The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[AmericanJosiah]

What the heck; I’ll give it one more shot. Are you saying that every church (including the church founded by my sister’s Pastor in 1987) - regardless of who founded it and when, are ALL the one true church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa AD 33?

And I’ll reply exactly the same way I have each time before: no. Jesus didn’t found ANY denomination. Jesus founded the church. The one, holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers (past, present and maybe future).

I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, thus the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians is also PEOPLE. The church is not an institutional, legal/geopolitical, denominational it. Never was, still isn’t, never will be.

As I posted the last time,

2. No, Jesus did not found ANY denomination (the claims of The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and all the cults not withstanding). Jesus founded the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. It’s not a geopolitical, legal/economic institution - it is the community of faith. Where is it? Where faith is, where believers are. Indeed, it embraces all the centuries and all the continents.

1. Luther wrote, “Just as Christ is without sin, invisible and spiritul, so the church is without sin, invisible and spiritual and is seen by faith.” (WA 710). It’s not as simply as googling it, lol. The church is not such so one can say “there it is” or “here it is”. It is in the midst of you. The Lutheran church father Melanchthon wrote in the Lutheran Confessions, “This one, holy, catholic church actually exists and is made up of all true believers scattered throughout the world.” (Apology). Now, Luther and the Lutheran fathers spoke of “marks” or outward signs of the church; they point esepcially (but not exclusively) to “the pure teaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments”: (Apology 7 and 8) since thus never returns void so where such is, such is faith and thus His one, holy and catholic church.

Christianity is not an institutional denomination. It is faith in hearts - revealed in love. Christians are people - not geopolitical/legal institutional entities or entity. What to find the church? Look for faith - and faith revealed in love. Dr. Samuel Samuel Nafzger, Director of Church Relations for The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod also adds this to what I just said, “We Lutherans look for Baptism, for we believe that Baptism is what makes one the church, a member of the Body of Christ” (CTCR document, “Church Fellowship” 2000). But again, such is simply because Lutherans understand that Baptism is typically what brings such faith into hearts, and such faith reveals itself in love.

AJ, Is the Holy Spirit leading some PEOPLE to believe the literal interpretation and some PEOPLE to believe the figurative interpretation? Like you said: He leads them perfectly (for God can do no other).

… you didn’t finish the quote. I added that He leads ALL people (but only people - not geopolitical insittutional entities - including The Catholic Church) BUT, that doesn’t suggest that all FOLLOW perfectly. And again, the contrast between us keeps coming out: I don’t accept your extreme emphasis on individualism. “It’s not Jesus and ME, it’s Jesus and WE.”

You then said: The question is: do we always infallibly follow? How can fallible people follow infallibly, and, who is not infallibly following Christ

1. Again, I just don’t buy into your extreme emphasis on individualism - or power.
2. I’m not sure any ONE “infallibly” follows God. At least, God never indicated such. I realize ANYONE can claim that there is one (such always claims that that one is self - exclusively; read any of the cults on this point?). But just because self alone (exclusively) claims that self alone (exclusively) INFALLIBLY follows God has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether one does (including self); it is a circumvention of the issue - not an address of it.

Will you please identify the church, in the word today, that existed in AD 250? Hopefully you won’t say: “the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.”

… the specific members ALIVE in 250 AD are all dead now. But they are just as much a part of the church today as they were in 250 AD, for the church embraces all believers - even if such are today in heaven.

And finally: which church in the world today, would you recommend to an on the fence Christian, in search of truth, in its fullest sense?

Well, if a brother or sister has no church home or “roots” then I usually invite them to worship with me in my congregation. But I would not claim that my congregation or my pastor uniquely, exclusively, infallibly “follow God” and must be accepted “with docility” as Jesus. And my congregation and its pastor would be pretty amazed at me if I did.

Not too long ago, a co-worker of mine (an inactive Catholic) expressed that she had just - entirely - dropped out. No real “issues” really, she just had gotten really inactive, and then moved here and well - it’s just not a part of her life and there is a bit of a social issue going to a church where we don’t know anyone. So, I said I’d go with her. And I did. For 3 straight weeks. The first week, I actually picked her up. The next two weeks, we met at the parish. I sat with her, worshipped with her (of course I don’t participate in the Eucharist) and afterward, during the week, I engaged in discussion with her about the sermon, etc. I’d glad to say she’s active again - back to The Catholic Church. I’m pleased.

.

 

[romesweethome]

Obviously, Lutherans don’t believe Jesus went directly to heaven, as we confess the Apostles Creed. In addition, the thief did not die that day, as they broke his legs, but not Christ’s because he was already dead, when taking them down in honor of the sabbath.

Jon

The gentleman I am speaking of has a call in show that is about three hrs long in the St Louis area. He is a Lutheran pastor. He tries to use this line of thinking to disprove the existence of purgatory. It is amazing what the doctrine of sola scriptura can do to people.

I think that sola scriptura was devised by the enemy, after all, it has caused more chaos and division than anything else within christianity. Although I do understand that those who pastor churches need this doctrine in order to stay employed. Two of my brother in laws have admitted this. One has been a pastor of several different churches, believing different things, and even contrary things from the previous church. When asked how this can be, he basically stated that he is just letting God guide him. My question, is how can God guide someone into what seems true, and then into something totally contrary to that belief?

peace, rsh

 

[JonNC]

The gentleman I am speaking of has a call in show that is about three hrs long in the St Louis area. He is a Lutheran pastor. He tries to use this line of thinking to disprove the existence of purgatory. It is amazing what the doctrine of sola scriptura can do to people.

I think that sola scriptura was devised by the enemy, after all, it has caused more chaos and division than anything else within christianity. Although I do understand that those who pastor churches need this doctrine in order to stay employed. Two of my brother in laws have admitted this. One has been a pastor of several different churches, believing different things, and even contrary things from the previous church. When asked how this can be, he basically stated that he is just letting God guide him. My question, is how can God guide someone into what seems true, and then into something totally contrary to that belief?

peace, rsh

God doesn’t. Human sin does. In all Christian charity, I disagree with your position on the practice of sola scriptura. And your brother in law seems to have a complete misunderstanding of ss, as well, in theory and in practice.

peace also with you,
Jon

 

[joe370]

And I’ll reply exactly the same way I have each time before: no. Jesus didn’t found ANY denomination. Jesus founded the church. The one, holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers (past, present and maybe future).

I believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, thus the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians is also PEOPLE. The church is not an institutional, legal/geopolitical, denominational it. Never was, still isn’t, never will be.

Josiah, don’t get me wrong; I too, “believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, thus the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians is also PEOPLE,” and I too believe that salvation can be found in each and every insular church. However, they do not assemble/gather together as one, as Jesus intended, so you can’t really call Jesus’ church one and united- just holy and universal - agreed? For example Lutherans do not assemble with Baptists and evangelicals don’t assemble with Methodists, etc etc.

If I were to start a church tomorrow and shepherd my flock and drop baptism all together (as my sister’s Pastor did; he calls it unbiblical, even though I provided ample proof) - as a requirement, would you still consider my church established by me, not Jesus, a part of the holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers?

Josiah, I don’t see how the CC can be part of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians, to which Jesus is the head and savior, if in fact you are right, and Jesus did not establish it. You said: “The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus.” Why would I want to belong to the CC if it wasn’t founded by Jesus?

Are you suggesting that Jesus founded the following churches, because I can give you the name of the founder for the following churches, and when he founded it, and yes, Jesus is the head and savior of these churches, for Jesus loves all the Christians who belong to these churches, as well as all non-Christians in general. I hate to keep asking, but, will you give me the name of the man that founded the CC? Many non-Catholics have posited certain men, but clearly and historically, they are wrong:

-Baptist
-Southern Baptist
-Southern Conservative
-Strict Baptist
-Independent Baptist
-National Baptist
-Black Primitive Baptist
-Conservative Baptist
-Dunker
-Salvationist
-Episcopal
-Methodist
-African Methodist
-Chinese Methodist
-Christian Methodist
-British Methodist
-Primitive Methodist
-Calvinist
-Congregationalism
-Lutheran
-Lutheran Orthodox
-Taborites
-Moravian
-Utaquists
-Wycliffites
-Waldensians
-Jehovah’s Witnesses
-Aaronic Order
-Latter Day
-Remnant
-Seventh-day Adventist
-Congregationalist
-Anglican
-Quaker
-Antiochian
-Maronite
-Syro-Malankara
-Syriac
-Armenian
-Chaldean
-Syro-Malabar
-Byzantine (Constantinopolitan)
-Ukrainian Greek Catholic
-Melkite Greek Catholic
-Romanian
-Hungarian Greek
-Ruthenian Catholic
-Belarusian Greek Catholic
-Bulgarian Greek Catholic
-Slovak Greek Catholic
-Spiritus Christi
-Russian Orthodox
-Eastern Orthodox
-Oriental Orthodox
-Nestorians
-Apostolic
-Presbyterian
-Unitarian
-Amish
-Beachy Amish
-Nebraska Amish
-Old Order Amish
-Swartzendruber Amish
-Mennonite
-Greek Orthodox
-Liberal Catholic
-Orthodox Catholic
-Brethren
-Open Brethren
-Exclusive Brethren
-Indian Brethren
-Kerala Brethren
-River Brethren
-Social Brethren
-Anglo-Israelism
-Reformed
-United
-Independen

 

[joe370]

1. Luther wrote, “Just as Christ is without sin, invisible and spiritul, so the church is without sin, invisible and spiritual and is seen by faith.” (WA 710). It’s not as simply as googling it, lol.

If the insular churches, by definition, (like father Melanchthon said) - are all the brothers and sisters in Christ united (eklessia) - then it isn’t really invisible, because people are not invisible, but I am following your logic.

The church is not such so one can say “there it is” or “here it is”. It is in the midst of you. The Lutheran church father Melanchthon wrote…

…But again, such is simply because Lutherans understand that Baptism is typically what brings such faith into hearts, and such faith reveals itself in love.

My sister and her Pastor and many other church leaders teach that zero sacraments are necessary. Is this an example of "the pure teaching of the Word…? Clearly, there are churches that do not embrace the sacraments that your church embraces. Are you cool with that?

Christianity is not an institutional denomination. It is faith in hearts - revealed in love.

Amen brother…

Quote:
AJ, Is the Holy Spirit leading some PEOPLE to believe the literal interpretation and some PEOPLE to believe the figurative interpretation? Like you said: He leads them perfectly (for God can do no other).

… you didn’t finish the quote. I added that He leads ALL people (but only people - not geopolitical insittutional entities - including The Catholic Church) BUT, that doesn’t suggest that all FOLLOW perfectly. And again, the contrast between us keeps coming out: I don’t accept your extreme emphasis on individualism. “It’s not Jesus and ME, it’s Jesus and WE.”

Most definitely; it’s Jesus and WE. Josiah, does the holy spirit lead some people to embrace baptism as necessary, and some other people to reject baptism?

Quote:
You then said: The question is: do we always infallibly follow? How can fallible people follow infallibly, and, who is not infallibly following Christ

But just because self alone (exclusively) claims that self alone (exclusively) INFALLIBLY follows God has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether one does (including self); it is a circumvention of the issue - not an address of it.

Well, you and your church leaders, understand that Baptism is typically what brings such faith into hearts, and such faith reveals itself in love, and many many church leaders disagree with you and me, and our respective church leaders, regarding Baptism. Is it OK to just agree to disagree on this doctrine, in the name of unity?

Quote:
Will you please identify the church, in the word today, that existed in AD 250? Hopefully you won’t say: “the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.”

… the specific members ALIVE in 250 AD are all dead now. But they are just as much a part of the church today as they were in 250 AD, for the church embraces all believers - even if such are today in heaven.

Are you sure that they are all dead? LOL…I am not trying to say that one church is better than another church, (far from it) - just because one church preceded another church; I am just trying to find the historical church of Jesus Christ that existed in AD 250. I love all churches, regardless of (oops, almost said denomination…LOL…) - church affiliation, for they draw non-Christians to the fold.

