Why follow Luther, Calvin , and Wesley, and not Jesus Christ?

[JonNC]

With all due respect, i dont quite understand how sensitive people have become. using such arguments that a person is not being charitable enough therefore i refuse to accept the truth i considered this to be one more excuse to explain what they most fear which is to find out that they are wrong. Jon you are a man with a heart and i can see that you are searching for the Truth. how can we tell Jesus, because You were so uncharible you lost many of Your followeres, that is why they left You. Jesus was very loving to those who did not oppose Him, even to the apostles, Jesus used harsh words many times, but to those who did oppose him; He even refrain Himself from explaining anything to them. So did the Apostles also. i think we are confused with the word LOVE.

Wisdomseeker,
I’m not being sensitive. Look, if I decide to make this move, it will be done through the guidance of the HS. And His guidance will lead me regardless of what others say. As for the truth, someone earlier in this thread talked about the fact that convert to, not from. If I convert, it will be because I am guided to build on the truth I’ve already received from the HS where I am.
My criticism of the OP is in his approach to those of us who are n-c. He is full of faith and aggresively wants to share, no doubt. I just think he could be no positive in his tone.
Ok, maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m being too sensitive.

Righteousone,

Jon seriously man, Jesus really did start the Catholic church. If everything you read, the early church fathers, etc…everything was Catholic back then. That goes to show you that Jesus wanted the Catholic church.
It is hard for one who isn’t Catholic to just start thinking in a Catholic way, but honestly man, Jesus did, after my research for 12 years start the Catholic church.

It will do no good for me to argue with you over this point. In fact, that was not my point at all in this. So I will say this; I honor and value the strength of your faith, and your witness to what you believe. If you did not wish to share it will others, you would not post a thread such as this. Your motives are charitable, and God bless you for that, and I will try to maintain an openness to your dialogue.

Blessing to both of you,
Jon

 

[NDfan]

Yes, she must have.

Why do you say that?

 

[MH84]

Why do you say that?

Firstly, someone had to have the idea to call God, the “Blessed Trinity”.

No where does the bible teach that each Person of God is fully God, they do not share the divine nature. Each possesses the divine nature.

Mortal and venial sin, are only touched upon in the bible.

The Marian dogmas.

I don’t believe that the bible says that the Holy Spirit is eternal and uncreated. I really believe that Protestants have accepted the Catholic Church’s teachings on God. They couldn’t have found such detail in the bible.

This is just the start. There are so many details of Catholicism that’s not explicitly stated in the bible.

Catholics believe that the Church is a teaching body itself appointed by God. She does proclaim her teachings using BOTH Scripture AND Tradition handed down from the apostles. Scripture is not the only source of truth. God is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well God of course:thumbsup: Im sure you read your bible–check it out. We are to put our FULL TRUST in HIM. I do not deny it–heck Im part of the body of believers–I just do not see your version of who the church is in scripture. How do you know your church is right? The only reason I even have any idea is because the bible tells me the truth. I trust what God told me in His word

Im not going to list because that would most definitely
derail the thread. Besides there are many other threads out there already being hotly debated.

**it is fine with me.

As for me i want make sure i am with the Truth. how do i know this? through the Church. with so many people claiming to having the Truth i want to make sure i am where the truth is.

i started with the Bible, which Church is Jesus talking about. which Church goes back to the apostles who laid hands on others as successors to continue the work of the Our Lord. not just any congregation that some man just found for himself without any apostolic succession. then i must understand what Jesus meant when He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

because if any man tells me that the Jesus Church has fallen, he is liar. why? because he called Jesus a liar by saying that His Church failed. God does not lie but man do. therefore i must trust and believe in Jesus that what He said He also accomplishes. if any man tells the opposite i can call him a liar.

the CC has suffered many persecution, many kingdoms and empire have come and gone but this Church still standing just like Jesus promise that He would be with His Church until the end of times. it is not a matter of believing or not. for Jesus does not depending wether we believe or not. what He promised He does it. His Words will not come back void**

 

[ALLFORHIM]

As for me i want make sure i am with the Truth. how do i know this? through the Church. with so many people claiming to having the Truth i want to make sure i am where the truth is.

i started with the Bible, which Church is Jesus talking about. which Church goes back to the apostles who laid hands on others as successors to continue the work of the Our Lord. not just any congregation that some man just found for himself without any apostolic succession. then i must understand what Jesus meant when He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

because if any man tells me that the Jesus Church has fallen, he is liar. why? because he called Jesus a liar by saying that His Church failed. God does not lie but man do. therefore i must trust and believe in Jesus that what He said He also accomplishes. if any man tells the opposite i can call him a liar.

the CC has suffered many persecution, many kingdoms and empire have come and gone but this Church still standing just like Jesus promise that He would be with His Church until the end of times. it is not a matter of believing or not. for Jesus does not depending wether we believe or not. what He promised He does it. His Words will not come back void

I agree with everything you said We just have a different definition of who the church is.

