Election

Looking back through some of the Reformed material from my years before coming to the Lutheran church. Found this online describing Election and Predestination in the Lutheran Church

"What can we gather from the Lutheran Confessions here? First, it's very clear that grace in Lutheranism actually saves, apart from our 'acceptance.' We must receive it, to be sure. Yet this receiving is passive and is given by God alone (monergism) not in response to our willing (synergism). The main principle in Lutheranism regarding election is Christ crucified for us, given to us by grace alone in Word and Sacrament. Christ is all in all. Thus, in terms of election to salvation, we concur with the Calvinists. The elect are saved, by God's choice, by grace alone through faith alone. The Solid Declaration is clear that election is itself a cause. (SD, XI, 8)
We do not, however, accept the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation, as the Solid Declaration makes abundantly clear. (SD, XI, 78-82) Whereas election to salvation is all of grace and all of God, reprobation is all of sinful man and the devil, not of God. There is no reprobation to perdition in Lutheranism."

Convo's

I may start these back up. Early in the life of this blog, I would put email dialogues between myself and a friend of mine. Usually on theological topics.

There was a time when I looked at the Catholic Church...with a fondness? Not sure how to describe, I couldn't quite put my finger on it. So I decided to investigate and my friend did so as well.

What follows is a series of emails between us...sorry, they will not be in order. Unless I can put them in order. In fact, what I may do is date the posts the same date(s) as the emails, that would make the most sense.

Peter...the rock continued

My premise of these last few emails is to simply show that there is not a universal consensus ( Rome is not a monolithic church ) among the ECFs as to the teaching that Peter was the first Pope. Not to mention ( which I already have, I think ) the exegetical problems of the Matthew 16 passage.

 

In what I sent previous, I think you glossed over some things or read it different. Augustine is speaking against the very thing that the RCC claims are the grounds for their institution of the Pope...Christ -> Peter (Pope) -> his successors. RCC says "On you, Peter, I will build my church" but Augustine is saying it's not on Peter, but on his confession. 

Augustine is not jiving with Rome. Neither was Ambrose or Jerome or Cyprian. Some of those ECFs in the big bloated page ( http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html ) were hard to 'interpret' but some were very straightforward. A doctrine like "Supreme Pontiff over the universal Church of God" is HUGE isn't it? But when teaching on Matthew 16, their focus is on Christ, Peter's confession (which was on Christ) and not on Peter and not on a Supreme Pontiff.

If the "reader can decide" ( as Augustine says here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xiv.html?highlight=peter,confession,augustine#highlight ), is this a doctrine that we shouldn't put much weight on? Augustine felt one way before, he changed his mind. But you reader, decide for yourself. This is not an option in the RCC today. You must believe that the Pope has "primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God". And maybe you do, but Augustine did at one time, and changed his mind. A veritable 5th century "Meh". He would not make it through RCIA with an attitude like that.

Of Jerome it is said speaking of Peter that "He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most, for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction." This not is what Rome teaches today.

The RCC says the Bishop of Rome is not merely a Bishop, but supreme pontiff over all Christendom. Augustine says that at most a place of honor, amongst the other apostles I presume, as well as an example to us. And not supremacy of jurisdiction. This is the rub, but much too long to discuss here. If you read the history of the early church...say the first few hundred years or so, very enlightening, but hey, just believe what New Advent and Catholic.com teaches.

More from what I pasted in my previous email "like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent." Not to a single man...only representative.

As well the other ECFs in the big long bloated page. The above is not inline with Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching has morphed, evolved, progressed to what it is today. Read Unam Sanctam and Vatican One. What you are *hearing* about who the Pope is may not be inline with official church teaching.

More from previous email "This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines."

I've emailed so many things which you have glossed over, or chosen to simply ignore. Purgatory ( which is HUGE ), Rome's universal salvation for those outside the church, as long as their heart is in the right place, progressivism. ECFs being put on equal footing with Scripture.

Re-reading the Chair of Peter post from CtoC, actually seeing some of the same stuff on the big bloated ECFs page I sent disputing the Papacy. But read in full and in their context I can see at most Peter having an important role in the lives of the Apostles. But I clicked through one of their footnotes, and it didn't jive at all with what they were claiming. In fact, it said this "Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power".

And this comment from that post echoes what I've discovered. It's like the saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail". Certainly it's possible that every time chair, or peter, or seat are used by an ECF it doesn't always mean "supreme pontiff"?

+++comment from CtoC Chair of Peter post

"Cyprian seems to define the one chair metaphorically as “one” for the sake of explaining the unity of doctrine, based on Peter’s confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”(Matthew 16:16); that doctrine is the basis and rock and foundation of all else that is supposed to be in all the churches, and that all the bishops of all local areas hold the chair of Peter."

Also recollecting an anti-Luther book I read and Radio Replies...it's all opinion. Bursting statements of emotion and pride. But not much on substance. All philosophical, academic. Sounds good, feels good, I want it to be true sort of thing.

