check out this anti catholic blog

[adstrinity]

Children in a believing household is clean and holy. Children from a nonbelieving household is unclean and unholy.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you [2] to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Oh! You were referencing 1 Corinthians 7:14. You left out the 14. I don’t fault you. You’re not Catholic so you may not know how to use a Bible correctly.

When there is a particular reference one wants to make, one cites the chapter and verse if there is a verse within a chapter that brings to light what one is trying to reference.

Hopes this helps you for the future!

 

[TriuneUnity]

How does one get that theory out of scripture? I had no idea the Reformed are so outside the norm. I am going to have to read up on them a bit. I am behind a couple books. Won’t get to it for a while.

Most of the various Reformed denominations will have explanations of their view on their websites. I would probably check there.

They don’t get it from Scripture. It simply relies on a false reading of “this is my body.”

In the respect of understanding the eucharist as a bond that exists among all Christians, this fact gives us as Lutherans a greater bond with Catholics and Orthodox than we will ever have with the sacramentarians.

Whatever must be said of ecumenical relations, never make the mistake of thinking commonality over sola fide, sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo gloria, therefore means brotherhood.

 

[PerryJ]

The Baptist will say that the Reformed churches have a Catholic hangover.

Thats a good one!

Not that Baptist should know anything about hangovers.

 

[Reformed]

Oh! You were referencing 1 Corinthians 7:14. You left out the 14. I don’t fault you. You’re not Catholic so you may not know how to use a Bible correctly.

When there is a particular reference one wants to make, one cites the chapter and verse if there is a verse within a chapter that brings to light what one is trying to reference.

Hopes this helps you for the future!

LOL…what the heck are you talking about? I bet Roman Catholicism teaches a form of covenant theology too, but I could be wrong. This is about convenant children from a household of faith.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Conservative Reformed churches (and this is going to get technical, Perry, so bear with me lol) believe that Christ is not present in the elements of bread and wine sacramentally (or physically). They believe that for the elect who have faith, they receive the real body and blood of Christ by the instrument of their faith. Rather than Christ coming down to the elements to be received by the mouth, their faith raises them to heaven and they receive his body and blood there.

The Zwinglians hold to the memorialist view. Which simply states it’s a reminder of Christ and nothing really happens here except faith is strengthened by thinking of Christ. It’s like looking at a painting of Jesus. Most Baptists, Arminians, and some less traditional Calvinists hold to this view.

Methodists (as an example of Arminians) hold to “real presence” as opposed to the pneumatic presence of Calvin or the mere memorial nature of the Sacrament as advanced by Zwingli. Moreover, the Presbyterian Church (USA) entered into an agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church adopting “real presence” (officially rejecting Calvin’s view of pneumatic presence).

So there is a strong movement toward “real presence” – however, Protestant churches will never go as far as trying to philosophically explain (as Rome does) how the real presence becomes embodied in the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper).

In both cases, however, the Reformed and the Zwinglians receive nothing but bread and wine (or grape juice). A sacrament is only valid if it is done as Christ instituted it. Christ instituted the Supper to be his true body and blood, in bread and wine, received by the mouth and the benefits received by faith. In truth, and this sounds harsh; Reformed and Zwinglians are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper. They are celebrating a ritual of their own invention, not Christ’s sacrament.

You’re recanting a very old Reformed view, which at this point is a minority view in the reformed community. Frankly, most reformed churches don’t even hold to such a dogmatic view of the negative side of double-predestination anymore.

I myself, as I may have expressed previously, believe that the idea of predestination to reprobation was wrought from a lack of focus on end times prophecy – moreover, it ignores some statements made by Jesus Himself regarding accountability for faith.

Though we disagree with the theology behind the Catholic eucharist, in this respect, they are celebrating the Supper as Christ instituted it. So Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics are receiving the true body and blood of the Lord.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Methodists (as an example of Arminians) hold to “real presence” as opposed to the pneumatic presence of Calvin or the mere memorial nature of the Sacrament as advanced by Zwingli. Moreover, the Presbyterian Church (USA) entered into an agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church adopting “real presence” (officially rejecting Calvin’s view of pneumatic presence).

