Mary Omniscient and Omnipresent?

[Blonde]

LOL, agreed.
That was to Resha.
Coffee is starting to kick in.....

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, since Resha appears to be ignoring my posts ...

I offered to answer you in post #23, to which you replied:

Completely unnecessary.

If you have since changed your mind, then we can begin by you completing this phrase: casting pearls before _____

 

[Protoevangel]

I offered to answer you in post #23, to which you replied:

Completely unnecessary. I am intimately familiar with the Book of Concord, having led studies on it for years.

All right. I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt here, Resha. But I really don't think you are presenting the whole truth. Let's look over that portion of the discussion:

Regarding the genuine Lutheran position on Soul Sleep, I can only refer you to your own home forum, http://www.christianforums.com/f367/, DaRev is very knowledgeable and willing to help honest inquirers, or to the LCMS Christian Cyclopedia article on the subject: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia. If you aren't a Confessional Lutheran, then I don't know what to say to you. You are free to believe whatever wind of doctrine catches your whim.

I know who DaRev is, and I could give an answer if you were interested.

Completely unnecessary. I am intimately familiar with the Book of Concord, having led studies on it for years.

Okay, first of all, this side-topic isn't even part of the core discussion. There is no reason for you to pretend it is, or that continued discussion requires some further discussion here. Second of all, I don't need you to do my research for me. I know the Confessional Lutheran position on Soul Sleep, and I still have most of the Lutheran Confessions memorized from years of reading and teaching them. Your offer was truly unnecessary.

You were the one who seemed to be confused about the Confessional Lutheran position on Soul sleep. I gave you the resources to correct your mistake (which I note that DaRev, and the LCMS cyclopedia I linked above has actually already done).

Soul Sleep
(psychopannychism). View that the soul of a dead person exists in a state of sleep. Scripture does not speak of soul sleep, but of souls after death in a state of awareness (Rv 6:10; cf. Lk 16:22–31; “rest” in Rv 14:13 does not imply sleep; cf. Heb 4:9–11). When we speak of the dead as sleeping, this refers to the body. See also Adventist Bodies, 3, 4.

"Soul sleep" is a concept held by the Seventh Day Adventists and some others that basically says when one dies they are "asleep" in the grave awaiting the resurrection. This is not supported by Scripture.

I could give you my answer, but DaRev would have a fit.

It begins here: dead is dead. There is no ghostly essence that separates from the body at death. (Caner cringes and waits for the reply)

Only problem is, Scripture teaches otherwise.

Since we didn't exist from the moment of our death until we are resurrected, to us it feels as if everything happened instantaneously - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye.

Rather amusing theory you have there.

I know the Confessional Lutheran position, and I know that your claims do not fit within it. So you see, your offer WAS completely unnecessary.

Even so, the rest of the discussion does not rest upon you trying to defend your belief in Soul Sleep to me.



...But back to the core discussion. You were originally asking about prayer to the Saints.

• You asked about the Gregory reference in the Apology here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-post60594766/#post60594766
• I asked you a direct question about that here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-2/#post60602459
• You ignored the question, so I went ahead with the best information I had here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-2/#post60612172

So you see, it really isn't a "later invention" as you suggested. I have no doubt that Melanchthon used the best resources that he had available, but he just didn't have the resources that the East had.

• You compared our beliefs to Buddhism here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-2/#post60602397
• I answered your charge here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-2/#post60608216
• You acted like you never got an answer, so you provided your own here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651995-2/#post60611593

The thing is, with a proper perspective, our two answers are not at all contradictory, because the Saints always point to Christ; venerating (respecting) and praying to the Saints is always truly worship of Christ and His Work. The Saints never stand alone or apart from Christ. Our prayer never asks of them to do anything of or on their own, but always and only for them to pray to Christ, in the same way I would ask you to pray to Christ for me. We are not Catholics who believe in the Saint's superabundant merits or any such nonsense.

If you have since changed your mind, then we can begin by you completing this phrase: casting pearls before _____

Ahh, I thought that might be why you were pouting. I covered the context of my statement thoroughly in a reply to you, the very post you quoted from above. I am not interested in insincere, fruitless banter, where you were pretending to teach me about the context of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, on a manner completely irrelevant to the purpose for which I had quoted it. My only point was to answer your question as to whether the Saints were conscious or not, a point which you completely avoided in your reply. So yes, I had concern that I might be casting pearls before swine. I am only hoping that you can prove that to be an unfounded concern from here on out.

All I am asking is that you keep the discussion candid and upright. I shouldn't have to go back and re-quote multiple posts to remind you of what I'm actually talking about. Red herrings and straw men are bad enough in debate, but are just useless in a friendly discussion.

 

[Resha Caner]

You put much more effort into your reply than was necessary. It appears some of those quotes are over a year old. I'm sorry you had to spend so much time to answer what I thought was a simple question.

