Which Church??

[Jubilarian]

Explain how I did not understand the question, please.

This is very naive.

Catholics universally interpret scripture in the same manner any other Christian does. Unless, you can provide us with a Magisterium Bible Verse Hotline where we can call an get the correct interpretation for a verse we are looking.

I cannot count the amount of Bible studies and other Catholic activities I have participated in. Whenever I brought up, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, almost any other Church Father, practically not a single person knew who I was talking about. Further, not a single person could appropriately use the CCC in regards to the verse being discussed at the moment. That is the universallly Catholic. Ignorance of Scripture, Ignorance of the CCC, Ignorance of the Magisterium. Other than us, know it all wannabes, not a single Catholic can properly present the Church’s position on the vast majority of matters.

IOW, they personally interpret scriptures.

You avoided my question. How many verses are officially interpreted by the Catholic Church? Authoritative sources please.

Again, you misunderstand the intent of my question. You have the same Protestant blinders on that I had at one time. I don’t say that maliciously, believe me, I’m here to help… The issue is not how many SELECT verses the CC upholds, it is that they interpret all scripture by one authority.

You know that Protestantism does not have one authority, hence the confusion among the denominations. Think. There can not be “many truths” in relation to scripture. The following may be a helpful link as it cites Catholic sources that you desire. christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Perhaps, but very dependent in how one defines a healthy church. For sure the CC was at a very weak stage of her history before the reformation. The church has always had dissension. Can one show for instance the health of German church, German people thru out the centuries, before and after Luther ? Is Christianity stronger in a Catholic Spain than say a Protestant England ? Or Italy to Greece ? Or Venezuela to Texas ? Proof is in the pudding.

I agree ben, the proof is in the puddin, and in fact, there are ways to statistically and objectively measure the ‘health’ of Christianity in a given region, or under a certain brand of ‘theology’. I have become interested in the practical results of Protestantism in today’s world and recently stumbled upon an article from 1955 regarding the morality in Sweden. Of course, Sweden has been officially and almost totally Lutheran since the early days of the Reformation.

The reason that the moral and religious state of Sweden is important to understand is that, like a few other Northern European countries, Sweden has been an almost exclusively Lutheran country since the early days of the Reformation. Catholicism was actually outlawed until the middle of the 18th century whereas Lutheranism was the official state church until the year 2000. As such, what we see in Sweden today is almost entirely influenced as a result of Lutheranism rather than Catholicism.

In 1955 Time Magazine published an article named “Sin & Sweden” (April 25th, 1955). Noting that this was almost 60 years ago - the following are some quotes from this article, my comments will be interspersed in blue:

“THREE years ago the Lutheran bishops of Sweden caused an uproar by coming out against sin. The occasion was a pastoral letter on sexual morality. Tactfully vague, and generous toward “weaknesses of the flesh,” the letter said in effect that the Lutheran Church was opposed to birth control, abortion and promiscuity, especially among the young. In no other country would the letter have caused more than a ripple. But in modern Sweden, where sociology has become a religion in itself, and birth control, abortion and promiscuity —especially among the young—are recognized as inalienable rights, there was a tidal wave of indignation. Newspapers thundered that the bishops had no business meddling in such matters; citizens told them to mind their own business, and even a few parsons accused their superiors of aspiring to emulate the Church of Rome…

Horror of horrors. To think that a church should teach morality (as does the Catholic Church).

The Swedish State Church is part of the government. …
In Sweden the church has knuckled under to the state since the 16th century, when King Gustav Vasa led Sweden’s break from Rome during the Reformation. Today the church’s activities and its concepts are so closely tied to the state that it enjoys the status and security of a government department—a department no more or less important than any other. In its efforts to please the government, it has become so watered down as an institution that to the average Swede it has lost most of its spiritual meaning. The Swedes regard the church as a proper place to marry in or be buried from; only a handful go to Sunday worship. The bishop with whom I spoke—one of those who signed the notorious letter—personally opposes abortions and birth control “except in cases of dire medical necessity.” But he admitted to me that he had never spoken out against either of these things in church, because he “did not think it would be proper, as long as they are legal.” Whatever the cause, sexual moral standards in Sweden today are jolting to an outsider. Statistics show that there are at least 27,000 unmarried mothers. The birth rate of only 110,000 babies a year in a country of 7,000,000 is in itself a hazard to Sweden’s future. Fully 10% of the babies are illegitimate. One of every two unmarried women who conceive a child has a legal abortion. All a woman need do to have one is to convince a social worker that the birth is “unsuitable.” About 5,000 women, married and unmarried, are admitted to hospitals each year for legal abortions.

