Quote:

---

I have said many times on this forum over the years that the Catholic Church deserves a large part of the blame for the Schism between East and West and also the schism that developed in the west due to its actions during the time of the Reformation. Happy now? Or do you still need me to say any rent in the Body of Christ is a good thing?

---

Well, for most of this thread my posts have been in response to Zobel, so I'm not sure why you are personalizing it towards yourself. But I think that, with your first sentence, we are dang close. With your second sentence, I don't believe that I've ever said that the rift was a good think, but specifically made the distinction that what was good was the search for truth. So I'm not sure what you're trying to do with that sentence other than being petty.

Petty? Probably. But keep in mind this discussion arose because you objected that some here had the audacity to think schism was a bad thing and probably shouldn't be celebrated.

Quote:

---

Ahh, so it's not schism if you agree with the church, but it is if you don't? You can try to rationalize it as much as you want, but your actions in leaving the Southern Baptist church for the EO are, in many ways, more schismatic than Luther's. Again, he didn't leave, he was kicked out.

---

No, you're completely missing the point. Luther started a new church. That is what made him a schismatic - a heretic - a faction. The word heresy means faction, when Josephus (a Pharisee) described the various sects of Judaism he called them heresies, including the heresy of the Pharisees (cf Acts 15:5 "from the heresy of the Pharisees...).

I did not start a new faction, I did not cause a schism.

Quote:

---

And who cares how long the process of kicking him out took? It was still the RCC's actions, not Luther's, and the RCC was demanding that he agree to gross error, that eventually the RCC itself agreed was gross error.

---

this really isn't the case. the reality was much more gray. Luther's 95 theses were not instantly rejected. Many Augustinians received it well. There was almost an immediate response and clarification from Rome on the chief point of indulgences. The issue was that at every possible moment, Luther expanded the scope of his disputation. From indulgences to the power of excommunication, from there onto the sacraments...Eventually he rejected not only the authority of the Pope but also that of the ecumenical councils, of the episcopate, and to some extent the canon of scripture. He also sought appeal after appeal, debate after debate, and it is noteworthy that the other side did in fact bend - he was given the opportunity to disavow some of his writings - and he would not compromise. Even after the famous "here I stand" event a committee tried to get a partial compromise. He wouldn't. Luther was his own worst enemy.

The reason time matters is because it wasn't as if he posted the theses and was immediately excommunicated. Or that those alone condemned him in the eyes of Rome. It wasn't like that at all.

It doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with him. Obviously when it comes to the primacy of the Roman church and the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome I agree with him. Yet his views on communion, monasticism, ecclesial structure, the sacraments or mysteries, the calendar and feasts and fasts, are all a departure from the traditional faith. He was obviously a brilliant thinker and I believe pious. I think a lot of his reasoning was due to personal struggles in the faith in insecurity and hope, and I sympathize with this most strongly. At the same time, I think he suffered from an incredible arrogance. He was going to rebuild the liturgy, hymnography, and institution of the church based on his understanding of scripture and nothing could convince him otherwise.

Quote:

---

Huh? That makes no sense. On that I may not be knowledgeable on the historical facts. I was not aware that Luther put himself in the Holy Roman Emperor's hands. If so, please elucidate.

---

Luther was called to Rome after being excommunicated. He wrote to Charles V saying "I appeal to Caesar" and argued that the church authority answers to the state. The Roman response was that the Pope was the only fit judge, the state had to do as they said. Hard to find a side to like there.

Also in that letter he agreed that if he was condemned he didn't want to be defended. I think Luther actually halfway wanted to be martyred.

It's good to see that after being away for a couple of years, the conversations are still the same.

Reformation day is not a celebration of schism or any of the other claims in this thread. It's the date used to remember the posting of the 95 Theses in 1517. Luther remained in good standing within what would become the Roman Catholic Church until 1521 when he was finally excommunicated and branded an outlaw, wanted dead or alive. During that meeting, Luther was really given 2 choices. He could either recant what he had written or face excommunication and potential execution. Luther is said to have commented some of the books on the table were devotionals or educational books (he was a Professor after all), some where harsh, but expressed true errors within the church. To recant of all would be to agree and permit error to continue within the church and so he refused to recant.

