How Old is Your Church?

[movwater]

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Author and Source Unknown

From: How Old is Your Church? at: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0031.html

 

[JonNC]

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

As Lutherans, we believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is but one Church, the Church Catholic, started by Christ Himself at Pentecost, of which Lutherans are members.

Jon

 

[movwater]

As Lutherans, we believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is but one Church, the Church Catholic, started by Christ Himself at Pentecost, of which Lutherans are members.

Jon,

You are very confusing, if not very confused. Luther was a Heretic and your prefered church names itself after a 16th century heretic. I am afraid your position is quite incomprehensible!

INTRODUCTION: HERESY

What is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a
thing?

Like most modern words, “Heresy” is used both vaguely and
diversely. It is used vaguely because the modern mind is as averse
to precision in ideas as it is enamored of precision in
measurement. It is used diversely because, according to the man
who uses it, it may represent any one of fifty things.

Today, with most people (of those who use the English language),
the word “Heresy” connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old
prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is therefore
thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead,
because it deals with matter no one now takes seriously. It is
understood that a man may interest himself in a heresy from
archaeological curiosity, but if he affirm that it has been of
great effect on history and still is, today, of living
contemporary moment, he will be hardly understood.

Yet the subject of heresy in general is of the highest importance
to the individual and to society, and heresy in its particular
meaning (which is that of heresy in Christian doctrine) is of
special interest for anyone who would understand Europe: the
character of Europe and the story of Europe. For the whole of that
story, since the appearance of the Christian religion, has been
the story of struggle and change, mainly preceded by, often, if
not always, caused by, and certainly accompanying, diversities of
religious doctrine. In other words, “the Christian heresy” is a
special subject of the very first importance to the comprehension
of European history, because, in company with Christian orthodoxy,
it is the constant accompaniment and agent of European life.

We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a
mental effort and therefore repels.

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting
scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential
part therein.

From: The Great Heresies By Hilaire Belloc at:ewtn.com/library/doctrine/heresy.htm

Obviously, Martin Luther showed the way for other “Protestants” to promote their particular heresy. This was not a good result for the Church, founded by Jesus, the Christ on earth through His Apostle, Peter,

Regards, and God Bless,\

Neal

 

[JonNC]

=movwater;11155341]Jon,

You are very confusing, if not very confused. Luther was a Heretic and your prefered church names itself after a 16th century heretic. I am afraid your position is quite incomprehensible!

Neal,
I am not confused at all, nor am I confusing. I simply outlined Lutheran belief. Take it or leave it. We believe in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. One Church, not many. The schisms and divisions of His Church Militant are the result of human sin, “for which men of both sides were often to blame”, as the Catholic Catechism states. But the Church is and remains one Church. The communion of saints is one Church.

Obviously, Martin Luther showed the way for other “Protestants” to promote their particular heresy. This was not a good result for the Church, founded by Jesus, the Christ on earth through His Apostle, Peter,

This is what I call the “Lemming Polemic”. It assumes that Zwingli, Calvin, the Anabaptists, all simply followed Luther like lemmings but didn’t really follow Luther. I have very little time for the teachings of these, but I don’t think the were unintelligent in the least. They were capable of making their own decisions, regardless of the German Augustinian friar.
Division and schism are not good for the Church. It wounds the ministry and message of the Church, and divides those of us who are members of the one Church. We must and should pray to the Holy Spirit for reconciliation, and work for it in our actions and words.

Jon

 

[movwater]

Neal,
I am not confused at all, nor am I confusing. I simply outlined Lutheran belief. Take it or leave it. We believe in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. One Church, not many. The schisms and divisions of His Church Militant are the result of human sin, “for which men of both sides were often to blame”, as the Catholic Catechism states. But the Church is and remains one Church. The communion of saints is one Church.

This is what I call the “Lemming Polemic”. It assumes that Zwingli, Calvin, the Anabaptists, all simply followed Luther like lemmings but didn’t really follow Luther. I have very little time for the teachings of these, but I don’t think the were unintelligent in the least. They were capable of making their own decisions, regardless of the German Augustinian friar.
Division and schism are not good for the Church. It wounds the ministry and message of the Church, and divides those of us who are members of the one Church. We must and should pray to the Holy Spirit for reconciliation, and work for it in our actions and words.