Please note that these statistics are not shocking to Americans today but they were in 1955.

Although assured that I had been hearing a typical Swedish point of view, I was not convinced until I had talked next day with a Roman Catholic priest in Stockholm. (There are about 20,000 Roman Catholics in Sweden.) I expressed my shock that parents and teachers condone promiscuity, do not even try to tell the young people that such things are wrong. “You must understand Swedish mentality,” said the Catholic. “They are incapable of imagining a world where there are not unwed mothers, where abortions and birth control are not necessary. They say, ‘Since these things exist, then let us do something constructive about them.’ They don’t believe it is possible to change human nature. They attack the problem as a sociological and medical one.” “But what will this lead to?” I asked. “After all, sexual morality is basic to Western ethics.” The man shook his head sadly. “I don’t know what the result will be.” In the pages of a Stockholm paper, in a typical one of a series of interviews being printed under the title, Swedish Youth Speaks, I found a partial answer to my own question. “I have no real morals,” said a boy of 19. “And I would never marry a girl because I had made her pregnant. Why should I give up my liberty for the sake of a child?”

The question which haunts Sweden, Protestantism and Lutheranism in particular is of course: “But what will this lead to?”

 

[Topper17]

Part 2:

Of course 59 years later, that question can be answered because the state of Swedish morality and religious practice has become well known throughout the world.

Today, 76% of Swedes officially belong to the Lutheran Church, but in fact that “membership” is really just a formality, and in fact that number is shrinking by about 1% each year. Catholics make up roughly 2% of the population and are almost entirely immigrants. According to a study conducted in 2005, between 46-85% of Swedes now consider themselves to be “irreligious”, meaning that in their lives, there is an “absence of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion.” The same statistic for a few ‘Catholic countries’ are as follows: Poland - 6%; Ireland – 4.5%, Portugal – 11.4%. These statistics are contrasted with that of Germany, the home of the Luther’s Reformation at 35.4%, and the United States at 15%.

According to the official Church of Sweden statistics, in 1998, the 8.35 million members of the church attended church a total of 7 million times total, meaning that the “average” member attended church less than once in the year. In the 1990’s 15% of Swedes claimed a belief in a personal God and only 19% believed in an afterlife.

55% of children born in Sweden today are born out of wedlock as compared to 21% in Spain, a country which was never really infected by Protestantism and has not been influenced at all by Salvation by Faith Alone. Only 60% of women in Sweden will ever marry as opposed to 85% in the U.S. The statistics 50 years ago were 91% in Sweden and 95% in the U.S.

The logical result of a “theology” which requires ONLY belief for Salvation, is that sin and an immoral lifestyle is “acceptable” to God and that there are no consequences for sin. Of course, that kind of belief system cannot fail to lead to a lack of faith in general because it is SO counterintuitive. Luther himself became painfully aware of the reduction in morality in his later years but of course he was not able to ‘connect the dots’ to SBFA.

How can mankind, understanding it’s own fallen nature, possibly have faith in a theology in which the fallen individual has the “authority” to determine their own theological beliefs? Clearly as is represented by the situation in Sweden, Protestantism is simply a temporary stop on the way to atheism, an interim step between Catholicism and disbelief.

The issue of “Which Church” is incredibly important. Not all Churches are equal. Not in any way.

Many Protestants would have us believe that we can judge a set of theological beliefs upon the “results” of those teachings in terms of the “fruits” as demonstrated by it’s adherents. While that is obviously overly simplistic and would seem to have us believe that the members of some particular Protestant denomination somehow demonstrate a “more Christian” lifestyle than others, the facts are that ALL Protestant denominations contain a large number of very faithful and moral believers.

This however, does not explain the amazing lack of morality in modern day Sweden, a country which has been influenced by virtually ONLY Lutheran “theology” for several hundred years.

I don’t see the state of Swedish morality as being a condemnation of the Swedish people or of Lutherans in general, but I do see it as an indication of the end results of Lutheran “theology”. A society which for 400+ years has been influenced by only Lutheran doctrine, would be more moral than is Sweden IF that doctrine were actually something ordained by Christ.

Granted American “morality” could be only a few generations behind that of Sweden of today, but then it could be that the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church in America has kept this country from descending even further than it has and faster than it has.

