Which Church??

[dronald]

NOPE. Nothing mentions what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies.

Not a verse. You can search from Genesis through Revelation and won’t find a single verse about that.

Conclusion: your objection to the Catholic Church also applies to God.

I disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree.

Think about what you’re saying, dronald.

You are saying that there are Bible verses that the CC just ignores, regarding the fate of those infants who have never been baptized.

Given what you know of the CC, and your essential support of the Church (as you have stated in the past, you feel as if you’re stuck in the middle–offering apologia for the CC to uninformed anti-Catholic folks, yet offering objections here in the safety of the CAF)…does that make sense to you?

Why would the Church claim she doesn’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, yet the Bible states (allegedly) that all unbaptized babies go to heaven.

Think about what you’re proposing.

Does it make sense to you?

BTW: This is ON TOPIC, as the discussion of “which church” certainly encompasses consideration of the churches which reject infant baptism. It leaves the fate of their infants in jeopardy, possibly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

[SIGN]You’ve got another thread for this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=935708[/SIGN]

 

[Even_So]

I disagree.

Me too. Imagine that!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

When I was younger, the ELCA had not yet drifted away from Lutheran orthodoxy. It was later. Similarly with Melanchthon, it was later that he drifted. In fact, I find his description of our teaching on the real presence in the Apology to be clearly orthodox, but even in this he later drifted.
I defend the CA for the reasons I have given: in Articles I through XXI, I can say without reluctance, “this is most certainly true”.
Jon

I am not interested in Melanchthon’s description of the Real Presence and have referred to it only tangentially through the quotes of Scholars, and NO, I am not interested in changing the subject. The issues is Melanchton’s dishonest representation of Lutheran belief and also his now well documented on this thread, bald faced lies.

You say that you can say this ‘without reluctance’ and I am asking how, specifically and exactly, you can be so certain. Is your certainty based on some factual evidence, or is it some kind of ‘burning in the bosom’, or what?

If you really are that certain, then you certainly should be able to express why, in non-general terms.

From my perspective I can see absolutely NO reason to believe that the Lutheran Confessions are anything more than the Doctrines of man, with the historical facts surrounding the Augsburg Confession being only part of the evidence, and the extreme anti-Catholic nature of the Confessions overall being even more.

You are the one who said the CA was a dishonest attempt to deceive, that it left things out. The fact is, as I have shown, the issues you claim were kept hidden in fact were not.
And yet many of these were mentioned and discussed during the colloquies.

Jon, as numerous scholars have pointed out, the Confession convieniently ‘left out’ all of those contentious issues. Melanchthon, in a cowardly manner, refused to deal with the real issues, preferring to ‘stay positive’.

Topper, quite honestly, what you wish to believe or not believe is up to you, not me. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m not here prosyletizing. Believe what you want.

I have not said I was “considering conversion”. What I’ve said is that, under one of three circumstances, I would convert. They are:

1. if our communions were to reconcile
2. if the CC and EO were to reconcile
3. if the CC were to accept the CA as a Catholic confession, as Cr. Ratzinger once pondered.

Sorry Jon, I somehow got the impression that you were ‘closer’ than that. In fact, I seem to remember you suggesting that you wake up every day thinking about possibly converting. I take it that I have misremembered. Did you ever say anything like that?

As for your three circumstances:

The first will NEVER happen unless you repeal the extremely anti-Catholic portions of your Confessions
The second will NEVER happen in our lifetimes (but then neither of us is exactly young are we? )
The third will NEVER happen either. If all you can point to is a single 40+ year old sentence which never came to anything, then this fact becomes obvious.

Given the above, it appears that there is no way that you will ever convert UNLESS, you simply become convinced that the Church is teaching the Truth. Are you saying that there is no possibility of that ever happening?

Are you saying that you are not searching for the Truth about the Catholic Church, because you have already found it - and have learned FOR CERTAIN, that it is NOT what it claims to be?

From my perspective, it seems that a Lutheran can NEVER convert, because the Lutheran church teaches that IT is responsible for doctrine, NOT the individual. Therefore a Lutheran may NEVER convert. This of course, makes the defection of all of those Lutheran Theologians all the more perplexing.