What Reformation day is though, is the day we celebrate the start of the "rediscovery" of the Scriptures and the reforming of a corrupted church. That's not to say that the Scriptures were lost or the "gates of hell prevailed," but it is to say the Scriptures were secondary to the power of the Pope. Luther put the Scriptures back in the hands of the laity and Priests, many of whom, had never actually read it. Are there groups or people that might utilize this day for ulterior motives? I'm sure that's true, but the exceptions don't make the rule.

Was Luther a heretic? Of course not. Luther not bending to the will of the authority has a long tradition within Christianity. Many others have been either exiled or martyred for their faith and were not called a heretic. No ecumenical council was called where his teachings were condemned (unless you consider Trent to be one, and nobody outside of Roman Catholicism does).

Luther did not start a new church. He didn't name a church after himself and argued against those who called themselves Lutherans. The name came from Roman Catholics who pushed the split. What Luther did is what this day is about, he reformed slowly. His first step was to make minimal changes to the Mass. He removed the "sacrificial" elements and added hymns/reading in German so that the congregation. While he knew that just 1 kind of the Lord's Supper was wrong scripturally, he took years to slowly teach the congregation before correcting this error. The common accusation against Luther is he didn't go far enough and that is because his desire was never to start something new, but to restore what had been lost and then rediscovered.

Finally, even Roman Catholics understood a reformation was needed and occurred internally. The problem of course, is how do you make reforms in a way that doesn't upset the Pope, who at that time, saw himself as "above the state itself?" Lutherans argued then and now that when the claim of another church is "Scripture + XYZ" are the infallible sources or standard, it is always the "XYZ" that is the true standard.

Bending the record a bit there. Luther was given the opportunity to recant some of his writings, and said he wouldn't because if he recanted some it would be used against him by Rome to refute all. Right, wrong, or indifferent there was a compromise position available and he wouldn't do it.

Charles V branded him an outlaw. Appeal to Caesar, that's how it goes.

Quote:

---

What Reformation day is though, is the day we celebrate the start of the "rediscovery" of the Scriptures and the reforming of a corrupted church.

---

It's two sides of the same coin. The schisms happened - you can't get away from it just because you sympathize with one side. That Rome was wrong doesn't make the Reformers right. This shouldn't be a celebration - it should be a day of sadness for Rome, sadness for Luther, sadness for the commingling of church and politics, sadness for corruption and oathbreaking, and a day for all Christians to repent and pray for reconciliation in the body of Christ.

That's the biggest issue I see - people want to only look at this day as something that reinforces what their particular group believes, and disregard the disunity it spawned. A day where Protestants got away from those corrupt Romans. If we just stop and look back at what has happened as a whole, it is not good. Today we have denominations that believe anything and everything, and all of them point to this day as the beginning of their justification. There are even Lutherans today who will not concelebrate with other Lutherans, much less the differences between the various denominations.

Luther wasn't the cause of all of this... if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.

Quote:

---

The problem of course, is how do you make reforms in a way that doesn't upset the Pope, who at that time, saw himself as "above the state itself?" Lutherans argued then and now that when the claim of another church is "Scripture + XYZ" are the infallible sources or standard, it is always the "XYZ" that is the true standard.

---

This is true. The underlying problem is the claims of the bishop of Rome. It is the same as the 1054 schism, same as Pope Victor throwing his toys out of the pram in the second century over the date of Pascha.

The problem is when you destroy all authority above the individual level, you get a collection of individual authorities. Luther took a pickaxe to every level of church authority which lead to unchecked divisiveness and innovation. Calvin even wrote that Luther would not have been happy with the Lutherans shortly after his death.

Luther taught the importance of the sign of the cross, for annual auricular confession (even if to a layperson) in the Church, written prayers, a structured liturgy, the perpetual virginity of Mary the Theotokos, and rejected the idea of the invisible Church as it is taught today*. He considered Zwingli and others who rejected the real presence in the Eucharist as fanatics. He taught infant baptism and vehemently opposed the Anabaptists. He rejected the idea of the Jewish people returning to the Holy Land or Zionism. He openly criticized iconoclasts. Yet look at where we are today. Luther would probably not be in theological harmony with most Lutheran synods today - and absolutely not in a few - and definitely not with the majority of Protestants in the US.

There's a big cognitive dissonance lurking here.