But I would not claim that my congregation or my pastor uniquely, exclusively, infallibly “follow God” and must be accepted “with docility” as Jesus. And my congregation and its pastor would be pretty amazed at me if I did.

So you, or your Pastor would embrace and allow, an on the fence Christian into your church, even if he/she insisted that baptism was unnecessary and refused to be baptised, in your church?

Not too long ago, a co-worker of mine (an inactive Catholic) expressed that she had just - entirely - dropped out. No real “issues” really, she just had gotten really inactive, and then moved here and well - it’s just not a part of her life

My brother is the same way.

…and there is a bit of a social issue going to a church where we don’t know anyone. So, I said I’d go with her. And I did. For 3 straight weeks. The first week, I actually picked her up. The next two weeks, we met at the parish. I sat with her, worshipped with her (of course I don’t participate in the Eucharist) and afterward, during the week, I engaged in discussion with her about the sermon, etc. I’d glad to say she’s active again - back to The Catholic Church. I’m pleased.

That’s cool. I am the same way with my sister and my niece, and a few friends belonging to my former Lutheran church. I am allowed to go to these respective churches just as long as I keep my biblical interpretations to myself, ( at church activities) -as per all 3 r Pastors, especially my sisters Pastor. Sadly he has started brain-washing her into believing that the CC is the who## of Babylon, and I am having a difficult time going with her to her church, and church activities.

I totally believe that Jesus Christ is the head savior of His Mystical body, the church, (all churches for that matter) - even if His Body, the church, is horribly fractured. His Mystical Body was horribly fractured as it hung on the cross, and He had no problem saving it then, just as He will have no problem saving it now! “For nothing is impossible for God.”

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, don’t get me wrong; I too, “believe that all Christians are PEOPLE, thus the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians is also PEOPLE,” and I too believe that salvation can be found in each and every insular church. However, they do not assemble/gather together as one, as Jesus intended, so you can’t really call Jesus’ church one and united- just holy and universal - agreed? For example Lutherans do not assemble with Baptists and evangelicals don’t assemble with Methodists, etc etc.

I do not agree. I have MUCH to say on this, so read it if you will (or not if its too long)

Jesus called us to unity - but I see nothing that suggests what He desires is denominations that are united with one: self. I think the unity He prayed for is a unity of faith and love (and maybe mind) - not geopolitical institutional denominational entity.

I realize, Joe, that The Catholic Church is one denomination and that it is in official, current agreement with itself alone in all that it currently views as good to agree upon. Yup. I realize that. But at least the same is true for all the other denominations, too. So what? Self usually agrees with self (currently and officially anyway, lol). It signifies nothing, and I just don’t think THAT is the unity Jesus was praying for, either.

Look, we have millions of congregations in the world for several reasons, among them is that we can’t get all 2.1 billion Christians into one room in one building in Jerusalem. Christianity soon began to spread, making it impossible to all gather in one congregation. Why, we have 3 different Catholic congregations just in my fairly small town (4 Lutheran ones). I don’t think Jesus was praying for geopolitical/legal institutional entity (I can’t find ANYTHING that remotely suggests that Jesus even cared about such things).

I believe what we are to pursue is a unity of faith (in Christ as our Savior), that is pretty much a function of being Christians. But we are also called to unity of LOVE. THAT’S still entirely unacheived. “By this will all the world know that you are My disciples - if you have love.” “This is my Commandment, that you love.” SADLY (and I do think THIS is what makes Jesus - and His Mother - weep) Christians are NOT known for our love. Sadly, it’s not even done on “Christian” websites filled with Christians who don’t even really know each other, where “relationships” are pretty theoretical (like here!!!). Witness the personal attacks and slams and flames even here, at this website.

Continues in next post…

.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continuing from the post above…

There is a verse that indicates Jesus may also desire a unity of mind or thought. We often regard this as a unity of dogma - that corpus of what we regard as essential. While I’m not SURE such is required, I am SURE such is a valid and admirable goal to which I’m dedicated. I think those in the early church were too. But again, this has NOTHING to do with a denomination agreeing exclusively only with itself (and that only officially, formally and currently). All denominations enjoying a unity of one: self with self is hardly Christian agreement! I wonder (sic!) if we haven’t already in many ways acheieved this - with the Apostles and Nicene Creeds??? They were both embraced as such. I don’t know - and I don’t think there is a consensus on this - how ‘big’ this corpus MUST be. But this I do know, all denominations (and none more than The Catholic Church) has a very large corpus. I have two Catechisms here at my desk, both handy because I use them a lot. One is my Lutheran Catechism, the other my Catholic Catechism. The first has 8 pages in it, the second has 800 pages in it. It’s not an “apples-to-apples” comparison in any sense, but it IS revealing to this point. The Catholic Church seems to have this overwhelming, irresistable urge to pin down every single issue, applying LOTS of its own “philosophy” and “reason” and “tradition” and “scholasticism” to come up with some huge, complex thing, typically UNIQUE to that singular denomination and that seems to have absolutely NOTHING to do with Scripture - and then declares it DOGMA, dividing Christians and Christianity and the Church once again. I WONDER about that, and how that relates to a hope for unity in the one and holy and catholic church - the communion of saints (just wonder)…

Look, for AGREEMENT to happen, there must be a willingness for ALL to be embraced as accountable and be subject to an arbitration OUTSIDE itself. The The Catholic Church powerfully, boldly, insistently rejects. It requires that ALL be willing to admit that they could be wrong and actually prefer to be correct than to rule over others. This, too, The Catholic Church WILL NOT do, it just repeats (over and over and over and over) that IT is infallible/unaccountable, that IT is the sole authority, that IT cannot err in matters of faith and morals, that all must docilicly accept WHATEVER it says, IT is the lord over all. Sadly, all her children (the plethora of Protestant denominations) aren’t usually much better - we learned too well from our parent. I totally understand when our Orthodox brothers and sisters look at we western Christians and shake their heads. They have a point. It requires HUMILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, COMMUNITY. A passion to learn rather than to rule, a humiliy to say “I was wrong” rather than an ego that insists, “I’m incapable of being wrong.” And (IRONICALLY) those attributes are rare in the church Jesus founded on love, humility and commuity.