So yes, I had concern that I might be casting pearls before swine.

Let me offer you an alternative scenario. Rather than telling me my doctrine is a whim blown about by the wind and implying that I am swine, what if post #21 had simply said: Caner, did you misunderstand me? I was not talking about invocation of the saints, but only about whether they were conscious.

I could point you to a reply from another participant in this thread that said essentially that ... and the result was much different. I had asked multiple questions, and I did not immediately realize how only one of those questions had been singled out.

So, now that we're past the first part, and you have admitted to the swine inference, let me ask for your definition of an ad hominem comment.

If we can get through this quickly, I will address where you quoted something that I said back in 2010 ... along with a few other issues.

 

[Protoevangel]

You put much more effort into your reply than was necessary. It appears some of those quotes are over a year old. I'm sorry you had to spend so much time to answer what I thought was a simple question.

All that information was readily available. I remembered the conversation from when I read it the first time. I still lurk in TCL quite a bit, and I remembered that Resha character sounding like an SDAer. It was nothing, really. Maybe the fact that I used to do Internet research as my profession has something to do with that.

Let me offer you an alternative scenario. Rather than telling me my doctrine is a whim blown about by the wind and implying that I am swine, what if post #21 had simply said: Caner, did you misunderstand me? I was not talking about invocation of the saints, but only about whether they were conscious.

I could point you to a reply from another participant in this thread that said essentially that ... and the result was much different. I had asked multiple questions, and I did not immediately realize how only one of those questions had been singled out.

The context was immediately available.

I am having a hard time understanding how you could have misunderstood that. The context is clear, as is my statement. Note I begin by asking you about "Soul Sleep", and end still talking about the Saints being conscious. Those are pretty clear bookends, if you ask me. But you brought nonsense from outside the context to claim I was missing the context of what was readily apparent in the Apology. I guess I took a bit of offence at that.

Then you claimed I was saying something that I gave NO HINT of saying ("It is not that we agree to a point and the Orthodox go further..." - once again, I intentionally didn't go there for this part of the discussion). That really doesn't look to me to be a "simple" misunderstanding... If all of that is a misunderstanding, it is a real doozy. I suppose you could have brought some major baggage in with you to the conversation. If that's the case... Well, we'll have to see.

So, now that we're past the first part, and you have admitted to the swine inference,

And you are STILL crying about this?

There was nothing hidden. Anyone with any sort of Scriptural knowledge would have been perfectly capable of following my statement without having to carry on so.

let me ask for your definition of an ad hominem comment.

Argumentum ad Hominem
the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

If I said you were a swine, and therefore your arguments were invalid, that would have been ad Hominem.

What happened though is quite the opposite. As I explained in Post #35, it was the (apparent) insincere nature of your post that made me conclude that I might be dealing with a weasel. Hanging on to gripes and refusing to discuss the issue at hand, really isn't helping matters much.

Are you looking for an apology, you sly one you? Yea, if you can show me how you could have possibly misunderstood the simple contest and obvious framing of the post that we've been talking about... I'll be more than happy to apologize most humbly. Or, if you just demonstrate that you are capable of handling the discussion honestly, without red herrings, straw men, carrying on, ratholing the discussion (I guess that kinda falls under red herrings), and such, I'll still be happy to carry on without any hard feelings.

If we can get through this quickly, I will address where you quoted something that I said back in 2010 ...

Which is consistent with something you said in 2012 (Post #13)... Which is what I asked you about in post #16... Which you refused to answer... Opting instead to insult my intelligence... Leading us here. You could have just answered the question in the first place.

along with a few other issues.

Go for it.

 

[Resha Caner]

If I said you were a swine, and therefore your arguments were invalid, that would have been ad Hominem.

Actually, what you have described is a non sequitur. I could be a swine with very good arguments. An ad hominem is an insult which distracts the discussion rather than addressing the point ... though many of the logical fallacies do tend to overlap here and there.

Go for it.

In the 2010 thread I started off by explaining that I had discussed this issue earlier with another pastor. His answer was, "We don't know," and he provided me some resources by Sasse to reinforce that point. I further explained that I think "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but it leaves me empty nonetheless. As such, I sometimes speculate as a way to satisfy that craving. For some reason, a construct explaining how God might have done something is more satisfactory even if I don't know that is how God actually did it. Further, as I play with these speculations, I sometimes find that they conflict with other Biblical doctrine. When that happens it means the speculation is obviously wrong, and needs to be discarded.

When I am just speculating, I am open about that, as I was in the 2010 thread. I was relatively new to CF at the time. Some didn't like speculation even if it was openly stated to be such. So I stopped - also stated in that thread.

