A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by TriuneUnity
The Pope, by the office of the Papacy, still claims universal jurisdiction over the entire Catholic Church. He still claims, by virtue of office to have the capacity to bind the consciences of Christians thousands of miles away, with doctrines that may or may not be according to the revelation of God. Therefore, until he relinquishes this claim to be the Vicar of Christ (who truly, is the Holy Spirit), the claim held by the Lutheran Confessions would still apply. Not to him personally (I dont question whether Benedict XVI is a Christian), but his office, represents this charge against it.

Umm…you’re kidding, right? :confused:
 
[TruneUnity]
So, yes; Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims, et al. do not have faith in Christ, so no they will not be saved from the wrath of God and have no life in them.
Click to expand...
Romans 2,13-16

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Scripture makes it clear that unbelievers are under condemnation already, before they ever hear of Christ. The rejection of Christ is not what condemns unbelievers. Sin does.
Click to expand...
The rejection of Christ does condemn unbelievers. If someone rejects the savior then he rejects salvation. It is a great sin to reject Christ.
The proclamation of Christ crucified for their sins is what rescues them from the condemnation they are already under.
Click to expand...
It is not hearers of the gospel who will be justified,but doers of the gospel.
 
JonNC said:
Hi Memaw,
I do now understand what you are saying. As I think you could have been clearer that you were referring to the protestant revolution, and not me personally, I could have been clearer
that I was referring to the differences in individual popes and not the office itself.
I put a portion of your quote in bold only to let you know that that was the target of my response.
I might finally say that it is an extremely broad brush to say that noncatholics are anti-catholic. Certainly some are, just as there are some Catholics who are anti-noncatholic. Many of us are not, and love our Catholics friends as truly brothers and sisters in Christ. We are linked at the very least in our baptism, a powerful link indeed. That we are all part of His flock is another thing I try to remember with every post.

Jon
Click to expand...
Here we go again!!! I did not say that all non-catholics were anti-catholic. so please put your broad brush back in its case and lets not start a problem where there is none. But you will have to admit that protestantism in general has been very anti-catholic over the past 500 years. Its only been recently, maybe 40 years or so that some have toned down their attitudes towards Catholics. And many have actually started to see for themselves that the Catholic Church is for real and not what they thought it was. Many protestant ministers, after studying the Faith of the Early Church Fathers and Catholic History (in the truth), have become Catholic. You should listen to some of Scott Hahn tapes. or read the books by Patrick Madrid, "Surprised by Truth, Vols, 1, 2 & 3.
 
Hello Lutherans from a Fellow Catholic. I don’t mean to kidnap your thread, or lead it astray, but I just happened on it and have only one question regarding the theology and history of the Catholic Church. Since we are talking about spiritual matters, also rules and regulations, can anyone on this thread really PROVE that what the Catholic Church claims as true is PROVABLE WRONG, regarding history, the theology proclaimed and the protection of the Holy Spirit given to it by Christ and so many other proofs held through the History of the Catholic Church?
 
elts1956 said:
Hello Lutherans from a Fellow Catholic. I don’t mean to kidnap your thread, or lead it astray, but I just happened on it and have only one question regarding the theology and history of the Catholic Church. Since we are talking about spiritual matters, also rules and regulations, can anyone on this thread really PROVE that what the Catholic Church claims as true is PROVABLE WRONG, regarding history, the theology proclaimed and the protection of the Holy Spirit given to it by Christ and so many other proofs held through the History of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Well, you would have to be specific here, elts. It’s a good question. But since not everything taught by Rome is false, could you maybe address a particular subject?
 
elts1956 said:
Hello Lutherans from a Fellow Catholic. I don’t mean to kidnap your thread, or lead it astray, but I just happened on it and have only one question regarding the theology and history of the Catholic Church. Since we are talking about spiritual matters, also rules and regulations, can anyone on this thread really PROVE that what the Catholic Church claims as true is PROVABLE WRONG, regarding history, the theology proclaimed and the protection of the Holy Spirit given to it by Christ and so many other proofs held through the History of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
AMEN!! and the Church can disprove the lies that have been slammed against it, if only they would listen.
 
