Thursday, May 25, 2006

Guest Blogger: Frank Marron (Lutheran)


From time to time I’d like to have some other voices take the helm. If you'd like to be involved- feel free to send me a testimony or a short essay at Tertiumquid@msn.com.

I have greatly appreciated the writing and comments of Frank Marron. Frank has been stopping by this blog from the beginning, and I also dialoged with him on a Lutheran discussion board last year. His comments are always insightful and provocative. He has sent me a few articles that I plan on posting in the next few days.

Below is a short biography he gave on this blog earlier this week:

I was born and raised in a loving and devout Roman Catholic family. Today I am a communicant member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. As I reflect back on my life I recall many obstacles I encountered in leaving Roman Catholicism. In general these impediments were unfounded fear of the unknown: I knew that Protestants believed in Christ but somehow lacked the “fullness” or more complete revelations of Christian faith. I looked upon the many and various facets of Roman Catholicism, such as the heavy emphasis upon the long traditions of the church, reverence for past saints, the beautiful liturgical services, etc….

The break with Roman Catholicism started when my young wife and I requested our youngest child be baptized. The young priest insulted us unknowingly by saying that members of his congregation would have to testify that we were not degenerates! To a young couple this was a total insult. Eventually we attended a Lutheran Church and began reading the bible. Over time the Word of God began to change our perspectives and thoughts – from looking outward at the church to looking inward at our sin and need for a Savior. Through the Word of God we became Christocentric rather than church-centered.

It took time for my personal viewpoints on the virgin Mary to change. For the longest time I simply could not come to believe that Mary, although special in view of her child-the Christ, was similar to all human beings-a sinner in need of the Savior. Eventually my views on Mary changed and were also conformed by the Word of God to that of Christ-centered theological beliefs. But it took time.

Looking back over the years, I liken this change to a person who has been deprogrammed from a cult. My initial reactions were those of tremendous animosity at having been deceived for so many years. Eventually my attitude mellowed and now I look at my Roman Catholic family and friends as fellow Christians, but carrying heavy baggage with them in the form of false teachings and myths and legends.

As a Lutheran, I consider myself catholic, in the historic sense of that word. All the beautiful liturgy and history of the church is part of my inheritance. As my Lutheran Confessions state, I am a member of the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints. Although the similarities with Roman Catholicism exist, such as vestments, liturgies, infant baptism, the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, confession and absolution, the differences are striking. I am not a Protestant in the normal sense of the word. I am a Lutheran, an Evangelical Catholic. As Martin Luther and his fellow Reformers of the 16th century believed, we have retained the beautiful traditions and practices of the historic Christian Church and have eliminated only those contrary to Holy Scripture. We did not “throw out the baby with the bath water”.

Although the Roman Catholic Church has the Gospel and sacraments, the incorporation of many unscriptural practices and beliefs has often clouded the Word ofGod, resulting in a confusion between Law and Gospel. From my Lutheran perspective, the failure to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel is the primary reason for disagreements between Christians in general, resulting in a weakening of assurance.

-Frank Marron

8 comments:

James Swan said...

"Although the Roman Catholic Church has the Gospel and sacraments..."

I would argue that Rome, as it expresses herself in the decrees of Trent, does not teach the Gospel. This does not mean individual Roman Catholics are not Christians- I assume many are, this despite the official teachings of Rome.

I do not know how Lutherans in general side on this-

As to the sacraments- I would argue like Luther, that most of what they call "sacraments" are not Biblical sacraments. I believe that the sacrmaents they do hold, are not held in the same way as Lutherans- and definately not in the same way my Reformed church does.

Blessings,
James

Cajun Huguenot said...

Very interesting testimony.

I too have Roman Catholic roots and love the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. But I am now Reformed/Presbyterian (I got here after first going through a period as a Southern Baptist).

I did attend a LCMS church for a while and felt quite at home there.

Thanks for the testimony.

In Christ,
Kenith

James Swan said...

Hi Kenith-

Thanks for stopping by- I've greatly enjoyed your blog, particularly some of your entries on Calvin, and also your work on perseverance. Ken's blog can be found here:

http://cajunhuguenot1.blogspot.com/

Blessings,
James

James Swan said...

I consider Roman Catholics as fellow heirs of the Kingdom if they believe in the simple and pure Gospel hidden in that church body.

There is an obscurity of the Gospel based upon the teachings and additional doctrines of the RCC, but the Gospel remains there, although hidden from the scholarly.