Look, it would be good (and Lutherans LONG for this) if there was a mileau that would allow for a true ecumenical council. But we are LIGHT YEARS away from that (and yes, I largely blame the Pope for this SAD situation, the “war” he waged for centuries for POWER and LORDSHIP). But can you image any attempt to do that? Here’s what I envision… Let’s say we agree to meet in Tokyo - just to have a neutral location. Representative delegates of all the church arrive, check into the hotel where they will be staying for perhaps months while the issue or two before them gets hammered out to a consensus. The gather for an opening worship service, officiated by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and the President of The Southern Baptist Convention. The 3 hour long service is FILLED with faith, love and the praise of OUR Savior. You can feel it - to the core our souls - as all sing “Lift High the Cross” and “Glory to God in the Highest.” After the service, there is a social time over tea and cakes. The Assembly of God and the Russian Orthodox representatives laugh over stories. The Anglican representative and the Methodist literally hug. The Lutheran and the Catholic representatives share their disappointments over how things were handled 5 centuries earlier. But finally, the time has arrived to get to work. They gather in the large conference center, each taking the table where they will work - hard - for some time to come. The Chair (a Presbyterian) asks for the Greek Orthodox delegate standing next to him to lead the opening prayer. After which, the Chair calls the meeting to order. Immediately, the Catholic delegate asks for recognition. He’s out of order, but the Chair - desiring to be evangelical - acknowledges him anyway. The Catholic delegate speaks: “I’m infallible. I am the sole authority here. I am the sole interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. I am the sole arbiter for who is correct, and I am the one who is. Are there any questions?” Complete silence fills the room, you can hear a pin drop. The Greek Orthodox representative (will on the stage) leans over to the chair and whispers, “Told 'ya.” The United Chruch of Christ representative makes a motion to terminate the Council. It’s seconded and passes. All the delegates silently exit the hall, go back to their hotel rooms, pack and check out.

Friend, we have a LOT of work to do. We need to agree on what corpus is necessary for us to agree upon (how long and how definitive it NEEDS to be) AND we need to agree on that. It requires humility, community. It requires accountability. It requires we undo nearly 1500 years of power politics, egoism, institutionalism, individualism.

**
Continues in next post…**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

**
Continues from above…**

If I were to start a church tomorrow and shepherd my flock and drop baptism all together (as my sister’s Pastor did; he calls it unbiblical, even though I provided ample proof) - as a requirement, would you still consider my church established by me, not Jesus, a part of the holy and catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers?

No. Institutions have no heart, no soul, no faith - and thus CANNOT be Christians. The only Christians known to me are all PEOPLE.

Now, is that individual a Christian (and thus a member of the church of Christ that is one, holy and catholic)? Well, Jesus knows for sure. I would look for faith in Christ, revealed in love.

Josiah, I don’t see how the CC can be part of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the gathering/assembly/communion/community of Christians, to which Jesus is the head and savior, if in fact you are right, and Jesus did not establish it.

I tend to agree; I don’t see how The Catholic Church can be a part of the mystical Body of Christ either.

And I tend to agree that Jesus did not found that specific, singular, particular denomination (or any other).

You said: “The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by Jesus.” Why would I want to belong to the CC if it wasn’t founded by Jesus?

Well, you begin by associating with a local group of believers (what we call a “congregation” in theology). Perhaps that congregation takes on institutional aspects (constitution, articles of incorporation, officiers, etc.). You may officially join such, officially register. I finally did that. I never did that as a child or youth, but after some years of study, I DID finally officially join a Lutheran congregation. Congregations may officially join a denomination (which is an association of congregations; congregations are to denominations what Christians are to congregations). Now, when I look for a congregation, I look for one what teaches well, administers the Sacraments well, is focused on The Great Commission, and where love seems evident. To ME, it’s also important that I can help there - that it’s a congregation that welcomes me getting involved in constructive ways. Now, it’s largely up to the congregation what denomination it legally affiliates with - although we often form a relationship to such (I now regard myself as “Lutheran” for example). I think my denomination (like my congregation) teaches well. And I like the ministries it helps coordinate for us. Sadly, love is not really much of an attribute of it jsut now (lots of in-fighting, but it’s getting better). It makes no difference to me if Jesus founded my congregation. It came into existence in 1973, my denomination in 1847 - both too late for any literal, physical “founding.” Christian institutions are founded by Christians.

**Continues in next post… **

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Continues from post above…

Are you suggesting that Jesus founded the following churches, because I can give you the name of the founder for the following churches, and when he founded it, and yes, Jesus is the head and savior of these churches, for Jesus loves all the Christians who belong to these churches, as well as all non-Christians in general. I hate to keep asking, but, will you give me the name of the man that founded the CC? Many non-Catholics have posited certain men, but clearly and historically, they are wrong:

-Baptist
-Southern Baptist
-Southern Conservative
-Strict Baptist
-Independent Baptist
-National Baptist
-Black Primitive Baptist
-Conservative Baptist
-Dunker
-Salvationist
-Episcopal
-Methodist
-African Methodist
-Chinese Methodist
-Christian Methodist
-British Methodist
-Primitive Methodist
-Calvinist
-Congregationalism
-Lutheran
-Lutheran Orthodox
-Taborites
-Moravian
-Utaquists
-Wycliffites
-Waldensians
-Jehovah’s Witnesses
-Aaronic Order
-Latter Day
-Remnant
-Seventh-day Adventist
-Congregationalist
-Anglican
-Quaker
-Antiochian
-Maronite
-Syro-Malankara
-Syriac
-Armenian
-Chaldean
-Syro-Malabar
-Byzantine (Constantinopolitan)
-Ukrainian Greek Catholic
-Melkite Greek Catholic
-Romanian
-Hungarian Greek
-Ruthenian Catholic
-Belarusian Greek Catholic
-Bulgarian Greek Catholic
-Slovak Greek Catholic
-Spiritus Christi
-Russian Orthodox
-Eastern Orthodox
-Oriental Orthodox
-Nestorians
-Apostolic
-Presbyterian
-Unitarian
-Amish
-Beachy Amish
-Nebraska Amish
-Old Order Amish
-Swartzendruber Amish
-Mennonite
-Greek Orthodox
-Liberal Catholic
-Orthodox Catholic
-Brethren
-Open Brethren
-Exclusive Brethren
-Indian Brethren
-Kerala Brethren
-River Brethren
-Social Brethren
-Anglo-Israelism
-Reformed
-United
-Independen

Most of the above are not denominations, and you left off the largest denomination in the world - The Catholic Church.