Edit to add. Luther had no issue spoking of the spiritual bond of the church, or using the word invisible, usually as a cognate of "spiritual", dwelling in the spirit. At the same time he consistently insisted church is visible and recognizable through the marks of the church - pure Gospel and sacraments, or saying things like "there must be some visible sign or indication somewhere whereby this [invisible] kingdom may be recognized."

I also want to add - there is something about Luther that I deeply admire, and that is his consistent approach to all of his questions as one of pastoral concern. The question of the visible and invisible church is a great example...although the disputation was operating at one level (is Rome the church, end of discussion, or is there something more - a question of authority etc) Luther's investigation comes right back to the question of comfort or hope or confidence of the individual person... since there is a promised church in the scriptures, how can I be sure I am in it?

I think Luther's deep dive into St Augustine, combined with a partial reading (i.e., St Augustine's thoughts on the will separated out from his writings on the Church), combined with a lack of exposure to other patristic writings (Luther did not have access to the fathers in any significant way) produced a kind of torment for him about whether or not he was in fact one of the elect. There's something very touching, and personal, and admirable in how this drove him.

After further reflection, Zobel, I see your point. Schism is terrible.

But aren't you just as guilty of it as anyone? You've told me repeatedly that you won't/can't concelebrate (thanks for the new word!) with me or other Protestants.

Aren't you doing exactly what Luther did but from the other direction? Aren't you doing exactly what you criticize Protestants and those divisive Lutherans of doing?

It's not bending the truth when we have the transcript. Maybe someone believed or claimed that Luther was able to recant some partial subset at some point in time, but Luther's speech makes it clear that he did not feel he had that right.

Link to Speech

Quote:

---

[ol]

Two questions were yesterday put to me by his imperial majesty; the first, whether I was the author of the books whose titles were read; the second, whether I wished to revoke or defend the doctrine I have taught. I answered the first directly, and I adhere to that answer: that these books are mine and published by me, except so far as they may have been altered or interpolated by the craft or officiousness of opponents. As for the second question, I am now about to reply to it; and I must first entreat your Majesty and your Highnesses to deign to consider that I have composed writings on very different subjects. In some I have discussed Faith and Good Works, in a spirit at once so pure, clear, and Christian, that even my adversaries themselves, far from finding anything to censure, confess that these writings are profitable, and deserve to be perused by devout persons. The pope's bull, violent as it is, acknowledges this. What, then, should I be doing if I were now to retract these writings? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous voice of friends and enemies, and should be opposing doctrines that the whole world glories in confessing!

I have composed, secondly, certain works against the papacy, wherein I have attacked such as by false doctrines, irregular lives, and scandalous examples, afflict the Christian world, and ruin the bodies and souls of men. And is not this confirmed by the grief of all who fear God? Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the faithful, while the crying and endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation? Yet it is a perpetual statute that the laws and doctrines of the pope be held erroneous and reprobate when they are contrary to the Gospel and the opinions of the church fathers.

If I were to revoke what I have written on that subject, what should I do but strengthen this tyranny, and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties? Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding by my retractation it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful, for, by my retractation, it would receive confirmation from your most serene majesty, and all the States of the Empire. Great God! I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hide and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny.

In the third and last place, I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying the faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic: I do not think of myself as a saint; but neither can I retract these books. Because I should, by so doing, sanction the impieties of my opponents, and they would thence take occasion to crush God's people with still more cruelty.

[/ol]

---

Quote:

---

The problem is when you destroy all authority above the individual level, you get a collection of individual authorities. Luther took a pickaxe to every level of church authority which lead to unchecked divisiveness and innovation. Calvin even wrote that Luther would not have been happy with the Lutherans shortly after his death.

---

This is not a problem specific to Luther. This is a problem that exists within mankind. Church history is full of disagreements and challenges that have to be worked through. The problem that is actually highlighted here is the movement away from the historical method of debate and discussion of issues to, at least on the Roman Catholic side, that debate or challenge is only what the Pope allowed.

Certainly there were issues within Lutheranism after his death. Melanchthon, while brilliant, did not have the fortitude that Luther had and it took the coming of Chemnitz to finally unify Lutheranism. This was 50 years after the Augsburg Confession, which was 13 years after the 95 Theses. Slow-moving and methodical. When you find rot in a house, you don't just replace one board and move on. You have to thoroughly expect the house to make sure the rot has been cleared and that's what took place.