 

[O.S.Luke]

So your not following Wesley’s view of theology and his interpretation of the Bible? I think you are in denial, my brother.

Again, what I say might sound arrogant and “uncharitable” in your view, but it is the truth. What other reason are you here for than to seek the truth and embrace it?

I don’t think you’re arrogant or uncharitable. But I am not sure what you’re saying in light of the prayer I posted. And what am I in denial about?

O+

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was wondering why non-Catholic Christians don’t follow what Jesus gave to St. Peter, the church, the holy Catholic church. Since everything was Catholic back then (Early Church Fathers, etc…).
If Protestants KNOW this, yet they follow someone who instead married a nun (Luther married a Catholic nun, and he himself was a Catholic), why would you remain Protestant? Don’t you realize that if everything WAS Catholic BEFORE Luther, why not feel that Jesus made it that way?
And Calvin and Wesley started THEIR OWN churches, the Presbyterian and Methodist churches.
Why not become Catholic as it was in the days BEFORE these gentlemen decided to go off on their own?

**Calvin is amazing in his many-sidedness, as a theologian, commentator, preacher, Reformer, & leader of men; he is one in many thousands. **​

**People who denigrate the Reformers without paying any attention to their positive achievements prevent themselves from understanding why many Protestants equal in intelligence, insight, & moral character to the Catholic denigraters of the Reformers do not agree with those Catholics, but find the Reformers & their work an inspiration worthy of honour & gratitude, even though they may in certain matters disagree with them. **

**If Luther had been nothing but a foul-mouthed anti-Semite who married a nun & defended bigamy, he would not & could not have had the strictly theological & religious effects that he did. By diminishing him to little more than the sum of his most notorious faults, people make it impossible for themselves to see why other Christians are grateful for him & for his work as a religious teacher. **

**The choice is a false one; the Reformers are servants, & not greater than their Lord. They would be the first to admit that they were “unprofitable servants”, just as Luke 17.11 says. Compared to Christ, the Son Who is the Servant, who is not ? That does not mean in the slightest that they were not seeking to serve Him with the gifts He had given them. **

Wesley did not start his own church - he tried very hard to ensure that he did not. As for Calvin: Father Alexandre Ganoczy’s 1966 study of Calvin, which was well received by Catholics & Calvinists alike, shows in detail that he was committed to the unity of the Church; that he was more Catholic in fact than many who were Catholic in name. To reject “the papal monarchy”, as he did, was not a rejection of the Church, but of something that had spoilt the Church. He had a very high doctrine of the Church.

**Even if Luther & Calvin are heresiarchs, the gigantic effects they both had, & still have, require proportionately great causes. They cannot have been the negligible quantities some of their critics seem to make of them; small men do not have such massive effects. Great men, OTOH, do: they are not referred to (below) as “giants of the Reformation” for no reason. **

The Calvin Bibliography - 2004

John Calvin 1509-64

This, from the last link, should be required reading:

• Zachman, Randall C. The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. (A sensitive study of how the different grasp of a critical concept led to quite different outcomes in the thought of two giants of the Reformation.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sorry, but before the Reformers, THERE WERE NO PROTESTANTS LIKE YOURSELF. Everyone WAS CATHOLIC.
Calvin fell under the writings of the NT Translation by Eramus and the writings of Luther. In fact, did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran? Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creeds in ADDITION to the bible.

Scripture is Sole, not in being an authority for Christians, but, in being the sole judge of all controversies in faith. This does not imply that Fathers & creeds & theologians & catechisms & synods & confessions of faith have no useful function in the Church - far from it ! **It does mean, that all of these are inferior in authority to God speaking through His Word in Scripture, & that they must ever be subject to correction & amendment by it. **​

**Suppose you’re correct - are Calvinists really so unobservant that they have used all those helps in addition to the Bible, yet never noticed the contradiction you see ? **

1.) Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
2.) There are five major points of Calvinism. The five points are known by the acronymT.U.L.I.P.