No, Jesus founded none of them. Christians did. It’s a good thing; I think it’s good when Christians de-isolate themselves (I’m a BIG supporter of community) and come together for ministry, worship, edification and accountability. Such is called congregations. And I think it’s good when congregations come together in community for similar reasons. Such is called denominations. I’m not really too big on Christians living out their faith in isolation; and I’m not a big fan of non-denom congregations.

Long, sorry!

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

I do not agree. I have MUCH to say on this

, so read it if you will (or not if its too long)

Jesus called us to unity - but I see nothing that suggests what He desires is denominations that are united with one: self. I think the unity He prayed for is a unity of faith and love (and maybe mind) - not geopolitical institutional denominational entity.

I too see nothing that suggests what Jesus desires are isolated denominations, which of course are not “united with one: self.” However, the bible suggests that Jesus desires that his church be united and one.

I realize, Joe, that The Catholic Church is one denomination and that it is in official, current agreement with itself alone in all that it currently views as good to agree upon. Yup. I realize that. But at least the same is true for all the other denominations, too. So what? Self usually agrees with self (currently and officially anyway, lol). It signifies nothing, and I just don’t think THAT is the unity Jesus was praying for, either.

 

[joe370]

.

Continuing from the post above…

 

[joe370]

Look, it would be good (and Lutherans LONG for this) if there was a mileau that would allow for a true ecumenical council. But we are LIGHT YEARS away from that (and yes, I largely blame the Pope for this SAD situation, the “war” he waged for centuries for POWER and LORDSHIP).

I blame the man-made doctrine, sola scriptura vis individual interpretation. We will always disagree with one another on this one. Every Pastor I have ever known claims just as much authority as does the pope.

But can you image any attempt to do that? Here’s what I envision… Let’s say we agree to meet in Tokyo - just to have a neutral location. Representative delegates of all the church arrive, check into the hotel where they will be staying for perhaps months while the issue or two before them gets hammered out to a consensus. The gather for an opening worship service, officiated by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and the President of The Southern Baptist Convention. The 3 hour long service is FILLED with faith, love and the praise of OUR Savior. You can feel it - to the core our souls - as all sing “Lift High the Cross” and “Glory to God in the Highest.” After the service, there is a social time over tea and cakes. The Assembly of God and the Russian Orthodox representatives laugh over stories. The Anglican representative and the Methodist literally hug. The Lutheran and the Catholic representatives share their disappointments over how things were handled 5 centuries earlier. But finally, the time has arrived to get to work. They gather in the large conference center, each taking the table where they will work - hard - for some time to come. The Chair (a Presbyterian) asks for the Greek Orthodox delegate standing next to him to lead the opening prayer. After which, the Chair calls the meeting to order. Immediately, the Catholic delegate asks for recognition. He’s out of order, but the Chair - desiring to be evangelical - acknowledges him anyway. The Catholic delegate speaks: "I’m infallible.

Wow, you really loathe the CC. Phew…No catholic delegate would say: I’m infallible. I have already addressed this.

I am the sole authority here. I am the sole interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. I am the sole arbiter for who is correct, and I am the one who is. Are there any questions?"

Every protestant church leader would say the same thing, and I have personally experienced it. The CC is very ecumenically minded and has met with PC’s, but, just as every PC does, they refuse to budge on what they believe. I respect that!

Complete silence fills the room, you can hear a pin drop. The Greek Orthodox representative (will on the stage) leans over to the chair and whispers, “Told 'ya.” The United Chruch of Christ representative makes a motion to terminate the Council. It’s seconded and passes. All the delegates silently exit the hall, go back to their hotel rooms, pack and check out.

Of course all of the PC’s would agree with one another. NOT! Every church claims that they are right; I can provide examples.

Friend, we have a LOT of work to do. We need to agree on what corpus is necessary for us to agree upon (how long and how definitive it NEEDS to be) AND we need to agree on that. It requires humility, community. It requires accountability.

Only the CC? The myriad PC’s have no work to do and are in total agreement with one another, regarding doctrine, and they use accountability, humility and community to achieve this? If we are one, perhaps I could attend your church, with you, and share with your congregation my truths regarding the bible? Remember, you said the holy spirit guides each person.

It requires we undo nearly 1500 years of power politics, egoism, institutionalism, individualism.

It requires we undo 500 years of private interpretation as well. The CC, built by Jesus Christ, has held the same beliefs since her inception, in spite of all the power politics, egoism, institutionalism and individualism, and that is why I belong to the CC.

---

 

[joe370]

No. Institutions have no heart, no soul, no faith - and thus CANNOT be Christians. The only Christians known to me are all PEOPLE.

Now, is that individual a Christian (and thus a member of the church of Christ that is one, holy and catholic)? Well, Jesus knows for sure. I would look for faith in Christ, revealed in love.

Jesus said: I will build my church. Where is that church today? You tell me that the church that Jesus built comprises all of the churches built by mere men, as opposed to Jesus, including the CC. That makes no sense to me.

I tend to agree; I don’t see how The Catholic Church can be a part of the mystical Body of Christ either.

That’s what I was hoping you would say!!! If you can’t see how The Catholic Church (and all of the PC’s) - can be a part of the mystical Body of Christ, where then is the church that is part of the mystical Body of Christ?

And I tend to agree that Jesus did not found that specific, singular, particular denomination (or any other).

Agreed. Jesus built the Lutheran church - correct?

