different Protestant...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paris_Blues
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
New Life Fellowship

Scripture Research Association

Workers Together with Elohim

Yahweh’s Assembly of Messiah

British Israelism

Anglo-Saxon Federation of America

British-Israel-World Federation (Canada), Inc.

Calvary Fellowship, Inc.

Christian Conservative Churches of America

Christian Identity Church

Christian Research

Church of Israel

Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Aryan Nations)

Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord

Evangelical Church of Christ / Commonwealth Covenant Church (New Zealand)

House of Prayer for All People

Kingdom Identity Ministries

LaPorte Church of Christ

Ministry of Christ Church

National Association of Kingdom Evangelicals

New Christian Crusade Church

Prophetic Herald Ministry

Remnant of Israel

Tabernacle of the Phineas Priesthood

Southcottites

Israelite House of David

Israelite House of David as Reorganized by Mary Purnell

Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly

Other Adventists

Christadelphians

Christian Nations - Eagle Warriors

Church of God (Reinersten)

Kingdom of God on Earth Within Man

Remnant Church

Restored Israel of Yahweh

Shiloh True Light Church of Christ

Star of Truth Foundation

True Church

Mormonism

Aaronic Order
Church of Christ (Bickertonite)

Church of Christ (Cutlerite)

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Church of Christ with the Elijah Message

Church of Jesus Christ in Zion

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

Community of Christ**

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

New Covenant Church of God

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Restored Church of Jesus Christ

Sons Aumen Israel

True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days
  • The largest of these churches, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, sometimes called the LDS Church; commonly, but incorrectly called the Mormon Church
** formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or RLDS Church
 
Gnosticism

Ecclesia Gnostica

Bogomils (extinct)

Borborites (extinct)

Carpocratians (extinct)

Cathars (extinct)

Manichaeism (extinct)

Nontrinitarianism

Arians (extinct as a modern and distinct group)

Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship *

Church of Christ, Scientist

Unification Church

Iglesia ni Cristo

Christadelphians

Magi Network *

Doukhobors

Molokan

Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • Independent Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association
New Thought churches

Divine Science

Religious Science

Unity Church

This is the results of believing the Bible in the only necessary authority from God.
It’s very sad.

Source of list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#Protestants_before_Luther
 
Wow, Rayne, I am totally impressed! But did you get all 20 or 30 thousand denominations in the U.S. alone? Thanks for all the typing to make the point!
 
40.png
rayne89:
This is the results of believing the Bible in the only necessary authority from God.
It’s very sad.

Source of list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#Protestants_before_Luther
Click to expand...
:rotfl: IT is funny, except this list proves the divisions among us (as Christians) and makes me feel as if the devil is making progress through our division. How I long for one, holy, apostolic, Church or should I say, how I long for all to belong to it.
 
Actually the House of Yahweh in Odessa, Texas has not existed for over ten years. (notice my location).
 
40.png
Contarini:
Speaking as one Protestant, I’d say there are two aspects. One is, as others have pointed out, that once we separated from Rome there was little to keep us together, so that it was easy for every dispute to result in a new church. The other side I’d like to point out is that this division (tragic as it is) has produced a rich diversity of Christian belief and practice. If you allow yourself to appreciate some of the forms of devotion Protestants have produced–Lutheran chorales, Wesleyan hymns, ecstatic Pentecostal worship, clear-thinking Calvinist sermons–you may come to see our diversity in a more positive light. That doesn’t excuse schism, but it does raise the question as to whether all the blame is ours. We would claim that the See of Rome has chosen to exclude much that is legitimately Christian, so that certain forms of piety have only been able to bloom outside your communion. My own attempts to become Catholic have served to convince me of this. It’s hard to pin down, but for someone who’s experienced grace in Protestantism there is something lacking in Catholicism–just as there is much good in Catholicism that is lacking in all forms of Protestantism.

Please understand that I am not claiming, as some Protestants claim, that denominationalism is a good thing. At most it’s a necessary evil. And I’m not convinced of its necessity. But neitehr am I willing to say that everything about Protestant diversity is bad. I would not want the only manifestations of Christianity to be those currently found in communion with Rome. That would be a cure worse (if possible) than the disease.

