J
JMM1957
Guest
You are claiming the same roots as the Catholic Church? Two churches sprung up at Pentecost but each went in their own direction? The HS led both of them, but differently?
- Status
J
JMM1957
Guest
Yes, its my birth date, so go easy on the old man.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Not exactly what I meant. But you know thatYes, its my birth date, so go easy on the old man.
One thing I would like to respect in all ways no matter what, is the older (than me) generation.
Peace and all the best. Will word my comments better.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Likewise, I will try the best I can.Not exactly what I meant. But you know that
One thing I would like to respect in all ways no matter what, is the older (than me) generation.
Peace and all the best.** Will word my comments better.**
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Got ahead of myself there some, did I?
M
MichaelP3
Guest
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB] When anybody attacks my faith, I’ll stand up for it. I don’t apologize for being from a Protestant family and I don’t apologize for being Lutheran, but I’ll give you an eyeful of polemic when you serve polemic to me. My time, research and effort is a patronizing post? Do I get paid to do any of that? No, but I seem to get asked for money a lot. Much like at San Sebastian’s down in St. Augustine, when I was still a Catholic.I type too much, so I’ll just give my fingers a break. Pax Christi Vobiscum.Everything I said to LutheranScholar is true, of course you both can disagree. I wasn’t trying to imply that the Catholics were not responsible for persecutions and killing of Protestants, everyone knows that. The point being, the Reformation resulted in persecution and killing of Catholics, which went on for nearly 400+ years up to the 19th century in America, do your history homework, the facts are facts.
You think my remarks are condescending? I guess you haven’t been reading LutheranScholar’s posts lately then. And welcome back to responding to me, I was really beginning to think you were a goner.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Thank you, MichaelP3. :tiphat: By God’s grace, the Message will be spread, regardless of the paraphernalia or the affiliations of those doing the spreading. Some hearts will be receptive, others will be hardened. It really is all about Jesus and every branch of Christianity ( every branch) has a say on the way the Truth gets propagated biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13.Yea good luck. Can’t say I disagree, but will be here when it gets heated
P
Peter_J
Guest
No, to both parts of the question.
J
JMM1957
Guest
I knew that.
J
JMM1957
Guest
If you interpreted something I said as attacking your faith, please point it out to me so I can avoid doing the same in the future. Maybe we’re all not on the same page in what constitutes “attacking ones faith”. Your definition could very well be different than mine, or someone else’s. Some might look at simple disagreement over a minor faith issue as attacking, some others may say if someone says the “Pope is the anti-Christ”, and the Catholic Church sprung from the power of Satan", that’s an attack. I’m sure you get what I’m saying.
I can see where you might have been a good Catholic apologist at one time, you use many of the same arguments for being Protestant as the Catholics historically have done.
R
rcwitness
Guest
This underlined part strikes me as both true and even understated. Did the Holy Spirit lead each to various conclusions? The various conclusions are a sign of the failure of the reformers to follow Jesus more accurately. They had just reasons for reform, but we’re unsuccessful in remaining justified in all things. Since there are various doctrines, even in fundamental matters, not all can be sound. Who, then, believes they are sound in all things, and why do they have such assurance?
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
\
I think the Holy Spirit met everybody where they were, yes and led them to a fuller understanding of where they were. God works through people, as we all know and people come to different conclusions and ways that they can live out the Gospel. Where some see chaos, I see an orchestra. Different instruments complementing all the others to make a simple, pleasant tune. People who can’t fully live their lives for the Lord because they disagree with the tenets of their childhood church might find themselves drawn to the theology of another church that simply makes more sense to them. They still have Jesus, but they simply moved to another room in the house ( with apologies and compliments to that man of God, C.S. Lewis, may he rest in peace) where they can be more productive ( or where the Holy Spirit can refine their understanding in a way that most pleases Him). Here is a Lutheran understanding on Christians and churches:
All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as “Christians” by the Synod—only God can look into a person’s heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues.
lcms.org/faqs/denominations#salvation
*The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to “cults,” which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian).
In fact, a primary “objective” listed in the Synod’s Constitution (Article III) is to “work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies” — which explicitly assumes that these “other church bodies” are “Christian” in nature.*
lcms.org/faqs/denominations#salvation
Anyway, I’m okay, you’re okay, just as long as we have the Creeds before us and the Holy Spirit working in our lives.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I knew that.
There weren’t two churches but seven (at least that’s how many are recorded in the Book of Revelation) … and No to the “each went in their own direction?” part because they were all in communion with St. Peter. (A few centuries later there were five churches, the Pentarchy, and all were in communion with the Pope of Rome.)
P
Peter_J
Guest
I take it that “the Holy Spirit met everybody where they were” includes the Roman Catholics, so thank you for that.
However, the question (to me anyways) isn’t whether we belong to the same religion (we do) but rather which of us is heretical/erroneous/anti-Christ/heterodox etc.?
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
It*** absolutely*** includes them.I take it that “the Holy Spirit met everybody where they were” includes the Roman Catholics, so thank you for that.