Quote:

---

Luther taught the importance of the sign of the cross, for annual auricular confession (even if to a layperson) in the Church, written prayers, a structured liturgy, the perpetual virginity of Mary the Theotokos, and rejected the idea of the invisible Church as it is taught today*. He considered Zwingli and others who rejected the real presence in the Eucharist as fanatics. He taught infant baptism and vehemently opposed the Anabaptists. He rejected the idea of the Jewish people returning to the Holy Land or Zionism. He openly criticized iconoclasts. Yet look at where we are today. Luther would probably not be in theological harmony with most Lutheran synods today - and absolutely not in a few - and definitely not with the majority of Protestants in the US.

---

We don't hold Luther to be infallible. You won't find any of those in the Book of Concord. We could pick any early father and find beliefs that would be problematic today. We accept them for who they were, sinful men who through the grace of God did their best to preach and teach.

His debates with Zwingli truly came down to the real presence, but not just about the real presence, but what it meant about Jesus. Zwingli's position was no just that the Real Presence was symbolic, but that it was symbolic because Jesus was only to be found at the right hand of the Father and because of His humanity, could not possibly be in multiple locations. It's a distortion of the two natures of Christ that became the real issue.

Well, the question he was answering seems relevant. Eck asked him, "Explain yourself now. Will you defend all your writings, or disavow some of them?" He had the right, but he broke down the writings and gave reasons that he wouldn't disavow any of them. At any rate even after trial Charles V (who supposedly called Luther "a notorious heretic" after his speech) had a committee sent to meet with him to get a partial disavowal. He wouldn't do it. You can say that he wouldn't do it conscience, but you can't say a compromise wasn't offered. Which comes back to what I said - "Luther was given the opportunity to recant some of his writings...Right, wrong, or indifferent there was a compromise position available and he wouldn't do it."

Quote:

---

This is not a problem specific to Luther. This is a problem that exists within mankind.

---

Good thing the head of the Church is Christ Jesus and it is actively guided and led by the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

---

We don't hold Luther to be infallible. You won't find any of those in the Book of Concord. We could pick any early father and find beliefs that would be problematic today. We accept them for who they were, sinful men who through the grace of God did their best to preach and teach.

---

I didn't say you did. The point is that there was a rapid theological drift. As you said, those aren't in the Book of Concord which was a work led largely by one of his own followers (Chemnitz). Doesn't it seem odd to have a such a sudden disjunction? And the whole reason the Book of Concord was necessary was because of all of the controversy that arose after Luther's death.

It's kind of crazy to me that you see this shift and your answer was that these were problematic beliefs. Where do you get the ground to judge?

Quote:

---

His debates with Zwingli truly came down to the real presence, but not just about the real presence, but what it meant about Jesus. Zwingli's position was no just that the Real Presence was symbolic, but that it was symbolic because Jesus was only to be found at the right hand of the Father and because of His humanity, could not possibly be in multiple locations. It's a distortion of the two natures of Christ that became the real issue.

---

It doesn't really matter in the end. They fractured over the Eucharist, even if it was Christological (in the end, aren't all heresies properly Christological?). If the perspicacity of scripture is sufficient, why couldn't these two peers find common ground?

Today I am starting a new religion, named after myself. I will be kicking out James, Revelation, Hebrews, Leviticus, Malachi, and Isaiah from the bible, because I really don't care for those epistles of straw. I will invent two new doctrines, Sola Ecclesia and Sola Baptisma, and adding the word "alone" after the word "Baptism" in 1 Peter 3:21.

Who's with me?

Again, you're attempting to claim that Luther had a choice it doesn't appear felt he had he had. Maybe you're right and he misunderstood or maybe the implications behind the question were clear to him, regardless of the words used.

But honestly, that's really irrelevant. You're attempting to nuance a hypothetical "what if." Whether he had the option or not, he chose to let his work stand.

Whether he was given a second chance to partially revoke his work, I don't know, I haven't heard that before. As the story is commonly told, he leaves the Diet expecting to be killed and is instead "kidnapped" by his prince and sent to Wartburg where he spends the next year translating the NT into German.

This of course is all well off-topic because the Diet of Worm is not something that was part of the celebration of Reformation Day.