Jon, are you saying that NO AMOUNT of evidence, or NO ARGUMENT will cause you to change your mind? I ask Jon, because so far, it does not seem that the actual facts have much influence.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,
I just did a quick scan through the Epitome of the Formula of Concord (I’ll try to do the Standard Declaration tomorrow). While I certainly may have missed some, these are the only two references to the Catholic Church in the Epitome.

Again, maybe I’ve missed something, but I didn’t see anything in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord that was overtly “anti-Catholic”.



But, if you think, based on this that the Epitome of the Formula of Concord is terribly anti-Catholic, well OK.

I stand corrected Jon, and I appreciate the correction. This way I won’t ever make this particular misstatement again. What I was intending to refer to is the following, which is also a Lutheran Confessional statement.

The Book of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE

“39] **Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. **And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. 57]

Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea,** it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. **

59]**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[/COLOR]] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity…”

Jon, could you please tell me who these ‘adherents’ are that bear all the marks of the Antichrist. I ask because it seems that it must include people like me. After all, I am one who agrees with the Pope and defends his doctrine. Doesn’t that mean according to your Confession that I have become guilty of the blood of the godly, and defile myself……?

As you know Jon, I have asked probably a dozen times as to who specifically and exactly the ‘adherents’ are. Could you finally explain it to me? I ask of course, because it certainly seems to apply to me and if it in fact DOES, then I guess I should be pretty offended. This is a direct question Jon:

Who are the ‘adherents’, specifically and exactly?

Can you answer this question or will ‘staying positive’ mean that I will not be getting an answer (again)?

God Bless You Jon, Topper**

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12654232]

I am not interested in Melanchthon’s description of the Real Presence and have referred to it only tangentially through the quotes of Scholars, and NO, I am not interested in changing the subject. The issues is Melanchton’s dishonest representation of Lutheran belief and also his now well documented on this thread, bald faced lies.

You must like the phrase, Topper, as you’ve repeated it 4 or 5 times now.

You say that you can say this ‘without reluctance’ and I am asking how, specifically and exactly, you can be so certain. Is your certainty based on some factual evidence, or is it some kind of ‘burning in the bosom’, or what?

My certainty is based on the fact that Articles I through XXI of the CA reflect the truth of the Gospel, and the teaching of the historic Church Catholic.

From my perspective I can see absolutely NO reason to believe that the Lutheran Confessions are anything more than the Doctrines of man, with the historical facts surrounding the Augsburg Confession being only part of the evidence, and the extreme anti-Catholic nature of the Confessions overall being even more.

And I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise.

J

on, as numerous scholars have pointed out, the Confession convieniently ‘left out’ all of those contentious issues. Melanchthon, in a cowardly manner, refused to deal with the real issues, preferring to ‘stay positive’.

Yes. He in a rather cowardly way, went to Augsburg, participated in colloquies with Eck and others under the eye of civic leaders, discussed the issues you say were left out.

Sorry Jon, I somehow got the impression that you were ‘closer’ than that. In fact, I seem to remember you suggesting that you wake up every day thinking about possibly converting. I take it that I have misremembered. Did you ever say anything like that?

Everyday. I think it is my obligation as a Lutheran to evaluate prayerfully, if being in division with the Bishop of Rome, the western patriarch, is justified. That continues to be my daily contemplation. As it stands, the issue of universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope remains an teaching I cannot yet agree to. And the ecumenical dialogue has yet to reconcile the division.

As for your three circumstances:

The first will NEVER happen unless you repeal the extremely anti-Catholic portions of your Confessions
The second will NEVER happen in our lifetimes (but then neither of us is exactly young are we? )
The third will NEVER happen either. If all you can point to is a single 40+ year old sentence which never came to anything, then this fact becomes obvious.

I would suggest that you leave that up to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. And I shall leave it up to our leadership.

Given the above, it appears that there is no way that you will ever convert UNLESS, you simply become convinced that the Church is teaching the Truth. Are you saying that there is no possibility of that ever happening?

I think the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome teaches vasts amount of truth. I continue to pray for the reconciliation that you have declared impossible. But in all honesty, your declaration holds no weight.

