I
had an intensely interesting conversation-turned-debate with a delightful Roman
Catholic friend at a local brewery recently regarding religion, particularly
the differences between Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. I suspect that
my friend had not met, or at least had an extended theological conversation
with, a Confessional Lutheran, because she appeared to hold me as a curiosity.
We had a great time discussing the deep thoughts of drunken philosophers and
theologians (though I held the advantage as I was working, and therefore,
sober). By the end, though, it sort of turned into a Rome vs. Wittenberg
debate, with each of us vigorously defending our positions. It was almost like
a modern day Luther meets Cardinal Cajetan
(Except, Cajetan was a Roman Catholic laywoman, Luther was a cop, and it took
place at a hipster brewery. Also, I didn’t answer her questions on my knees so,
not like Luther and Cajetan at all, I guess).
I
wanted to pursue the conversation because, having many friends who still allow
themselves to be subject to the antichrist pope,
I have suspected for quite some time that there is a disconnect between what
many laymen believe about Christianity and what their church actually teaches.
This disconnect is not peculiar to the Roman church. It exists in the Lutheran
Church – Missouri Synod, and in most other flavors of Christianity as well. It
is most stark to me, however, when observed in Roman Catholicism.
The
reason is because they have one guy who is the head of their church. Not only
that, this guy claims for himself the title Vicar of Christ. He says that he is
Christ's only representative on earth. Moreover, when he makes doctrinal
pronouncements regarding faith and morals, his pronouncements are viewed by the
church as infallible so, what he says goes. That, one would think, should be
the end of it. It seems to me that Roman Catholic laypeople should not be as
confused about the doctrines taught by their church as, perhaps, the laypeople
of other denominations. I certainly wouldn’t expect there to be any instances
of Roman Catholic laypeople flat-out denying their own church’s doctrines (I
mean, if you knew what your church taught and disagreed with it, why would you
remain a member?). Of course, the Roman church has had to contend with the same
challenges as every other church body in America. This includes the church
growth movement and the rise of post-modern thought. These two innovations will
certainly always obscure biblical truth whichever denomination they infect.
I
don’t chronicle our interaction to demean my friend in any way, or to flaunt my
skills as a debater or theologian. I am in the lowest grade in both of those
categories, and I think we genuinely had a fun time with our discussion. I
write this to examine the danger post-modern thinking poses to God’s people. I
will try to demonstrate the curious circumstance it causes for those who think
in a post-modern way but still maintain an allegiance to a church body that
professes absolute truths.
We
didn’t begin with post-modernism, though. We started with…
The main
difference between Catholics and Lutherans.
Right
out of the box she asked my opinion regarding the main difference between the
Roman Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church. My “Cajetan” preemptively
offered that the difference could be boiled down to… Consubstantiation.
My
friend said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, and her church
believes that the bread and wine at communion are actually the real body and
blood of Jesus. I explained to her that, Lutherans do not in fact believe in
consubstantiation. I pointed out to her that this is an area where Roman
Catholic and Lutheran theologians are closer to agreement with each other than Lutherans
are with evangelicals, who believe the Supper is merely symbolic.
Rome
teaches that Jesus’ body and blood is present in the supper, so do the
Lutherans. We do, of course, disagree regarding the particulars of what
actually takes place when the elements are consecrated. My explanation of the
doctrine of the Real Presence, however, was completely misunderstood. When I
said that in, with, and under the bread and the wine are Christ's real body and
blood as he has promised to give us, for we Christians to eat and to drink, I
was met with an incredulous stare. "Yes, like I said" came the reply,
"you believe in consubstantiation!" Then she showed me a Google
definition of the word Consubstantiation on her phone that mentioned Lutherans.
Such
are the perils facing the Lutheran theologian. We have to navigate down the
narrow road of God's word and avoid falling off into the ditch of popery and
philosophy on one side or the ditch of Calvinism and rationalism on the other.
The result is a nuance in our teaching that is difficult to grasp when one has
imbibed beyond one’s limit. It's a good thing that I keep a copy of the
Augsburg confession with me in the car. I fetched it and explained what
Confessional Lutherans believe, Google notwithstanding.