The Lutheran church in America is losing members both in real terms and as a percentage of the total of Protestantism. Since 1967, Lutheranism has shrunk from 14% of Protestantism in the U.S. to only 8% today. All of the other “mainline” denominations are suffering similar declines, with the independent “Bible churches” picking up larger and larger share of Protestantism. Of course, many of these denominations are MUCH less “orthodox” than are the mainline denominations. This trend when extrapolated out into the future, indicates that Protestantism is doomed to fail, probably just fading away into a memory.

Satan attacks the Christian Church (or church whichever the case may be) wherever it is, but NOWHERE has he been as successful as he has been in the most Protestant countries. Common sense would indicate that Sola Scriptura, the “Right of Private Interpretation” AND Salvation by Faith Alone have ALL had a rather tragic impact on Christianity and Christian morals in those countries.

Ben, if you would like, the statistics on several indicators of Christian morality are VERY revealing when you plot them against the percentage of the population, by country, that are Catholic and Protestant. The statistical correlation is quite remarkable. Marriage rates, divorce rates, abortion rates, co-habitation without marriage rates, and artificial birth control rates all correlate very strongly, country by country with the percentage of Protestants vs. the percentage of Catholics.

A logical conclusion from all of this evidence would be that Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation has made Christian Doctrine less important, exactly as his opponents had warned him.

I too know many fine, upstanding, and extremely moral Protestants, but the statistics are way to strong to be coincidental. There is a big difference between the way that Protestants and Catholics live out their Christianity. As we both agree – the proof is in the puddin.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Part 2:

Of course 59 years later, that question can be answered because the state of Swedish morality and religious practice has become well known throughout the world.

Today, 76% of Swedes officially belong to the Lutheran Church, but in fact that “membership” is really just a formality, and in fact that number is shrinking by about 1% each year. Catholics make up roughly 2% of the population and are almost entirely immigrants. According to a study conducted in 2005, between 46-85% of Swedes now consider themselves to be “irreligious”, meaning that in their lives, there is an “absence of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion.” The same statistic for a few ‘Catholic countries’ are as follows: Poland - 6%; Ireland – 4.5%, Portugal – 11.4%. These statistics are contrasted with that of Germany, the home of the Luther’s Reformation at 35.4%, and the United States at 15%.

According to the official Church of Sweden statistics, in 1998, the 8.35 million members of the church attended church a total of 7 million times total, meaning that the “average” member attended church less than once in the year. In the 1990’s 15% of Swedes claimed a belief in a personal God and only 19% believed in an afterlife.

55% of children born in Sweden today are born out of wedlock as compared to 21% in Spain, a country which was never really infected by Protestantism and has not been influenced at all by Salvation by Faith Alone. Only 60% of women in Sweden will ever marry as opposed to 85% in the U.S. The statistics 50 years ago were 91% in Sweden and 95% in the U.S.

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that a country which was actually being “led” religiously by a valid “expression” of True Christianity could possibly come to be in the moral state we see in Sweden.

After all, the logical result of a “theology” which requires ONLY belief for Salvation, is that sin and an immoral lifestyle is “acceptable” to God and that there are no consequences for sin. Of course, that kind of belief system cannot fail to lead to a lack of faith in general because it is SO counterintuitive. Luther himself became painfully aware of the reduction in morality in his later years but of course he was not able to ‘connect the dots’ to SBFA.

How can mankind, understanding it’s own fallen nature, possibly have faith in a theology in which the fallen individual has the “authority” to determine their own theological beliefs? Clearly as is represented by the situation in Sweden, Protestantism is simply a temporary stop on the way to atheism, an interim step between Catholicism and disbelief.

The issue of “Which Church” is incredibly important. Not all Churches are equal. Not in any way.

Many Protestants would have us believe that we can judge a set of theological beliefs upon the “results” of those teachings in terms of the “fruits” as demonstrated by it’s adherents. While that is obviously overly simplistic and would seem to have us believe that the members of some particular Protestant denomination somehow demonstrate a “more Christian” lifestyle than others, the facts are that ALL Protestant denominations contain a large number of very faithful and moral believers.

I don’t see the state of Swedish morality as being a condemnation of the Swedish people or of Lutherans in general, but I do see it as an indication of the end results of Lutheran “theology”. A society which for 400+ years has been influenced by only Lutheran doctrine, would be more moral than is Sweden IF that doctrine were actually something ordained by Christ.

