Help me prepare a response to this Lutheran Minister

[slewi]

Interesting talk, yet Luther is guilty of setting up his own impieties in the Church.

*2. Luther did not support “Private interpretation.”*  I did not state that he did. I was merely commenting on the thousands of so-called Christian Denominations around the world in the past 500 years, all of which are based on “someone’s” interpretation of the Bible.There are too many interpretations of the Bible, and for me, the best ones to interpret it is the original Church, the one true Church that was given the task of disseminating the information to the masses 2000 years ago. That Church is not Luther’s.  It’s amazing how so many denominations had been formed in the past 500 years since the 1500’s, and with the largest amount of new denominations being created in just the last 100 years. Why? Why in all the history of Christianity was there only one Church for 1500 years and then in the last 500 years there have been over 35,000 denominations that were now existing or had existed at one time?  Let’s take a look at what some of  these denominations believe:    ·  The Lutheran Church believes in baptismal regeneration, the Baptist church does not.

· The Assembly of God denomination uses instrumental music during worship, the Church of Christ denomination believes instrumental music to be unbiblical.

· Presbyterians believe in unconditional atonement and irresistible grace, Methodists reject the two beliefs.

· The Lutheran church believes that worship should be liturgical, the Assembly of God church does not.

· The Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism should be administered by complete immersion only, Presbyterians believe pouring is acceptable.

· Methodists believe in the Trinity, Oneness Pentecostals do not.

· Lutherans affirm the fact that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, Baptists reject this belief and say that Mary had other children.

· The Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism is necessary for salvation, the Baptist Church does not.

· The Methodist church accepts female ministers, while the Baptist church rejects female ministers as unbiblical.

· Episcopalians baptize infants, Pentecostals believe infant baptism to be invalid.

 

[slewi]

· The Baptist Church teaches that once a person is saved, he is always saved and can not fall from grace. The Church of Christ rejects this teaching as unscriptural. Of course the above findings are just a generalization, it’s even more complicated and convoluted than this. Are we supposed to just pick and choose what we like and what we don’t like? Certainly God isn’t the author of this mess. How could the Truth be a relevant truth? If the Bible was the only thing that was necessary to know the Truth, as Protestants teach, then why are their so many interpretations of the scriptures? I read from some Protestant Christian sources that the Holy Spirit guides us all in the correct interpretation of the Word, but if that was indeed true, then why all the confusion?

If the Holy Spirit guided each and every person in the correct interpretation of the Word, then why doesn’t every Christian believe the same things?

Like yourself, I am an historian, I have a love of things from the past. Whenever I want to discover the truth, the best thing is go to the primary sources. I had to go back to where it all began. I had to go past the 1500’s, past the beginning of the first Protestant church, back to the beginnings of Christianity and the Bible. The original documents as they were written. I went back to the original Christians, the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I took a close look at the Church of the Book of Acts and the Church that St. Irenaeus describes in the second century as well as the Church of St. Justin Martyr, Pope St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, and St. Barnabas. I started to examine what they truly believed and taught.

Of course the Bible as we know it didn’t exist during this period. They did have the Old Testament that Jesus and the disciples had used…the Septuagint, but they did not have a formalized set of books that consisted as the New Testament yet. They had most of the writings, but not all together. As you know it was almost impossible for any one person to own a complete set of these writings, much less multiple copies for every Christian of the day to own and read for themselves.

Also, not everyone agrees on which writings were authoritative and divinely inspired. As can be seen in the Book of Acts, Christianity of the first centuries was an oral religion.

Pope St. Damasus I established a Council to determine which writings were the True and Inspired Word of God. The great theologian St. Augustine and others decided what they should be, based on very specific criteria and led by the Holy Spirit. They presented their findings to the Pope. And with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I declared in a decree of the Council of Rome in 382 AD which books of the Bible were canonical, meaning that the Canon of the Holy Scriptures that they declared was the True Divinely Inspired Word comprised of the total books that exist to this day in the Catholic version of the Bible, not the Protestant version.

 

[slewi]

Martin Luther would later decide that seven books from the Bible were unimportant and it should be noted that he carried this out by “his” authority alone. He even says this in one of his own writings.