But I left without an answer. "The Bible doesn't say that," is not a good enough answer for me. I hadn't really thought about the issue since, until this thread. I would expect everyone is convinced by different things. As I said in this thread, everything that was being quoted to me had mitigating circumstances ... it wasn't convincing. Tell me I'm wrong all you like. Think I'm equivocating all you like. If it's not convincing, it's not convincing.

For me it was 2 Peter 1:15. OK. You got me. That one is convincing. I'm still not going to put on a lapel pin and join the Party, because I still have to wonder what might be dependent on circumstances. But, I won't debate that some saints who have passed through death may be conscious if God's will allows it. I'll concede that. In fact, I think I did quite some time back.

So, next thing: debate. I'll offer up this definition as a place to start.
Debate | Define Debate at Dictionary.com

Def 1. says debate is a discussion in a public forum of opposing views. Do you do that? (FYI, I don't care if you use a different source to define debate or if you give answers to all the definitions in that link at once. I just don't want to assume too much.)

 

[Protoevangel]

Actually, what you have described is a non sequitur. I could be a swine with very good arguments. An ad hominem is an insult which distracts the discussion rather than addressing the point ... though many of the logical fallacies do tend to overlap here and there.

The thing is, Resha, all formal fallacies are forms of non sequitur. Yes, even ad hominem (and yes, ad hominem is a formal fallacy).

Yes, I was rude, but it was not ad hominem, nor any form of formal fallacy. What I did was to hastily generalize your lack of focus as dishonesty. This was quite unfair of me. So in that, I do owe you an apology. I did judge you wrongly, and I insulted you. I am sorry for that.

For your information, I'll break down my chain of thought from when I made that post:

* People who do not discuss religious matters honestly are not worth talking to at all (swine).
* Resha is not being honest in his discussion of this religious matter. (this was my error)
* Therefore, Resha is not worth talking to.

So you see, my conclusion followed my premises, meaning there was no formal fallacy. Formal fallacies are errors in the structure of the argument, not in their content. Where the above argument breaks down is my second premise. This is an informal fallacy called a hasty generalization. When I realized that I had been to hasty in my generalization, I came back to see how you would respond to further discussion. What I think I've been seeing is not necessarily refusal to be honest, but a lack of focus (unable to follow the context and framework of my initial question/reply to you), and quite possibly slothful induction regarding the large amount of evidence we have offered to you regarding the conciousness of the Saints... But you do seem to be overcoming the slothful induction somewhat, so that does seem to be a good sign. Please note, this is meant to expose my own thought process, to make my part in the conversation more transparent, not as further insult to you.

In the 2010 thread I started off by explaining that I had discussed this issue earlier with another pastor. His answer was, "We don't know," and he provided me some resources by Sasse to reinforce that point. I further explained that I think "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but it leaves me empty nonetheless. As such, I sometimes speculate as a way to satisfy that craving. For some reason, a construct explaining how God might have done something is more satisfactory even if I don't know that is how God actually did it. Further, as I play with these speculations, I sometimes find that they conflict with other Biblical doctrine. When that happens it means the speculation is obviously wrong, and needs to be discarded.

When I am just speculating, I am open about that, as I was in the 2010 thread. I was relatively new to CF at the time. Some didn't like speculation even if it was openly stated to be such. So I stopped - also stated in that thread.

But I left without an answer. "The Bible doesn't say that," is not a good enough answer for me. I hadn't really thought about the issue since, until this thread. I would expect everyone is convinced by different things. As I said in this thread, everything that was being quoted to me had mitigating circumstances ... it wasn't convincing. Tell me I'm wrong all you like. Think I'm equivocating all you like. If it's not convincing, it's not convincing.

Like I said in my previous post, the soul sleep references from 2010 were still consistent with your question to Rus ("So, the assumptions here are that the dead are conscious..."), as well as your comments to me about Martin Luther. Since you refused to answer my question regarding the same, I brought forward the previous discussion to see if it would prompt you opening up a bit more. Apparently it did. I am glad to hear that you are open to the idea that there is a conscious state for the Saints. That is very important if you are going to try and understand the Orthodox position (which is all anyone here is hoping for - no one here is trying to convert you).

For me it was 2 Peter 1:15. OK. You got me. That one is convincing. I'm still not going to put on a lapel pin and join the Party, because I still have to wonder what might be dependent on circumstances. But, I won't debate that some saints who have passed through death may be conscious if God's will allows it. I'll concede that. In fact, I think I did quite some time back.

Eh, sort of.

