"Non-Neccesties" of Salvation

[Montie_Claunch]

My aunt and I are having these discusions.
She holds that there are what she calls non-essenetials for Salvations that people don’t need to know to make it to heaven.
That even if things we able to be ditermine such as the Trinity (she is a trinitirian), Baptism, day of Worship (Saterday or Sunday), Confession, ect. that it wouldn’t really matter.
That each person is called by God to a diffrent church as he sees fit. Might call one person to the Methodist church another to the bapstist ect. All we have to do is Love Jesus.
That we shouldn’t bother people with these “Non-essential” things. Thats where God want them to be. As a Mormon, or Jahovas Witness or what ever.
She uses the scriptures where other man is preaching of Jesus but was not part of the Group and Jesus says that he who is not agianst us is for us.
And when paul says not to judge him over Sabbath or new moon. As well were he says that to those that it is a sin (I think in the given instance it was meat sacraficed to graven images) it was a sin and thoughs that did not see it as a sin it wasn’t. And not to bother the one of weaker conscience.
My entire being rebels agiansts any religous truth as non-essitual. I can’t imagine this.
What do you guys think? What am I to think of this? Thanks and God bless.

 

[kleary]

Well take for example the Eucharist.

If it is the Body of Christ and I receive it believing it then that is ok.

However if I believe it is a symbol then I commit sacrelidge.

Yet on the other side if it is a symbol and I receive it believing it to be the Body of Christ then I commit Idolatry.

So an answer is needed now isn’t it? I mean a DEFINITE ANSWER.

Ken

 

[mosher]

My aunt and I are having these discusions.
She holds that there are what she calls non-essenetials for Salvations that people don’t need to know to make it to heaven.
That even if things we able to be ditermine such as the Trinity (she is a trinitirian), Baptism, day of Worship (Saterday or Sunday), Confession, ect. that it wouldn’t really matter.
That each person is called by God to a diffrent church as he sees fit. Might call one person to the Methodist church another to the bapstist ect. All we have to do is Love Jesus.
That we shouldn’t bother people with these “Non-essential” things. Thats where God want them to be. As a Mormon, or Jahovas Witness or what ever.
She uses the scriptures where other man is preaching of Jesus but was not part of the Group and Jesus says that he who is not agianst us is for us.
And when paul says not to judge him over Sabbath or new moon. As well were he says that to those that it is a sin (I think in the given instance it was meat sacraficed to graven images) it was a sin and thoughs that did not see it as a sin it wasn’t. And not to bother the one of weaker conscience.
My entire being rebels agiansts any religous truth as non-essitual. I can’t imagine this.

 What do you guys think? What am I to think of this? Thanks and God bless.

What is sounds like to me is that you are coming up against the different ideas of salvation that we have as compared to most protestants. The protestant scheme is one that is juridical. For this reason we have many protestant formulas that will say in one shape or form “x + y + z = salvation.” However, the Catholic view is a little different and contains this idea (of sorts). The Catholic does not first concern himself (or rather should not concern himself) with knowing things to be saved. This can turn into a form of gnosticism if taken to an extreme. Rather, the Catholic understanding of all this is one of relation. We must build a relationship with God because that is what He truly desires. However, in order to do this it requires more than just faith. Faith is very important but if we are to love God then we must know God. Intellect precedes the will and thus we cannot love that which we do not know. Therefore, we take the time to know all that we can about God primarily because it is necessary for our own salvation but rather because they are aspects of God and if we are come to a deeper love of God it is necessary to come to a deeper knowledge of God in all things.

Think of it this way, and explain it this way. When you are in love with a person is it important to know all the little things about that person that you love or is it not important to learn all you can about that person? Anyone that has been in a meaningful relationship knows that it is important to know everything about the one they love because the more they learn about that person the deeper they are able to love that person. It is like the newlywed that loves even the way their beloved walks, stands and makes noises in their sleep.

So in a sense you need to know God’s favorite color. Try to get her away from the juridical view of God and into the loving relationship of the Bride and the Bridegroom.