We
then moved to the matter in question. For a Confessional Lutheran the main
difference separating Rome and Wittenberg is obviously the doctrine of Justification.
Justification is the teaching upon which the church stands or falls. The
explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism asks the question: How is it possible
for a just and holy God to declare sinners righteous? God declares sinners
righteous for Christ’s sake:
For He made Him
who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him…even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and
on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…It shall be imputed to us who believe in
Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of
our offenses, and was raised because of our justification (2 Corinthians 5:21;
Romans 3:22-24; 4:25).
 |
The Whore of Babylon - Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534 |
Going
along with this would be Rome’s insistence upon papal authority over the Church
by divine right. Luther asserted, rightly, that the Bishop of Rome was a pastor
of God’s people in Rome and of all those who voluntarily attach themselves to
him and nothing more (McCain, et al. 2005). He also asserted
that the pope was the Antichrist.
The pope claims, however, his authority over the whole Christian Church by
divine right and the Roman Church explicitly teaches that all those who are
outside of Rome are outside of the one true faith. At this point our discussion
took an interesting turn when my friend began making the point…
Your religion is
true for you, mine is true for me.
This
is where things got interesting. At one point I said that, in order to be
saved, one must repent and believe in Jesus. My companion replied, "That's
fine for us, but what about all the other people who have different
religions?" I asked her to explain what she meant. She said, "What
about Muslims?" Who are we, she continued, to say that they are wrong,
necessarily? Their religion is true for them and our religion is true for us.
This
type of postmodern thinking it's quite pervasive in American Christianity in particular
and American society in general. I explained that, as Jesus teaches, no one
comes to the Father except through him; anyone who does not have penitent faith
in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins is lost. This would include Muslims,
or Jewish people, or anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus. Just because you have
many religions, doesn't mean you have many right choices. Other religions may
have a shadow of the truth in them, and some more than others, but in the end
there is right and wrong, good and evil, yes and no. Jesus explains this to us
and gives us no other choice:
[Jesus said] Enter
by the narrow gate; for wide is the
gate and broad is the
way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because
narrow is the
gate and difficult is the
way which leads to life, and there are few who find it… I am the way, the
truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me… Then Peter,
filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of
Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by
what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the
people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you
crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before
you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has
become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there
is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”
(Matthew 7:13-14; John 14:6; Acts 4:8-12).
My
friend was shocked that I would assert such an insensitive, unenlightened idea.
Imagine her surprise when I explained to her the dogma of her own church – that
the only true Church of Christ is the Roman Church:
The sole Church of
Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s
pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule
it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world,
subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic church, which is governed by the
successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him (Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church
1994).
And
also, that salvation comes through this one Catholic Church alone:
The Second Vatican
Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic
Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness
of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college
alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all
the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body
of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any
way to the People of God” (Interdicasterial Commission for
the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994).
I
can understand why she was surprised. The supreme pontiff of the Roman church
has made statements which have led many people to believe that the pope is OK
with salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis made several,
now infamous, statements that seemed to say atheists may be able to make their
way into heaven by obeying their conscience.
Messy statements like those made by Pope Francis promote the idea of a kinder, gentler,
Roman Catholic Church when reported by secular media who have little
understanding of these things. They give the impression that the Roman Catholic
Church has a “you go your way, I’ll go mine, we’ll all get there in the end”
attitude. Liberal Catholic laypeople and post-modern American secularists
believe the Roman Catholic Church is embracing the ideas of post-modernism in
its doctrine because of this type of reporting: There is no “truth;” everyone
has a shot at redemption with their own personal Jesus.
Except
for Lutherans. We just can’t catch a break, and this I explained. Rome has
been, and continues to be, clear on that point. Canon nine of the Council of
Trent, which has never been rescinded by the Roman church,
explicitly states that anyone who teaches the doctrine that man is justified by
the grace of God alone, through faith in Christ alone without works
is anathema.
If anyone says
that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is
required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that
it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action
of his own will, let him be anathema (The Council of Trent 1547).