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Diversity in expression is a good thing, Diversity in soteriology, eschatology, sacrements are not a good thing and are confusing to everyone including non-christians this is in fact a bad witness for Christ.
Christ prayed that we all be one as He and the Father are one that the world may know and believe that the Father sent the Son.
How in the world does the craziness of denominations help Jesus make his point to the world?
One flock one shepherd.
Thats it not every denom and pastor for himself.
Denominations is something scripture cannot recconcile it is a scandal to Jesus.
 
40.png
Contarini:
Please understand that I am not claiming, as some Protestants claim, that denominationalism is a good thing. At most it’s a necessary evil. And I’m not convinced of its necessity. But neitehr am I willing to say that everything about Protestant diversity is bad. I would not want the only manifestations of Christianity to be those currently found in communion with Rome. That would be a cure worse (if possible) than the disease.

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin, could you please explain a little further. Why do you consider denominationalism a necessary evil?

What manifestations of Christianity currently found in communion with Rome do you object to? :confused:
 
40.png
Booklover:
Edwin, could you please explain a little further. Why do you consider denominationalism a necessary evil?
Click to expand...
I said denominationalism was at best a necessary evil. I’m sure it’s an evil–I’m not sure it’s necessary. However, neither am I sure that the best cure for the evil is for all of us to convert instantaneously to Catholicism.

[QUOTEWhat manifestations of Christianity currently found in communion with Rome do you object to? :confused:
[/QUOTE]
Again, that’s not what I said. I said that there are manifestations of Christianity not currently found in communion with Rome that I would not like to give up.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
I said that there are manifestations of Christianity not currently found in communion with Rome that I would not like to give up. In Christ, Edwin
Click to expand...
Everything that Christ taught the Apostles and the Apostles in turn taught the Church is manifested in the Church of Rome. All other “manifestations” are man made. JMJ Jay
 
Paris Blues:
Why are there many Protestant denominations? I mean, there’s Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.!! What’s so different about them?
Click to expand...
You can get the answer to your question in a book – try Separated Brethren by William Whalen (a Catholic) or Handbook of Denominations in the U.S. by Samuel Hill (a Protestant). Both books give a summary of each denomination’s origin and beliefs. Both are objective (non-partisan). Only the major denominations are covered, however.

Thousands of Protestant denominations are documented in the World Christian Encyclopedia (2 volumes) by David Barrett (2001). However, these volumes deal only with statistics.

The best – and my favorite – was written in 1945, reprinted in 1957, Christian Denominations by Konrad Algermisser of Germany. This is a thorough history – a study of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and various Protestant denominations. It’s sometimes available through used book dealers.

At your local library, you can get the April 16, 2001 issue of Newsweek which has an article documenting the proliferation of “Christian” denominations all over the world with no ties to historic Christianity. It’s Sola Scriptura carried to its ultimate logical conclusion – do-it-yourself religion to the max.

There’s a great deal of information about denominations on the Internet also.

JMJ Jay
 
Firstly, let me begin by saying “Thank You”.
Thank you all for your comments and discussions in this forum. This will be my first posting on the website, but I am sure I will be spending alot of time here in the future. If nothing else, it is wonderful to see that theological debate is still raging and dialogue is taking place for a greater understanding of God’s Word. That said, let me get on my soapbox.
You may have noticed by my name that I am a Lutheran, (a Wisconsin Evangelican Lutheran Synod Lutheran, at that.) But I would like to speak for most Protestants when I reply to the initial question.

The reason that there are so many different Protestant denominations sprouts from a mindset that is completely foreign to most Catholics, and yet something that I have seen frequently quoted throughout this website: Luther’s phrase, “Sola Scriptura”. Basically, Protestents wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea that Scripture is the only authoratative truth. (I do not consider churches like the Latter-Day Saints or the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Protestants. While there are many reasons, I say simpy that Protestant churches need to Christian churches, and any church that denies Christ’s triune divinity is certainly not Christian.)