"To interpret this as consciousness is not completely unfounded, but still a little dubious" (Post #28)

"All the examples you provided me have mitigating circumstances, and are, therefore, not convincing to me." (Post #32)

"But, once again, I'll state that the Confessions admit some sort of general prayer as a possibility ...whatever that means." (Post #32)

"I found it. 2 Peter 1:15. Now this one is very compelling, I will admit. I don't have an answer for it. So, this is a question I'll put in front of DaRev and see what he says." (Post #32)​

You seem to be have some flexibility in your later posts, but the primary focus still appears to be skeptical more so than conceding any point... But now you have. I'm not asking you to hold to the position dogmatically, but it is good that you are open to the idea, because as I mentioned above, that is key to understanding the Orthodox position.

So, next thing: debate. I'll offer up this definition as a place to start.
Debate | Define Debate at Dictionary.com

Def 1. says debate is a discussion in a public forum of opposing views. Do you do that? (FYI, I don't care if you use a different source to define debate or if you give answers to all the definitions in that link at once. I just don't want to assume too much.)

Well, my original point was that I would be willing to discuss the hows and why's of what we believe as Orthodox Christians, and explain any questions you might have... but I would not enter into a debate with you. We all see how well that turned out, don't we?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, my original point was that I would be willing to discuss the hows and why's of what we believe as Orthodox Christians, and explain any questions you might have... but I would not enter into a debate with you. We all see how well that turned out, don't we?

I guess I'm not sure if you want to proceed, then. I was next going to ask how you would define a Confessional Lutheran.

How you see that has some bearing on the issue you brought up about the reference to Gregory. I noticed something similar before you asked your question, but I think our take on the matter might be different.

 

[Protoevangel]

I guess I'm not sure if you want to proceed, then.

Well, I would like to keep the discussion as conversational as possible.

I'd like both of us to try and address uprightly what is said, and not argue against what is not said.

Beyond that, it's kind of hard to say one don't want to get wet after diving in...

I was next going to ask how you would define a Confessional Lutheran.

The end of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord kind of defines it pretty well, I think.

A Confessional Lutheran can hold the Book of Concord and say to the world, "Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom [the entire Church of Christ], we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby."

Anything less, IMO, is not a Confessional Lutheran.

How you see that has some bearing on the issue you brought up about the reference to Gregory. I noticed something similar before you asked your question, but I think our take on the matter might be different.

Well, the error of Melanchthon is pretty obvious...

How one deals with that error, and the others like it, is up to the individual Lutheran.

Myself, the Book of Concord, and the other writings of the Lutheran Fathers sent me to read the Early Church Fathers for myself, expecting to find the Lutheran Church in the 2nd-10th Centuries.

After all, "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.", "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." (AC XXI), and "Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches." (AC Conclusion).

But what I found in these Church Fathers had almost NO similarity to the Lutheranism of the Book of Concord, and most especially to the Lutheran Church of modern times. The above statements had and have absolutely no integrity, and the Faith presented in the Lutheran Confessions has no historical continuity with the Faith declared by the Early Church Fathers.

Perhaps to the average citizen in sixteenth Century Germany, with poor poor reading skills, no ancient books translated for them, and no access to the East, this stuff was believable... But with access to the writings of the Fathers who were cherry-picked until they were nearly invisible... I found that to be a Confessional Lutheran was to be outside of the Historic Church (but in many ways, less outside than the Catholic Church or any of the other Protestant Churches). For the West, there is nothing closer to the Historic Church, in my opinion, than Lutheranism... But close only counts with hand grenades.

At the time, I had no idea of the Orthodox Church, so I made due as well as possible. I tried to put the Early Church out of my mind, and focus entirely on Confessional Lutheranism... But I kept coming across these references that I knew were out of context, and presented in a manner contrary to how these Fathers had intended them. Then one of my favorite Lutheran Pastors (Rev. Fenton) converted to Orthodoxy, as did a friend of mine here at CF who went by the name Luther's Rose (now Byzantine Dixie). I began reading about this Orthodox Church, asking questions here. The day I walked into my first Orthodox service, I already knew I was home.

If you want my honest opinion, the Orthodox Church is the last and only refuge for a former Confessional Lutheran. But everyone has to travel the path that their conscience allows them to tread, to do otherwise would be ruin. We both worship the same Jesus Christ; the Icon of the Triune God, who desires that we all turn from our sin and repent; to come to the knowledge of the Truth. We both know Him as a merciful God, and we know He will not turn away any who come seeking Him. So please don't think I am pressuring you. You will have plenty of time to be Orthodox in Heaven.

But how does a Confessional Lutheran deal with an error in the Book of Concord? I think it all depends on how deep he or she is willing to dig to see how much that error, and others like it, really affected the doctrines in the Book of Concord, and the Lutheran Church in general.

Amen.


Whew! Sorry for the rant. I just started rolling, and... Well, I just hope it made sense, and I didn't end up making too many spelling and grammatical errors. Maybe I'll double-check it after I get home.

 

[Resha Caner]

The end of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord kind of defines it pretty well, I think.