Well, you begin by associating with a local group of believers (what we call a “congregation” in theology). Perhaps that congregation takes on institutional aspects (constitution, articles of incorporation, officiers, etc.). You may officially join such, officially register. I finally did that

Just not the CC because, as you said, Jesus did not found that church?

. I never did that as a child or youth, but after some years of study, I DID finally officially join a Lutheran congregation.

Founded by Jesus Christ?

Congregations may officially join a denomination (which is an association of congregations; congregations are to denominations what Christians are to congregations). Now, when I look for a congregation, I look for one what teaches well, administers the Sacraments well, is focused on The Great Commission, and where love seems evident.

As do all protestant Christians who reject the sacraments and some of the teachings of your church.

To ME, it’s also important that I can help there - that it’s a congregation that welcomes me getting involved in constructive ways. Now, it’s largely up to the congregation what denomination it legally affiliates with - although we often form a relationship to such (I now regard myself as “Lutheran” for example). I think my denomination (like my congregation) teaches well.

As do all Christians belonging to other churches. BTW, you said: denominations do not exist.

And I like the ministries it helps coordinate for us. Sadly, love is not really much of an attribute of it jsut now (lots of in-fighting, but it’s getting better). It makes no difference to me if Jesus founded my congregation. It came into existence in 1973, my denomination in 1847 - both too late for any literal, physical “founding.” Christian institutions are founded by Christians.

Well, that pretty much answers my question! If all protestant churches are founded by men, including the CC, where can I find the church built by Jesus? No red herrings, just a straight answer? If you only answer one question, let it be this one.

.

 

[joe370]

Most of the above are not denominations, and you left off the largest denomination in the world - The Catholic Church.

Give me the name of the church that is not a denomination? For the first 1500 years of Christianity, no denominations existed - just the CC and the EOC - correct?

No, Jesus founded none of them. Christians did.

Agreed. Help me find the church built by Jesus. Jesus said: “I will build my church,” so it must still exist.

It’s a good thing; I think it’s good when Christians de-isolate themselves (I’m a BIG supporter of community) and come together for ministry, worship, edification and accountability.

You think it is good when Christians de-isolate themselves? In other word: to remove from isolation? I agree. Sadly, this never happens in the protestant milieu. Not in my experience anyway, and I have visited many PC’s.

Such is called congregations. And I think it’s good when congregations come together in community for similar reasons. Such is called denominations. I’m not really too big on Christians living out their faith in isolation; and I’m not a big fan of non-denom congregations.

Agreed.

What is your answer to the question: if an on the fence Christian, (who does not believe in Baptism and does not want to be baptised by your church leaders) - wants to join your church, can he or she still join?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

There is a verse that indicates Jesus may also desire a unity of mind or thought. We often regard this as a unity of dogma - that corpus of what we regard as essential. While I’m not SURE such is required, I am SURE such is a valid and admirable goal to which I’m dedicated. I think those in the early church were too. But again, this has NOTHING to do with a denomination agreeing exclusively only with itself (and that only officially, formally and currently). All denominations enjoying a unity of one: self with self is hardly Christian agreement!

How many denominations existed in the early church?

None. But I’m at a loss to know what that has to do with what you quoted from me.

I realize that The Catholic Church alone is in official, formal, current agreement with The Catholic Church alone. Yes. It has a unity of exactly ONE: self with self. So what? What in the world does that have to do with unity? The LDS is in official, formal, current agreement with the LDS - what does that prove?

I have two Catechisms here at my desk, both handy because I use them a lot.

One is my Lutheran Catechism, the other my Catholic Catechism. The first has 8 pages in it, the second has 800 pages in it. It’s not an “apples-to-apples” comparison in any sense, but it IS revealing to this point.

Most PC’s will tell you that neither are necessary; only the bible.

Again, I’m sorry - I’m at a loss to know what your response has to do with the quote from me. Obviously, my point in that part of the post was that there needs to be agreeing on WHAT is needed for us to agree upon. As I noted, it MAY be we’ve already decided that with the embrace of The Nicene Creed? But my dismay with The Catholic Church is that it’s never done. It just goes on and on and on and on and on, constantly enlarging the corpus (for the past few centuries, with totally unique dogmas). Again, THAT part of my post concerned WHAT we need to agree on. And I noted the various sizes of our Catechisms (again, not really an apples-to-apples comparison) but it makes my point.

The Catholic Church seems to have this overwhelming, irresistable urge to pin down every single issue, applying LOTS of its own “philosophy” and “reason” and “tradition” and “scholasticism” to come up with some huge, complex thing, typically UNIQUE to that singular denomination and that seems to have absolutely NOTHING to do with Scripture - and then declares it DOGMA, dividing Christians and Christianity and the Church once again. I WONDER about that, and how that relates to a hope for unity in the one and holy and catholic church - the communion of saints (just wonder)…

I totally disagree! Sola scriptura via individual interpretation has divided Christianity, and nothing will change my mind. How many denominations existed for the first 1600 years of Christianity?

I"ve read, re-read and re-read your reply. I’m not sure what’s happening, but I have no clue how your reply relates whatsoever to what you quoted from me. And as you know, Sola Scirptura has nothing to do with individual interpretation (or interpretation at all). And as you know, the only one that insists on individual interpretation is The Catholic Church.

How many denominations existed before 1600 AD? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does. It seems there were none prior to the 4th century. For a brief period, about a century, there was one for The Roman Empire (just that one nation, it never reached beyond that) but then the OO was ejected. It seems some may have developed elsewhere, beyond the Roman Empire but as such unraveled, it’s hard to know. Of course, just as the eastern and former western part of the Empire went separate ways, so did the congregations in them. Eventually, the western Catholic Church and eastern Orthodox Church became so strained as to effectively become separate denominations - but the final split wasn’t until 1054. Of course, Pope Leo excommunicated Luther created yet another. But I’m REALLY struggling to see how this has anything to do with our discussion.

