Which Church??

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12660720]Jon, you have the list of things that he ‘cowardly’ left out and you have learned, from my posts, the opinions of about a dozen Scholars, including Lutherans. Your opinion doesn’t seem to fit the evidence all that well.

I have your twist and spin on them. I also have provided clear evidence that the issues you claim were kept secret were in fact discussed at Augsburg.

Ok Jon, but that would mean that you would be willing to listen to arguments and it would also indicate that you would be willing to consider the historical facts that Lutheranism is built on a foundation which is ‘something less than stable’. Yet, I don’t see all of the facts about Augsburg as having had any impact on your ‘confidence’ in your Confession.

Again, I’m not asking you to. That’s because you expect your issues to impact my view of what CA says. Articles I through XXI are what I’m confident in, what they say. Now, if you want to discuss the content, OK.

What Jon is the role of the actual facts in your considerations regarding the Church?

I think I just answered this. The facts are in Articles I through XXI. Those play a huge role for me.

This is exactly the position that EC has taken, and as you well know, the “Dialogue” has YET to take up the issue of Papal Infallibility, in what Jon – 50 years? I guess that they are trying to ‘stay positive’, which means that they are ignoring the facts, which means that we are NOT going to be united. Maybe they are more interested in APPEARING to be ‘ecumenical’ than making any significant progress. As for me, I would prefer that they actually did some of the really tough work that is involved with accomplishing ANYTHING hard. I would bet thought that everyone on both sides are really nice people.

Well, I’m sure they will, now that you have stated they should.
I don’t know if you are citicizing the EO, Lutherans, Catholic leadership, or all of them. I know you’ve indicated your lack of confidence in Catholic leadership on this issue in the past. I really have no more comment on it.

There is NO WAY that Lutheranism will be allowed as some sort of ordinate within the Church as long as they will not reject those official charges of the pope as the antichrist and all of those anti-Catholic statements in your Confession. I don’t think that would be asking too much. Yet in the past, you have said that you think that there could be some sort of official reunification without an official rejecting of those statements on the part of Lutheranism. That is of course “optimistic”, but is also extremely unrealistic. There is also the issue that Lutheranism will NEVER reject ANY of the Lutheran Confession. To do so would be to admit FAR TOO MUCH.

Actually, I would expect the mutual condemnations of the Reformation era, that in the Confessions and that in Trent and other places to be lifted AS A RESULT of successful dialogue. My experience is that that is the usual progression.

You know Jon, I am really happy that we are getting along well enough for you to offer me advice about how to ‘do’ apologetics. Given that advice, I have some to offer you also.

Oh, goodness no, on the entire thought here, Topper. I do not assume to give you advice on anything. I was simply stating my observation.

When someone asks you a question, just simply answer it, as openly and in as straightforward a manner as possible.

Of course, but the source and intent, either implied or stated, of the question at times influences whether answering the question is worth the time, or will actually be received in mutual respect.

That would have a wonderfully positive impact on our discussions. As an example, I have asked you (again) at least about a dozen times about who the ‘adherents’ are. The fact that I cannot get an answer is actually nothing more than an admission of the WORST.

And this proves my point. I did answer your question regarding the issues discussed at Augsburg, which you chose to ignore. As I said, the source and intent of the question is important.

Jon, the **re****ason that I make a lot of the comments that I make is because I KNOW that there is no response that you can possibly make that will not reveal FAR MORE about Luther and Lutheranism than you want revealed. ** If I am wrong and there are actually reasonable and plausible answers and responses that can be offered, then, by all means, please provide them. On the other hand, the fact that you refuse to deal openly with these comments and questions only serves to prove my point.

I think the reason you make the comments you do is still unclear. And again, I’ve provided evidence that the issues you claim Melanchthon lied about were actually discussed at Augsburg. They were not hidden. There was no secret deception planned between Luther and Melanchthon. But, no matter the evidence I would provide, you would not be swayed, and that’s OK.

As an example, I have asked you at least a dozen times who the ‘adherents’ are in you Confessional document? IF there was an answer that could be provided that is NOT extremely offensive towards individual living Catholics, well……………I’m sure that answer would have been provided by now.

This is precisely what I mean by source and intent of the question. I have on numerous occasions provided you our synod’s historic understanding of the issue of regarding the office papacy and the charge of antichrist in specific teachings. You have chosen to ignore those statements, effectively calling our synod liars as well. Again, that’s OK. You are welcome to your opinion. But I don’t have to participate in it.

God Bless You Jon,

And also with you.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Not only is the Catholic Church absent from Topper’s arguments, but it is also absent in the posts from the vast majority of regular Catholic posters in the Non-Catholic forum section as of late. That was glaringly obvious in a Primacy thread I had a couple of months ago. I changed the religion field a couple of times on purpose to see what the reaction would be, and what do you know… sink and draw bait immediately… really sad.

You are without a doubt a class act and an incredible christian, you are a living model of what it means to maintain a Christian attitude when under attack. I truly admire this quality of yours.