A Confessional Lutheran can hold the Book of Concord and say to the world, "Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom [the entire Church of Christ], we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God's grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God's grace, intend to abide thereby."

Anything less, IMO, is not a Confessional Lutheran.

I'll note 3 things, then. First, Confessional Lutherans "intend to abide" by the Book of Concord. Just to take an example, then, since the Book of Concord does not dictate tithing (at least as far as I know), then a Confessional Lutheran is not bound to the tithe - regardless of what any Lutheran pastor, Lutheran encyclopedia, or any other "Lutheran" entity might say.

[edit] I should add that of course a Confessional Lutheran is also bound by the canon of scripture, but that is not the point I'm trying to make here - only that one cannot say a Lutheran is not confessional by pointing to secondary sources.

Second, people can attempt to abide by Concord with all sincerity and still differ. There are many ways to analyze why those differences occur, but one way to slice it is: 1) those who hold to the letter, 2) those who hold to the intent, 3) those who accept an interpretation of Concord through an authority, and 4) those who follow an intuitive understanding.

All have their advantages and disadvantages. FYI I tend to fall into #2, so I tend to see #1 as people who lose the forest for the trees, #3 as being vulnerable to tyranny, and #4 as falling into navel gazing. But I'll reluctantly acknowledge that I need those people to help me see my faults. I don't know where you are at, but the point is that we may disagree on what adhering to Concord means. It doesn't mean one of us is completely right and the other is completely wrong. But, if you try to argue I must be something other than #2, you'll get a "that's not convincing" type of reply because it's not how I process information.

With that said, then, my 3rd point is that the statement you quoted does not require a Confessional Lutheran to accept Concord as infallible. It could well be that Melanchthon was in error on some historical details. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusion. But, I'm not sure he did make an error.

Well, the error of Melanchthon is pretty obvious...

Not really. Note that he mentions Cyprian and Jerome. If I am correct about which persons are indicated here, they preceed Gregory. The point he is trying to make is that the quotes from Cyprian and Jerome used to justify intercession are taken out of context. So, it's not that they were unaware of what texts prior to Gregory said. Rather, they disagreed that those texts justified intercession. Since Melanchthon did not give an exhaustive list of every quote of which he was aware, we can't say what he knew and what he didn't know. Therefore, his "error" on this detail is not obvious.

I am sympathetic to what he is saying. I don't think every quote provided in the link by Rus actually supports intercession. Those trying to build a case for intercession seem to be taking a somewhat liberal interpretation of some of these texts.

With that said, my own brief study of the matter seems to indicate that there were some who believed in intercession earlier than Gregory - that it is more likely the practice began to gain acceptance around the time of Constantine the Great, which makes sense. Constantine opened the flood gates, and some flotsam and jetsam flowed in as a result - hence the need for the first Council. Though Melanchthon may still be correct that official acceptance didn't really happen until Gregory.

But what I found in these Church Fathers had almost NO similarity to the Lutheranism of the Book of Concord

And why should that matter? One could call Arius a Church Father. I realize you'll probably dismiss him as a heretic, and I certainly don't believe in Arianism, but saying who is in and who is out is not as black and white as some seem to make it. You speak of cherry-picking, but it's a problem for both sides.

I've never understood how one can stand behind the claims of a particular text, justifying it as being from a "Church Father", yet being OK with saying it's not canonical. It smells of special pleading.

To even begin to convince me that intercession is acceptable, I would need a historical argument that it was widespread - not one quote from one person. It seems it has been conceded (tacitly if not explictly) that intercession was not accepted by the Jews and was a NT invention. It also seems likely it was a late invention - possibly around the time of Constantine.

I still have not seen scriptural support ... and I do not think the quote from Hippolytus demonstrates that he was praying to the trio from the book of Daniel.

 

[Protoevangel]

I'll note 3 things, then. First, Confessional Lutherans "intend to abide" by the Book of Concord. Just to take an example, then, since the Book of Concord does not dictate tithing (at least as far as I know), then a Confessional Lutheran is not bound to the tithe - regardless of what any Lutheran pastor, Lutheran encyclopedia, or any other "Lutheran" entity might say.

[edit] I should add that of course a Confessional Lutheran is also bound by the canon of scripture, but that is not the point I'm trying to make here - only that one cannot say a Lutheran is not confessional by pointing to secondary sources.

Second, people can attempt to abide by Concord with all sincerity and still differ. There are many ways to analyze why those differences occur, but one way to slice it is: 1) those who hold to the letter, 2) those who hold to the intent, 3) those who accept an interpretation of Concord through an authority, and 4) those who follow an intuitive understanding.