JonNC said:
TU and Peter J have swerved into the very reason for my original post: the “term” anti-christ leads to misunderstanding and division. TU considers the term not a personal condemnation (at least not in this day and time), but rather a condemnation of the office of the papacy. Peter J sees it as a condemnation of any pope at any time, including Benedict XVI. (If I’m putting words in the mouth of either of you, please correct me)

The pursuit of unity (and therefore Lutheranism and Catholicism) would be better served if Lutherans were to say, “the office of the Papacy, in our view, is in heterodox for the following doctrinal reasons. Let’s allow the HS to guide us better understand each other.” And, of course, Catholics would say, “Lutherans are in heterdox …”)

Jon
Click to expand...
BOY OH BOY!!! Wouldn’t that be a miracle!!👍
 
JonNC said:
TU and Peter J have swerved into the very reason for my original post: the “term” anti-christ leads to misunderstanding and division. TU considers the term not a personal condemnation (at least not in this day and time), but rather a condemnation of the office of the papacy. Peter J sees it as a condemnation of any pope at any time, including Benedict XVI. (If I’m putting words in the mouth of either of you, please correct me)

The pursuit of unity (and therefore Lutheranism and Catholicism) would be better served if Lutherans were to say, “the office of the Papacy, in our view, is in heterodox for the following doctrinal reasons. Let’s allow the HS to guide us better understand each other.” And, of course, Catholics would say, “Lutherans are in heterdox …”)

Jon
Click to expand...
Memaw said:
AMEN!! and the Church can disprove the lies that have been slammed against it, if only they would listen.
Click to expand...
True, but when we are dealing with hearts sometimes getting mixed up with heads, it is hard to slow down and listen to anyone who is not saying what we want to hear.😉
 
TriuneUnity said:
Well, you would have to be specific here, elts. It’s a good question. But since not everything taught by Rome is false, could you maybe address a particular subject?
Click to expand...
How about you choosing as I don’t really know that much about Lutheranism. Thanks.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Well, you would have to be specific here, elts. It’s a good question. But since not everything taught by Rome is false, could you maybe address a particular subject?
Click to expand...
Memaw said:
AMEN!! and the Church can disprove the lies that have been slammed against it, if only they would listen.
Click to expand...
True, but when we are dealing with hearts sometimes getting mixed up with heads, it is hard to slow down and listen to anyone who is not saying what we want to hear.😉
 
**“Antichrist” is found only *five times *in the Holy Scriptures, four times as “antichrist” and once as “antichrists.” It was used only by the apostle John, and only in two of his Epistles to the church in which he was speaking, not pagans or people of other religions who opposed Christianity, but of people who had fallen away from the Church because they had been led astray by the “spirit of antichrist.” They alone were not antichrist, but by their apostasy had become among those who were also antichrist. Antichrist was a hostile force, not a specific person i.e. “antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists” (1 John 2:18). **
 
Memaw said:
Here we go again!!! I did not say that all non-catholics were anti-catholic. so please put your broad brush back in its case and lets not start a problem where there is none. But you will have to admit that protestantism in general has been very anti-catholic over the past 500 years. Its only been recently, maybe 40 years or so that some have toned down their attitudes towards Catholics. And many have actually started to see for themselves that the Catholic Church is for real and not what they thought it was. Many protestant ministers, after studying the Faith of the Early Church Fathers and Catholic History (in the truth), have become Catholic. You should listen to some of Scott Hahn tapes. or read the books by Patrick Madrid, "Surprised by Truth, Vols, 1, 2 & 3.
Click to expand...
I think in the last half century, yes, we have seen a growing level of charity between noncatholics and Catholics, though some on both sides have resisted what I consider the HS moving within the ecumenical movement. This should be credited in some good measure to Vatican II. It was in this spirit that I made my proposition that Lutherans drop, not only in polite conversation and in intense dialogue, but also in our confession, the term anti-christ, no matter how it is nuanced. Lutherans can disagree with Catholics in matters of doctrine without the term. I believe that with the polemics of the past, from both sides, cleared, dialogue can be furthered.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top