Are you saying that you are not searching for the Truth about the Catholic Church, because you have already found it - and have learned FOR CERTAIN, that it is NOT what it claims to be?

How long have you been here, actually? And let me ask this; how many times have you contributed the truthful teachings of the Catholic Church for me to consider?

From my perspective, it seems that a Lutheran can NEVER convert, because the Lutheran church teaches that IT is responsible for doctrine, NOT the individual. Therefore a Lutheran may NEVER convert. This of course, makes the defection of all of those Lutheran Theologians all the more perplexing.

Then perhaps, Topper, there is something amiss in your perspective of Lutheranism.

Jon, are you saying that NO AMOUNT of evidence, or NO ARGUMENT will cause you to change your mind? I ask Jon, because so far, it does not seem that the actual facts have much influence.

Topper, you’ve provided no argument in favor of the Catholic Church. None! Virtually never! No facts, no evidence, in favor of the Catholic Church. Where is the Catholic Church in your arguments? A number of months back, on a different thread, I had to tell you what the I.C. was.
You are really smart, well read, Topper. I have to hand it to you; you have built up an impressive amount of background knowledge about Luther and Lutheranism, that serves your purpose well. Even if I were to accept your POV on Luther and Lutheranism in its entirety, even if I rejected Lutheranism, nothing you’ve said opens a door to Catholicism.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

God blessing also with you, Topper.

BTW, have you ever read the Confutation of the Augsburg Confession?

 

[Chong]

John 17:20-21
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Jon, Topper, et. al.,

Jesus prayed for all believers than we might be one just as He and the Father are one, and He tells us something very important about the purpose of this unity: our unity is or was to be a sign to the world that Jesus was sent by the Father.

When that unity is shattered by disagreement, heresy or open schism, the witness of Christianity is called into question, and souls may be lost who otherwise might have come to believe in our Savior.

I think we can all agree on this. But problem goes deeper and has multiple layers. Not only non-believers but even Christians of various denominations justify themselves on the basis of Church unity or lack thereof. For example, I have heard it said by some, 'I will come to believe in the Catholic Church when the Orthodox are re-united with it." And so, these folks pass the buck, so to speak, to someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

Is there anyone one figure in the history of Christianity (at least in the West) who represents what division and disunity looks like more than the original Protestant, Martin Luther? Putting aside all questions of whether Luther was right or not, to this very day, his name evokes images of breaking with the past and starting something new because of disagreements with the established order.

And so, for those who continue to bear his name, our Lutheran brothers and sisters, one has to ask whether the very honoring of the man does not continue to perpetuate the very division against which Jesus prayed?

Could a Baptist, Calvinist or Anglican say, “Well, I will become a Catholic when the Lutherans - the namesake of the Father of Protestantism - are reunited with Rome?”

Reunion may occur when whole churches iron out their differences. But until those glorious days, individual believers have the responsibility for their own small participation in tearing down of the body of Christ.

Thanks Randy,

One thing am sure of is that had Luther not arisen at that time, today there would have arose many people to protest. This is because the availability of written scriptures would have made them raise many questions.

Unity means means same objective and same faith of the Knowledge of Christ, the son of God. below is a scripture of how Apostle Paul saw it.
In Eph 4:11-13: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Coming toward the last finish line guys.

 

[Chong]

No, Jesus appointing him as leader made him leader. Jesus giving Peter special, unique authority made him leader.

Peter was a leader. We see him playing that role many times.

It’s documented that Peter exercised authority as Pope to do so.

First, the word pope came into usage far much later. He calls himself an a servant or an apostle. He even has not said he was a bishop of Rome.
1Pet5:13: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so doth Marcus my son.

No, it doesn’t. ONE time Peter is listed after James. In EVERY OTHER REFERENCE, Peter is listed first among the Apostles. And Peter’s name appears more times than all the other Apostles COMBINED. You are REALLY grasping at one specific verse to justify your personal theology while ignoring all the verses that destroy your theology.

Peter was an apostle to the Jews. The conversion of Cornelius shows he needed alot of interventions to help him accommodate the gentiles. Paul had to be called-in for the gentile world, kings, other religions, other lands, and to for documentation. The other apostles wrote very little.