All have their advantages and disadvantages. FYI I tend to fall into #2, so I tend to see #1 as people who lose the forest for the trees, #3 as being vulnerable to tyranny, and #4 as falling into navel gazing. But I'll reluctantly acknowledge that I need those people to help me see my faults. I don't know where you are at, but the point is that we may disagree on what adhering to Concord means. It doesn't mean one of us is completely right and the other is completely wrong. But, if you try to argue I must be something other than #2, you'll get a "that's not convincing" type of reply because it's not how I process information.

With that said, then, my 3rd point is that the statement you quoted does not require a Confessional Lutheran to accept Concord as infallible. It could well be that Melanchthon was in error on some historical details. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the conclusion.

Already covered (albeit rather vaguely):

How one deals with that error, and the others like it, is up to the individual Lutheran...

But how does a Confessional Lutheran deal with an error in the Book of Concord? I think it all depends on how deep he or she is willing to dig to see how much that error, and others like it, really affected the doctrines in the Book of Concord, and the Lutheran Church in general.

But, I'm not sure he did make an error.

Spoken like a Confessional Lutheran. I can respect that.

Well, the error of Melanchthon is pretty obvious...

Not really. Note that he mentions Cyprian and Jerome. If I am correct about which persons are indicated here, they preceed Gregory. The point he is trying to make is that the quotes from Cyprian and Jerome used to justify intercession are taken out of context. So, it's not that they were unaware of what texts prior to Gregory said. Rather, they disagreed that those texts justified intercession.

Actually the error is very obvious, and, if you read the source material he references, almost appears to be intentionally deceitful:

AAC, Invocation of Saints.
They cite Cyprian, because he asked Cornelius while yet alive to pray for his brothers when departing. By this example they prove the invocation of the dead. They quote also Jerome against Vigilantius. "On this field" [in this matter], they say, "eleven hundred years ago, Jerome overcame Vigilantius." Thus the adversaries triumph, as though the war were already ended. Nor do those asses see that in Jerome, against Vigilantius, there is not a syllable concerning invocation. He speaks concerning honors for the saints, not concerning invocation. Neither have the rest of the ancient writers before Gregory made mention of invocation. Certainly this invocation, with these opinions which the adversaries now teach concerning the application of merits, has not the testimonies of the ancient writers.​

Melanchthon here claims that neither writer even speaks to the subject* (not just that they don't justify the practice - a completely different kind of argument).

* Which is in itself another major error of Melanchthon's (or a lie_, how could he have possibly missed this?

1.) "Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father."
- St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), writing to Pope Cornelius of Rome

2.) In the very work Melanchthon references in the quote from the Book of Concord above, Jerome says, "You say, in your pamphlet, that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but once we die, the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and all the more because the martyrs, though they Revelation 6:10 cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. If Apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, when they ought still to be anxious for themselves, how much more must they do so when once they have won their crowns, overcome, and triumphed? A single man, Moses, oft wins pardon from God for six hundred thousand armed men; and Acts 7:59-60 Stephen, the follower of his Lord and the first Christian martyr, entreats pardon for his persecutors; and when once they have entered on their life with Christ, shall they have less power than before? The Apostle Paul Acts 27:37 says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given to him in the ship; and when, after his dissolution, he has begun to be with Christ, must he shut his mouth, and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel? Shall Vigilantius the live dog be better than Paul the dead lion?"​

Please note, just in case you were going to argue semantics, or in case any one else has a question about it:

invoke
1490, from M.Fr. envoquer (12c.), from L. invocare "call upon, implore," from in- "upon" + vocare "to call," related to vox (gen. vocis) "voice" (see voice).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper​

Prayer is the primary form of invocation.

Since Melanchthon did not give an exhaustive list of every quote of which he was aware, we can't say what he knew and what he didn't know. Therefore, his "error" on this detail is not obvious.

All internal evidence in the BOC points to Pope Gregory I being the Gregory mentioned here. Luther's writings even suggest that this is the case. If you aren't sure why, you can referece posts #46 and #59.

Even so, as you said, accepting the Book of Concord as the authoratative exegesis of Scripture does not necessarily require you to affirm it's infallibility, especially in reference to such extra-Scriptural details such as who said what and when. That was never where I was going with this. It should however, prompt you do dig deeper. I think that's kind of what you've been doing anyway though, so that is good.

I am sympathetic to what he is saying. I don't think every quote provided in the link by Rus actually supports intercession. Those trying to build a case for intercession seem to be taking a somewhat liberal interpretation of some of these texts.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not that every quote individually points to anything, but that as a whole, they build a stronger case than any one of them could individually.

You sound like an Atheist requiring absolute proof of God's existance... Or more to the point, a blind man asking for proof that a house exists. The owner leads the man to feel the walls, the door-frame, the windows, the floor, the furniture and the appliances. The blind man responds by saying that none of these individual pieces prove a house really present. It is a trees/forest issue.