 

[StCsDavid]

I have a friend who subscribes to the line of thinking that “good people don’t have to do more.” In other words, just being a good person is all one needs to do and church or religion don’t really matter. I’ve tried to engage him with that if by good he really means virtuous then by what standard to you measure your virtue against? A Muslim terrorist believes he is virtuous by killing me for not being Muslim. A polygamist believes he is virtuous by marrying multiple wives. Moral relativism doesn’t work. The truth does matter, and with a little research and a heart willing to cooperate with grace, it is hard to find a better answer than the Catholic Church.

 

[mozart-250]

My aunt and I are having these discusions.
She holds that there are what she calls non-essenetials for Salvations that people don’t need to know to make it to heaven.
That even if things we able to be ditermine such as the Trinity (she is a trinitirian), Baptism, day of Worship (Saterday or Sunday), Confession, ect. that it wouldn’t really matter.
That each person is called by God to a diffrent church as he sees fit. Might call one person to the Methodist church another to the bapstist ect. All we have to do is Love Jesus.
That we shouldn’t bother people with these “Non-essential” things. Thats where God want them to be. As a Mormon, or Jahovas Witness or what ever.
She uses the scriptures where other man is preaching of Jesus but was not part of the Group and Jesus says that he who is not agianst us is for us.
And when paul says not to judge him over Sabbath or new moon. As well were he says that to those that it is a sin (I think in the given instance it was meat sacraficed to graven images) it was a sin and thoughs that did not see it as a sin it wasn’t. And not to bother the one of weaker conscience.
My entire being rebels agiansts any religous truth as non-essitual. I can’t imagine this.

 What do you guys think? What am I to think of this? Thanks and God bless.

As a heretic Protestant let me argue the other side.

Sort of anyway.

With any truth, you have to determine the impact of being wrong.

There is some truth that is absolutely essential for eternal life. If I don’t believe in a historical Jesus who dies and rose from the dead, are you going to see me in heaven?

Then there is moral truth. Is God going to adjust his moral code if I am pro-choice and perform an abortion?

Then there are things out there that will just mess you and others up if you swallow them (example the Word of Faith movement in Pentecostal-land).

But there are things out there I just can’t understand the impact of being wrong. Tell me what the impact might be if I believe God created the world in 7 days when in reality He might have taken a little longer. Or vice-versa. Or what is the impact if I am wrong on details of the second coming of Christ?

But what do I know? I’m just a Protestant.

 

[jmcrae]

Montie;

While it is certainly true that we can’t be judged on things that we had no way of knowing (invincible ignorance), it is not true that God would ever call someone into a false religion.

Nor it is true that people can believe opposite things and be “equally right” - unless, of course. they are both completely wrong, but if I thought I was wrong about something, I’d study until I knew the truth, and I think most people have the same attitude.

God is continually calling all of us into the fullness of Truth, which subsists in the Catholic Church - which probably sounds pretty arrogant until one takes a brief glance at the history of Christianity, and realizes that Christ founded the Catholic Church (Matthew 16:18), established Simon Peter as its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19) and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18, again). Our Pope is the direct successor in an unbroken line from Simon Peter. The first list of the Popes that I can find is in Adverses Heresies, written by the Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons in 180 AD, long before Constantine was ever born, and certainly long before anybody was thinking about “denominations” - I mention that because there are so many people who believe that Constantine “invented” the Catholic Church, together with its system of government.

Furthermore, it was Jesus who established our Catholic sacraments and rituals, giving them to the Apostles, and while there may be certain non-essential elements attached to these that change from time to time, the form and matter of these have remained the same these 2,000 years.

There are also certain things that are open to question, that the Church doesn’t make any kind of official ruling on.

For example, Mozart brought up the creation debate. With regard to that, the Church requires only two things from us: That we believe that the human race is descended from one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve), and that God created everything, and it was good. Apart from that, if you can reconcile evolutionary theory with these two non-negotiables (I’ve never figured out how, but there are lots of people who do) then you are certainly allowed to do that.