Hi Frank,

My perspective is that Rome no longer affirms the gospel in its official teachings. In a book I’ve been reading by Jaraslov Pelikan, he said:

“Yet by his teaching of justification by faith, Luther stood in the continuity of the faithful in all generations. He was proclaiming the gospel by which and for which the church lives. The pope excommunicated him and condemned justification by faith alone. As far as Luther was concerned, the pope had thereby also condemned the gospel. And so, in Luther's eyes, it was Rome that had left Luther, and not Luther that had left Rome. As long as the Roman Church would tolerate the gospel it remained the church for Luther, despite its error. But when it condemned the gospel and forced Luther out, it became sectarian. If, as Luther maintained, the church is where the gospel is, then it followed that by condemning the gospel Rome was condemning the church. It was in this spirit, and not primarily in a spirit of boasting, that Luther said of Worms: 'Then I was the church!' Because he was contending for the gospel and the gospel made the church and Rome condemned the gospel, Rome had condemned the church as represented in this case by the church's loyal servant, Martin Luther. Luther believed he was standing for the same gospel for which the church had stood before it became corrupt and condemned him. When it condemned him, so he believed, it was forsaking the gospel to which it had previously been loyal, while he continued in his loyalty. Thus Rome turned its back on the church, while Luther remained with the church. Such was Luther's interpretation of what happened when he severed his relations with Rome.”

Source: Jaraslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 18.

Pelikan also notes:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession made the most of this situation. One of the most penetrating discussions in the Apology is its analysis of the several doctrines of justification characteristic of its opponents. Among the various theories present in Western Catholic thought, the Reformers also claimed to find the ancestry of their own view. But instead of selecting this view or at least leaving it open as a possibility, the Council of Trent seemed to Chemnitz to select the extreme opposite, the Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian doctrine. At the same time, Chemnitz repudiated any doctrine of 'nude imputation' and sought to root justification in the life,
death, and resurrection of Christ rather than in the absolute will of God. This stress upon the 'ordered' rather than the 'absolute' will of God set Chemnitz apart from many earlier opponents of moralistic teachings about justification.

By adopting this teaching and by anathematizing Luther's doctrine, Trent seemed to Chemnitz to be condemning not only the Protestant principle of Luther's Reformation, but considerable portions of the Catholic substance it purported to defend. For the weight of the Catholic tradition supported justification by grace alone without human merit, particularly if 'Catholic tradition' included, as it did for Chemnitz, not merely learned theology, but also 'all the prayers of the saints in which they ask to be instructed, illumined, and sanctified by God. By these prayers they acknowledge that they cannot have what they are asking for by their own natural powers.' With the weight of such tradition on his side, Chemnitz could accuse Trent of setting the unwritten tradition which it itself had invented against the 'true and certain traditions of the apostles'. Thus he demonstrated the truly traditional and Catholic character of the Reformation doctrine, implying that by closing the door to this doctrine Trent was making Rome a sect. Pointing to the antithesis between the Thomistic and the Scotistic views of justification, many Protestant scholars have come to conclusions that support Chemnitz, while recent Roman Catholic scholars tend to see the Tridentine decree on justification as a conciliatory statement.”

Source: Jaraslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 51-53.

I could launch into a bunch of quotes from Trent itself, but a reading of its decrees puts the Reformers and the RCC on different pages concerning the Gospel. While I grant that there are those within the RCC that are saved by faith in Christ alone- they are so despite the official teachings of Trent, which anathematized the gospel and teaches a different gospel. I think the early Reformers saw this clearly. I can appreciate ecumenical concerns, but the bottom line for me is that Rome officially teaches a different Gospel, as do the Mormons.

James Swan said...

I appreciate the clarification- I don't have anything to add- as we're probably closer in agreement than I had originally thought.

Anonymous said...

I have came to this bloq after monitoring Patrick Madrid's Planet Envoy where James recently posted.

Why did Martin Luther remove seven books from the Bible? I was told that he also tried to remove the Book of James from the Bible referring to it as the "Epistle of straw." Is this true?

Peter

James Swan said...

Hi Peter-

I have written on the subject of Luther nad the canon many times- These links will provide you with detailed responses to your questions-

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/01/luthers-view-of-canon-dialog-with.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/05/luthers-canon-response-to-catholic.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/05/luthers-canon-response-to-catholic_06.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/05/luthers-canon-response-to-catholic_08.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/05/luthers-canon-response-to-catholic_15.html

Thanks for stopping by-
James

Anonymous said...

Thanks James.