The key piece you are missing has been offered to you a number of times, and you have ignored it each time. No amount of evidence will EVER be enough for you if you reject the Church that Jesus Christ Himseld built and gave His authority to. You will do nothing but spin your wheels, expecting everything to fit into your interpretation of Scripture... But it never will, because your interpretation, your source of authority, is incomplete.

With that said, my own brief study of the matter seems to indicate that there were some who believed in intercession earlier than Gregory - that it is more likely the practice began to gain acceptance around the time of Constantine the Great, which makes sense. Constantine opened the flood gates, and some flotsam and jetsam flowed in as a result - hence the need for the first Council.

You have the order of events reversed. The flotsam and jetsam was building before Constantine. Constantine himself is the one who called the Council of Nicea (but he did NOT preside over it - the Bishops did), to ensure that the Church had a unified voice worldwide.

Though Melanchthon may still be correct that official acceptance didn't really happen until Gregory.

Well, I already mentiond Hippolytus, who was the most influential Theologian of his time. Sts. Basil & John Chrysostom, probably the most influential Church Fathers of all time also said that all Christians should seek the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints. All well before Gregory. The evidence is really overwhelming, if you are just willing to open your eyes.

And to remind once again, no one is claiming you are required to see the BOC as infallibile in these details. But it should prompt further and deeper study.

And why should that matter?

It matters because the Church is ONE. It's core teaching and faith is the same throughout all generations. You will not find that in the West, with the Catholic Church revising and corrupting the Faith. The Lutherans did what they could, but they were still far from the "Faith once delivered". They tried to rebuild, and they came out with something of their own making. The Church Christ built still stood and still stands.

One could call Arius a Church Father. I realize you'll probably dismiss him as a heretic, and I certainly don't believe in Arianism, but saying who is in and who is out is not as black and white as some seem to make it. You speak of cherry-picking, but it's a problem for both sides.

Actually, no. Perhaps a Lutheran or a Catholic could, but a Church Father, to the Orthodox, must be one who has not been condemned of heresy, and has contributed to the consensus patrum.

I've never understood how one can stand behind the claims of a particular text, justifying it as being from a "Church Father", yet being OK with saying it's not canonical. It smells of special pleading.

This is why I said many posts back that your approach is flawed. You are coming at a specific issue, and judging our methods based on how you disagree with the issue. That is backwards. If you actually want to understand the Orthodox doctrine and praxis, you MUST understand the methods and presuppositions first. Considering the scope, that question would likely be best served in a new thread.

To even begin to convince me that intercession is acceptable, I would need a historical argument that it was widespread - not one quote from one person. It seems it has been conceded (tacitly if not explictly) that intercession was not accepted by the Jews and was a NT invention.

Well yes, of course. Before Jesus Christ conquored death from the inside, the very nature of death was different.

It also seems likely it was a late invention - possibly around the time of Constantine.

Covered above; Cyprian, Jerome, etc.

Also:

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]"
- St. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 7:12 circa AD 208​

Other writings, such as from Origen the NT Apocrypha, and many unsourced catacomb inscriptions also could be added to the list. I've seen Catholics use them to try and prove their point... The thing is, I am not really that comfortable using heretics, apocryphal, and unknown sources. They do to add to the quantity of evidence, showing that the practice was widespread, but they do not add to the quality or speak to the orthodoxy of the practice.

 

[Blonde]

ArmyMatt mentioned Polycarp - wasn't that first or second century??

 

[Resha Caner]

All internal evidence in the BOC points to Pope Gregory I being the Gregory mentioned here. Luther's writings even suggest that this is the case. If you aren't sure why, you can referece posts #46 and #59.

That's not what I meant. I meant that it is clear Melanchthon was aware of texts prior to Gregory that mention prayer by the saints in heaven. He just didn't think those texts supported intercession. He only gave 2 examples, but he may have been aware of many more. We just don't know. How ever many examples he was aware of, he only cites 2, and then concludes that no one prior to Gregory was sanctioning intercession.

From there I was saying that my conclusion about the history might be a little different than his, but his point (that intercession was a late invention) still stands.

Melanchthon here claims that neither writer even speaks to the subject

And, based on what you quoted, I would agree with him ... unless we misunderstand each other on what the "subject" is. Earlier I broke this into 3 parts: 1) consciousness, 2) awareness of earthly matters, 3) response to specific petitions. Item #1 seemed to be settled, so I assumed we had moved on. In fact, I'm going to skip #2 and go directly to #3.

I don't see an example of someone on earth petitioning a saint in heaven. The language of these quotes is often of such an open, poetic nature that I suppose one could read almost anything into it, but they come across to me as speaking of the "general prayer" mentioned in the Confessions.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not that every quote individually points to anything, but that as a whole, they build a stronger case than any one of them could individually.