Remember to report before replying when defending yourself or others. I have learned that the hard way…

God Bless you brother.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that, Isaiah. I think a large number of Catholic posters post their Catholic faith, and they do it will charity and good will. Its one of the reasons I have been here this long.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

In actual sense, the water did not purify, but it was symbolic.

This is very Catholic, Chong. The waters of baptism ARE symbolic.

Just not ONLY symbolic.

I don’t know why there’s so much of this “ONLY” and “ALONE” theology with Bible Alone Christians.

Most of the heresies are borne from this fundamentalist thinking: Jesus is man ONLY. Jesus is God ONLY. We need the Bible ALONE. We need Faith ALONE. We need Science ALONE. (And, I would add the secular English ALONE, one of my sore spots IRL).

Why not do the Catholic thing and embrace the Both/And?

Baptism does not confer salvation

This is contrary to Scripture, Chong.

Baptism does indeed save.

It says so right here: 1 Peter 3:21

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[PRmerger]

Here, the apostle teaches that baptism is symbolic.

Sure. They just don’t teach that it is ONLY symbolic.

You’ve been duped into believing a man-made tradition on that part, Chong.

 

[steido01]

I have on numerous occasions provided you our synod’s historic understanding of the issue of regarding the office papacy and the charge of antichrist in specific teachings. You have chosen to ignore those statements, effectively calling our synod liars as well. Again, that’s OK.

I am not as patient as you, but I’m not sure it is ever “OK” to call people, or entire synods, liars.

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.

Know what would be nice? A thread that looks at the Confessions, the Confutation and the Apology, side-by-side-by-side, article-by-article, and discusses the content– where Rome and Wittenberg agree, and where agreement has not yet been found. I think an objective reading of what Lutherans and Catholics believe would do these forums more good than these rehashing of tired polemics.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

I am not as patient as you, but I’m not sure it is ever “OK” to call people, or entire synods, liars.

Know what would be nice? A thread that looks at the Confessions, the Confutation and the Apology, side-by-side-by-side, article-by-article, and discusses the content– where Rome and Wittenberg agree, and where agreement has not yet been found. I think an objective reading of what Lutherans and Catholics believe would do these forums more good than these rehashing of tired polemics.

I normally don’t chime in like this.
Correction, it says
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs. Meaning the individual you are debating with.
We hardly thought that needed to be emphasized.
Now if you want us mods to start narrowing that down to people or groups, whether Catholic or Protestant, that lived hundreds of years ago, we’re going to have a pretty empty forum.

 

[stewstew03]

…baptism is symbolic.

Apostle Paul in 1Cor7:14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Weddings are symbolic. So, by extension, aren’t husbands/wives engaged in serial fornication? Or are you going to argue that weddings are more than symbolic and actually wipe away the sin of fornication; and then, from the other side of your mouth, argue that other symbols are mere representations of an idea or belief?

 

[stewstew03]

Correction, it says
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs. Meaning the individual you are debating with.
We hardly thought that needed to be emphasized.
Now if you want us mods to start narrowing that down to people or groups, whether Catholic or Protestant, that lived hundreds of years ago, we’re going to have a pretty empty forum.

But you don’t really believe that, do you…?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

But you don’t really believe that, do you…?

If moderators start restricting every single ill-chosen, not terribly polite, phrase, then yeah, it would kill debates. We just can’t write infractions like meter maids.
Tell you what, I’ll ask the opinion of Michael and other mods and get back to you.

One thing however is non-debatable…
Ya’ll are coming to that magic 1000 mark.

 

[stewstew03]

If moderators start restricting every single ill-chosen, not terribly polite, phrase, then yeah, it would kill debates. We just can’t write infractions like meter maids.
Tell you what, I’ll ask the opinion of Michael and other mods and get back to you.

One thing however is non-debatable…
Ya’ll are coming to that magic 1000 mark.

It was tongue-in-cheek…

 

[steido01]

I normally don’t chime in like this.
Correction, it says
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs. Meaning the individual you are debating with.
We hardly thought that needed to be emphasized.
Now if you want us mods to start narrowing that down to people or groups, whether Catholic or Protestant, that lived hundreds of years ago, we’re going to have a pretty empty forum.

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.

I think I understand where the line is now, but so I’m clear in the future and don’t inadvertently trouble the “report” button: so long as a poster doesn’t directly call another poster a liar, it is still within the forum rules to question the honesty of a given synod/magisterium/president/pope/council, past or present, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.

I think I understand where the line is now, but so I’m clear in the future and don’t inadvertently trouble the “report” button: so long as a poster doesn’t directly call another poster a liar, it is still within the forum rules to question the honesty of a given synod/magisterium/president/pope/council, past or present, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise?

No, actually steido, I’m glad you asked, because I’ve always felt that rule was rather vague. Maybe more specific language is called for. I’ll ask the other mods.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

It was tongue-in-cheek…

I realize that.

 

[zz912]

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

A role definitively given to him individually by Jesus. Only he is renamed Kepha (rock). Only he is ordered to strengthen his breathren (the other Apostles), he singly is ordered to tend and feed the sheep, he singly is given the keys to the kingdom, and he singly is given authority to bind and loose.

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.

