say that St. Paul meant his writings to I am surprised that a Catholic would parrot them.

 

[Tallguy88]

I agree. I heard many evangelicals say that St. Paul meant his writings to I am surprised that a Catholic would parrot them.

"Parrot". Nice.

 

[Tallguy88]

I agree. I heard many evangelicals say that St. Paul meant his writings to I am surprised that a Catholic would parrot them.

Straight from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Also "parroting" Evangelicals, apparently.

"* [3:16–17] Useful for teaching…every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

* [3:16] All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Pt 1:20–21."

scripture

 

[Tutorman]

Straight from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Also "parroting" Evangelicals, apparently.

"* [3:16–17] Useful for teaching…every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

* [3:16] All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Pt 1:20–21."

scripture

And yet it doesn't state the evangelical talking point you brought up. I agree that Scripture was inspired but that does not mean it is inerrant nor that the ones writing knew that their writing was going to be Scripture

 

[Tallguy88]

And yet it doesn't state the evangelical talking point you brought up. I agree that Scripture was inspired but that does not mean it is inerrant nor that the ones writing knew that their writing was going to be Scripture

You don't think Paul knew his writings would be counted among scripture for future generations? He tells us to hold fast to his writings:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
2 Thess 2:15 ESV

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus."
2 Tim 1:13 ESV

 

[Tutorman]

You don't think Paul knew his writings would be counted among scripture for future generations? He tells us to hold fast to his writings:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
2 Thess 2:15 ESV

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus."
2 Tim 1:13 ESV

No I do not.

 

[OzSpen]

So then rejecting Westcott and Hort for a minute - if we assume that the Textus Receptus - specificially Stephanus' TR version or the specific Erasmus versions used by Calvin and Tyndale ... represented the "intent" that God wanted (and thus were the basis for all non-Catholic Bibles up until Westcott-Hort in 1881) , (though typographical errors certainly not part of God's intent) - does this satisfy the criteria you use?

Bob,

They are not the autographa (original texts). Since we don't have the original text (to my knowledge), how are Greek scholars able to estimate the content of the autographa, based on early full manuscripts (MSS) of the NT, such as Sinaiticus?

You'll appreciate that the more times a MSS is copied, the higher the chance of making variants (like typos). So the closer a MSS is to the original text, the better the chance of obtaining a text with fewer variants. Even Sinaiticus (link above), generally dated to 4th century, has variants.

In my understanding, the problem with the Textus Receptus is that it is based on seven manuscripts that were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text [Textus Receptus] which was printed alongside his Latin translation. The MSS were dated from 12th to 15th centuries and only one contained the Book of Revelation, which did not include the last 6 verses of that Book.

Combs research found:

Because Codex 1r was missing its last page and thus the last six verses of Revelation (22:16–21), Erasmus retranslated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, and he honestly admitted in the Annotations that he had done so.But again, this produced, by my count, twenty errors in his Greek NT which are still in the TR today.They have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever (Combs 1996:47).​

I'd recommend a read of this outstanding research article by Dr William Combs (see 'Works consulted' below).

I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it (Harris 1969:88-89).​

Oz

Works consulted

Combs, W. W. 1996. Erasmus and the textus receptus, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (online), vol 1, no 1, Spring, 35-53. Available at: http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF (Accessed 3 December 2017).

Harris, R. L. 1957/1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[OzSpen]

Non of the popular atonement "theories" work at all so you have to go back to the bible and let the Spirit guide you, but it takes lots of time and effort so is it worth your time?

bling,

That doesn't answer my questions to you: What do you consider is a more accurate biblical teaching of the atonement? Or, don't you agree with the doctrine of atonement?

What happens if the Bible + Spirit for you comes to a different conclusion than the Bible + Spirit for me?

Oz