Jon

But, Jon, the historic fact is that all these heretics looked to Luther for their way to reject some or all of the teachings of the Church that Christ established through St. Peter. An example, Jon, of this confusion is your classifying yourself a Lutheran, as opposed to a Roman Catholic. Of the following tenet of Luther, which do you accept as truth and which as heresy?

The chief tenet of the Lutheran creed, that which Luther called “the article of the standing and falling Church”, has reference to the justification of sinful man. Original sin is explained as a positive and total depravity of human nature, which renders all the acts of the unjustified, even those of civil righteousness, sinful and displeasing to God. Justification, which is not an internal change, but an external, forensic declaration by which God imputes to the creature the righteousness of Christ, comes only by faith, which is the confidence that one is reconciled to God through Christ. Good works are necessary as an exercise of faith, and are rewarded, not by justification (which they presuppose), but by the fulfilment of the Divine promises (Apology Aug. Conf.).

Also, the following:

Other distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Church are:

1. consubstantiation (although the symbols do not use this term), i.e. the real, corporeal presence of Christ’s Body and Blood during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, in, with, and under the substance of bread and wine, in a union which is not hypostatic, nor of mixture, nor of local inclusion, but entirely transcendent and mysterious;
2. the omnipresence of the Body of Christ, which is differently explained by the commentators of the Symbolical Books.

From: Lutheranism at: newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm

If you cannot agree with at least some of these tenets of Luther, Jon, I ask how can you call yourself a Lutheran?

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[JonNC]

But, Jon, the historic fact is that all these heretics looked to Luther for their way to reject some or all of the teachings of the Church that Christ established through St. Peter. An example, Jon, of this confusion is your classifying yourself a Lutheran, as opposed to a Roman Catholic. Of the following tenet of Luther, which do you accept as truth and which as heresy?

The chief tenet of the Lutheran creed, that which Luther called “the article of the standing and falling Church”, has reference to the justification of sinful man. Original sin is explained as a positive and total depravity of human nature, which renders all the acts of the unjustified, even those of civil righteousness, sinful and displeasing to God. Justification, which is not an internal change, but an external, forensic declaration by which God imputes to the creature the righteousness of Christ, comes only by faith, which is the confidence that one is reconciled to God through Christ. Good works are necessary as an exercise of faith, and are rewarded, not by justification (which they presuppose), but by the fulfilment of the Divine promises (Apology Aug. Conf.).

From: Lutheranism at: newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm

False, in that this Catholic commentary falsely attaches the term and metaphysical construct of consubstantiation to our belief. What is remarkable, honestly, is that the writers of New Advent should know better than to attach consubstantiation to our belief.
True, in that we believe in the doctrine of the real presence, and our confessions express it using Sacramental Union.

If you cannot agree with at least some of these tenets of Luther, Jon, I ask how can you call yourself a Lutheran?

As you can see, you haven’t hit on anything I disagree with regarding Lutheran doctrine.

Regards, and God Bless,

His blessing also with you,
Jon

[/QUOTE]

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Catholicism is pre denominational.
We are the Originals.

Having the Bible but rejecting the religion that produced it is like taking the writings of the Dalai Lama and following his writings but rejecting him and the Tibetan Buddhism. Sounds silly doesn’t it, so why do it. If the writings are a reflection of the religion but you reject the religion from which they came, you are left only with a reflection- Lutheranism.

 

[movwater]

Truth, of course. But it must also be followed with this:

bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php

False, in that this Catholic commentary falsely attaches the term and metaphysical construct of consubstantiation to our belief. What is remarkable, honestly, is that the writers of New Advent should know better than to attach consubstantiation to our belief.
True, in that we believe in the doctrine of the real presence, and our confessions express it using Sacramental Union.

So do you or don’t you believe in the Transubstantiation or something else?

As you can see, you haven’t hit on anything I disagree with regarding Lutheran doctrine.

How about the deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible?

If you agree with all the teachings of the Church, why are you not Roman Catholic? What is you (Luther’s) beef with the Church? As you see, Jon, if there are no differences in your believe why is their a “Lutheran” Church? It would seem that you are saying only that it is only the Catholic Belief that the Pope in Rome is the Vicar of Jesus, the Christ’s Church on Earth that separates us. If so, home do you explain Mathew 19.