Granted American “morality” could be only a few generations behind that of Sweden of today, but then it could be that the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church in America has kept this country from descending even further than it has and faster than it has.

The Lutheran church in America is losing members both in real terms and as a percentage of the total of Protestantism. Since 1967, Lutheranism has shrunk from 14% of Protestantism in the U.S. to only 8% today. All of the other “mainline” denominations are suffering similar declines, with the independent “Bible churches” picking up larger and larger share of Protestantism. Of course, many of these denominations are MUCH less “orthodox” than are the mainline denominations. This trend when extrapolated out into the future, indicates that Protestantism is doomed to fail, probably just fading away into a memory.

Satan attacks the Christian Church (or church whichever the case may be) wherever it is, but NOWHERE has he been as successful as he has been in the most Protestant countries. Common sense would indicate that Sola Scriptura, the “Right of Private Interpretation” AND Salvation by Faith Alone have ALL had a rather tragic impact on Christianity and Christian morals in those countries.

Ben, if you would like, the statistics on several indicators of Christian morality are VERY revealing when you plot them against the percentage of the population, by country, that are Catholic and Protestant. The statistical correlation is quite remarkable. Marriage rates, divorce rates, abortion rates, co-habitation without marriage rates, and artificial birth control rates all correlate very strongly, country by country with the percentage of Protestants vs. the percentage of Catholics.

On logical conclusion from all this would be that Luther’s Private Interpretation has made Christian Doctrine less important, exactly as his Catholic opponents predicted.

I too know many fine, upstanding, and extremely moral Protestants, but the statistics are way to strong to be coincidental. There is a big difference between the way that Protestants and Catholics live out their Christianity. As we both agree – the proof is in the puddin.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Today, 76% of Swedes officially belong to the Lutheran Church, but in fact that “membership” is really just a formality, and in fact that number is shrinking by about 1% each year. Catholics make up roughly 2% of the population and are almost entirely immigrants. According to a study conducted in 2005, between 46-85% of Swedes now consider themselves to be “irreligious”, meaning that in their lives, there is an “absence of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion.” The same statistic for a few ‘Catholic countries’ are as follows: Poland - 6%; Ireland – 4.5%, Portugal – 11.4%.

But what about the statistics from France, another “Catholic country”?

France is an overwhelmingly Catholic country – up to 88 percent of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic church, according to the CIA World Factbook. However, the number of active believers has been falling for decades.

But now in the second decade of the 21st century, with the College of Cardinals having elected a new Pontiff in the Vatican – Pope Francis of Argentina – France’s Catholic Churches are increasingly bereft of parishioners.

The numbers are grim. **Last year, according to reports, more than one-third (35 percent) of France’s population and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of youth said they belonged to “no religion.”

Very few people, an estimated 1-in-20 of the French, regularly attend Mass anymore.**

Father Innocent Feugna, an African deacon who toils at St Pierre de Guise in northern France, complained that his congregation in aging and dying out.

“Here I’m preaching to pensioners,” he lamented to BBC.

“In Cameroon, [the Catholic] Mass is animated, it’s alive – here [in France], services are still flat and cold. In Cameroon, the churches are full. We’ve got children. We’ve got adults, all ages. It’s completely different from France.”

Not only are France’s church-goers aging, so are church officials – the average priest in the country is now 75, forcing the importation of foreigners to conduct religious services.

“Young people have different aspirations,” Feugna stated. “Their interests lie elsewhere. The Church perhaps doesn’t have the right message for young people here.”

ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Again, you misunderstand the intent of my question. You have the same Protestant blinders on that I had at one time. I don’t say that maliciously, believe me, I’m here to help… The issue is not how many SELECT verses the CC upholds, it is that they interpret all scripture by one authority.

You know that Protestantism does not have one authority, hence the confusion among the denominations. Think. There can not be “many truths” in relation to scripture. The following may be a helpful link as it cites Catholic sources that you desire. christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

No, you misunderstand your own premise.

What you want to argue is Church Hierarchy and Church Government. And not all Protestants are the same. Some have a more organized and visible Church government than others. But if you want to blame them for the fracture, look into our own Church first. It started in our own backyard.

Your comparison of private interpretation is just plain horrible. Because we privately interpret the Bible as much as any other Christian does. What we don’t do is fracture as much because we have a better designed Episcopacy form of Church government. Our structure is solid. That has nothing to do with private interpretation, it has to do with what the individual does on his own.