With Methodists, that is why I said most as opposed to all. Quite frankly, with the ELCA, it appears to be the other way around. Entering into fellowship with each other effectively changed the stance of the ELCA to adopt Presbyterian views. As a result, we who are confessional Lutherans, no longer believe the ELCA to have the real presence.

So there is a strong movement toward “real presence” – however, Protestant churches will never go as far as trying to philosophically explain (as Rome does) how the real presence becomes embodied in the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper).

That is true. We should never explain it philosophically. That is why we reject transubstantiation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You’re recanting a very old Reformed view, which at this point is a minority view in the reformed community. Frankly, most reformed churches don’t even hold to such a dogmatic view of the negative side of double-predestination anymore.

I myself, as I may have expressed previously, believe that the idea of predestination to reprobation was wrought from a lack of focus on end times prophecy – moreover, it ignores some statements made by Jesus Himself regarding accountability for faith.

Double predestination???

 

[sola_scriptura]

Double predestination???

Yes. For instance, my own church the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (an offshoot from the Presbyterian Church USA) does not take a dogmatic view toward election to reprobation (and views on this doctrine vary).

Moreover, the Presbyterian understanding of the agreement signed with the Lutheran church is different than you are portraying. It is a shift from Calvin’s view of pneumatic presence. However, the language was ambiguous (still allowing for a diversity of views within each faith community).

So Presbyterians will say their view is a “real presence” not just a pneumatic, spiritual, or symbolic presence. The way I understand this is the Lutherans essentially asserted “real presence” as the minimum requirement before a union could be had; but did not change their own view of this sacrament.

Be that as it may I personally don’t know how to react to this resurgence in sacramental ritual among mainstream denominations.

Consider this discourse:

*But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:48-52).*

Jesus is clearly referring to faith and spiritual nourishment. This is what the Jews didn’t understand. They interpreted His words as an intent to institute some sort of cannibalistic ritual.

Jesus responded by giving them more words, which to stumble on:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).

However, then Jesus clarifies His statement to His disciples:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." (John 6:63).

This is the essence of salvation – by grace through faith. Through faith we receive the Spirit of life, not through rituals of the flesh. So honestly I don’t have a problem with Zwingli’s position (or Calvin’s original view) – but I guess many people do.

The message of Paul, for instance, was that these sort of rituals do not save. Only God saves, not the works of men. However, even more profound is we see these same sort of differences in the early Christian community that Paul dealt with. The message of Paul was clear – we should not cause our brother to stumble, but at the same time we need to recognize false teachings.

Paul predicted all the differences we have today within the Christian community – and stripped pure Christianity down to one fundamental concept – faith. He told us not to grumble about these sort of differences; however, I believe the deeper message of Christ was faith in Him stripped of superstitious ritual.

So I am happy with a belief in the “real presence” – but also do not think any less of Baptists who disagree; and I find little use in quibbling over this issue (especially among Protestants).

With regard to baptism I take the same view:

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

I do think baptism is necessary – as a confession of faith. However, I do not believe baptism is in itself efficacious without faith.

I think Paul gives us the requirement in Romans 10:9, broken down as follows:

1. Faith
2. Confession of that faith

I believe Jesus tells us that the Spirit is received through faith. Witness of faith is love. If you only have this much you’re saved.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes. For instance, my own church the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (an offshoot from the Presbyterian Church USA) does not take a dogmatic view toward election to reprobation (and views on this doctrine vary).

My confusion was because we weren’t talking about double predestination lol

Moreover, the Presbyterian understanding of the agreement signed with the Lutheran church is different than you are portraying. It is a shift from Calvin’s view of pneumatic presence. However, the language was ambiguous (still allowing for a diversity of views within each faith community).

It is our contention that any action that weakens the statement of doctrine and doesn’t clearly state what is being held to invalidates the sacrament. It is no longer being celebrated as Christ instituted.

Be that as it may I personally don’t know how to react to this resurgence in sacramental ritual among mainstream denominations.

It isn’t recent in the confessional Lutheran community. It is only within those church bodies that have ignored their confessions of faith that their view of the sacrament has matched American Protestantism.