“Sola Scriptura,” as Luther put it, is definitely a Biblical principle. (See 2 Tim 3:18, et al.) And what a great blessing that it is!! For once a person has excepted that basic principle, he is free to see the rest of Scripture unfold for him and reveal it’s awesome promise: Salvation!

The Bible makes it clear that the sins and wrongdoings of all men were fully paid for by Christ on the cross. That payment was sealed when Christ rose again. (1 Corinthians 15:17) Now, that being understood, by God’s good grace through the work of the Holy Spirit, faith is created in us, and good works spring out of that faith.That’s where “Sola Fide” and “Sola Gratia” come into the picture: It is by God’s good grace that his plan of salvation was carried out. It was by God’s good grace that you were brought to faith. It is through that faith that you grasp salvation. I believe it was CFW Walther who described faith as, “the hand that reaches out to take hold of salvation.”
Surely, salvation is there whether or not we believe it, but it is by believing that we recieve it…

See my posting on another site… forums.gospelcom.net/view/hollywoodjesus/luther/view_post?id=30

In my expirience, it seems as though most Protestants accept these very basic teachings of the Bible. The Catholic church does not. That is the main reason why I believe (and sincerely hope) that Lutherans and Catholics will never be united again, at least under Catholic doctrine.

(Sorry I got off on a tangent…) Now take into consideration how the truth of the gospel was perverted with works-righteousness for soooo long by the Catholic heirarchy, and you will understand why Protestants are so inclined toward division. They are afraid that if they don’t stand up for the truth, it will be lost. That is also the reason for our formation into different associations and synods.

I mentioned above that I am a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Some of you, at that allusion, took it to mean that I have a problem with all the other churches listed in that HUGE list. This is not true. Lutheran synods, at least, have a practice of “joint fellowship” with other synods. What is that? Well, it means that two or more church bodies recognize each other’s teachings as being in complete agreement with each other, (more importantly with Scripture). These synods or church bodies then become free to call each other’s pastors, commune at each other’s altars, pray together and learn from each other. As far as my WELS, we are in fellowship many Lutheran church bodies around the world…

Why not condence the church and live under one “government”? Because we have seen what power does, even in the ecclesiastical world ~ it corrupts. It perverts and manipulates. We feel that this way, if the gospel truth is ever lost to our own group, the torch can still be carried by another.

God’s Blessings, all, in your studying of the Scriptures.
May you come to see in an ever-clearer light the grace that has been given to you. It is grace, full and free.

wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1519&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=19

I just may be wordier than Luther himself,
~Lutheran Student
 
Lutheran student, interesting perspective regarding power corrupting. Food for thought anyway.

Getting back to the original question I agree with one of the first posts, someone gets their knickers in a twist about a particular issue and off they go to form their own church. It’s amazing how quickly this happens. My husband’s family came to the US from Sweden and became part of the Swedish Covenant Church, described to me as being “sort of like Swedish Lutherans” Lutheran Student might be able to verify this or dispute it. At any rate the first generation had services in Swedish. The membership was basically Swedish immigrants and their families. However the church grew and they dropped the Swedish part and simply became the Covenant Church. The membership was no longer mostly Swedish.

Then a group who liked one pastor picked up and left the Covenent church and started their own church because the Covenants wouldn’t let them do what they wanted. That seems to be the pattern. Heavens look at all of the Lutheran churches! I just saw an article about one group of Lutherans who said they would welcome celibate homosexuals but not avowed, practicing homosexuals nor would they be allowed to be clergy. In the same article it said the Missouri Synod was more conservative than that. Adjacent to that article was an article regarding the American Episcopalians who basically are totally unrepentent about the homosexual bishop and seem to be saying “up yours” to the Anglicans who requested that no more “blessings” of homosexual unions take place and please no more homosexual bishops.

As long as anyone who has even the slightest disgreement can simply pick up their toys and leave, I think there will be an endless variety of denominations.

Lisa N
 
40.png
LutheranStudent:
Firstly, let me begin by saying “Thank You”.

