L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Where does Matthew 25 mention unbelievers? It doesn’t.
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
What’s more, look at what Christ says in this passage:
“Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat…”
He says to inherit the kingdom FOR you did this and that. He says to depart to hellfire FOR you did this and that. What does for mean?
“Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat…”
He says to inherit the kingdom FOR you did this and that. He says to depart to hellfire FOR you did this and that. What does for mean?
Jesus is saying to the sheep to come inherit the kingdom because they did these works. Come inherit the kingdom for the reason that they did these works. Similarly, He tells the goats to depart because they didn’t do them, for the reason of having not done them.
L
Lukelion
Guest
I’m a farm girl. The difference between sheep and goats is the sheep do what you want,(go here, go there) and the goats do what they want (stand on the car, and eat bumper stickers).
Lukelion
Lukelion
J
josephdavid
Guest
As an old farm boy from Wisconsin I concur
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
That is actually extremely significant. We know that the majority of Christ’s parables were agricultural parables because He lived in an agricultural society. He no doubt referred to one group as sheep and another as goats because He knew the people hearing it would equate sheep with obedience and goats with disobedience.
D
Dominica33
Guest
Littlesheep:
No, St. Ambrose won’t do, because among other things, he taught that the Mass was a Sacrifice. The same with the majority of the Fathers listed in your link, including St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, and St. John Chrysostom.
St. Athenasius was a promoter of both the perpetual virginity of the BVM and her bodily assumption into Heaven.
St. Gregory of Nyssa defended the Intercession of the Saints.
St. Basil the Great wrote on and defended clearly the doctrine of Purgatory.
Shall I provide quotes, or will you find me a true lutheran in the early Church holding no Catholic “excesses” you find inimical to the Gospel?
.
No, St. Ambrose won’t do, because among other things, he taught that the Mass was a Sacrifice. The same with the majority of the Fathers listed in your link, including St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, and St. John Chrysostom.
St. Athenasius was a promoter of both the perpetual virginity of the BVM and her bodily assumption into Heaven.
St. Gregory of Nyssa defended the Intercession of the Saints.
St. Basil the Great wrote on and defended clearly the doctrine of Purgatory.
Shall I provide quotes, or will you find me a true lutheran in the early Church holding no Catholic “excesses” you find inimical to the Gospel?
.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Then why base your faith upon his teachings? There’s a reason you’re called “Lutheran.”
Luther was in fact exceedingly sinful. If you take a look at his life, you’ll quickly discover that he was far from saintly. It’s interesting that Protestants tend to value their “heroes” based on their preaching ability or the system of doctrine they invented, rather than on their personal holiness. Non-Lutheran Protestants are in fact embarrassed by Martin Luther. Sure, they like to laud him as a hero and they accept his invented doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, but once you point out some other, shall we say “interesting”, facts about Luther, they will quickly point out that they aren’t Lutheran! The fact is, Luther was a prideful and wicked madman who created his own gospel and rejected the TRUE gospel which was received from Jesus and the apostles and held for 1500+ years. Luther, unfortunately, died obstinate in his heresy, separated from Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church, outside of which is no salvation. St. Theresa of Avila said that Luther would be the last to enter heaven! How sad that he led so many souls with him along his road to perdition.
LutheranStudent acts a lot like the founder of his religion, who was also prideful, arrogant, hostile, and vulgar. A servant is not greater than his master, after all.
L
littlesheep
Guest
Rand I thinks ya almost got it. Maybe we were talking past each other.
Well I guess, Yes we can “jump off the ship” so to speak.
But now look at what the RCC teaches.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema"
“CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.”
“CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.”
“CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
The entire text of Trent is here, perhaps you’ve read a redacted copy or summary that did not include the myriad of anathemas.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.ht
Thus anyone who can read can see that this is not just a matter of doctrinal differences on theological trivia. This is the very heart of salvation, of how one is righteous in the sight of God. Is it imparted righteousness which (hopefully) makes me more holy, so I can (hopefully) merit salvation after my (hopefully) minimal stay in purgatory? Or is it the free gift of God’s grace, based entirely and only upon the merits of Jesus Christ? Both cannot be right. One path leads to hell if it is consistently believed – Trent says so, too. Is it salvation by grace plus merit? Or salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Thanks to a fellow Lutheran for letting me quote him
B
Brendan
Guest
That’s pretty much what the Church has always taught
Since you are so keen on quoting Trent, I noticed you ‘forgot’ to post the very first Canon on Justification from Trent
So how does that compare with your view of the Church?