But even Martin Luther would acknowledge that without the Catholic Church, we wouldn’t even have a Bible. He said in one his letters the following.

*“We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.” *

3. The Eastern Orthodox Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church as “the first Protestant Church” since Pope Leo IX excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople in 1054AD. Here is another instance of someone who wants more authority, squabbling with Rome over the Papacy. We’ve seen it time and time again. It is unfortunate that the schism happened, but considering it was caused by so much more than close minded historians have us believe, there are many issues still at stake. The Pope is the successor of Peter. Always has been, always will be. Some of the issues:

• the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Roman church in direct violation of the command of the Council of Ephesus, an action called non-canonical by the Eastern church.
• disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern church had jurisdiction.
• the designation of the Patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical patriarch (which was understood by Rome as universal patriarch and therefore disputed).
• disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs. All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four; they disagreed about whether he had authority over the other four and, if he did, how extensive that authority might be.
• the concept of Caesaropapism, a tying together in some way of the ultimate political and religious authorities, which were physically separated much earlier when the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. There is controversy over just how much this so-called “caesaropapism” actually existed and how much was a fanciful invention, centuries later, by western European historians.
• certain liturgical practices in the west that the East believed represented innovation: use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example. Eastern innovations, such as intinction of the bread in the wine for Communion, were condemned several times by Rome but were never the occasion of schism.

 

[slewi]

And also, Pope Leo didn’t excommunicate Michael I, his legates did. And you failed to mention that Michael I tried to excommunicate him back! Another delusional idea of the hapless Patriarch!

1. There is only one infallible authority, the Word of God on which we must rely. If the church (pope, bishops, councils, etc) was infallible why did John *threaten whole churches with discipline & excommunication from God (Revelation 2 & 3) ? * From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church: III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

And I would still like you to address why there is more than one “self-confessed” Lutheran Church.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Cheers,

Stephen

Well, tell me what you think? Thanks to all who helped on round two. Round three might be a little dirty…I think I may have knocked him down!

Steve

 

[vern_humphrey]

slewi:

Here’s the beginning of my tome:

Good afternoon Pastor!

I was surprised to see that you chose not to really answer the questions I posed to you, rather you answered statements you think I made. Since you changed the subject, I will assume you concede I’m right on the former points. Here is my reply to several points you made:

As we say in Latin, “Soc et tuem.”

Don’t let him off the hook. The rule is, “if you change the subject, you concede the point.”

The second rule is, “if you introduce a new topic, you conceded the former topic.”

 

[slewi]

Huh. There may not be a round three after all…

Stephen,
This is the Roman perspective. I’ve read it before. I used a Catholic
text
teaching Western Civilization for many years. As an educator I felt
obligated
to get and give more than one perspective on the rise of the Christian
Church.
There are other views of the Reformation and of the Great Schism.
Long before the varieties in Protestantism Christendom saw many doctrinal
variations & schisms.
The Church Councils themselves were a vehicle to address these, sometimes
successfully,
but often they continued, e.g. the rise of the Coptic Church, Arianism,
Pelagianism, etc.
In addition to talking/reading the Roman Catholic take on things
you might consider something from a non-Roman Catholic viewpoint.
How about The Primacy of Peter by John Meyerdorff (Orthodox)?
Philip Schaff’s 8 Volume classic in most libraries, History of the
Christian Church
or Lewis Spitz (Stanford U.) Vol. 2 The Renaissance & the Reformation
(Lutheran)?
I thought orginally you wanted to speak directly to a Lutheran to hear
such.

Stephen you are engaging in polemics for which I do not have time.
My door is open to face to face contact. Be a friend.
Pastor ----

 

[slewi]

My reply:

Mornin’!

Relax, this email is much shorter than yesterdays, and I won’t take too much of your day with it.

I believe the original polemic was you. I told you that I was returning to Catholicism, and you questioned my faith.

Everything I quoted in my email to you was historical. If history doesn’t agree with the protestant ‘slant’ then there’s nothing I can do but continue to speak the truth.

I will never stop praying that our non-Catholic brothers and sisters will return to the one true church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, but I doubt that will ever happen with all of the differing viewpoints and lack of true faith in our world today.