The reason that there are so many different Protestant denominations sprouts from a mindset that is completely foreign to most Catholics, and yet something that I have seen frequently quoted throughout this website: Luther’s phrase, “Sola Scriptura”. Basically, Protestents wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea that Scripture is the only authoratative truth. (
“Sola Scriptura,” as Luther put it, is definitely a Biblical principle. (See 2 Tim 3:18, et al.) And what a great blessing that it is!! For once a person has excepted that basic principle, he is free to see the rest of Scripture unfold for him and reveal it’s awesome promise: Salvation!

I just may be wordier than Luther himself,
~Lutheran Student
Click to expand...
Hello and welcome to our forum! Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that having thousands of different denominations who can’t agree with one another is a good thing? *With so many interpretations how do you know which one is the truth? *Our Lord Jesus said " ONE FLOCK and one Shepherd". He founded one church only and the Catholic Church is the only one that can trace itself all the way back to him. He said his Church would be “the light of the world”. He meant it to be a visible organization. His Church teaches just one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles and this is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us. (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). Catholics recognize the Bible to be the authentic written expression of the faith of the Church, we also believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church so that it interprets the biblical revelation without error. We do not treat the Bible as “extra -ecclesial”. Scripture is a gift of God to the Church, a gift which has its home within the Church.

“Sola Scriptura” has only brought disunity. It means that anybody can interpret the bible as he sees fit! That does not make any sense. If “sola scriptura” were what Jesus intended, why doesn’t everybody who reads the Bible come up with the same interpretation, since they believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit? This theory is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, it teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16.) The Holy Spirit cannot cause this confusion, therefore the bible only theory cannot be correct. No one in the early Church believed in it. This idea only started with the Protestant reformation and distorts the true role of the Bible and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established. (Mark 7:1-8).

I can see from other things you have said, that you’re misinterpreting what we believe, but we get tired of having to explain the same things over and over again. Nobody seems to really listen. I won’t go into any of that now.

Well, that’s my two cents’ worth for the day! Enjoy our forum! 🙂
 
(Quick note to Lisa N: wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=14&cuItem_itemID=4527 . Hopefully this is what you are talking about. God Bless your research.)

Dear Booklover,
I apologize if I it appears that I do not fully comprehend Catholic beliefs. I admit, when it comes to church history I could be much better informed than I am. I cannot say how or from where many Catholic traditions started, or what the Catholic church has believed at any given point in time. But isn’t that the point? The Catholic church has been more than inconsistent with it’s doctrines and practices over it’s 2000 year history. Let me explain:

You said, "His Church teaches just one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles and this is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us. (Phil. 1:27, 2:2)."

True. But, the fact is that the Catholic church does not have just one set of doctrines. Whether you would like to admit it or not, the Catholic church is just as divided as Protestantism: Some Catholics subscribe to Vatican II, others do not. (Much the same, some Protestants subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, others to do not.) Some Catholics condone homosexuality, others do not. (The same is true with Protestants.) I have seen Catholics on television that believe Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. (I have seen the same of Protestants.)

The fact is that I know that homosexuality is a sin ~ The Bible says so. I know that Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene ~ The Bible says so. I know that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is in unity with scripture. So, about that Bible verse you quoted:
“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel.” Phil. 1:27

I see that you interptret this passage with special emphasis on the words, “one man”. Allow me to draw your eyes a little further ahead. Paul says, “as one man for the faith of the gospel.” Surely, the preservation and preaching of the true gospel is more important than putting on a facade of unity with men who pervert that gospel, right? I’m simply saying that it is for this reason that Protestantism is divided.

Is it a good thing that the Church is divided? Certainly not. Is it necessary? Certainly yes. If Dr. Luther had not stood up against the abuses of the Catholic church, (an if the Catholic church remained united,) only God knows what else might have been counted among thier falsities. Allow me to quote you again before continuing,
 
“*His Church teaches just one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles and this is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us.” *

Dear Catholic friend, you work against yourself! The teachings of the Catholic church are not in agreement with the teachings of the Apostles. I have read the Scriptures thouroughly, and found no references to Purgatory. I have been led by Scripture to understand that salvation is attained through faith by grace, with no correlation to works. The Catholic church denies this. Although I agree that Mary was a virgin when giving birth to our Lord, I have found no Biblical support for her divinity or role as “co-redeemer.” She was a mortal, sinning human just like you or me. Her sins were also paid for, just like yours and mine. Indeed, the Apostle Paul himself is the strongest contender against Roman Catholiscism.