J
josephdavid
Guest
E
Erich
Guest
The same article goes on to say:
Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!
…
Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. “Why not pray directly to Jesus?” they ask.
The answer is: “Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!” But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the “go-directly-to-Jesus” objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.
Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).
Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.
Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit” (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.
Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.
In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.
B
Brendan
Guest
Not only that, take a look at what Jesus commanded of the Rich Young Man in Matt 19
“What must I do to inheirit enternal Life” asked the man.
Christ told him TWO things, with a specific condition on the first.
The rich man had to Sell all that he had and give it to the poor., and then Follow Him.
He had to relinquish his goods; fair enough, a man can’t have two masters, money and God.
It wasn’t enough for the young man just to leave the goods, as Simon, James and John left their fishing boats.
He had to perform a work of charity IN ADDITION to following Christ.
It is only in performing both Faith AND Works, would he have inherited Enternal Life. He could have just followed Jesus, but that was not what Christ asked for. He asked the the young man take care of the poor.
They were two seperate decisions. The young man was willing enough to follow Christ, but he was ‘goat like’ in not performing the required work.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Your Lutheran friend does not understand the canons, because they do not say what he seems to think that they do.
This is how it works. We know that nothing impure shall enter Heaven, so to get there we must be pure. Christ’s merits are applied to us so that we can become pure. Some of this happens in this life, some in purgatory. What matters, however, is that every ounce of righteousness or holiness that we have is only there because of Christs’ merits, and is there in no way by our own merits. We grow in holiness because Christ’s merits enable and help us to.
Your friends interpretation has one other huge problem in that it has Trent contradicting itself. Even if Trent was totally wrong on justification, would it contradict itself?
It is infused righteousness which does make you more holy, which makes you clean to enter God’s presence, which you receive on the merits of Christ. Men do not merit salvation in any way.
This is how it works. We know that nothing impure shall enter Heaven, so to get there we must be pure. Christ’s merits are applied to us so that we can become pure. Some of this happens in this life, some in purgatory. What matters, however, is that every ounce of righteousness or holiness that we have is only there because of Christs’ merits, and is there in no way by our own merits. We grow in holiness because Christ’s merits enable and help us to.
Your friends interpretation has one other huge problem in that it has Trent contradicting itself. Even if Trent was totally wrong on justification, would it contradict itself?
B
bekalc
Guest
The guy asked me what Protestant denomination I was, and before I was AG. Although I hung out with Methodists too. In terms of election, I was an Arminian…
The reason I choose to convert, had to do with what I felt was the varying different interpertations in Protestantism. It came to a head for me or became clear when I saw they were doing it to communion. Where the professor said the Bible doesn’t clearly tell us if we should interpert Jesus literally or figuratively each side chooses (although he did defend his reasons) for me that was kind of the final straw…in a long line of the this reasoning in Systematics class. Basically I’m sick and tired of the Bible being used as a proof text…There’s a right interpertation, and I think the best way to get at it is to see how the Whole Church throughout time has interperted Scripture…(Or a council) but certainly not each individual for himself.
Frankly that’s my issue for Luther. For his here I stand show me where I’m wrong on Scripture. The point is the Catholic Church DID defend her stances on Scripture on the issue of justification…He just didn’t want to listen and disagreed with how the Catholics interperted Scripture. He was vigourously opposed by the Word of God. And in the end, where it came down to for Catholics was that Luther’s teachings were novelties. They didn’t line up with what was historically taught by Christians. He was essential saying the Church was wrong for 1500 years!