The word came into use later. The office existed. And Babylon IS Rome. The first Christians used Babylon as code for Rome to keep themselves hidden.

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.

So do you agree that the number of writings determine authority level?

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 just don’t like the clear meaning of Jesus’ words. It can be difficult to conform to Christ’s commands instead of our own wishes.

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.

Not exactly. We see from that same Scripture and others that Timothy, Titus and others had authority over those bishops, priests and deacons. So the authority was hierarchical and universal. Bishops were under authority to a central authority.

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.

Is your bishop in union with the bishop of Rome? If not, why not? Jesus prayed for us all to be as one. Is your bishop “one” with the bishop of Rome?

 

[zz912]

Yes, great question, and let me add that the reason Jesus must be the rock on which the Church is built and no man, is that He is the only one who is an immoveable point, eternally stable without a hint of wavering. EVERYTHING else is shifting sand, but any one building on Him will be stable and secure.

Now, the reason the CC must choose Peter is not because he is seen as such a massive bulwark of stability, but because of the claimed connection which, in turn, is the source for all authority claims in this church.

There are two apposing motivations operating here so it is useless to think we could ever agree.

So the foundation of the Apostles is shifting sand, even though it is sitting on the rock Jesus. Have you actually thought through your personal theology?

And I don’t know about you, but my motivation is the truth, which is who we seek to worship, the One who IS Truth.

 

[zz912]

Now for some reason the CC wishes to shift the focus of stability to Peter. Why? Because it needs to do this to establish an exclusive authority claim for itself. This is huge because now the CC has carte blanc to establish anything it wants and no one can question. How great is that?

My motivation is that the focus must always be Jesus. He is the reason for everything. He is the purpose and the center of everything the Father does. To shift any of the glory away from Him,would be an unthinkable position.

Here’s the problem with your position. You know nothing about Jesus without Peter and the Apostles bringing Him to you. And you know nothing about Jesus without the Church bringing Him to you, especially through the Scriptures.

So if you cannot rely on them, you have no reliable knowledge of Jesus. It’s just that simple. Jesus promised that those who would spread knowledge about Him would do so without error in proclaiming that message. And Peter and the Church haven’t erred in that message, which is the same now as it was then.

 

[zz912]

Baptism does not confer salvation. Salvation is a transformation that comes after after accepting Christ. Baptism is performed to those who believe.

*1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes **baptism that now saves you *also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Your personal theology conflicts with Scripture.

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.

I think I understand where the line is now, but so I’m clear in the future and don’t inadvertently trouble the “report” button: so long as a poster doesn’t directly call another poster a liar, it is still within the forum rules to question the honesty of a given synod/magisterium/president/pope/council, past or present, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise?

Not to use up whatever time is left on the thread, but it seems to me it would be better to ask the person you are debating with to document said mistruths. All debates should assume the opponents are sincere, if sincerely wrong. When I was a fundamentalist years ago, I encountered people who told me what I believed was a lie. But the real test was when I dared to examine what I believed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Matt 7:24, Jesus used the word ‘rock’ in a real situation. I wonder if the word used is petra or cephas. This is just because the book of Matthew was not originally written in Greek
In Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ… Paul wrote in Greek; is the word used to refer to the ‘rock’ Cephas or petra?
With these we can track the usage and meanings of the phrase in relation to Simon Peter as the rock.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic. All of the Apostles did; they were Jews, and Aramaic was their first language.

Jesus said, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

Jesus calls Simon “Cephas” (a variant of Kepha) in John 1, and even Paul, who is more fluent in Greek perhaps due to his education, calls Simon “Cephas” in Corinthians and Galatians.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the builder of the Church.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus renames Simon and declared him to be the kepha upon which His Church would be built.

Abram was renamed Abraham.
Jacob was renamed Israel.
Simon was renamed Cephas (or Peter).

This is indisputable fact as Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant scholars all agree.

18我還告訴你：你是彼得，我要把我的教會建造在這磐石上，陰間的權柄不能勝過他。

Peter is the rock. (Mt. 16:18)
Peter is the Royal Steward (cf. Mt. 16:19, Is. 22:20-22)
Peter is the strengthener of the other apostles. (Lk 22:32)
Peter is the Shepherd of Jesus’ one flock. (cf. Jn 21:15-17)

Peter (and his successors, the Bishops of Rome) are the visible head of the universal Church established by Jesus, the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In the OT, Deut 6:6: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. 9: And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

The words of God were to be a guiding principle at every point.

In the NT, the Words of Jesus are very important. Today the scriptures are available, they are the guiding principle. The bishops may teach, but the guiding principle is the Word of God.

As you have seen in these threads, Chong, YOUR interpretation of the Word of God differs in many ways from MY interpretation of the Word of God.

How do we know which of us is correct? Or what if we are both wrong?

Jesus did not write a book. He built a Church. The inerrant Word of God is of little value without an infallible interpreter of that Word.

Catholics rely on Sacred Scritpure, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church to whom Jesus gave authority to teach without error in His name.

Sola Scriptura and the absolute right to private judgment are relatively modern ideas of men that were unknown for the first 1,500 years of Church history.