Consider this discourse:

*But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:48-52).*

Jesus is clearly referring to faith and spiritual nourishment. This is what the Jews didn’t understand. They interpreted His words as an intent to institute some sort of cannibalistic ritual.

Jesus responded by giving them more words, which to stumble on:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53).

However, then Jesus clarifies His statement to His disciples:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." (John 6:63).

I do not interpret John 6 to be a eucharistic passage. Neither did Luther. It is, as you said, a statement about faith in Christ.

This is the essence of salvation – by grace through faith. Through faith we receive the Spirit of life, not through rituals of the flesh.

Jesus isn’t speaking about rituals of the flesh. If His physical flesh profited nothing, then we are still in our sins. The flesh that He is referring to is the flesh of unregenerate man not being able to comprehend faith in the Savior; and that only the Spirit can grant faith in Christ.

The message of Paul, for instance, was that these sort of rituals do not save. Only God saves, not the works of men.

The Lord’s Supper is not a work of man.

With regard to baptism I take the same view:

I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).

I do think baptism is necessary – as a confession of faith. However, I do not believe baptism is in itself efficacious without faith.

Baptism will give no benefit without faith. That much is true. The reference to Mark 1:8 means that John’s baptism is not Christ’s baptism. Christ instituted His baptism in Matthew 28. This is the baptism that the Christian celebrates. It gives to us the Holy Spirit.

 

[sola_scriptura]

My confusion was because we weren’t talking about double predestination lol

It is our contention that any action that weakens the statement of doctrine and doesn’t clearly state what is being held to invalidates the sacrament. It is no longer being celebrated as Christ instituted.

It isn’t recent in the confessional Lutheran community. It is only within those church bodies that have ignored their confessions of faith that their view of the sacrament has matched American Protestantism.

I do not interpret John 6 to be a eucharistic passage. Neither did Luther. It is, as you said, a statement about faith in Christ.

Jesus isn’t speaking about rituals of the flesh. If His physical flesh profited nothing, then we are still in our sins. The flesh that He is referring to is the flesh of unregenerate man not being able to comprehend faith in the Savior; and that only the Spirit can grant faith in Christ.

The Lord’s Supper is not a work of man.

Baptism will give no benefit without faith. That much is true. The reference to Mark 1:8 means that John’s baptism is not Christ’s baptism. Christ instituted His baptism in Matthew 28. This is the baptism that the Christian celebrates. It gives to us the Holy Spirit.

Overall I agree with your synopsis. However, my only point of contention is that the Lutheran church seems a bit dogmatic in its views of other Protestant doctrines (but I also know this has always been true – for instance I know Luther had a strong distaste for the Anabaptists).

I think the Lutherans have a role as sort of a bridge church (as do the Anglicans in some respects) between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe that’s a good thing; I’m not sure.

I probably find more continuity with evangelical protestants & Baptists than the average Lutheran would. While the average Lutheran has much more in common with Catholics than I do.

I see the reformed movement exceedingly moving toward the Lutheran view – which I’m not sure if I like (I’m sitting on the fence for now). I don’t want us to alienate our evangelical brethren for the sake of ritual – which I think will backfire on mainline churches, because the evangelical movement is the future.

There are anywhere between 400 million and a billion people worldwide who identity themselves as evangelical (and this is probably a conservative number). They don’t have the sort of structure of the Catholic Churches – but will soon be the most dominant branch of Christianity all the same. They’re doing it without a strong episcopal structure, without harsh dogma, and without eloquent philosophy. They keep it simple: love, fellowship, and faith. To deny the power of this movement in Christ is I think a mistake for those of us in the so called “mainstream”?

Let’s face it, while Catholics and Lutherans in Europe have all but abandoned real faith – in place of the philosophy of men like Nietzsche; while they revel in their bohemian selves and how much more cosmopolitan they are as compared with those cowboy Christian American types, the evangelical movement is slipping in their back door.

God will not be denied. So while Catholics and “mainline” denominations quibble over ordination of women, homosexuality, celibacy, the nature of the Eucharist and baptism, the evangelical movement grows. Not concerned with any of this, bringing the message of simple faith and love to the oppressed masses, they add millions to their ranks every day.

I will applaud whatever God’s will is in this regard – regardless of what it means to even my own denomination.