So how can I say that Christ has only one church? Because there is only one basic set of beliefs that will get men into heaven. (Contrary to what the American Council of Catholic Bishops says, who in past years has declared God’s covenant with the Jews as still standing.) Those beliefs are found an prevelant throughout Scripture. The one church Christ was founded was the “catholic” church with a small “c”. That word, catholic, comes from three words in the Greek. Kathows, (through, or throughout,) holos, (the whole, or entire,) and gey (world). (Forgive me for transcribing the Greek alphabet into English.) The idea is that Christ’s true church can be found anywhere, it is not bound by time or culture. Christ’s true church is the one that subscribes to his teachings and promises.

I define myself as a WELS Lutheran. That is the best way that I can show you (in earthly terms) what I believe. That is my best effort to seperate myself from false prophets. What I really mean, however, is that I am a ‘Christian’. I subscribe wholley and completely to the teachings of Christ, and Christ only. It is through his work that I will gain entrance to heaven. It is by believing in him that I will be with him someday. I am a member of the catholic church, not of the Catholic church.

That’s the biggest problem that I have with the Catholic church. So often it seems as though you place the teachings of your physical, earthly church above the teachings of Christ. From my perspective, you are centering far too heavily on earthly things. “Moth and Rust” destroy. That was Luther’s problem with your church, that is why Lutherans have chosen to identify themselves as Lutheran. Really, we mean “Christian”.
 
“*His Church teaches just one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles and this is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us.” *

Dear Catholic friend, you work against yourself! The teachings of the Catholic church are not in agreement with the teachings of the Apostles. I have read the Scriptures thouroughly, and found no references to Purgatory. I have been led by Scripture to understand that salvation is attained through faith by grace, with no correlation to works. The Catholic church denies this. Although I agree that Mary was a virgin when giving birth to our Lord, I have found no Biblical support for her divinity or role as “co-redeemer.” She was a mortal, sinning human just like you or me. Her sins were also paid for, just like yours and mine. Indeed, the Apostle Paul himself is the strongest contender against Roman Catholiscism.

So how can I say that Christ has only one church? Because there is only one basic set of beliefs that will get men into heaven. (Contrary to what the American Council of Catholic Bishops says, who in past years has declared God’s covenant with the Jews as still standing.) Those beliefs are found an prevelant throughout Scripture. The one church Christ was founded was the “catholic” church with a small “c”. That word, catholic, comes from three words in the Greek. Kathows, (through, or throughout,) holos, (the whole, or entire,) and gey (world). (Forgive me for transcribing the Greek alphabet into English.) The idea is that Christ’s true church can be found anywhere, it is not bound by time or culture. Christ’s true church is the one that subscribes to his teachings and promises.

I define myself as a WELS Lutheran. That is the best way that I can show you (in earthly terms) what I believe. That is my best effort to seperate myself from false prophets. What I really mean, however, is that I am a ‘Christian’. I subscribe wholley and completely to the teachings of Christ, and Christ only. It is through his work that I will gain entrance to heaven. It is by believing in him that I will be with him someday. I am a member of the catholic church, not of the Catholic church.

That’s the biggest problem that I have with the Catholic church. So often it seems as though you place the teachings of your physical, earthly church above the teachings of Christ. From my perspective, you are centering far too heavily on earthly things. “Moth and Rust” destroy. That was Luther’s problem with your church, that is why Lutherans have chosen to identify themselves as Lutheran. Really, we mean “Christian”.
 
You said, “‘Sola Scriptura’ has only brought disunity. It means that anybody can interpret the bible as he sees fit!”