 

[rwoehmke]

I think one has to bear in mind that one must “know” God to the extant that one can love him and relate to him. On the other hand one can be the greatest and most knowledgable theologian in the world and still go to hell. What is essential then is just enough knowledge to fuel the love relationship which I am certain will vary from person to person. To try to pin down the minimum as a list of statements is like seeking the “willow-the-wisp.”

 

[Zooey]

As a heretic Protestant let me argue the other side.

Sort of anyway.

With any truth, you have to determine the impact of being wrong.

There is some truth that is absolutely essential for eternal life. If I don’t believe in a historical Jesus who dies and rose from the dead, are you going to see me in heaven?

Then there is moral truth. Is God going to adjust his moral code if I am pro-choice and perform an abortion?

Then there are things out there that will just mess you and others up if you swallow them (example the Word of Faith movement in Pentecostal-land).

But there are things out there I just can’t understand the impact of being wrong. Tell me what the impact might be if I believe God created the world in 7 days when in reality He might have taken a little longer. Or vice-versa. Or what is the impact if I am wrong on details of the second coming of Christ?

But what do I know? I’m just a Protestant.

I think this is a really good post…Of course, I’m the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist around here, anyhow, but it seems to me that you make a really good point…
There is a big difference between, say, thinking it is OK to perform abortions (&:crying: doing it!), and thinking that the world was made in 7 million years, as opposed to 7 periods of 24 hours apiece.

I also believe that we have to be careful not to let ourselves fall into the habit of shrugging off differences of opinion to the point where we are endangering other people’s salvation. Paul talks a lot about this–in Romans, I believe…About not doing things that will cause scandal to other people. So, its not just a matter of doing the absolute minimum you can get away with & still get to Heaven.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi All,
Im so happy the forum is back on Anyway, I think what we need to remember is that God did not save us just so we could go to heaven. He saved us for a purpose. Each indidvidual has their own purpose by God and for God. I can assure you it is not to do the least amount possible just to get into heaven. If someone thinks that way they should reevaluate themselves as a true believer and follower of Christ. Since I have become saved, I can feel the Holy Spirit leading me closer to God and making me yearn to do more to please God. I hunger to learn more about God daily and even more importantly I hunger to please God daily with all that I do. Of course I have not perfected that yet But who has right But that is my goal and it should be a goal of every true believer in Christ.

God Bless

 

[milimac]

I can agree that there are non-essentials, such as how Christ will return, whether evolution was used as part of the process of creation, etc. But who’s to say what is essential and what’s not? Your fallible self? My fallible self? Thank God we have a Magisterium.

If everyone who called themselves Christian tore out what they believed were non-essential, you’d be left with a pretty thin bible, if one at all. What one person said was essential another person would say is not essential and another person would say is not absolutely essential. This is what many already do, except they don’t rip out the pages, they just ignore them.

I think what is essential depends to a large degree on what you’ve been given. To those who have been given much, much is required. So a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist may be putting his soul in jeopardy if he treats that sacrament with a ho-hum attitude, while a non-Catholic Christian who was never given that grace to believe it would not be held to the same standard. But then again, I’m not God and what seems just to me might be way off base. Much better to honestly strive to do His will in all things and put all your hope in Him.

 

[mosher]

As a heretic Protestant let me argue the other side.

Sort of anyway.

With any truth, you have to determine the impact of being wrong.

There is some truth that is absolutely essential for eternal life. If I don’t believe in a historical Jesus who dies and rose from the dead, are you going to see me in heaven?

Then there is moral truth. Is God going to adjust his moral code if I am pro-choice and perform an abortion?

Then there are things out there that will just mess you and others up if you swallow them (example the Word of Faith movement in Pentecostal-land).

But there are things out there I just can’t understand the impact of being wrong. Tell me what the impact might be if I believe God created the world in 7 days when in reality He might have taken a little longer. Or vice-versa. Or what is the impact if I am wrong on details of the second coming of Christ?