I don’t care if I get the most lowly job in heaven – I’ll be Jesus’ shoe shine boy. I just want to see the devil defeated, and God’s name praised everywhere. How God will do it is up to Him – but He will do it because He’s God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Overall I agree with your synopsis. However, my only point of contention is that the Lutheran church seems a bit dogmatic in its views of other Protestant doctrines (but I also know this has always been true – for instance I know Luther had a strong distaste for the Anabaptists).

We’re generally dogmatic on just about everything. I think part of the reason we emphasize dogmatism on the sacraments is we tend to be grouped in with Protestants who do not hold to a sacramental understanding of the faith. Also, we feel they are very important for a correct understanding of a monergistic approach to our justification.

I think the Lutherans have a role as sort of a bridge church (as do the Anglicans in some respects) between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe that’s a good thing; I’m not sure.

It is; only because it emphasizes that we are an evangelical and catholic church. We do not despise the common past of Christian teaching. We embrace and cultivate it. Without the abuses of Rome.

I probably find more continuity with evangelical protestants & Baptists than the average Lutheran would. While the average Lutheran has much more in common with Catholics than I do.

I have nothing in common with Baptists other than a basic profession of faith. We have much in common with the Reformed churches in our understanding of soteriology. But even there, the emphasis is different (sacramental, and objective).

I see the reformed movement exceedingly moving toward the Lutheran view – which I’m not sure if I like (I’m sitting on the fence for now). I don’t want us to alienate our evangelical brethren for the sake of ritual – which I think will backfire on mainline churches, because the evangelical movement is the future.

Not sure about that as I dont have much contact with them. The United Reformed Church tends to be the most “Lutheran” of the Reformed churches in the U.S. that I have seen. If you’re familiar with Michael Horton, he has been labeled a crypto-Lutheran.

There are anywhere between 400 million and a billion people worldwide who identity themselves as evangelical (and this is probably a conservative number). They don’t have the sort of structure of the Catholic Churches – but will soon be the most dominant branch of Christianity all the same. They’re doing it without a strong episcopal structure, without harsh dogma, and without eloquent philosophy. They keep it simple: love, fellowship, and faith. To deny the power of this movement in Christ is I think a mistake for those of us in the so called “mainstream”?

It is certainly a good thing that evangelicalism is increasing worldwide. We should not, however, compromise doctrine for simple fellowship.

What in the heck are you doing in the EPC? LoL

 

[sola_scriptura]

What in the heck are you doing in the EPC? LoL

Why do you ask?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why do you ask?

Mostly as a joke. I don’t think I’ve met anyone in the OPC or PCA who had much good to say about it lol. Maybe they’re just more ‘hard’ on them. I think it’s mainly the issue of allowing female ordination and their services tend to the contemporary.

We’re not then only dogmatic ones

 

[sola_scriptura]

Mostly as a joke. I don’t think I’ve met anyone in the OPC or PCA who had much good to say about it lol. Maybe they’re just more ‘hard’ on them. I think it’s mainly the issue of allowing female ordination and their services tend to the contemporary.

We’re not then only dogmatic ones

Well, I don’t know? Honestly like I said I’m relatively new to the EPC, used to be a Methodist (for quite a long time) & I used to be a champion for Arminian soteriology.

However, I slowly shifted toward Calvin. It was a gradual shift – and the more I look at myself I was probably always a Calvinist but didn’t want to admit it (since Calvin is commonly depicted as the Darth Vader of Christian theology).

When someone would say everyone has the free will choice to accept or deny Christ – I would respond well what about people who never heard of Him? As they went through elaborate (and sometimes impressively creative) gymnastics to tell me how they are given the same chance as you or I – the red flags starting popping up.

In the end I concluded that they are simply not given this chance, and hence they were not predestined. This after reading Arminius’ work, Wesley’s sermons, etc. So at least I know I came to reformed soteriology with a full understanding of it. Then I began to read Calvin extensively, as well as Luther. Where I am now is sort of a hybrid between the two.

As I said I really do like N.T. Wright, not necessarily because I agree with his ideas 100% – but because he made me start thinking about how the revelations pertaining to the coming kingdom are intertwined with soteriology. This pushed me to take a new perspective on some things Jesus stated.