Quote:

---

I didn't say you did. The point is that there was a rapid theological drift. As you said, those aren't in the Book of Concord which was a work led largely by one of his own followers (Chemnitz). Doesn't it seem odd to have a such a sudden disjunction? And the whole reason the Book of Concord was necessary was because of all of the controversy that arose after Luther's death.

---

This is a clear misunderstanding of the Book of Concord. It was never intended to address all of the Christian faith, for that in itself would be impossible. It has always been understood as the method of best interpreting the Scriptures as it relates to our salvation. It's reaching to claim that belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus or making the sign of the cross are necessary for salvation or even of importance to show up in the documents.

Lutherans did hold that Private Mass, which in itself was a medieval invention, should be retained.

Quote:

---

It doesn't really matter in the end. They fractured over the Eucharist, even if it was Christological (in the end, aren't all heresies properly Christological?). If the perspicacity of scripture is sufficient, why couldn't these two peers find common ground?

---

It absolutely does matter in the end. The nature of Jesus is of extreme importance and, as you know, many councils were convened to address the challenges of understanding it. If that is not worth separating until agreement can be made, I'm not sure what would be worth it.

Zobel said:

---

Yet no agreement came, only more and more factions. Even calling on councils is of no use now, as the councils themselves were rejected. There is no authority left above the individual in Protestantism.

---

Not quite true. Individual churches and some denominations have authority over their members. And, to the extent that it is true, that is its strength, not its weakness.

And you are not so different. When you left the Southern Baptists, you relied on your own judgment and authority in making that decision. You decided that the EO church comported more closely with your interpretation of scripture, as viewed through your perspective of history.

Zobel said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Not quite true. Individual churches and some denominations have authority over their members. And, to the extent that it is true, that is its strength, not its weakness.

And you are not so different. When you left the Southern Baptists, you relied on your own judgment and authority in making that decision. You decided that the EO church comported more closely with your interpretation of scripture, as viewed through your perspective of history.

---

It's not comparable. For starters there's no real theology of communion to begin with so the meaning of communion is lost. But it produced either a "if you don't like it leave" or a least common denominator approach. That's why we have thousands of separate denominations on one hand and a huge amount of low-/no-criteria non-denoms on the other.

I did not do what you said. Actually it was quite the opposite - in many ways I had to comport my views with that of the church. I am under obedience to my bishop and submitted to the church - which, incidentally is what we are commanded to do in the scriptures. The southern baptist church has a scripturally incorrect and heretical view of the Eucharist. It has no apostolic succession and it is clear when their tradition began - and it wasn't on Pentecost. They themselves reject the very idea of submission and episcopal or ecclesial authority, so the whole discussion is a non-starter.

I don't know why you keep making this a referendum about me. I am a hypocrite and a sinner, my witness means nothing.

---

I use you as an example because your own personal life contradicts the position you're taking. I'm not being critical of you at all; I can't be, since I am a horrible sinner as well. However, you made the decision to leave the southern Baptist church because you came to the conclusion that it was incorrect and heretical. You acted exactly as Luther did.

Zobel said:

---

It is not the same on any level. Luther was a monastic and a priest. In both cases he was under obedience. He abandoned his bishop and broke his monastic vows. When he was told to stop preaching he did not. When he was no longer under clerical orders he continued to serve a new communion without his bishop. This is the definition of schism.

The only reason you think they're the same is because you accept the premise that authority and church membership are nothing more than individual decisions. I reject that.

---

So now you're judging my motives, thoughts and intent?

And your statement, "I reject that" sure sounds like you've established yourself as an authority. Very Lutheran like.

But back to your decision to leave our good friends, the Southern Baptists. So you individually did not decide to leave the Southern Baptist Church? If not, then who did? On what basis did you make that decision? Did your Baptist church elders and pastors fully support your decision to leave for the EO, or were you acting in "schism" with your church?

By the way, who defines schism? Is it relevant under your definition if Luther's bishop was in gross sin and himself guilty of heresy and worse? I don't believe that you ever answered my question of where you would go worship & have communion if you were forced to leave your EO church because your priests and bishops were in gross sin and heresy, refused to repent and refused to allow you to participate in communion.

You've never provided any meaningful alternative for Luther other than for him to recant that what he called heresy and sin, and we all now agree was heresy and sin, was not in fact heresy or sin.