**
Continues in next post…**

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Look, for AGREEMENT to happen, there must be a willingness for ALL to be embraced as accountable and be subject to an arbitration OUTSIDE itself. The The Catholic Church powerfully, boldly, insistently rejects. It requires that ALL be willing to admit that they could be wrong and actually prefer to be correct than to rule over others. This, too, The Catholic Church WILL NOT do, it just repeats (over and over and over and over) that IT is infallible/unaccountable, that IT is the sole authority, that IT cannot err in matters of faith and morals, that all must docilicly accept WHATEVER it says, IT is the lord over all.

As does every protestant church; trust me, I have been to many PC’s and they all claim that they are right. This is not unique to the CC.

1. IF The Catholic Church is just as bad as all personal computers (lol, that’s what PC generally means), then how is that better?
2. Actually, there is currently only ONE Christian denomination that officially states that it and it itself alone is “infallible” and that all must accept whatever it says with docility. (Of course, all cults make this insistence - and also thus reject accountability and Sola Scriptura - but I don’t regard them as Christian denominations. The LDS once officially took this stand but dropped it nearly a century ago, it no longer claims it is infallible). It’s not a defense of the entirely unque official stand of The Catholic Church to suggest that a few others do somewhat the same thing albeit unofficially and then condemn it. If it’s bad for a few to do something unofficially and to a lesser degree, then by extension, it’s WORSE for The Catholic Church which does this officially, formally and to the ultimate extreme.

It requires HUMILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, COMMUNITY. A passion to learn rather than to rule, a humiliy to say “I was wrong” rather than an ego that insists, “I’m incapable of being wrong.” And (IRONICALLY) those attributes are rare in the church Jesus founded on love, humility and commuity.

The church Jesus founded???

The church that is one, holy, catholic; the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. And He NEVER remotely indicated that ANY denomination is the individual infallible one, the individual interpreter of Scripture or Tradition, the individual arbiter. Or that anyone should accept “with docility” (CCC 87, etc., etc.) what any one denomination says. Anyone or anything can claim this (and all cults do - well one, the LDS, dropped this) but it’s the claim of one (self) for one (self), and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with being correct. It ONLY has to do with one (self) exempting one (self) from accountability.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Look, it would be good (and Lutherans LONG for this) if there was a mileau that would allow for a true ecumenical council. But we are LIGHT YEARS away from that (and yes, I largely blame the Pope for this SAD situation, the “war” he waged for centuries for POWER and LORDSHIP).

I blame the doctrine, sola scriptura vis individual interpretation. We will always disagree with one another on this one. Every Pastor I have ever known claims just as much authority as does the pope.

1. Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine. It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (especially doctrines).
2. IF “every pastor” unofficially claims what The Catholic Church does, then how does that make it wrong for self to claim such for self? Why are you arguing aginst your own position? And of course, you are wrong. There is only ONE that claims that there is one who is the sole interpreter and sole arbiter and infallible in such - and we all know what one that is. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87. Feel free to read the Lutheran Catechism and see if you can find the exact same claim made there by The Lutheran Church for The Lutheran Church. Friend, why this is a common thread in all the cults, we aren’t talking about the cults, we’re talking about Christians and Christian denominations. There is ONE (out of all the thousands Catholics claim exist) that designates self as the sole individual interpreter - and demands that all just accept whatever it says “with docility” as “Jesus.” It’s in YOUR Catechism AND NOWHERE ELSE.

And again, you seem to have entirely missed the context of this. My point was that yes, we should attempt to come to agreement (on what we agree we need to agree on - you entirely missed THAT point, too). Lutherans, as I noted, LONG for this. But how do you do that in the milaeu Catholicism has created - this “I’m right so I’m right thus I’m right” “the church is me, myself and I alone.” “When I speak, Jesus speaks.” We are a long, long way away from being able to have a true ecumenical council. Thus the part below.

But can you image any attempt to do that? Here’s what I envision… Let’s say we agree to meet in Tokyo - just to have a neutral location. Representative delegates of all the church arrive, check into the hotel where they will be staying for perhaps months while the issue or two before them gets hammered out to a consensus. The gather for an opening worship service, officiated by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and the President of The Southern Baptist Convention. The 3 hour long service is FILLED with faith, love and the praise of OUR Savior. You can feel it - to the core our souls - as all sing “Lift High the Cross” and “Glory to God in the Highest.” After the service, there is a social time over tea and cakes. The Assembly of God and the Russian Orthodox representatives laugh over stories. The Anglican representative and the Methodist literally hug. The Lutheran and the Catholic representatives share their disappointments over how things were handled 5 centuries earlier. But finally, the time has arrived to get to work. They gather in the large conference center, each taking the table where they will work - hard - for some time to come. The Chair (a Presbyterian) asks for the Greek Orthodox delegate standing next to him to lead the opening prayer. After which, the Chair calls the meeting to order. Immediately, the Catholic delegate asks for recognition. He’s out of order, but the Chair - desiring to be evangelical - acknowledges him anyway. The Catholic delegate speaks: “I’m infallible. I’m the sole interpreter of Scrpture and Tradition. I am the sole arbiter for who is correct, and I declare that I alone am. Does anyone have any questions?”

No catholic delegate would say: I’m infallible. I have already addressed this.

The delegate for The Catholic Church would be required to by Catholic insistences of self alone for self alone. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87 for starters.

I am the sole authority here. I am the sole interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. I am the sole arbiter for who is correct, and I am the one who is. Are there any questions?"

Every protestant church leader would say the same thing

1. Quote any Protestant Catechism that states that. ANY.
2. Again, you can’t have it both ways. Either self alone appointing self alone as the sole interpreter, sole arbiter and declaring self alone as infallible and thus exempt from accountability is good or its bad. If you reject the rubric, good - then reject it. When The Catholic Church does it - formally, officially, to the greatest extreme found anywhere (outside the cults), and when you think maybe some “Protestants” do, too.

Remember, you said the holy spirit guides each person.

Please read what I post. We just can’t have a discussion otherwise. I have repeatedly, often, boldly REJECTED individual interpretation. That’s an issue you need to take up with The Catholic Church, it’s the only one I know of that insists on that (CCC 85, etc.). It’s the only one where self alone appoints self alone as the sole, infallible interpreter. The LDS once did but dropped that about a century ago. Yes, it’s a foundational point in all the cults, but we’re not here to talk about cults.