The fact that the Catholics were standing for the Tradiotional interpertation is lined up by the fact that all the ancient communities, not just the Roman Catholics. Side with us on the issue of the Gospel/salvation… And when you consider that the Copts and us were split for over a thousand years, its very clear that Trent wasn’t just standing for a medieval interpertation…
Scripture also says obey your leaders, and all authority comes from the Lord all kinds of verses and warnings about this. I’m siding with Trent and the Catholics because 1. The Trent farthers provided a very sound Scriptural backing for their stance on justification. 2. There position was clearly given the fact that all the ancient communities agree with them on this matter. It was clearly the historical position/interpertation. Thus, it wasn’t just the Trent fathers personal opinions/interperations. They were rather invoking Galations "if any man comes to you with a gospel other than the one you have received. 3. They were put in that position authority and were recognized as such, Not Luther… Plus, they followed the Scriptural pattern a council of resloving the dispute in the end… As far as I’m concerned the Burden of proof was overwhelming on Luther. For me to follow the Lutherans/Protestants. And He does not meet the burden.
What bothers me the most about Luther was I think he took upon himself far more authority than a Catholic pope ever dared to do. While Catholics hold to papal infallibity, its extremely limited…And huge number of popes have been rather forgotten.
As for me I’m sticking with a Church that is going to stand firm on her teachings. A Church that is not going to be swayed by every new wind of doctrine that comes along. No matter how nice the doctrine sounds. Or how many proof texts they give to support it…As long as the Catholic Church Stands firm and holds on to the Traditions that have been passed down either oral or written. I will be sticking with her.
The reason I choose to convert, had to do with what I felt was the varying different interpertations in Protestantism. It came to a head for me or became clear when I saw they were doing it to communion. Where the professor said the Bible doesn’t clearly tell us if we should interpert Jesus literally or figuratively each side chooses (although he did defend his reasons) for me that was kind of the final straw…in a long line of the this reasoning in Systematics class. Basically I’m sick and tired of the Bible being used as a proof text…There’s a right interpertation, and I think the best way to get at it is to see how the Whole Church throughout time has interperted Scripture…(Or a council) but certainly not each individual for himself.
Frankly that’s my issue for Luther. For his here I stand show me where I’m wrong on Scripture. The point is the Catholic Church DID defend her stances on Scripture on the issue of justification…He just didn’t want to listen and disagreed with how the Catholics interperted Scripture. He was vigourously opposed by the Word of God. And in the end, where it came down to for Catholics was that Luther’s teachings were novelties. They didn’t line up with what was historically taught by Christians. He was essential saying the Church was wrong for 1500 years!
The fact that the Catholics were standing for the Tradiotional interpertation is lined up by the fact that all the ancient communities, not just the Roman Catholics. Side with us on the issue of the Gospel/salvation… And when you consider that the Copts and us were split for over a thousand years, its very clear that Trent wasn’t just standing for a medieval interpertation…
Scripture also says obey your leaders, and all authority comes from the Lord all kinds of verses and warnings about this. I’m siding with Trent and the Catholics because 1. The Trent farthers provided a very sound Scriptural backing for their stance on justification. 2. There position was clearly given the fact that all the ancient communities agree with them on this matter. It was clearly the historical position/interpertation. Thus, it wasn’t just the Trent fathers personal opinions/interperations. They were rather invoking Galations "if any man comes to you with a gospel other than the one you have received. 3. They were put in that position authority and were recognized as such, Not Luther… Plus, they followed the Scriptural pattern a council of resloving the dispute in the end… As far as I’m concerned the Burden of proof was overwhelming on Luther. For me to follow the Lutherans/Protestants. And He does not meet the burden.
What bothers me the most about Luther was I think he took upon himself far more authority than a Catholic pope ever dared to do. While Catholics hold to papal infallibity, its extremely limited…And huge number of popes have been rather forgotten.
As for me I’m sticking with a Church that is going to stand firm on her teachings. A Church that is not going to be swayed by every new wind of doctrine that comes along. No matter how nice the doctrine sounds. Or how many proof texts they give to support it…As long as the Catholic Church Stands firm and holds on to the Traditions that have been passed down either oral or written. I will be sticking with her.