Anathema:
That means cursed. So, while their laypeople are given the false impression
that their church has changed its teaching so that atheists and other noble
pagans have a shot at working their way into heaven, the fact remains that all
is as it was in the 16th Century. Rome still anathematizes the
Gospel.
Needless
to say, we never did come to a mutual understanding. There may not be absolute
truth, but I was wrong, nevertheless. I was, however, able to get some
sympathetic brewers to smuggle me out of the brewery inside a disused beer
barrel and safely back to my patrol car.
The bottom line
But you have
carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering,
love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch,
at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord
delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer
persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving
and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned
and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from
childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise
for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:10-17).
 |
Christ Among the Lampstands -
Woodcut by Cranach from
the Lutherbibel, 1534. |
I
believe the reason that Lutherans are strange to other Christians (not to
mention pagans), and misunderstood, comes down to this: We confess the truth of
God's Word, even where we don't necessarily understand it, or like it. The only
rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to
be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and
New Testaments alone.
This flies in the face of both the secular world, and Rome. Moreover, we
interpret Holy Scripture using the Historical-Grammatical method,
which respects and recognizes Holy Scripture for what it is – the divinely
inspired, inerrant Word of God. The secular world has embraced post-modernism
and asserts the truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth; The Roman
Catholic Church claims that the church and its tradition is the divine
authority, superior to that of even Holy Scripture, since the church existed
before, and “created,” the Bible. To put it in a nutshell – church traditions
preceded the Bible. Take into account the decades-long infiltration of
post-modernism into the colleges and seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church and
the result is a church body with doctrine that asserts it is the only true
church and the only access God while its laity proclaims that all paths lead to
the top of the mountain – I’m ok, you’re ok.
The
Scriptures tested everything. This is the viewpoint of the authors of the New
Testament, and the early church fathers. However, at the council of Trent, it
was proclaimed that tradition was equal in importance and authority with the
Bible. When the apostles preached the Gospel, the people who heard them tested
what they said against the Scriptures they knew to be from God (the Old
Testament).
This happened before the New Testament was collected or the organized church
existed. The Bereans tested the Gospel message and the apostles praised them
for it.
Using
the Historical-Grammatical method of biblical interpretation, an interpreter
seeks the literal or intended sense of the text. He derives the meaning of the
text from the text and allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. In order to
discern God’s intended meaning, the Scriptures must be read as historical,
literary documents. The meaning of Scripture is to be found in the text itself,
not from some special revelation or extra-biblical source. The interpreter must
also recognize that the Holy Scripture is the written word of God. It is not a
primarily human witness to revelation, and thus not subject to human failings.
In the historical-grammatical approach, the interpreter must always remember
that Scripture, like our Lord, has two natures – the human and the divine – and
has them equally and fully.
The
Higher criticism method,
on the contrary, favored by enlightened post-modern liberals, examines
scriptural writings like witnesses in a court of law. Scripture must be
“interrogated” and evaluated rationally. Following this method, Scripture is
treated as any other human writings, subject to human failings. Higher
criticism gives the individual interpreter, not Holy Scripture, ultimate
authority and is incompatible with the “Sola Scriptura” principle of
Lutheranism. Rome has begun to interpret Scripture according to this method in
recent years. Main Line Protestantism and much of American Evangelicalism have
been lost to Higher Criticism long ago.
What
is disconcerting is that post-modernism is seeping more and more into those
denominations which hold Scripture to be the divinely inspired, inerrant,
efficacious Word of God. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod has dealt with
this in the 1960’s and 1970’s in what culminated in the seminary walk-out and
Seminex;
we are still affected by it today.
We
few who hold Holy Scripture in such esteem appear to be getting to be fewer.
Time
to have a beer.
Works Cited
Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. Cathechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, KY: Urbi
et Orbi Communications, 1994.
Lueker, Erwin L., ed. Lutheran Cyclopedia: A Concise
In-Home Reference for the Christian Family. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1984.
McCain, Paul Timothy, Robert Cleveland Baker, Gene Edward
Veith, and Edward Andrew Engelbrecht, . Concordia: The Lutheran
Confessions. Translated by William Hermann Theodore Dau and Gerhard
Friedrich Bente. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.