Protestantism doesn’t have one authority like ours because there is no such thing as a Protestant Church. It is naive to argue against a straw man. It. does. not. exist.

You can argue against the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, et al. But there is no Protestant Church, since there is no Protestant Church it is impossible to have one Protestant authority. Again, a straw man.

Now that we are clear that there is no such thing as a Magisterium Bible Verse Interpretation Hotline so that Catholics can interpret exactly the same. And that there is no authoritative list of approved Bible Verse(s) interpretation from the Vatican, we can lay at rest this pointless argument.

 

[Jubilarian]

No, you misunderstand your own premise.

What you want to argue is Church Hierarchy and Church Government. And not all Protestants are the same. Some have a more organized and visible Church government than others. But if you want to blame them for the fracture, look into our own Church first. It started in our own backyard.

Your comparison of private interpretation is just plain horrible. Because we privately interpret the Bible as much as any other Christian does. What we don’t do is fracture as much because we have a better designed Episcopacy form of Church government. Our structure is solid. That has nothing to do with private interpretation, it has to do with what the individual does on his own.

Protestantism doesn’t have one authority like ours because there is no such thing as a Protestant Church. It is naive to argue against a straw man. It. does. not. exist.

You can argue against the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, et al. But there is no Protestant Church, since there is no Protestant Church it is impossible to have one Protestant authority. Again, a straw man.

Now that we are clear that there is no such thing as a Magisterium Bible Verse Interpretation Hotline so that Catholics can interpret exactly the same. And that there is no authoritative list of approved Bible Verse(s) interpretation from the Vatican, we can lay at rest this pointless argument.

Yes, “not all Protestants are the same”. Therein lies the Protestant dilemma . You gladly endorse non consistency.

Your argument is to keep falling back on this notion that because there is no specific “Magestesterium Bible Verse Interptretation Hotline” that means Catholics can’t interpret scripture exactly the same. How foolish, because ultimately, all scripture is interpreted the same by Catholics with a final analysis. Interestingly, your “hotline” analogy fits to tear down Protestant thought. Call any one of the thousands of Protestant hotlines, and depending on the phone rep, varying opinions about bible verses will emerge.

The very fact that there is not one universal body causes confusion. And when you say, " there is no Protestant church", that doesn’t concern you? Then again, depending on the type of Protestant, a church does exist. So even with such a premise as yours, it all falls apart. Again, we are back to “what church?” in Protestantism.

Catholics admit there is no long running “list” of bible verses to be exegeted , but we do have a final authority. Your problem is that as an entity, you can not be one united body. I’m pretty sure though that when you are convinced otherwise, the scales will not fall of your eyes. I know, I thought as you did once.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Had that been true, there wouldn’t be an approved list of Bible translations. Which anyone can view. Further the Bible is part of the daily mass and prayer life within the Church which moves daily through the liturgical year. USCCB will also e-mail you the daily readings such as the case yesterday with the Fourth Sunday of Advent Gospel of Luke 1:26-28 and the accompanying scripture readings. The USCCB also gives any Bible chapter requested and often with in-depth footnotes for clarity.

So whats “official” is the approved translations which rests on the teaching authority thus final authority.

 

[dronald]

And when a Protestant exercises her private judgment when reading and interpreting the meaning of Scripture, but what standard does she measure whether that interpretation is correct?

The answer can only be one thing: when the interpretation conforms to her own person ideations.

Catholics also come to a point where they decide which Church makes the most sense to them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Catholics also come to a point where they decide which Church makes the most sense to them.

True, but that only makes them their own authority in which they set out down the road of flashing neon lights illuminating the night with… “JESUS LOVES YOU” til finally they arrive at the pulpit which interprets in alike fashion.

And when everyone is feeling good about this process, thats “conviction of the Holy Spirit”. But you can rest assure. The Holy Spirit isn’t sending everyone to areas of apparent contradictory teachings. Which is where the term “practicing Catholic” comes from.

Its like the 18 yo who insists they know how to drive, before they ever drove and then take the Keys and head off to drive with a conviction they are 100% absolutely right.

OK, back to PR as I am out!!!

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12588630]By what authority were the Lutheran Confessions founded? Would that be on Scripture? That is exactly the claim made for the Westminster Confessions and all of the other Confessions. Who is to decide which of them (if any) are really Scriptural?