Quote:

---

At this point it's just personal badgering. Read what I've written. If you don't understand, ask. Otherwise move on.

---

I was going to respond point by point, but after reading that my reaction was "What arrogance!" What makes you think that my posts were an inquiry of you? Why are you constantly badgering me and have since my first post on this thread?

Consider long and hard if, with regard to Luther and Protestants, you might be seeing the speck in their eye and ignoring the beam in your own.

Quote:

---

I was going to respond point by point, but after reading that my reaction was "What arrogance!" What makes you think that my posts were an inquiry of you? Why are you constantly badgering me and have since my first post on this thread?

---

We've been having a conversation. I answer your questions, and you keep asking them. Who's been badgering you?
Why do I think your posts are an inquiry of me? Here's some quotes from you:

Quote:

---

If so, what alternatives did Luther have? If you were his counselor, what would you have advised him to do about that corruption?

---

Quote:

---

What do you do?

---

Quote:

---

So where would you worship?

---

Quote:

---

Aren't you being a hypocrite?

---

Quote:

---

But aren't you just as guilty of it as anyone?

---

Quote:

---

Aren't you doing exactly what Luther did but from the other direction?

---

Quote:

---

So you individually did not decide to leave the Southern Baptist Church? If not, then who did? On what basis did you make that decision? Did your Baptist church elders and pastors fully support your decision to leave for the EO, or were you acting in "schism" with your church?

---

I answered every single one of these, and you asked the same questions over and over.

Quote:

---

Consider long and hard if, with regard to Luther and Protestants, you might be seeing the speck in their eye and ignoring the beam in your own.

---

irony.

We ought to end this conversation. It's degenerated into personal and ad hominem attacks. I actually respect you and your intellect quite a bit, even though we disagree on theology. This conversation has run its course and is in danger of running into a ditch, if it hasn't already.

And, if I've come across as badgering you, I apologize. It's difficult to have a sense of a conversation when it's conducted online over several days. Again, I'm sorry for any offense I've caused to someone whom I not only respect but also consider to be a fellow follower of Christ.

Ok with me. Any ad homs haven't come from me.

No need to apologize, all good.

Zobel said:

---

Yet no agreement came, only more and more factions. Even calling on councils is of no use now, as the councils themselves were rejected. There is no authority left above the individual in protestantism.

---

Which again is not what Reformation day is about.

However, to answer your question, and as Luther pointed out, before the Reformation, we had councils that contradicted others or were ignored anyways and multiple churches claiming to have the "correct traditions of the fathers."

Unity could absolutely exist in the future, but each side would need to be willing to come to the table admitting they may be wrong...and I suspect no side would be willing to risk that.

This is certainly not the definition of schism and a very unfair characterization of the life of Luther.

Separate communion = separate church = schism. I know of no other definition.

And it is strange to object to facts as "unfair".

Zobel said:

---

Where did I say Protestants were dumb or warped?

---

They can just sense it….

Zobel said:

---

Yet no agreement came, only more and more factions. Even calling on councils is of no use now, as the councils themselves were rejected. There is no authority left above the individual in protestantism.

---

Submission to authority. So much of our faith is about the "S" word, no?

Wives submit to husbands? Submit to civil authority? Submit myself and what I want to someone, anyone else? It almost seems as if our ethos - certainly as Americans - is "I submit to nobody!" And yet our faith is so much (all?) about submission. Submitting to God first, and then in sacrificial love to my neighbor - even (especially) when I don't like them. Ugh.

In Reformed traditions - one typically agrees to submit themselves to the leadership of their church in spiritual matters upon confirmation and/or joining the church. Having said that, we have no real mechanism to actually effectuate this pastorally. We are just not good at this.

Perhaps the way you handle confession is one way spiritual authority is translated from the spiritual to material realm. Is that true do you think? I think we (especially Calvinists) threw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yet no agreement came, only more and more factions. Even calling on councils is of no use now, as the councils themselves were rejected. There is no authority left above the individual in protestantism.

---

Submission to authority. So much of our faith is about the "S" word, no?

Wives submit to husbands? Submit to civil authority? Submit myself and what I want to someone, anyone else? It almost seems as if our ethos - certainly as Americans - is "I submit to nobody!" And yet our faith is so much (all?) about submission. Submitting to God first, and then in sacrificial love to my neighbor - even (especially) when I don't like them. Ugh.