S
Sherlock
Guest
You’re not even making any sense here. You started by saying that there were only two groups, believers and unbelievers. I pointed out that even Satan believes in God (Satan is not an atheist). You then decide to change the terms and make “belief” mean something other than “belief in the existence of God”. You are equating “belief”, then, with “faith”. Or would you deny that some may believe in the existence of God while choosing to disobey him?
L
LutheranStudent
Guest
Then why base your faith upon his teachings? There’s a reason you’re called “Lutheran.”
Luther was in fact exceedingly sinful. If you take a look at his life, you’ll quickly discover that he was far from saintly. It’s interesting that Protestants tend to value their “heroes” based on their preaching ability or the system of doctrine they invented, rather than on their personal holiness. Non-Lutheran Protestants are in fact embarrassed by Martin Luther. Sure, they like to laud him as a hero and they accept his invented doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, but once you point out some other, shall we say “interesting”, facts about Luther, they will quickly point out that they aren’t Lutheran! The fact is, Luther was a prideful and wicked madman who created his own gospel and rejected the TRUE gospel which was received from Jesus and the apostles and held for 1500+ years. Luther, unfortunately, died obstinate in his heresy, separated from Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church, outside of which is no salvation. St. Theresa of Avila said that Luther would be the last to enter heaven! How sad that he led so many souls with him along his road to perdition.
LutheranStudent acts a lot like the founder of his religion, who was also prideful, arrogant, hostile, and vulgar. A servant is not greater than his master, after all.
Ouch, I’m hurt. (sarcasm) The reason Luther was sometimes crude, which any Lutheran will admit, is because he lacked patience. I don’t think he ever lacked Christian love, but his love for Christ did not permit him to sit idly by while the papists, thier imps and minions destroyed the gospel of salvation full and free. Christ himself overturned tables in the temple… I wonder if he’s in heaven. (sarcasm) My Jesus Christ surely reigns in heaven and on the last day he will bring down the mighty and exalt the low.
Of all religious denominations the Catholics ought to be last to condemn Luther for his works. Everyone, everyone, everyone knws of the rampant immorality and greed of the clergy in his day - right down to the popes. Yes! Even your popes are human…
I will take it as a matter of great pride to be compared to Martin Luther; May God’s grace toward worthless sinners shine as brightly in my life as it did in his. In the end I know I will be saved - not because of anything I have done, not even in part - but because I rest on the sure foundation that is Christ.
Luther was in fact exceedingly sinful. If you take a look at his life, you’ll quickly discover that he was far from saintly. It’s interesting that Protestants tend to value their “heroes” based on their preaching ability or the system of doctrine they invented, rather than on their personal holiness. Non-Lutheran Protestants are in fact embarrassed by Martin Luther. Sure, they like to laud him as a hero and they accept his invented doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, but once you point out some other, shall we say “interesting”, facts about Luther, they will quickly point out that they aren’t Lutheran! The fact is, Luther was a prideful and wicked madman who created his own gospel and rejected the TRUE gospel which was received from Jesus and the apostles and held for 1500+ years. Luther, unfortunately, died obstinate in his heresy, separated from Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church, outside of which is no salvation. St. Theresa of Avila said that Luther would be the last to enter heaven! How sad that he led so many souls with him along his road to perdition.
LutheranStudent acts a lot like the founder of his religion, who was also prideful, arrogant, hostile, and vulgar. A servant is not greater than his master, after all.
Ouch, I’m hurt. (sarcasm) The reason Luther was sometimes crude, which any Lutheran will admit, is because he lacked patience. I don’t think he ever lacked Christian love, but his love for Christ did not permit him to sit idly by while the papists, thier imps and minions destroyed the gospel of salvation full and free. Christ himself overturned tables in the temple… I wonder if he’s in heaven. (sarcasm) My Jesus Christ surely reigns in heaven and on the last day he will bring down the mighty and exalt the low.