Hi Topper,
There are also claims made by the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome outside of ecumenical council. In many ways, it can be said we are chips off the old block, except the Catholic church and EO have been doing this for 1,000 years.

First of all Jon, what the Lutheran church professes is NOT, I repeat NOT, the true faith of the Catholic Church. I also have to note that it is your confessions which depict the Pope as the antichrist and me as an ‘adherent’:

“But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”

With my limited time today, and this week due to family being in town, let’s be clear:
The LCMS (and all Lutheranism AFAIK) doesn’t now, nor has it ever depicted or claimed that the Pope is the AntiChrist.
** The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ. However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the
papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
**
[file:///C:/Users/jschleifer/Downloads/The_Bible.pdf](file:///C:/Users/jschleifer/Downloads/The_Bible.pdf)

The LCMS does not now, nor has it ever accused members of the Catholic Church as being the AntiChrist.

Further, part of the issue with the term Antichrist is its change as a result of Dispensationalists (premillenial).

IX. Is the LCMS Position the Same as the Fundamentalists?

• Absolutely not!

• Fundamentalists and Evangelicals differ on many issues, particularly on their relationship to the Roman Catholic church. Fundamentalists are generally anti-papal; Evangelicals are generally more ecumenical. Some have even signed a statement on common moral issues “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” in the 1990s.

• Most fundamentalists are known as “dispensational premillenialists.” “Dispensational” refers to a historical periodization based on scriptural interpretation. “Premillenialism” is the belief that Jesus will return to establish a 1000 year reign on earth before the Final Judgment.

• The LCMS has always rejected “premillenialism,” as did the Lutheran church in its confessions, see Augsburg Confession 17.

• The fundamentalists position on the anti-christ is based on ideas developed in the Middle Ages about the meaning of the Book of Revelation, looking for a fulfillment of every detail in history. The Lutheran position was based II Thessalonians 2 and I John 2, and sees the anti-christ not as one historical figure, but as a type which many might fulfill, if they bear the marks.

X. The Marks of the Antichrist, according to Luther and Melanchthon

(see Treatise on Power and Primacy of the Pope, 39-40 [KW, 337]):

• #1 - Rules over the church and establishes earthly dominion on the basis of doctrine of church and ministry, esp. Matthew 16:19, “The Keys.”

• #2 - Doctrine contradicts the Gospel at numerous points.

• #3 - Claims the right to alter Jesus’ teaching and worship.

• #4 - Claims to bind and loose in this life and the next.

• #5 - Not willing to be judged by anyone, including councils of the church.

• #6 - Defends errors with the greatest savagery, killing dissenters.

• As noted before, #6 no longer applies. #1 applies regarding church rule, but not regarding earthly rule.

• #5 still does apply, in spite of the appearance of conciliar authority at Vatican II. Pope Paul VI made some critical changes to documents of Vatican II before it was completed, which means he still claimed final authority. #1-4 still apply, therefore the papacy still bears some of the marks of the antichrist, per Lutheran doctrine.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Anyone can come up with false doctrine and be declared a heretic. That alone does not make an “antichrist.” The word “Christ” means an “anointed prince,” i.e., a lord. Jesus is Lord and has universal and complete Lordship over his church through His Word. Therefore any religious leader in the church who claims or exercises “lordship” over the church stands in danger of bearing the marks of an “antichrist,” because his claims or exercise of authority are in competition with Jesus. This is a problem not limited to Roman Catholicism.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

Catholics, as much as any other trinitarian communion, are Christian.

Furthermore, Christianity managed to remain unified doctrinally for the first 1500 years of existence, splitting into basically only two communions. The reason for such unity is that the “Right of the Individual” to interpret was NEVER taught and never considered to be Christian doctrine during those 15 centuries. However, IMMEDIATELY upon Luther beginning to practice and teach Private Interpretation, Christianity, or rather the Protestant portion of it began to schism at an astonishing rate. Even before he returned to Wittenberg from the Wartburg, he had ‘competition’ in Wittenberg from people who were using HIS teaching of PI to refute him.

Jon, you may wish to divorce yourself from Luther on this matter, and how could you not. However, the fact that you disagree with what he did, does not change the historical facts. Those facts point directly at Luther for the denominalization which Protestantism suffers. If he had followed Catholic (or current Lutheran) teaching, he NEVER begun this ever expanding doctrinal competition.