God Bless,
Stephen
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello slewi,

Have you ever wondered why most nations, companies, militaries, groups, clubs etc. put one person in unequaled authority over all others in the group? Why did Jesus put St. Peter, who was not perfect and even denied Christ at one time, above even the other elleven Apostles?

Ultimate, unequaled authority in one leader, over all other individuals in a group, unites a group. Catholics may disagree on certian things but we are united. Protestants are divided into tens of thousands of denominations. It is this spliting and factions that Jesus and the Father detest.

God’s most feirce wrath in the bible is poured out on Korah who tried to initiate a schism from Moses, God given unequalled authority over the Israelite Church. NUMBERS 16 “A house divided cannot stand” is Jesus and the Father’s concept. Abraham Lincoln quoted Jesus in his “house divided” speach preceding the American civil war. Abraham Lincoln unleashed the entire might of the United States military to keep America united. historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm

Jesus constantly points out how evil and wicked the Pharisees are yet Jesus, before his death and commissioning of St. Peter and Christianity, respects the God given authority in the Pharisees who sit in Moses seat.

The reason Jesus puts one man, St. Peter and his successors in unequaled authority over even the other elleven Apostles, is for unity as like almost all other groups in the world do. God’s most fierce wrath is poured out on those who tread on His establishement of unequalled, uniting, Church authority.

Please visit St. Peter’s chair.

**NAB MARK 3:24 **“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”
NAB MAT 12:25"A kingdom torn by strife is headed for its downfall. A town or household split into factions cannot last for long."

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steven Merten:

Hello slewi,

Have you ever wondered why most nations, companies, militaries, groups, clubs etc. put one person in unequaled authority over all others in the group? Why did Jesus put St. Peter, who was not perfect and even denied Christ at one time, above even the other elleven Apostles?

Ultimate, unequaled authority in one leader, over all other individuals in a group, unites a group.

Catholicism is a wagon pulled by a strong, steady horse.

Protestantism is a wagon pulled by 30,000 mice.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Steven_Merten]

(continued)

NAB NUM 16

Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi [and Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben] took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, “Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD’s congregation?” …

…Korah. Moses said to Korah, “You and all your band shall appear before the LORD tomorrow–you and they and Aaron too. Then each of your two hundred and fifty followers shall take his own censer, put incense in it, and offer it to the LORD; and you and Aaron, each with his own censer, shall do the same.” So then all took their censers, and laying incense on the fire they had put in them, they took their stand by the entrance of the meeting tent, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire community, and the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once.”…

**…**Moses said, “This is how you shall know that it was the LORD who sent me to do all that I have done, and that it was not I who planned it: if these men die an ordinary death, merely suffering the fate common to all mankind, then it was not the LORD who sent me. But if the LORD does something entirely new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them alive down into the nether world, with all belonging to them, then you will know that these men have defied the LORD.” No sooner had he finished saying all this than the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families [and all of Korah’s men] and all their possessions. They went down alive to the nether world with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the community. But all the Israelites near them fled at their shrieks, saying, “The earth might swallow us too!”
NAB JUD 1:10

These people, however, not only revile what they have no knowledge of but are corrupted through the very things they know by instinct, like brute animals. So much the worse for them! They have taken the road Cain took. They have abandoned themselves to Balaam’s error for pay, and like Korah they perish in rebellion. These men are blotches on your Christian banquets. They are wild ocean waves, splashing their shameless deeds abroad like foam, or shooting stars for whom the thick gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.​

NUM 16 continued:…The LORD said to Moses, “Tell Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, to remove the censers from the embers; and scatter the fire some distance away, for these sinners have consecrated the censers at the cost of their lives. Have them hammered into plates to cover the altar, because in being presented before the LORD they have become sacred. In this way they shall serve as a sign to the Israelites.” So Eleazar the priest had the bronze censers of those burned during the offering hammered into a covering for the altar, in keeping with the orders which the LORD had given him through Moses. **This cover was to be a reminder to the Israelites that no layman, no one who was not a descendant of Aaron, should approach the altar to offer incense before the LORD, lest he meet the fate of Korah and his band. **