In Reformed traditions - one typically agrees to submit themselves to the leadership of their church in spiritual matters upon confirmation and/or joining the church. Having said that, we have no real mechanism to actually effectuate this pastorally. We are just not good at this.

Perhaps the way you handle confession is one way spiritual authority is translated from the spiritual to material realm. Is that true do you think? I think we (especially Calvinists) threw the baby out with the bathwater here.

---

That's his point: evas aren't good at submission. If they leave a church because they don't have a good youth group who are they submitting to? If they get divorced and go to another church who are they submitting to? If the pastor changes and they don't enjoy the preaching so they look for another church who are they submitting to?

You nailed it: there is no mechanism. Your church isn't tied to your community (people will travel ~30 minutes historically so as transportation changes they'll go further), the pastor doesn't know his flock in big churches due to size, and the purpose of gathering is a teacher who exegetes on the Bible.

If your position in the community was impacted by your standing in the local church you couldn't escape submission. If the pastor knew you intimately and saw you often then he could reasonably assert guidance and leadership. If church was about more than learning it would make less sense to uproot.

I'm not sure I understand the link between confession and authority. But I think the general disdain for hierarchy and the view of everything as happening at the individual level is quintessential Americanism. I also think individualism is not really compatible with the Christianity we see in the scriptures. The Church is not a collection of individuals.

Perhaps an example would help here. Consider this scenario: my wife and I can't get along. We decide to get a divorce. I go to confession and confess this to my priest. My priest counsels and instructs me to reconcile with my wife.

Does this always happen in RCC or Orthodox churches? Of course not. Does the parishioner always submit to authority? Of course not. But at least there's a "procedural" mechanism for pastoral authority to be utilized in a Biblical manner.

Can/does it happen in Reformed churches? Yes. My guess is more rarely - especially the actual exercise of spiritual authority - than in RCC or Orthodox churches.

Zobel said:

---

Ah.. yeah, the idea of obedience to your priest or confessor is a real one.

---

So it is:

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Hebrews 13:17

You aren't "just presenting facts." You're taking complex issues and situations and trying to boil them down into a "Luther was wrong because..."

It's also a charge that would not hold up if we attempted to apply it to other fathers who were exiled or banished, only to eventually return or not.

----------

But to the charge of schism. It's not a good definition because it's at best incomplete. It makes the assumption that schism cannot be good and is always bad. That is to say, your definition does not hold up to the historical record.

I'll let Johann Gerhard provide a better definition:

"We concede that in a certain good sense we are schismatics, namely, inasmuch as we have separated ourselves from the Roman Church and its head, the Roman pope. But we have in no way separated ourselves from the unity of the catholic Church and its Head, Christ Jesus. What a blessed schism [seliges Schisma] [this is] by which we were united with Christ and the true catholic Church! Such a schism it was in ancient times when the Christian Church severed its connection with the Jewish synagogue, and such also was commanded in Acts 2:40: 'Be saved from this perverse generation,' and again in Revelation 18:4: 'Come out of her, My people.'

"Such a schism the fathers also command. Ignatius [of Antioch] thus writes in his Letter 6 to the Philadelphians: 'If anyone follows him who has deviated from the truth, he will not inherit the kingdom of God, and he who refuses to avoid a false prophet will be condemned to hell.'50 Ambrose, in his commentary on the sixth chapter of Luke, remarks: 'If any church rejects the faith, it must be forsaken.' Chrysostom, in his homily 46 on Matthew, says: 'He does not leave the church who leaves it physically, but he who in spirit leaves the foundation of the Christian truth. We indeed leave them" (the Arians) "in a physical way, but they [leave the Church] by their faith' [their error of denying the deity of Christ]. Admonished by these commands and examples, we have separated ourselves from the idolatrous Roman Church. We have not left Zion; rather, we have fled out of Babylon. We have not divided the church, but we have separated the disciples, following the example of Paul in the church at Ephesus (Acts 19:9). We have not erected an altar against an altar, following the examples of Jeroboam and the Donatists, but we cast the altar of Damascus" (2 Kings 16) "out of the house of the Lord and restored true worship"

-----------
I haven't been able to validate the Chrysostom quote. It doesn't appear to be in the modern homily 46. I'm not sure where Chrysostom said it, but it was certainly something attributed to him at that point in history.