It requires we undo nearly 1500 years of power politics, egoism, institutionalism, individualism.

The CC, built by Jesus Christ, has held the same beliefs since her inception

… like I said.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Jesus said: I will build my church. Where is that church today? You tell me that the church that Jesus built comprises all of the churches built by mere men, as opposed to Jesus, including the CC. That makes no sense to me.

The church of Christ is one, holy, catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. It is where Christian faith and love exist.

No, I NEVER remotely said that Jesus built a lot of churches. Jesus founded ONE church. It always existed, it still exists, it will continue exist for all eternity (even after His Return when it will be entirely in heaven).

I tend to agree; I don’t see how The Catholic Church can be a part of the mystical Body of Christ either.

Thus, it’s not the one, holy, catholic church - the communion of saints, the mystical union of all beleivers, the Body of Christ. We agree.

That’s what I was hoping you would say!!! If you can’t see how The Catholic Church (and all of the PC’s) - can be a part of the mystical Body of Christ, where then is the church that is part of the mystical Body of Christ?

Where two or three are gathered in His name. Where there is faith and love springing from such. Again, IMHO, all Christians are PEOPLE. I know of no chairs or microwave ovens or automobiles or pencils that have Christian faith. All I know who are Christians are PEOPLE. Is that also your experience? Thus, the communion of people would consist of what? Seems to me, people. Christian people. The Body of Christ is not a denomination, the Body of Christ embraces US. “It’s Jesus and WE” (forgive the grammar, lol). Jesus NEVER promised or authorized ANY denomination ANYTHING. All His authorizations and promises were directed to PEOPLE - and thus, the church.

Jesus built the Lutheran church - correct?

As I’ve been posting for days now, NO. Jesus founded the church. It is generally regarded that Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther founded the denomination to which my congregation belongs.

BTW, you said: denominations do not exist.

I never, remotely said that.

If all protestant churches are founded by men, including the CC, where can I find the church built by Jesus? No red herrings, just a straight answer? If you only answer one question, let it be this one.

As I’ve been posting to you for some days now, it is where Christian faith and love are. It is where His people are. It’s spread out over all the continents and all the centuries, across heaven and earth.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[joe370]

So, there were zero denominations in the early church, and zero denominations for the first 1500 years of Christianity, just 2 churches: the EOC and the CC???

Most PC’s will tell you that neither are necessary; only the bible.

Obviously, my point in that part of the post was that there needs to be agreeing on WHAT is needed for us to agree upon.

Agreed! How do we achieve this?

As I noted, it MAY be we’ve already decided that with the embrace of The Nicene Creed? But my dismay with The Catholic Church is that it’s never done. It just goes on and on and on and on and on, constantly enlarging the corpus (for the past few centuries, with totally unique dogmas). Again, THAT part of my post concerned WHAT we need to agree on. And I noted the various sizes of our Catechisms (again, not really an apples-to-apples comparison) but it makes my point.

1. My point is, regarding the catechisms is: they believe that your church and my church, by adding the Lutheran Catechism, or the Catholic Catechism, go on and on and on and on and on, constantly enlarging the corpus. 2)

The CC did not add to the corpus by including dogmas such as the Trinity (first that the father and son are one, and later that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one) - or theotokos or the hypostatic union (which described the presence of both human and divine natures in Jesus Christ. The Hypostatic union did not become an official dogma until the Council of Ephesus, which finally stated that the two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person. Did the CC add to the corpus by merely clarifying with more detail; of course not. The same is the case with other dogmas.

After the council of Nicea, the Catholic bishops went on teaching the new creed, (the 2 natures of Christ) - and the Arian crisis continued for a while, until the council of Ephesus. The heretic Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor with Constantine. Athanasius (and company) - who was in favor of the 2 natures of Christ, was exiled about five times. It was still very difficult to explain this supposed newfangled creed because many argued that it was not in the scriptures and had pagan association. To an outsider or to an average Christian, these theological arguments seemed a waste of time and the claim was that no one can possibly prove anything definitively one way or another, and the dispute simply proved to be divisive, unlike today where all Christians are united regarding this dogma, and just take it for granted, thanks to the clarification of the CC. No one disagreed about the special place that Christ held, but the question remained in the minds of many: What is Jesus Christ? In many Christian minds, (at the first council) - the CC had added another paradox of incarnation, despite its apparent incompatibility with monotheism.

My point is: what you take for granted as clear and unquestionable dogma, many early Christians did NOT; they considered the same dogma as incompatible with monotheism. But, as time passed, the struggle waned.

Sola Scirptura has nothing to do with individual interpretation (or interpretation at all). And as you know, the only one that insists on individual interpretation is The Catholic Church

.

I am sorry but Martin Luther disagreed with you, and I have already provided quotes of ML at his utter disgust regarding sola scriptura and individual interpretation. Every church defers to the holy bible as their one and only authority - fact! And they rely on their own unique interpretations - fact! I can provide many examples if necessary.

Again, if the CC is in favor of individual interpretation, why do all Catholics defer to the authority of the CC, ultimately, when it comes to the interpretation of the bible? Can we interpret the bible? Of course we can, as long as our interpretation agrees with the church built by God, as is the case with all PC’s, built by men. In other words, if I decide to interpret the 1000 Year Millennium as the time period when Jesus will set up His kingdom here on earth, I will have to check with the CC to verify this teaching, to which they will disagree, and I can either tell them: you are wrong, and leave the CC, or I can accept their decision with docility, which of course is what ever good Catholic does, proving that CC absolutely does not insists on individual interpretation. What the CC leadership did at the various councils in the early church, is exactly what they did/do when faced with opposition regarding any one doctrine or interpretation.

I understand that you believe that the CC taught without error, regarding things such as theotokos, Jesus’ 2 natures, the Trinity, etc, at the early councils, and that error did not creep in until much later, but quite frankly, this just makes me wonder if the CC can teach erroneously at a later date, then perhaps they taught erroneously about the preceding dogmas?

 

[joe370]

.

1. IF The Catholic Church is just as bad as all personal computers (lol, that’s what PC generally means), then how is that better?