NONE ARE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE
All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino effect).
The Sinner’s prayer is not in the bible and won’t save you.
It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than fifty years ago.

Does this sound like something sent from Christ? No it doesn’t because it isn’t.

**This is where I have to “get a grip” , because it would be all too easy to rip this apart. I’m just glad I was a Protestant - it means that I know that a lot of this is simply mistaken. **​

**Last point first: Yes, the Sinner’s Prayer is in essence of ****Calvinist origin. So ? How does that disqualify it ? It is in essence a somewhat diluted expression of the Puritan stress upon the importance of having a saving interest in Christ - & of what that means is spelt out in the 17th century classic “The Christian’s Great Interest”, by William Guthrie. Taken in separation from its moorings in covenant theology, the Sinner’s Prayer loses ****many of its theological connections. Fortunately for us, God is not hindered by our ignorance - He takes us “just as [we are], without one plea”; what matters is His disposition toward us, not ours to Him. Salvation is not dependent on our being expert in the niceties of theology. **

**Out-of-hand rejections of TULIP with no reasoning shown are of no weight; it calls for no understanding of the issues involved to reject a doctrine out of hand . As for their being “major points” - that may be so, if we are thinking only of the doctrine of salvation; but there is far more to Reformed orthodoxy than the doctrine of salvation; the doctrine of God is far more important, because that is what tells us about election & providence & the decrees which undergird TULIP. And TULIP tells us little about the Church (though it has implications for it) - yet the Church is of high importance for Calvinist doctrine; Calvinists are Churchmen because they are Christ’s men - the Puritans never weary of insisting upon the great importance of the Church. **

As for TULIP:

**Take the P, which is for the Preservation of the Saints. Is that really “not taught in the Bible” ? St Augustine thought it was - he write a whole book on it. Chapter 10 of Calvin’s “The Eternal Predestination of God” is little more than a series of extracts of St. Augustine, many of which assert it very clearly, including the texts the Saint quotes. **

Sorry, but off-hand rejections are not enough.

**If God cannot preserve His saints from the chaos of evil that is within them all their lives, then it is nothing that He preserves His disciples from the winds & waves, if He cannot subdue the far worse raging of the devil. In fact, the subduing of the waters & the preservation of the terrified disciples are pledges that He will put forth all His Almighty Power to protect His servants; He is the God Who keeps His Word; He never promises what He will not perform. He has, so to say, staked His Good Name & His Godhead on the fulfilment of His Word. It is a bit late for Him to try to back out now - if His own Self-giving on the Cross canno****t prove that He is altogether faithful, what will ? Rising from death ? He has. Sending His Spirit ? He has. He has not a leg to stand on - He has done everything for His saints on earth, except admit them to the full enjoyment of His Presence hereafter. **

**And it is man, never God, who is faithless. Therefore, God does & will & can & must preserve His saints. **

 

[Righteousone]

Gottleofgeer, your profile states you are a Catholic, but it doesn’t sound to me like your heart is really in the Catholic church. Your old Protestant ways are coming back to haunt you.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Gottleofgeer, your profile states you are a Catholic, but it doesn’t sound to me like your heart is really in the Catholic church. Your old Protestant ways are coming back to haunt you.

This is the kind of comment that seperates us even more

 

[Righteousone]

Scripture is Sole, not in being an authority for Christians, but, in being the sole judge of all controversies in faith. This does not imply that Fathers & creeds & theologians & catechisms & synods & confessions of faith have no useful function in the Church - far from it ! **It does mean, that all of these are inferior in authority to God speaking through His Word in Scripture, & that they must ever be subject to correction & amendment by it. **​

**Suppose you’re correct - are Calvinists really so unobservant that they have used all those helps in addition to the Bible, yet never noticed the contradiction you see ? **

**This is where I have to “get a grip” , because it would be all too easy to rip this apart. I’m just glad I was a Protestant - it means that I know that a lot of this is simply mistaken. **​

**Last point first: Yes, the Sinner’s Prayer is in essence of **Calvinist origin. So ? How does that disqualify it ? It is in essence a somewhat diluted expression of the Puritan stress upon the importance of having a saving interest in Christ - & of what that means is spelt out in the 17th century classic “The Christian’s Great Interest”, by William Guthrie. Taken in separation from its moorings in covenant theology, the Sinner’s Prayer loses **many of its theological connections. Fortunately for us, God is not hindered by our ignorance - He takes us “just as [we are], without one plea”; what matters is His disposition toward us, not ours to Him. Salvation is not dependent on our being expert in the niceties of theology. **

Out-of-hand rejections of TULIP with no reasoning shown are of no weight; it calls for no understanding of the issues involved to reject a doctrine out of hand . As for their being “major points” - that may be so, if we are thinking only of the doctrine of salvation; but there is far more to Reformed orthodoxy than the doctrine of salvation; the doctrine of God is far more important, because that is what tells us about election & providence & the decrees which undergird TULIP. And TULIP tells us little about the Church (though it has implications for it) - yet the Church is of high importance for Calvinist doctrine; Calvinists are Churchmen because they are Christ’s men - the Puritans never weary of insisting upon the great importance of the Church.