You sound like an Atheist requiring absolute proof of God's existance... Or more to the point, a blind man asking for proof that a house exists. The owner leads the man to feel the walls, the door-frame, the windows, the floor, the furniture and the appliances. The blind man responds by saying that none of these individual pieces prove a house really present. It is a trees/forest issue.

Hopefully this doesn't abuse your analogy too much, but it's more like someone who only shows me doors and asks me to imagine walls, windows, floors, and a roof. I could imagine those things, but I'm being honest when I say that all I see is doors - to be more specific, all I see is item #1. If it helps clarify, I could add an item #4 - establishing that an activity of the saints in heaven is prayer. I'll just concede that here and now, but state that I don't see anything connecting #1 & #4 to #3. In fact, if we talk of Lazarus and the rich man, I see something saying that won't happen.

The key piece you are missing has been offered to you a number of times, and you have ignored it each time. No amount of evidence will EVER be enough for you if you reject the Church that Jesus Christ Himseld built and gave His authority to. You will do nothing but spin your wheels, expecting everything to fit into your interpretation of Scripture... But it never will, because your interpretation, your source of authority, is incomplete.

Yeah, you need to explain this to me. I doubt you'll ever get me to accept that Christ has surrendered his deity to the Church, which is almost how you make this sound ... in fact it was somewhat the basis of the OP.

There are benefits to being part of the Church. Christ commanded the Church to do certain things. Other than that, it has been obvious to me for some time that your view of the power of the Church far exceeds mine. As I said, IMO you make the Church divine. It's almost a Gaia philosophy.

Well, I already mentiond Hippolytus, who was the most influential Theologian of his time. Sts. Basil & John Chrysostom, probably the most influential Church Fathers of all time also said that all Christians should seek the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints. All well before Gregory. The evidence is really overwhelming, if you are just willing to open your eyes.

Basil and Chrysostom are too late, and I already mentioned how the quote from Hippolytus doesn't support what you said.

 

[Protoevangel]

ArmyMatt mentioned Polycarp - wasn't that first or second century??

Yea, Resha said he read Polycarp's Martyrdom.

"The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.

This, then, is the account of the blessed Polycarp, who, being the twelfth that was martyred in Smyrna (reckoning those also of Philadelphia), yet occupies a place of his own in the memory of all men, insomuch that he is everywhere spoken of by the heathen themselves. He was not merely an illustrious teacher, but also a pre-eminent martyr, whose martyrdom all desire to imitate, as having been altogether consistent with the Gospel of Christ. For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world."​

It doesn't explicitly mention praying to Saint Polycarp, although it defiantly talks about him being aware in God's presence. With the Lutheran presuppositions, however, he needs something a little more indubitable.

It's all part of the blind man who is skeptical that the house exists thing I mentioned. This may be a piece of furniture, but he's already forgotten about the walls and floor, so this is disconnected from everything else in his mind. It's all individual, unconnected "things", not an organic, integrated oneness.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's all part of the blind man who is skeptical that the house exists thing I mentioned. This may be a piece of furniture, but he's already forgotten about the walls and floor, so this is disconnected from everything else in his mind. It's all individual, unconnected "things", not an organic, integrated oneness.

So, would Confessional Lutherans be part of this church of which you speak?

 

[Protoevangel]

I had a reply to you typed up yesterday. I think i must have left it in notepad, on my computer at work...

I may have time to re-type it in large part later, if not, I'll post it from work on Monday.

Just don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm not able to keep up with all of this. It's like watching Thor and Loki...

 

[Resha Caner]

It's like watching Thor and Loki...

Is it alright if I'm Piglet instead?

 

[rusmeister]

Is it alright if I'm Piglet instead?

I suppose, if you pose more sentences as questions instead of statements, and stutter a lot...

 

[Protoevangel]

My PC rebooted over the weekend, apparently there was an IT update. Unfortunately, I had not saved the response... Here’s a reply to your last question... I’ll try to get to the earlier one as soon as possible, unless you decide you have to pontificate all over this one instead...

So, would Confessional Lutherans be part of this church of which you speak?

• The Church is one in doctrine.
• The Church is one in body and one in spirit. It belongs to Christ, not to man. It IS Christ's body on earth, and Christ cannot be divided.
• Jesus Christ built His Church and gave His authority to Her, and gave the Holy Spirit to her to guide her into all truth.

Any Church body, including Lutherans, who are not in communion with the Holy Orthodox Church cannot be considered to be fully or properly part of the Church.

This does not mean that the people who belong to these bodies are not Christians (or even better Christians than many/most Orthodox), or that they cannot be saved. What it does mean is that they are not of the visible Body, the assembly of the Apostles, and that it may or may not last intact as a singular body until the Last day. This visible unity, the Body matters immensely, but as explained in Mark 9, we absolutely recognize Christians outside of the Church proper.

“Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
- Mark 9:38-41​