But what do I know? I’m just a Protestant.

I think this is a really good post…Of course, I’m the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist around here, anyhow, but it seems to me that you make a really good point…
There is a big difference between, say, thinking it is OK to perform abortions (&:crying: doing it!), and thinking that the world was made in 7 million years, as opposed to 7 periods of 24 hours apiece.

I also believe that we have to be careful not to let ourselves fall into the habit of shrugging off differences of opinion to the point where we are endangering other people’s salvation. Paul talks a lot about this–in Romans, I believe…About not doing things that will cause scandal to other people. So, its not just a matter of doing the absolute minimum you can get away with & still get to Heaven.

And you are both here correct. The piece of the puzzle that is missing, however, is that it is necessary to know what is essential and what is not. Since I as a flawed human person cannot with any clarity know with absolute certitude what is necessary and what is no necessary then I must turn to an authority. The first such authority is of course Scripture (for those with faith) and here I find the same dilemma. So, to whom do I turn when there is at least apparent conflict. The clear answer is given in Scripture for such times - The Church. We are taught in Scripture that where there is a conflict that we must turn to the Church for guidance. Hence, all of us here must have an absolute authority to determine this very question and that authority is already given.

 

[mozart-250]

And you are both here correct. The piece of the puzzle that is missing, however, is that it is necessary to know what is essential and what is not. Since I as a flawed human person cannot with any clarity know with absolute certitude what is necessary and what is no necessary then I must turn to an authority. The first such authority is of course Scripture (for those with faith) and here I find the same dilemma. So, to whom do I turn when there is at least apparent conflict. The clear answer is given in Scripture for such times - The Church. We are taught in Scripture that where there is a conflict that we must turn to the Church for guidance. Hence, all of us here must have an absolute authority to determine this very question and that authority is already given.

And if I were Catholic I would have given exactly this answer. Well played.

As I think about it, us non-Catholics also turn to an authority, that being the local church God has called us to. That is why Protestants generally adopt the beliefs of the church they are in.

Of course the difference then becomes in the nature of the authority of the ecclesiastical organizations to which we are called to. And here we get into “source of faith” arguments that are basically unprovable either way.

 

[jmcrae]

As I think about it, us non-Catholics also turn to an authority, that being the local church God has called us to. That is why Protestants generally adopt the beliefs of the church they are in.

Is God double-minded? If one church teaches that salvation is obtained one way, and the church down the street teaches an opposite or incompatible doctrine (OSAS vs. five-point Calvinism, for example), how can both be right?

Or is there no objective truth? As long as you obey the authority that you happen to be following at the moment, then you’re all right with God?

Of course the difference then becomes in the nature of the authority of the ecclesiastical organizations to which we are called to.

If they don’t even believe that their authority comes from God, then why on earth would you follow them - unless you were under the impression that no one has this? Even Marxists believe that their authority comes from a higher power - the progress of history.

Why follow someone who believes that he has not been given any authority from God to teach?

And here we get into “source of faith” arguments that are basically unprovable either way.

Hopefully, we all believe that the source of our faith is God.

 

[mozart-250]

Is God double-minded? If one church teaches that salvation is obtained one way, and the church down the street teaches an opposite or incompatible doctrine (OSAS vs. five-point Calvinism, for example), how can both be right?

They can’t. They can both be wrong, however.

Or is there no objective truth? As long as you obey the authority that you happen to be following at the moment, then you’re all right with God?

Well that gets back to the title of the thread. However, the way the Bible reads to me, when my life is evaluated by God, he will not look first at whether I got all points of theology right. He will first look at my character and whether I exhibit Christlikeness.

I have seen my fill of people who knew they were right and very arrogant about it.

f they don’t even believe that their authority comes from God, then why on earth would you follow them - unless you were under the impression that no one has this? Even Marxists believe that their authority comes from a higher power - the progress of history.

Why follow someone who believes that he has not been given any authority from God to teach?