Peter...the rock

...many ECFs show how Peter is more representative of the church and the true Rock is Christ, the Son of the Living God.

+++

Augustine († 430), the greatest theological authority of the Latin church, at first referred the words, “On this rock I will build my church,” to the person of Peter, but afterward expressly retracted this interpretation, and considered the petra to be Christ, on the ground of a distinction between petra (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) and Petrus (σὺ εἷ Πέτρος); a distinction which Jerome also makes, though with the intimation that it is not properly applicable to the Hebrew and Syriac Cephas.565 “I have somewhere said of St. Peter” thus Augustine corrects himself in his Retractations at the close of his life566—“that the church is built upon him as the rock; a thought which is sung by many in the verses of St. Ambrose:

’Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae
Canente, culpam diluit.’567

(The Rock of the church himself In the cock-crowing atones his guilt.)

But I know that I have since frequently said, that the word of the Lord, ’Thou art Petrus, and on this petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: ’Thou art a rock’ (petra), but, ’Thou art Peter’ (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name of Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.” In the same strain he says, in another place: “Peter, in virtue of the primacy of his apostolate, stands, by a figurative generalization, for the church .... When it was said to him, ’I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ &c., he represented the whole church, which in this world is assailed by various temptations, as if by floods and storms, yet does not fall, because it is founded upon a rock, from which Peter received his name. For the rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, ’On this rock I will build my church’ is that Peter had said: ’Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ On this rock, which then hast confessed, says he will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Thus the church, which is built upon Christ, has received from him, in the person of Peter, the keys of heaven; that is, the power of binding and loosing sins.”568 This Augustinian interpretation of the petra has since been revived by some Protestant theologians in the cause of anti-Romanism.569Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica.570 But on the other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent.571 With this view agrees the independent position of the North African church in the time of Augustine toward Rome, as we have already observed it in the case of the appeal of Apiarius, and as it appears in the Pelagian controversy, of which Augustine was the leader. This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines

Semper Idem (Always the Same)

via Pastoral Meanderings http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2013/06/semper-idem-always-same.html

so I changed my mind

It's a free country :) right? Stellman and Hahn changed their mind, that's ok, right? You changed your mind, so it seems. Is it only ok to change your mind, to have a change of heart if you go INTO the RC and not out OUT OF? Lots of people have left the RC...lots...and I guess, according to the RC, they are going to burn for eternity in hell, but they still leave. But I guess I won't since I never officially joined, so at least I have that going for me.

Trust me, I'm as shocked as you are. But looking back on it and being honest with myself, I think I was saying those things, reading all that I was reading, trying to convince myself that it was true. Does that make sense? Like you want something badly, but you're just not quite there, so you go in deep assuming that it will just happen eventually. Have you done this or know other people who have? Maybe with a car purchase for example, you rationalize all the reasons you *need* this car or that gadget or whatever. But for many, in the end, they just go with their gut and toss off the data. Or maybe go against their conscience even.

Did I change my mind by applying to logic and reason? Well, God gave us mind, body, soul, the Holy Spirit, etc, so I use all that God has given my and weigh both sides with plenty of data. And in the end, I don't think the Scriptures can be on equal footing with anyone or anything. And in fact, that was the view of the ECFs. For centuries, they held the view that the Scriptures were the only source of doctrine and truth and was the ultimate authority in doctrinal controversies. <-- I realize there is a lot to unpack in this statement, but it does not change the the nature of the Holy Writ.

I'm not sure if we're still "doing this" or not. Sounds like you are checking out by ignoring my previous emails and trying make my poor mental condition :) an excuse to just drop out. I'm going to send the following as something I read, I digested and will copy/paste and regurgitate as best I can to make a point.

So it wasn't until Trent ( and again at Vatican 1 ) that the Church was forced to firm up where they got indulgences, purgatory, celibate priests, papal supremacy, etc. So they came up with this 'unanimous consent of the fathers' idea. What interesting is even though they came up with this *principal*, Trent *merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof* for its validity. DOH!

Which is why you then have Johann Gerhard and Martin Chemnitz responding they way they did. They actually provided the documentation that the ECFs DID NOT in fact affirm the principals the RC claimed. Their work in pointing this out had such an impact that it has been said without the second Martin, the Reformation ( Lutheranism ) would have been undone...and where would we be now :) with just Catholicism and Calvinism...perish the thought. Just kidding. I'm sure there would still be thousands of denoms. Just like early controversies, various sects had numerous and rabid followers.

So, the principle of unanimous agreement/consent was three-fold...encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). It seems it was first put forth by a Vincent of Lerins, who, by the way, readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense.

Why? It is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
"It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem."

Leaving out some stuff so as to fast forward. If you want to read the whole article, I can send you link...which brings us to post-19th century Vatican 1, current RC thought as quoted below by Karl Keating ( you've probably heard of him )

"Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."