How does that support your argument at all? Because Peter wrote less, that means he wasn’t the leader? I don’t see the logic in that. And why would Peter be required to include his claims of authority in every letter he writes? His authority wasn’t challenged (although it is now), so why would he waste time and space writing to support something no one questioned?

Not everybody new Peter. Surprisingly, Paul had not seen Jesus. In Israel not everybody knew Jesus, in fact Judas had to kiss him for the captors to ensure they captured the right person.
Peter wrote 2 letters to the people he was ministering to in Asia. He introduces himself as a servant of Christ and an apostle. Paul, James and Jude introduces themselves as servants of Christ also. There is no difference.
I don’t imply that Peter was not an important leader, but the contention is him being the the rock upon which the church was built.

So you do acknowledge that authority in the Church is handed on by the bishops. Good for you to recognize this truth. Why do you not submit in obedience to the bishops?

Mind you, at Jesus times the title of bishop was not in use. We see the name being used by Paul; Tit1:7 For a bishop must be blameless,…
Tit1:5: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Most likely, these titles of bishop, elder, deacon were congregational. Every city had one gathering, and amongst them was a bishop, an elder and maybe several deacons and deaconesses.

You say that I don’t submit to bishops. I have a bishop and submit to him. I don’t know your bishop, and most likely you don’t know my bishop because of location. Am in China.
The binding factor is the faith in Christ and guidance of the Word of God. Any group with an objective must have a leadership structure for meaningful results to be realized. In a church setting, the head is a bishop, with other leaders below him.

 

[PRmerger]

You say that I don’t submit to bishops. I have a bishop and submit to him.

Excellent.

How did your bishop gain this great honor to have you submit to him? Was he anointed by someone in authority? What is it about his office that makes you submit to him?

And how does this submission work? That is, if he declares that Bible Verse A means X and you believe it means Y, do you submit to his interpretation of A?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You say that I don’t submit to bishops. I have a bishop and submit to him. I don’t know your bishop, and most likely you don’t know my bishop because of location. Am in China.
The binding factor is the faith in Christ and guidance of the Word of God. Any group with an objective must have a leadership structure for meaningful results to be realized. In a church setting, the head is a bishop, with other leaders below him.

You have chosen to place yourself ‘under’ only those persons who generally agree with your interpretation of Scripture, because of their general agreement with your interpretation of Scripture, just as St. Paul described when he said that in the last days people would “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” (2 Tim 4:3) But that is no submission at all, because if I submit to a person on the basis of his agreement with me, in actuality the one to whom I am submitting is me. Just because you agree with someone’s interpretation of Scripture, and you voluntarily join his group, this does not mean that he has any divine authority over you whatsoever; it is just a way of hiding from oneself that one has taken the highest interpretive authority to oneself, by setting up for oneself humanly appointed ‘elders/bishops,’ and feigning submission to God by ‘submitting’ to them. Otherwise, if joining a group on the basis of one’s agreement with that group’s interpretation of Scripture entailed that the leaders of that group had divine authority, then it would be rebellion against God to leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if you had come to believe by your own study of Scripture that their interpretation of Scripture is false.

The persons you have accumulated to yourself as ‘teachers’ are not the elders/bishops God has placed over you. The Catholic bishop of your diocese is the divinely-established shepherd to whom you rightfully owe obedience, not just any person who happens to hold your interpretation of Scripture, and is able to raise enough money to build a building with a sign out front that says ‘church.’

Moreover, you don’t really believe that the leader of the Protestant congregation you presently attend has the authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, because if you did believe that, you would have undermined the ‘right’ of Protestants (such as Luther and Calvin) to follow their own conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture and to rebel against the Catholic bishops of the sixteenth century under whose authority they had been divinely placed at their baptism. You can’t acknowledge there to be any human person who has the divine authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, without thereby undermining the whole existence of Protestantism and thus your current religious position as a Protestant. As soon as you acknowledge that some human person other than yourself has the authority to bind your conscience regarding the interpretation of Scripture, you’ve just sawed off the branch on which Protestantism sits.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, the word pope came into usage far much later. He calls himself an a servant or an apostle. He even has not said he was a bishop of Rome.