His blessing also with you,
Jon

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[JonNC]

=movwater;11155676]So do you or don’t you believe in the Transubstantiation or something else?

I believe in the real presence, and recognize that how bread and wine can be Hi body and blood is a mystery. I find the expression of this, called Sacramental Union, as found in the confessions, a helpful expression not only for adult members, but also children.

How about the deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible?

I believe they should always be included in scripture, and that either within the OT or as a separate section is acceptable. I believe Christians should read them, and they should be used liturgically

If you agree with all the teachings of the Church, why are you not Roman Catholic? What is you (Luther’s) beef with the Church? As you see, Jon, if there are no differences in your believe why is their a “Lutheran” Church? It would seem that you are saying only that it is only the Catholic Belief that the Pope in Rome is the Vicar of Jesus, the Christ’s Church on Earth that separates us. If so, home do you explain Mathew 19.

I didn’t say I agree with all the teachings of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though in truth I agree with most. There are clear differences between our communions, but the difference that matters most to me is universal jurisdiction.

Regards, and God Bless,

And also with you,
Jon

 

[movwater]

I believe in the real presence, and recognize that how bread and wine can be Hi body and blood is a mystery. I find the expression of this, called Sacramental Union, as found in the confessions, a helpful expression not only for adult members, but also children.

Fair enough! I suppose I can conclude that you than agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s instruction regarding the Eucharist.

I believe they should always be included in scripture, and that either within the OT or as a separate section is acceptable. I believe Christians should read them, and they should be used liturgically

Do you, therefore, believe that they are the inspired “Word of God” and should be treated as equal to all the other Old Testament Scripture and the New Testament?

I didn’t say I agree with all the teachings of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though in truth I agree with most. There are clear differences between our communions, but the difference that matters most to me is universal jurisdiction.

Okay, Jon, please enlighten me as to these differences. If you do not agree that the Pope in Rome is not the Vicar of Jesus, the Christ on Earth and the successor of the St. Peter, please tell me on what you base these beliefs.

And also with you,
Jon

I am sorry for my earlier impatience, Brother, please forgive.

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[Neofight]

All,

A more catholic and Catholic act would be to embrace commonality in our beliefs instead of uncharitable claims about our differences.

Peace and all good!

 

[JonNC]

=movwater;11155795]Fair enough! I suppose I can conclude that you than agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s instruction regarding the Eucharist.

Aside from the metaphysical construct of Transubstantiation, yes. We do have some differences regarding the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, too.

Do you, therefore, believe that they are the inspired “Word of God” and should be treated as equal to all the other Old Testament Scripture and the New Testament?

I believe there is a level of historical dispute regarding them, even long before Luther. Hence, my sense is that we view them a bit differently than the universally attested books.

Okay, Jon, please enlighten me as to these differences. If you do not agree that the Pope in Rome is not the Vicar of Jesus, the Christ on Earth and the successor of the St. Peter, please tell me on what you base these beliefs.

In line with Lutheran teaching, which is similar but not exactly the same as Orthodoxy, I believe the Bishop of Rome to have a level of primacy of honor among the bishops, but neither scripture nor the early Church (Nicea) affords him supremacy over all of the Church.

I am sorry for my earlier impatience, Brother, please forgive.

Forgiven, but no apology needed. It is difficult at times online to know the nuances of voice behind the typed words. I might say, however, Lutherans and Catholics, and perhaps Anglicans, need to realize that, in the west, we might be more closely aligned both theologically and morally to each other than to any other group. As we watch the advance of secular leftists, we may need each other more than we ever thought possible.

Jon

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[JonNC]

All,

A more catholic and Catholic act would be to embrace commonality in our beliefs instead of uncharitable claims about our differences.

Peace and all good!

Agreed. It applies to us all.

Jon

 

[movwater]

All,

A more catholic and Catholic act would be to embrace commonality in our beliefs instead of uncharitable claims about our differences.

Peace and all good!

Are you confessing that all beliefs are equal? Would that include the beliefs of the Mohammedans, who profess that Jesus, the Christ is a prophet, but NOT the Son of God?

If all beliefs are equally valid than of what value is Apologetics?

How Neofight, would one embrace the beliefs of other sects, if you cannot understand them?