Heretical? Erroneous? In points of doctrine and dogma, I guess every Lutheran would be considered a heretic by every Presbyterian, or every Catholic would consider every Mennonite a heretic if we’re simply discussing points of doctrine that those outside the group had mild to serious disagreements with. I admire the Mennonites, who teach us to be a ’ called- out people" in terms of not conforming with the standards of this world. I admire the Reformed and the Presbyterians for their emphasis on God’s sovereignty and His omniscience. I respect the Eastern Orthodox for their attention to doctrine and the importance of continuity. The emphasis on personal faith and Biblical adherence as they understand it on the part of the Baptists earns my respect, as well. I absolutely admire the Roman Catholics on their sense of solidarity with those under whose authority they submit and their emphasis on tradition. I like the Anglican emphasis on Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the three pillars of their faith, studying and analyzing the first two by the lights of their intelligence. The Religious Society of Friends emphasizes how we all have access to God and the Methodists speak of living in holiness and I admire and respect both of those things. For me, Confessional Lutheranism puts that emphasis on fidelity to tradition under the authority of Scripture and recognizes how the Holy Spirit transforms the lives of believers that makes it something I am truly blessed to be led to and to be a part of. This is where God’s Light shines most brilliantly for me.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
I suppose I found post 396 a little bothersome. If it helps soften the meaning a little, you aren’t the only person I’ve had a disagreement with over the rise of my religious expression of faith and there have been quite a few statements made as to why my religion ( I know, we’re supposed to be part of the same religion, but the enmity towards Protestantism and Protestants can occasionally be sort of disheartening and Protestants have been portrayed here as belonging to a religion completely different from Christianity If you wish, I’ll name the threads and the relevant posts) and indeed have made some rather strong accusations.If you interpreted something I said as attacking your faith, please point it out to me so I can avoid doing the same in the future. Maybe we’re all not on the same page in what constitutes “attacking ones faith”. Your definition could very well be different than mine, or someone else’s. Some might look at simple disagreement over a minor faith issue as attacking, some others may say if someone says the “Pope is the anti-Christ”, and the Catholic Church sprung from the power of Satan", that’s an attack. I’m sure you get what I’m saying.
I can see where you might have been a good Catholic apologist at one time, you use many of the same arguments for being Protestant as the Catholics historically have done.
I knew that learning apologetics was vital when as a teenager, I questioned some Baptist viewpoints and was merely ridiculed rather than reasoned with. People want logic and they want plausible arguments.In Luther’s " On the Power and Primacy of the pope," he deconstructs the argument of Peter being the Rock and names that Rock as Peter’s confession, or better, Jesus Christ Himself.
*
22] But they cite against us certain passages, namely, Matt. 16:18f : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; also: I will give unto thee the keys; also John 21:15: Feed My sheep, and some others. But since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated elsewhere in the books of our theologians, and everything cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we shall reply briefly concerning the interpretation [of the passages quoted].
23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].
24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]
Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles].
25] However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]* bookofconcord.org/treatise.php.
I can see how that could provoke those who might think that they " had one up on the Prods ( Protestants)" because this interpretation pulls the rug up from under those who are convinced that Protestants must be proven wrong and this verse from Matthew, at its face, seems to do just that. In a way, the Protestant interpretation makes sense because regardless of one’s denominational confession, Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, is a confession common to us all and indeed, nobody except some pseudo- Christians cults would argue it.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Let me address that post then, as looking at it again, I probably used too much accusatory language along with some vagueness in trying to make my point. I certainly realize that some members of the Catholic Church (whether it was ordained by the Pope or not) did some horrendous things during some periods of the Middle Ages, which included persecution of some non-Catholics. In my post, I was simply pointing out that after the Reformation up to the 19th and even early 20th centuries, Protestant’s also were involved in persecution of Catholics. I know that you already knew this, along with probably 95% of everyone here on the forum, but it was said anyway. I certainly wasn’t trying to embarrass you as a Protestant, I was just making the point that both sides did some very bad things since the Reformation, historical facts don’t lie. I personally am ashamed of what the Church did during those times, but I also realize that we are not responsible for our fathers sins, although apologies are always a good thing and can’t hurt a bit.
I am assuming that what I just addressed in that particular post is what got under your skin, so I am sorry that you took offense to it, I will try to be more charitable in the future.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
You’re right, of course, Protestants of almost every stripe have had a go or several at Catholics in the past. My point was simply that Catholics tended to go for the Protestant jugular as well, at the times and places where Catholic authority was ascendant. I certainly apologize for going off as I did ( my posts, while intending to be informative, do come off as patronizing at times, although my intention is generally to drive home a given point as effectively as possible). I will try to take a deep breath and count to ten when I need to leaven my attempts at defense and accuracy with charity in future.
W
Wannano
Guest
I believe you have just given a good description of the church catholic Jesus claims for his bride. God created all the flowers and while each one is a flower they can all be very different from the other. Put together they make a beautiful bouquet.It*** absolutely*** includes them.
- Status