1Pet5:13: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Babylon is Rome

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).

Eusebius Pamphilius, in History of the Church, composed between the years 300 and 325 AD, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon” (2, 15, 4).

I don’t imply that Peter was not an important leader, but the contention is him being the the rock upon which the church was built.

Chong, I have provided you with quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18.

Do you still deny this?

 

[benhur]

Great point. How can I locate the church in the world today, founded by Jesus, as opposed to a church founded by another person?

Good question and quest. Gumperism would say apostolic is as apostolic does.

Is it accurate to say that the apostles did not belong to any of the Protestant churches in the world today, due to the fact that the oldest Protestant Church only dates back to the 16th century? Is it accurate to say that the apostles did not belong to the Catholic Church

I think so .Those are names and events much further down the road in History]i.e.

I am wrong to claim that the apostles, historically speaking, belonged to the Catholic Church to which I presently belong?

I think so (in error).

 

[benhur]

Yes, we both worship the same God. Any one who proclaims Christ, brings forth Christ, and therefore must be part of the Church. You say this as if there is only one church in the world today.

I am using the word as I believe Jesus did. The word has a different meaning today. There is One Body. It is not Buddhist, nor Hindu, nor Muslim. It is “christian”, folk who have been "called out "(ecclesia).

Does it even matter which church, in the world today, a Christian belongs to?

Of course there are distinctions and differing merits.

The one church founded by Jesus, still exists in the world today, and it comprises all of the churches in the world today. Is this what you believe?

Yes and no. I described above the One Body and the ecclesia. I also said there are differences amongst the universalism(similarities).

,a bit kIf not then I have no idea what you believe regarding the one church founded by Jesus.

No confusion if one stays with understanding of usage of the word per our Lord. The Lord calls out lost sheep, calls them to believe in Him, placing them into His Body the Church. In this fashion, thru the apostles and Peter, and others, many were added daily to the church.

There are only two kinds of people, as always: those called out to faith and regeneration, and the unbelieving lost.

 

[benhur]

**
Chong, I have provided you with quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who admit that Peter is the rock in Mt. 16:18.
**How many of the twenty five say Peter was supreme over the other eleven apostles ? How many say the keys were only for Peter and one successor at a time ? How many say Peter had CC “infalibility” ? How many say the Pope today is the supreme representative of Christ on earth today ? How many say this interpretation was understood from day by all the other apostles and the entire church ? How many say Tertullian and Augustine were wrong in their final assesment of Peter being Rock ?t

 

[Randy_Carson]

How many of the twenty five say Peter was supreme over the other eleven apostles ? How many say the keys were only for Peter and one successor at a time ? How many say Peter had CC “infalibility” ? How many say the Pope today is the supreme representative of Christ on earth today ? How many say this interpretation was understood from day by all the other apostles and the entire church ? How many say Tertullian and Augustine were wrong in their final assesment of Peter being Rock ?t

ben-

Those are great questions, and we should address them one by one.

But first, are you prepared to say that you believe that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the Builder and Peter is the rock?

 

[benhur]

ben-

Those are great questions, and we should address them one by one.

But first, are you prepared to say that you believe that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the Builder and Peter is the rock?

No. I am prepared to say if I am wrong, it is not by much, for we all agree Peter and the apostles are our "rocks, foundation, living stones’’ per scripture(Peter/Revelations). It is the fashion in which he is the rock that we would then disagree on.

 

[benhur]

Coming toward the last finish line guys.

Last one posting “wins” !

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. I am prepared to say if I am wrong, it is not by much, for we all agree Peter and the apostles are our "rocks, foundation, living stones’’ per scripture(Peter/Revelations). It is the fashion in which he is the rock that we would then disagree on.

Ben-

You have seen from my postings that scholars from many different Protestant denominations have concluded that in Mt. 16:18, Peter is the rock.

We can talk about God, Jesus, the apostles ALL being rock and foundation stones in various verses, but Jesus promised to build His one church on one rock, Peter.

Be specific…what type of church do you attend? Is it affiliated with any particular denomination?