What’s remarkable about your comment here, Topper, is the notion that, while Lutherans recognized the need for the Church to determine doctrine, others for some reason did not, and this was Luther’s fault. You and I have discussed this before, and leaving aside an implied failure of the Catholic Church to convince people otherwise, one must assume that Luther had some sort of power over non-Lutherans that he did not have over Lutherans.
The fact is that people make their own decisions. Luther was not “Lord Voldemort” with the “imperious curse”, nor were Calvin and others so much unthinking lemmings.

I can certainly understand that you do not appreciate my ‘approach’. Personally though, I don’t think that we can just jump past Luther historically and land upon the Lutheran Confessions as if the one didn’t lead to the other, and the one not dependent on the other. The fact is that it is the very early history of the ‘Reformation’ which reveals whether it was a valid “Reformation” or simply one of the most divisive religious Revolts in Christian History.

Nobody said we should. The question on this thread that I responded to was about the use of the practice of personal interpretation of scripture. As you’ve admitted on a couple of occasions, you recognize to be the fact that Lutherans do not do this. I don’t speak for other communions, and I try not to say what they believe. I have always found it best to let them do that.

My position is that I believe people deserve to know the truth about the history of the early Reformation, and that once it is known, it becomes very clear which side was right and which side was wrong.

Which side was right, then? I assume you think the Catholic side is, though you rarely mention the Catholic side. You are apparently a smart, and well read man, perhaps the I and other non-Catholics could learn from your experience in transferring your membership to the Catholic Church, and what you have learned about her since.

Jon, I know that like me, you are very interested in achieving doctrinal unity amongst all Christians. As you know, some people want to achieve that doctrinal unity by watering down doctrine to the point where it is no longer important. That is NOT the kind of ‘agreement’ that we should be striving for, as I know you agree. Given that Lutheranism and Catholicism are so greatly divided in some very important issues, one side or the other is going to have to be proven wrong, even if it is just to one soul at a time. I am pursuing the argument that the Catholic Church is what it says it is and that Lutheranism is what the Catholic Church says it is.

And yet you rarely state you understanding of that Catholic view. ISTM that would be far more enlightening than your anti-Luther / anti-Lutheran polemics.

The fact of the matter Jon is that Martin Luther is largely responsible for the whole question of ‘Which church’. You can refute his teaching of Private Interpretation and state correctly that Lutheranism repudiated Luther on the matter, but that still does not mean that Luther is not responsible.

Perhaps you can share with non-Catholics why, in a positive and uplifting way, citing Catholic teachings, the Catholic way is better.

I honestly and sincerely look forward to that.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Catholics also come to a point where they decide which Church makes the most sense to them.

No, ronald. The correct paradigm is: find the Church Jesus established. And then conform your views to Christ’s Church.

I don’t shop around to see which Church makes the most sense to me. That’s absurd. If that were true, I’d be at the church down the street.

 

[PRmerger]

No, you misunderstand your own premise.

What you want to argue is Church Hierarchy and Church Government. And not all Protestants are the same. Some have a more organized and visible Church government than others. But if you want to blame them for the fracture, look into our own Church first. It started in our own backyard.

Your comparison of private interpretation is just plain horrible. Because we privately interpret the Bible as much as any other Christian does. What we don’t do is fracture as much because we have a better designed Episcopacy form of Church government. Our structure is solid. That has nothing to do with private interpretation, it has to do with what the individual does on his own.

Protestantism doesn’t have one authority like ours because there is no such thing as a Protestant Church. It is naive to argue against a straw man. It. does. not. exist.

You can argue against the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, et al. But there is no Protestant Church, since there is no Protestant Church it is impossible to have one Protestant authority. Again, a straw man.

Now that we are clear that there is no such thing as a Magisterium Bible Verse Interpretation Hotline so that Catholics can interpret exactly the same. And that there is no authoritative list of approved Bible Verse(s) interpretation from the Vatican, we can lay at rest this pointless argument.

The point is, as it always is in these types of discussions: where does the buck stop?

With Catholics: the authority lies in the Body of Christ–the Church.

With Protestants: the authority lies in their own personal interpretation of Scripture. If their personal view is divorced from the leaders of their church, their personal view has a position of primacy.

Now, some folks here (namely, Lutherans) may protest and say, “No, we are not permitted to divorce our views from what our leaders have professed.”

But that leads to a verrrrry big problem: Martin Luther did exactly that.

 

[JonNC]

The point is, as it always is in these types of discussions: where does the buck stop?