Just how many versions of the Truth do you think is sufficient?

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[movwater]

Aside from the metaphysical construct of Transubstantiation, yes. We do have some differences regarding the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, too.

Please explain, Jon.

I believe there is a level of historical dispute regarding them, even long before Luther. Hence, my sense is that we view them a bit differently than the universally attested books.

Okay, what do you believe these difference to be?

In line with Lutheran teaching, which is similar but not exactly the same as Orthodoxy, I believe the Bishop of Rome to have a level of primacy of honor among the bishops, but neither scripture nor the early Church (Nicea) affords him supremacy over all of the Church.

What about Jesus, the Christ, Jon, did he not have the ability to name head of his Church on Earth? If so, than please explain these verses:

Matthew 10

1 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.

2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,

3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,

4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

5 These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

6 But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

Also:

Matthew 16

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Does this Chapter have any special meaning? Was Jesus, the Christ, establishing His Church on earth, and setting St. Peter as its Pontiff?

Forgiven, but no apology needed. It is difficult at times online to know the nuances of voice behind the typed words. I might say, however, Lutherans and Catholics, and perhaps Anglicans, need to realize that, in the west, we might be more closely aligned both theologically and morally to each other than to any other group. As we watch the advance of secular leftists, we may need each other more than we ever thought possible.

Jon

Thank you, Jon, for you kind understanding. As for the alignment of the Lutherans and Anglicans with Roman Catholics, I concur. In fact, many of those Anglican Priests that could not continence the rapid loss of accepted norms of their church for centuries have apparently found their way “Home to Rome”. See: Breaking the bonds of communion By: FATHER RAYMOND J. DE SOUZA at: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0895.htm

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The Anglican, Orthodox, Wesleyan (Methodists) and Episcopal Church would clearly trace their lineage back to Christ. Disagreement with Rome does not nullify the heritage of the tradition, just nullifies the connection with Rome.

But thanks for your post.

 

[Memaw]

JonNC, You say,

“As Lutherans, we believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is but one Church, the Church Catholic, started by Christ Himself at Pentecost, of which Lutherans are members”.

You are saying, Church Catholic. but that is misleading. The prayer is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The only Christian Church that has all 4 of these marks is the Holy Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles with Peter as their head, that teaches ALL the Truths Jesus gave His Church over 2,000 years ago. The Catholic Church has not deviated one bit from all Jesus revealed to His Church. We call that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, (hand in hand).
By the way, where were you and all the others before the Protestant Reformation in 1517. We have been there all along. And why have the protestant denominations been dividing and dividing since then until there are over 30,00 different ones. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

The Anglican, Orthodox, Wesleyan (Methodists) and Episcopal Church would clearly trace their lineage back to Christ. Disagreement with Rome does not nullify the heritage of the tradition, just nullifies the connection with Rome.

But thanks for your post.

You all broke off from the Catholic Church and gave up Apostolic Succession. Except maybe the Orthodox. It isn’t just “disagreement with Rome” that is the problem, it’s the loss of Sacraments to start with. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Neal,
I am not confused at all, nor am I confusing. I simply outlined Lutheran belief. Take it or leave it. We believe in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. One Church, not many. The schisms and divisions of His Church Militant are the result of human sin, “for which men of both sides were often to blame”, as the Catholic Catechism states. But the Church is and remains one Church. The communion of saints is one Church.

This is what I call the “Lemming Polemic”. It assumes that Zwingli, Calvin, the Anabaptists, all simply followed Luther like lemmings but didn’t really follow Luther. I have very little time for the teachings of these, but I don’t think the were unintelligent in the least. They were capable of making their own decisions, regardless of the German Augustinian friar.
Division and schism are not good for the Church. It wounds the ministry and message of the Church, and divides those of us who are members of the one Church. We must and should pray to the Holy Spirit for reconciliation, and work for it in our actions and words.

Jon

That will only happen when you come to believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches such as over 400,000 Anglicans have recently done. God Bless, Memaw

 

[movwater]

The Anglican, Orthodox, Wesleyan (Methodists) and Episcopal Church would clearly trace their lineage back to Christ. Disagreement with Rome does not nullify the heritage of the tradition, just nullifies the connection with Rome.

But thanks for your post.

Anglican? Through who? Henry VIII?