For instance, take this verse:

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains (John 9:41).

So what of those who have never heard the word of God? Well, as Jesus states they cannot be guilty of sin if they are blind to it. At the same time they’re not chosen by God.

How do we reconcile these conflicting ideas?

While I cannot be convinced that foreseen merits such as a commendable character form the basis for election – IMO it is also speculative to think folks who never heard the message of freedom and love in Christ are destined for eternal damnation.

Hence there is something to be said about Luther’s insistence that election to reprobation is a divine mystery. I do think we are to do as commanded & pray that all will be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. The one thing I appreciate about the EPC is that this sort of variance from strict five point hyper-Calvinism is perfectly acceptable.

I’ve frankly never been a fan of systematic theology. I’ve always had a feeling that our feeble minds simply cannot understand the full power and knowledge of God. We have His Spirit inside of us – but yet there’s no way the gray matter between our ears can fully comprehend the majesty of our creator.

I would always find theories such as Molinism, although quite creative, more useful for its entertainment value rather than for explaining God. Logicians and philosophers have little to offer in the way of divine insight, at least IMO. We can know God is love, we can know God prefers decent behavior (as C.S. Lewis points out quite effectively), and we can know God has a plan. We know He loves us so much He gave His only son so that we might be saved. We know what He expects of us isn’t too burdensome, simple faith, love, and obedience. Even when we fall He picks us back up, forgives us, and dusts us off.

As for all the speculation and grand philosophical theories, I’ll keep that mode of thinking to my legal career.

 

[adstrinity]

Awwwww, I don’t think Calvin is Christianity’s Darth Vader. Darth Vader was the dad of the good guys and repented to the good side before he died. I view Calvin more like a Morlock from the X-Men universe; removed from the light of day, but defending his world even though the rest like him work on a higher level even as they disagree amongst themselves.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Awwwww, I don’t think Calvin is Christianity’s Darth Vader. Darth Vader was the dad of the good guys and repented to the good side before he died. I view Calvin more like a Morlock from the X-Men universe; removed from the light of day, but defending his world even though the rest like him work on a higher level even as they disagree amongst themselves.

IMO Calvin was one of the greatest theologians in Christian history. Since the days of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Paul, and John few men have written so accurately about the Christian religion (certainly no one in Rome).

 

[Reformed]

IMO Calvin was one of the greatest theologians in Christian history. Since the days of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Paul, and John few men have written so accurately about the Christian religion (certainly no one in Rome).

I highly recommend The Institutes of Christian Religion abridged edition, edited by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne ISBN 0-8010-2524-9 which is manageable for most readers. I also like abridged editions of works by Jonathan Edwards. It is only edifying if I understand it.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I highly recommend The Institutes of Christian Religion abridged edition, edited by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne ISBN 0-8010-2524-9 which is manageable for most readers. I also like abridged editions of works by Jonathan Edwards. It is only edifying if I understand it.

I’ll check it out. I mostly have read the institutes online – but I’ve been meaning to order a book from Amazon (thanks for the suggestions).

 

[PerryJ]

When someone would say everyone has the free will choice to accept or deny Christ – I would respond well what about people who never heard of Him? As they went through elaborate (and sometimes impressively creative) gymnastics to tell me how they are given the same chance as you or I – the red flags starting popping up.

Sola,

For Catholics the response to individuals that have not heard the word of God is Invincible Ignorance. If one has not heard of the word of God and yet follows the natural laws that God has given him, such as thou shalt not murder, the person will be saved.

I believe this thought works well with the concept of freewill.

 

[PerryJ]

IMO Calvin was one of the greatest theologians in Christian history. Since the days of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Paul, and John few men have written so accurately about the Christian religion (certainly no one in Rome).

Sola,

I am still somewhat baffled by your take on these reformers. Many of the areas of concern you had expressed in Catholics are very much in these Protestants. Calvin was a horrible man on an individual level. Do you believe a man can change the intepretation of Gods word and yet be one that is as horrific as Calvin. I understand men fail as the Popes have many times, as we all know; however, Calvin is an equal to the worst of our Popes. How do you reconcile this issue?