You misunderstand us if you think that we believe our pastors have no authority from God. My pastor says very clearly that God called him into the ministry.

H

Hopefully, we all believe that the source of our faith is God.

Well yes, but that is not what I was referring to. I was actually referring to how many books in the Bible (66,73,81). The roles of church, tradition, the written word. I don’t know how anyone can prove their faith source correct (as opposed to providing evidence for their source). How do you prove a faith source? I have not seen that done yet.

 

[Zooey]

And you are both here correct. The piece of the puzzle that is missing, however, is that it is necessary to know what is essential and what is not. Since I as a flawed human person cannot with any clarity know with absolute certitude what is necessary and what is no necessary then I must turn to an authority. The first such authority is of course Scripture (for those with faith) and here I find the same dilemma. So, to whom do I turn when there is at least apparent conflict. The clear answer is given in Scripture for such times - The Church. We are taught in Scripture that where there is a conflict that we must turn to the Church for guidance. Hence, all of us here must have an absolute authority to determine this very question and that authority is already given.

In the Methodist Church, we are taught about what is sometimes called the Wesley Quadrilateral. The four sides are:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Experience
4. Logic

All these things are part of what we look to for understanding & authority…(Not all non-Catholics, you see, have thrown out tradition!). We read the Bible, we read the ECFs, we look to the wisdom of other Christians (including the writings of saintly persons of the various branches of Christianity). We ask the advice of those who have walked where we are right now–Our elders in faith.
And, we are to test the reasonableness of all that we read & hear. (If nobody in the entire history of Christendom ever heard of an idea before, that is not proof positive that it is wrong, but it sure is a strong indication that we need to hold off on following after it!!).

Only after all this can we even pretend to have an idea as to what is & is not essential or nonessential…But we are, in fact, looking to the church for understanding. (I acknowledge fully, of course, that when I say “the church”, I am probably not meaning the same as when a Catholic says it…though, many Catholics might, I think, be surprised at how often the writings of some Catholic saints come to play in the process!)

 

[mozart-250]

In the Methodist Church, we are taught about what is sometimes called the Wesley Quadrilateral. The four sides are:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Experience
4. Logic

All these things are part of what we look to for understanding & authority…(Not all non-Catholics, you see, have thrown out tradition!). We read the Bible, we read the ECFs, we look to the wisdom of other Christians (including the writings of saintly persons of the various branches of Christianity). We ask the advice of those who have walked where we are right now–Our elders in faith.
And, we are to test the reasonableness of all that we read & hear. (If nobody in the entire history of Christendom ever heard of an idea before, that is not proof positive that it is wrong, but it sure is a strong indication that we need to hold off on following after it!!).

Only after all this can we even pretend to have an idea as to what is & is not essential or nonessential…But we are, in fact, looking to the church for understanding. (I acknowledge fully, of course, that when I say “the church”, I am probably not meaning the same as when a Catholic says it…though, many Catholics might, I think, be surprised at how often the writings of some Catholic saints come to play in the process!)

I concur with Zooey.

If more Protestants acknowledged tradition, they wouldn’t constantly be coming up with stuff nobody has heard of in 2000 years.

 

[mosher]

And if I were Catholic I would have given exactly this answer. Well played.

As I think about it, us non-Catholics also turn to an authority, that being the local church God has called us to. That is why Protestants generally adopt the beliefs of the church they are in.

Of course the difference then becomes in the nature of the authority of the ecclesiastical organizations to which we are called to. And here we get into “source of faith” arguments that are basically unprovable either way.

And, yes, each protestant turns to their local Pope for guidance. So, perhaps we can see the silliness of separation. I am not being antagonistic just realistic.

 

[mosher]

In the Methodist Church, we are taught about what is sometimes called the Wesley Quadrilateral. The four sides are:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Experience
4. Logic

All these things are part of what we look to for understanding & authority…(Not all non-Catholics, you see, have thrown out tradition!). We read the Bible, we read the ECFs, we look to the wisdom of other Christians (including the writings of saintly persons of the various branches of Christianity). We ask the advice of those who have walked where we are right now–Our elders in faith.
And, we are to test the reasonableness of all that we read & hear. (If nobody in the entire history of Christendom ever heard of an idea before, that is not proof positive that it is wrong, but it sure is a strong indication that we need to hold off on following after it!!).