I disagree on two counts here. First of all, “Sola Scriptura” has never been a statement about interpreting Scripture. It is a statement about how we are saved. “Through Scripture Alone” is how the Holy Spirit reaches our hearts, and “Through Scripture Alone” is how God continues to preserve his church militant, if you will, the catholic church on earth. This was Luther’s statement that narrowed the field, you might say, as he was arguing with Roman Catholics like yourselves. Because they had a tendency to quote sinful men, and erranous men, as authorities. Luther knew that when you get to only the teachings of the Apostles and of Christ, the Catholic stance falls apart at the seems. It falls apart because through years and years of history it’s teachings were led away from those of Christ, yes, even contrary.

The fact is what Luther said is true: The Pope is a man. Bishops and Cardinals are men. Your Priest is a man. As such, he is equal to you before God. Granted, he has been given his postition by God and you should respect him for that, but he can still be led by the devil into a false interpretation of Scripture, just as you can. If ever he were to teach contrary to Scripture, (like that Catholic church does,) who do you stay with? Him, because he is a priest, or Scripture, God’s Word?

Sola Scriptura,

Lutheran Student
 
Hello, Lutheran Student! re: Sola Scripture

Surely you don’t read 2Tim as meaning “the entirety of the Word is found in Scripture.” Paul’s letter doesn’t say any such thing:
  1. Its plain meaning doesn’t: your interpretation does.
  2. This was no interpretation you’ll find in the first 14 centuries of Christianity, anywhere in Christendom. (The Fathers (loudly and consistently) said the opposite, with no one in the Spirit-guided Church identifying this heresy.)
  3. Paul was writing (since the NT cannon hadn;t been totally written, much less assembled) about the Old Testament to Timothy. What he says of it is true. Would you take him to mean more: that the OT contains ALL we need to know? (Then we can’t even say, “He is risen, Alleluia.”)
I will add something no Lutheran pastor (I’ve been through this with a few) has answered: Using the Bible alone leaves you with no means, no authority, by which you can identify which books are Scriptural. Nothing in Scripture tells you that Mark, or James, or Revelation, is inspired. It is Apostolic Tradition, identifiable through the Church.

Peace.

John
 
Dear John Ennis ~
Thank you for your reply!
This is now my fourth posting and I have developed a wonderful affection for this forum. It encourages me to dig into the Scriptures for both our benefits, and for God’s glory!

Let me also apologize for the mis-reference I had in an earlier reply:
I refered to 2 Tim 3:18, but I meant 2 Tim 3:16. I will edit that mis-reference out if I am able.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

You commented that, “Paul was writing (since the NT cannon hadn;t been totally written, much less assembled) about the Old Testament to Timothy.”

I disagree. Yes, Paul was indeed referring to the OT, but not only to the OT. Just as Isaiah lived thousands of years before Christ and said, “Surely he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities,” so also Paul says, “All Scripture is God-breathed,” many years before Scripture had taken it’s definite form. How is he able to do this? Simply because he was writing through inspiration. Rather, he was the tool through which God wrote 2 Timothy.

As far as your 2nd point, I maintain that there were indeed Roman Catholics in the early church who interpreted the gospel much this way. The earlier the Catholic church would go back into it’s history, the more you would find it’s doctrines and interpretations in agreement with the Confessional Lutherans of today. St. Augustine, for instance, was one of Luther’s heroes.

As to your question of how we know what true Scripture is, here is what I believe:

The New Testament books are surely true and inspired because they were all written by people who had been given a direct call from Jesus Christ. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, from all eternity, fulfilled all the prophecies of the OT, therefore proving (and preaching) himself to be the Messiah, the “Anointed One”, the promised one of ages who paid for the sins of the world.

God had maintained throughout the OT that the OT was true. Now he gave us 27 more books through his servants who, with the exception of Paul, were disciples of Christ while he was in body on earth. (Paul recieved his call from Christ after the Acension and at his conversion.)

These books we know are true because, (altough being written at different times and by different people,) they are in complete agreement with themselves and with the OT. They are also sufficient for our interpretation and application today…

They also hold stern warnings for anyone who would add or subtract from what they say: Revelation 22:18, Galations 3:15,

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! " Galations 1:18

God’s Blessings!
~Lutheran Student
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top