With Catholics: the authority lies in the Body of Christ–the Church.

With Protestants: the authority lies in their own personal interpretation of Scripture. If their personal view is divorced from the leaders of their church, their personal view has a position of primacy.

Now, some folks here (namely, Lutherans) may protest and say, “No, we are not permitted to divorce our views from what our leaders have professed.”

But that leads to a verrrrry big problem: Martin Luther did exactly that.

Except that:
if, for example, my synod’s leadership decided to change something - move toward female ordination, as an example, then I will “divorce my view” from leadership. In the same way, from the position (right or wrong) of the Lutheran reformers (not only Luther), they believed that the CC had indeed moved away from the historic teachings of the Church.
As an example, you state that, “authority lies in the Body of Christ–the Church”. In the early Church, that authority resided in the councils, not in the hands of only one of the patriarchates.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;12594489]No, ronald. The correct paradigm is: find the Church Jesus established. And then conform your views to Christ’s Church.

While Christ’s Church does exist today, specifically where His people are gathered around word and sacrament, it does not solely exist in one institutional communion. Even if one disregards the communions and traditions that are of the various Reformation era movements, the authority and certainty of which institution is the Church is diminished, as The Catholic Church lacks the other patriarchs necessary for an ecumenical council, and the EO lack the one patriarch that even they and we admit has primacy.

I don’t shop around to see which Church makes the most sense to me. That’s absurd. If that were true, I’d be at the church down the street.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

But there is no Protestant Church, since there is no Protestant Church it is impossible to have one Protestant authority. Again, a straw man.

Um, no. A straw man is a ***misrepresentation ***of someone’s argument – what you’ve re-stated is the actual position of Faithdancer and others. To wit, protestants “rely on their God-given reason, expository preaching, formal and and informal education, Bible commentaries, etc.” Everyone knows protestants don’t have a magisterium. Jubilarian asked “what do you rely on to interpret scripture?”

It is you who has introduced a straw man by misrepresenting Jubilarian’s question.

Straw man:

Now that we are clear that there is no such thing as a Magisterium Bible Verse Interpretation Hotline so that Catholics can interpret exactly the same.

Straw man:

And that there is no authoritative list of approved Bible Verse(s) interpretation from the Vatican…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except that:
if, for example, my synod’s leadership decided to change something - move toward female ordination, as an example, then I will “divorce my view” from leadership. In the same way, from the position (right or wrong) of the Lutheran reformers (not only Luther), they believed that the CC had indeed moved away from the historic teachings of the Church.
As an example, you state that, “authority lies in the Body of Christ–the Church”. In the early Church, that authority resided in the councils, not in the hands of only one of the patriarchates.

Jon

Not exactly, Jon.

Who interpreted scripture and determined that Judas Iscariot must be replaced? Peter.

Who received a vision from God that the Gentiles would come into the Church? Peter.

Who overturned Mosaic Law by saying that circumcision would not be required of those Gentiles? Peter.

The council met to determine if Peter had acted properly, and it confirmed what Peter had already taught. IOW, the council did not make policy, it accepted the policy already established by Peter back in Acts 10.

 

[PRmerger]

Except that:
if, for example, my synod’s leadership decided to change something - move toward female ordination, as an example, then I will “divorce my view” from leadership. In the same way, from the position (right or wrong) of the Lutheran reformers (not only Luther), they believed that the CC had indeed moved away from the historic teachings of the Church.
As an example, you state that, “authority lies in the Body of Christ–the Church”. In the early Church, that authority resided in the councils, not in the hands of only one of the patriarchates.

Jon

So, Jon, could you please clarify: is this “divorce” permitted and sanctioned?

 

[JonNC]

Not exactly, Jon.

Who interpreted scripture and determined that Judas Iscariot must be replaced? Peter.

Who received a vision from God that the Gentiles would come into the Church? Peter.

Who overturned Mosaic Law by saying that circumcision would not be required of those Gentiles? Peter.

The council met to determine if Peter had acted properly, and it confirmed what Peter had already taught. IOW, the council did not make policy, it accepted the policy already established by Peter back in Acts 10.

there is a difference, Randy, between confirm and accept. Confirm has the implication of power not to confirm. If the council does not sit, then that power to confirm or not to confirm is denied.
If St. Peter had the power to interpret, receive, overturn, and the council had not the power to not confirm, then the council is useless. I don’t believe the early Church - in Acts and later - set up a useless device.

Jon