Only after all this can we even pretend to have an idea as to what is & is not essential or nonessential…But we are, in fact, looking to the church for understanding. (I acknowledge fully, of course, that when I say “the church”, I am probably not meaning the same as when a Catholic says it…though, many Catholics might, I think, be surprised at how often the writings of some Catholic saints come to play in the process!)

Your not helping your case here. I know very well that not all tradition or Tradition is lost to the various denominations fo protestants, however, my point being held that in the end game there must be the single authority of the Church to define what is true or necessary and what is not true or not necessary for this the bible tells me so.

 

[jmcrae]

Well that gets back to the title of the thread. However, the way the Bible reads to me, when my life is evaluated by God, he will not look first at whether I got all points of theology right. He will first look at my character and whether I exhibit Christlikeness.

That’s certainly true.

And someone who sincerely believes that Jesus is a marshmallow, worships the marshmallow, and does his best to be as marshmallow-like in his conduct as he can will probably not go to Hell, providing there is no reasonable way for him to find out about the real Jesus - but the person who taught him that Jesus is a marshmallow will have some explaining to do on the Judgement day - both to Jesus and to the person who lived his whole life trying to be a marshmallow, when he could have spent his time becoming a Saint.

You misunderstand us if you think that we believe our pastors have no authority from God. My pastor says very clearly that God called him into the ministry.

And how did he perceive and respond to the call? Did he do like Timothy and get ordained by an Apostle or direct successor to the Apostles? Or by what authority was he ordained? Did something magic fall on his head from out of the sky?

I was actually referring to how many books in the Bible (66,73,81). The roles of church, tradition, the written word. I don’t know how anyone can prove their faith source correct (as opposed to providing evidence for their source). How do you prove a faith source? I have not seen that done yet.

The same way you know the pedigree of a purebred dog, and the same way that you know which family you are a member of.

In the case of the dog, there are written records and oral histories - you can trace back to the mother and father of the dog, talk to their owners, and find out the history of the mother and father, you can locate their breeders and read the written records that are kept by the breeders. If your dog breeds with a dog that is not of the same breed, then its puppies are no longer part of that lineage; they are considered “mutts.”

In the case of your family, you know who your parents and grandparents are, and you can find written records of their ancestors, going back to the first person who had your family name, how they got the name, and learn why your family is the way that it is.

If a complete stranger who shows up from nowhere all of a sudden starts coming to your house, calling himself by your name, and claiming inheritance rights in your family without permission from you or the head of your family, you would, and rightly, throw him out on his head.

You don’t get to be a member of a family simply by declaring yourself so. Either you are born into it, or you are adopted into it, but you can’t just get up one day and declare yourself to be a member of someone else’s family, without them first adopting you through a recognized adoption procedure. Also, if a total stranger came along with a bunch of kids and told you that he had adopted them into your family, your first impulse would be to contact Social Services and get him into psychatric care, I think, before trying to figure out how to help these kids who think they are yours, now.

With the Church it’s a similar process. In the Catholic Church we can trace the lineage of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope, in a direct and unbroken line all the way back to the Apostle Peter. When we turn to the Scriptures, we see that Jesus founded a Church (Matthew 16:18), and that He established Peter as its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19).

That’s how we know that the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus founded - because our leadership can be traced back in an unbroken spiritual lineage to the person whom Jesus placed in charge of His Church.

No other church - including some that even existed during the time of the Apostles (St. Paul was continually warning people not to follow them - he was constantly telling them to stick with Jesus’ Apostles) - no other church can make that claim - and most of them don’t even try.

The majority of Protestant churches today got their start relatively recently. Even Lutheranism didn’t begin until 1529 - and as far as I know, it’s the oldest Protestant denomination in existence.