Whoa-ho-ho. That's strong words. So basically NOTHING has to have any support in the Bible OR by a unanimous consent of the fathers. They have evolved from the Scripture alone to a body that says they don't even need support from GODS HOLY WORD! Sounds sorta like Progressive Christianity to me.

It was this sort of evolution I'm talking about that troubles me. I had sent several emails about how things were just not clicking, having a tough time, starting to break down, etc. So it really wasn't "out of nowhere". One of them, you may remember, was how late in the game any sort of 'extra-biblical' doctrine of Mary started to develop. I mean, 300 - 400 years after Pentecost. And then it wasn't until the late 1800's that it was made dogma.
If you ask, 'how can they just create new dogmas' i guess they could say 'well, we're the church, we have the right ( that's what Keating is saying ), the power the authority to do this or that' and then you ask 'who gave you that authority' and they say 'well, we did.' BECAUSE THEY DID. They gave it to themselves. It's a bit circular really. Some may say the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is circular, but upon further reflection, I think you will see it's not. But this whole thing about how the RC is allowed to change the rules of the game because they are the RC...progressive, evolving, transitional.

The Scriptures COULD NOT SUPPORT their teachings, so then it was the unanimous consent of the father's, nope, that won't work either, so they had to evolve into something that allowed them to perpetuate their existence without ANY reliance on the HOLY SCRIPTURES or ECFs. None. If the RC teaches a doctrine, IT MUST BE TRUE because She says so.

I'm also trying to learn more about what 'is' sola scriptura and Canon formation. Again, not wanting to take protestants word on what Catholicism teaches and not wanting to take Catholics word on what Protestants teach. Also realize, I am coming at all this from a Lutheran point of view, not a Protestant/Baptist/Presbyterian/nondenom. So Real Presence, Baptism saves, Liturgy, Confession and Absolution, are all part of the mix for the Lutheran...well, most that is ;)

Something that has not left my mind since I read it. The Catholic Church says Muslims will be saved. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm then look for #839 and following . Also, in the same vein, that anyone who honestly seeks God ( even apart from the Church ) can/might/will?? be saved.

So Catholic doctrine teaches the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation ( at least it did, maybe that has evolved? ), then you read that Catholic doctrine teaches that Muslims will be saved, even though they aren't members of the Catholic Church...which is it? I guess I don't see how both can be true. And talking with Msgr. at St. Stephens, he said ( paraphrasing ) not to join under compulsion, but rather let my conscience guide me...and not force my wife to join either, but let her come on her own terms.

So if Muslims are saved, and salvation is not really dependent on being a member of the Catholic Church...and those who honestly seek a Creator are saved...and my conscience says no... then the Catholic Church is practically saying *don't join*. And if I join and leave, then I'm going to hell. But what if I earnestly seek God somewhere else? Does that count?

And..and :) around 1000 A.D., attendance at Catholic Mass was made mandatory under penalty of mortal sin. In other words, -- according to the Roman Catholic Church -- if anyone misses just one Catholic Mass ( each Sunday and "holy days of obligation" such as Christmas ) and does not have that sin forgiven by a Catholic Priest, that person, which I guess includes all Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Messianic Jews since they don't go to a Catholic Mass, will spend forever in Hell.

I understand the fullness aspect. I think many Christians long to be part of a Church where the full historic nature of the Church is represented...at  least as best we can do in the enlightened, post-modern 21st century. But doesn't all this sound like new law that is not like the new law that Jesus gave?

+++

A  bit of a copy/paste from something online. I was wanting to develop this more fully, but will send as-is so maybe we can both work on it, looking up all the verses. I'm working through some of the Fisheater stuff as well.

With regards to Jesus saying the gates of hell would not prevent the church from growing/spreading ( think mustard seed parable ) I don't believe he is saying it would be free from error. But the weeds are to remain until the judgement. See Matthew 13 and more below.

+++

***Who or Where is the Authority

The authority is not in the body, but in the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King (Heb. 7:1-2; Rev. 1:5-6). The authority is in not in the church, but in Christ (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22). The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:22-24).

---if the Isaiah 22, Matt 16, and Rev 3 verses *don't support* Peter being the first Pope, then the above verses would show no "sub-head" ( Pope ) is present or needed, more below.

***Subject to Who/Whom? Who do we follow?

I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:11, 14-16). Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd--that's one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd--that's two.

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). The question is: "What part of the body is the Pope?" Also, "How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?"

***Did Jesus promise to keep the Church free from error?
There are many passages in the New Testament which reveal that the church would not be preserved from error. Acts 20:17, 28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:3-11. We see from these passages that there was to come a great falling away from the truth. In Acts chapter twenty we learn that perverse things would come from the teachers/leaders of the church. Peter said (2 Pet. 2) that false teachers would arise among you (working from within) and there would be many who would follow them. Paul tell us (2 Thess. 2) that the apostasy was already underway, "for the mystery of iniquity is already at work..." (Verse 7). It started in Paul's day and was to continue until the second coming of Christ. He added, "...Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming." (Verse 8).