Of all religious denominations the Catholics ought to be last to condemn Luther for his works. Everyone, everyone, everyone knws of the rampant immorality and greed of the clergy in his day - right down to the popes. Yes! Even your popes are human…
I will take it as a matter of great pride to be compared to Martin Luther; May God’s grace toward worthless sinners shine as brightly in my life as it did in his. In the end I know I will be saved - not because of anything I have done, not even in part - but because I rest on the sure foundation that is Christ.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
It is certainly true that Luther was the creator of novel doctrines that have absolutely no support in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. So why should anyone believe Luther and reject the historical beliefs of orthodox Christians just because Luther claims to be an authority? Did not Mohammed do the same thing?
Luther was not a reformer of Christianity, but a corrupter of Christianity with his novel doctrines, just as Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell are corrupters of Christianity, not reformers, with their novel doctrines.
D
Dominica33
Guest
And yet we are searching tirelessly for this gospel of salvation, perfectly unencumbered by the “false” Catholic doctrines that Luther condemned:
An early Father who promoted sola scriptura without the excesses of Tradition. Salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone, with no regard to works. Condemnation or blatant silence on Purgatory and prayers for the dead. Recognition of the Mother of God as holy, yet a sinner like the rest of us. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though as a rememberance, not a sacrifice.
In other words, a Father who promotes nothing opposed to the beliefs contained in The Lutheran Confessions, and nothing in addition to The Lutheran Confessions.
Pray tell where I can find this early Father. This model of the true faith. This lutheran.
C
CollegeKid
Guest
What is it about the Catholic Church that you think “destroyed the gospel of salvation full and free?” The Church basically teaches that salvation is a gift we receive by having faith in Jesus Christ with the caveat that you can’t claim to have a true faith if it doesn’t lead you to do works in Jesus’ name. Do you disagree? I hear many Protestants say salvation is a “free” gift. I’m assuming you believe this. Does this mean you think that once we have believed at one point in our life, our salvation is assured without any obligation on our part to pray or observe the Commandments, or help the less forturnate, or support the church financially?
What’s your point? That there isn’t any immorality within Protestant circles of Christianity? Two words: Jim Baker. Should I go on?
Yes! Even your popes are human…
No one’s denying that the Popes are human.
“But because I rest on the sure foundation that is Christ”-believe it or not, that takes effort on your part. Faith is only possible because of the grace of God, but we have to respond to that grace.
“not because of anything I have done, not even in part”- what about St. Paul’s exhortation in the Second Letter to the Phillipians- “work out your salvation in trembling and fear” ?
Does it ever bother you that Luther kept vestiges of Catholic doctrine in his teachings, like baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you just accept that Catholics were right about these two sacraments, but that Luther somehow “got it right,” so to speak, about the other 5 not being sacraments? If so, this seems like quite an arbitrary judgement to make. What would be your basis for believing this? Also, why is it Martin Luther who finally “got it right” and saved the true gospel? There were dissenters before him. Ever heard of the Waldenses, Cathars, or even the early heretics like the Arians and Pelagians, for example? What of the dissenters after Luther, who taught different doctrines than he did, like Calvinists? If you accept that the Catholic Church was right up until the point that there was widespead insitutional corruption within it and Martin Luther came onto the scene, that’s basically saying that God’s Church failed in its mission to teach the truth (kind of inconceivable, don’t you think?), from the observation that the church had sinful people in it (remember Christ warned that this would be true until Judgment Day) and from taking the word of a dissenter over the word of an institution that traces itself back to the Apostles. Please correct me if I’ve misrepresented your beliefs, but I’d like a response either way.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Actually, this was not Luther’s view. What is so hillarious about this point, though, is that while Luther himself believed in (and avidly preached) the perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary (so did Calvin, by the way) no Lutherans believe any of those things! Why not? Because Catholics also believe them. Lutherans, and dare I say all other Protestants (with the exception of some Anglicans) will fully accept the false, man made doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide and yet deny what was also held to be true by the same man that gave them those doctrines.
A question for the Lutherans: if Luther believed in these things, why don’t you? As much as I don’t like Luther for what he did to the Church, I think he would be sick with Lutherans today because of these things, as well as the use of the name “Lutherans”, which he expressly forbade his followers to use.
In Christ,
Rand
- Status