Martin Luther had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church at the time that he founded the Lutheran church, which means that he had no authority either to establish a church, or to ordain preachers. He could not “adopt” others into the Church of Jesus Christ, because he himself was not even a member of it, at that time - he had been excommunicated.

Neither could any of the other “reformers” who followed his example by separating from him and starting up their own churches.

 

[mozart-250]

That’s certainly true.
And how did he perceive and respond to the call? Did he do like Timothy and get ordained by an Apostle or direct successor to the Apostles? Or by what authority was he ordained? Did something magic fall on his head from out of the sky?

Well we don’t claim direct lineage from the Apostles. My pastor did go through the organization in which he is affiliated.

The same way you know the pedigree of a purebred dog, and the same way that you know which family you are a member of.

In the case of the dog, there are written records and oral histories - you can trace back to the mother and father of the dog, talk to their owners, and find out the history of the mother and father, you can locate their breeders and read the written records that are kept by the breeders. If your dog breeds with a dog that is not of the same breed, then its puppies are no longer part of that lineage; they are considered “mutts.”

In the case of your family, you know who your parents and grandparents are, and you can find written records of their ancestors, going back to the first person who had your family name, how they got the name, and learn why your family is the way that it is.

If a complete stranger who shows up from nowhere all of a sudden starts coming to your house, calling himself by your name, and claiming inheritance rights in your family without permission from you or the head of your family, you would, and rightly, throw him out on his head.

You don’t get to be a member of a family simply by declaring yourself so. Either you are born into it, or you are adopted into it, but you can’t just get up one day and declare yourself to be a member of someone else’s family, without them first adopting you through a recognized adoption procedure. Also, if a total stranger came along with a bunch of kids and told you that he had adopted them into your family, your first impulse would be to contact Social Services and get him into psychatric care, I think, before trying to figure out how to help these kids who think they are yours, now.

With the Church it’s a similar process. In the Catholic Church we can trace the lineage of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope, in a direct and unbroken line all the way back to the Apostle Peter. When we turn to the Scriptures, we see that Jesus founded a Church (Matthew 16:18), and that He established Peter as its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19).

That’s how we know that the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus founded - because our leadership can be traced back in an unbroken spiritual lineage to the person whom Jesus placed in charge of His Church.

No other church - including some that even existed during the time of the Apostles (St. Paul was continually warning people not to follow them - he was constantly telling them to stick with Jesus’ Apostles) - no other church can make that claim - and most of them don’t even try.

The majority of Protestant churches today got their start relatively recently. Even Lutheranism didn’t begin until 1529 - and as far as I know, it’s the oldest Protestant denomination in existence.

Martin Luther had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church at the time that he founded the Lutheran church, which means that he had no authority either to establish a church, or to ordain preachers. He could not “adopt” others into the Church of Jesus Christ, because he himself was not even a member of it, at that time - he had been excommunicated.

Neither could any of the other “reformers” who followed his example by separating from him and starting up their own churches.

This argument has the underlying assumption that the Catholic Church was correct in the reformation and that Martin Luther and the Protestants were wrong. It also has the underlying assumption that this still matters 500 years later and that God still prefers the Catholic Church on the basis of lineage only.

What if the Catholic Church became the whore of Babylon and the Protestant Reformation was a righteous revolt (like perhaps arguably the American Revolution). Some Protestants argue this.

I am inclined to believe the truth lies in the middle. From my little knowledge of the 1500 time period I am equally underwhelmed with both the Catholic Church and the Germanic reformers and have a partiality to the anabaptists (whom both the Catholic and reformed exterminated like stray dogs at a dog pound). What good is a reformation if you remain equally as blind to the moral evil of the day as the group you are wanting to reform.

John Wesley is the first big name Protestant I really like.

What is missing from this whole discussion is (name removed by moderator)ut from God as to how he views his divided church. What if conduct and Christlikeness is more important to God at this point in time than lineage?