As for TULIP:

**Take the P, which is for the Preservation of the Saints. Is that really “not taught in the Bible” ? St Augustine thought it was - he write a whole book on it. Chapter 10 of Calvin’s “The Eternal Predestination of God” is little more than a series of extracts of St. Augustine, many of which assert it very clearly, including the texts the Saint quotes. **

Sorry, but off-hand rejections are not enough.

**If God cannot preserve His saints from the chaos of evil that is within them all their lives, then it is nothing that He preserves His disciples from the winds & waves, if He cannot subdue the far worse raging of the devil. In fact, the subduing of the waters & the preservation of the terrified disciples are pledges that He will put forth all His Almighty Power to protect His servants; He is the God Who keeps His Word; He never promises what He will not perform. He has, so to say, staked His Good Name & His Godhead on the fulfilment of His Word. It is a bit late for Him to try to back out now - if His own Self-giving on the Cross canno****t prove that He is altogether faithful, what will ? Rising from death ? He has. Sending His Spirit ? He has. He has not a leg to stand on - He has done everything for His saints on earth, except admit them to the full enjoyment of His Presence hereafter. **

**And it is man, never God, who is faithless. Therefore, God does & will & can & must preserve His saints. **

C.S. Lewis used the term “a great cataract of nonsense”. When it came to the sinners prayer.
In 1977, billy Graham published a now famous book entitled “How to be born again”. For all the Scripture he used, he never once used the hallmark rebirth event in the second chapter of the Book of Acts. The cataract (blind spot) kept him away from the most powerful conversion event in all Scripture. It’s emphasis on baptism and repentance for the forgiveness of sins was incompatible with his approach.

Evangelicals are skewing church auditoriums all over the world from a clear pictue of conversion with a nonsensical practice.

 

[Righteousone]

This is the kind of comment that seperates us even more

Oh stop using excuses AllFORHIM…it gets old after a while.

 

[Righteousone]

Well, I think that maybe it may be taken too literally. I do not think he means the Catholic church, but the Christian church in general.

But there were only Catholics around then, now what?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Oh stop using excuses AllFORHIM…it gets old after a while.

I guess the truth hurts I would think before you write. Just a friendly suggestion. Not all our thoughts are fruitful to write or say out loud.
I have learned that over the years.

 

[Righteousone]

Righteousone can you please tell me what errors you are speaking of?

If you want to talk about the Catholic Bible then you have to clarify which version. The Greek Septuagint which is used for the old Testament? If so then which manuscript. It might interest you to know that several maunscripts for the Septuagint existed, many of which never contained the apocryphal books.

If you want to talk about the Vulgate that was created by Jerome which was taken from one of the Septuagint manuscripts, then right off the bat you have a copy error in Genesis 3:15. Also Jerome himself regarded the apocryphal as good reading for all Christians with regard to historical information, but explicitely stated they should never be used for doctrines of Faith. Cardinal Cajetan also held this position.

Any good church historian recognizes that the Roman Catholic church brought forth the Bible, but again please tell me where all these errors occur that you speak of?

PEACE

I am speaking about when you open up your Protestant bible, you will find 7 books fewer than there are in the Catholic bible. and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are
Tobias
Baruch
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
I Maccabees
II Maccabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel commonly called ‘the song of the three children’ (Daniel iii, 24-90, Douai version).
These were deliberately cut out, and the bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these 7 books of the OT show to what depths these unhappy men allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true church.
Luther, flinging out the Epistle of St. James calling it an ‘Epistle of straw’.
Whenever any book, such as the book of Maccabees taught a doctrine that he didn’t like, he said ‘throw it overboard’ and overboard it went.
Luther also **changed **St. Paul’s doctrine, not pleased with it instead of ‘we are saved by faith’, Luther changed it to 'we are saved by faith alone.
What surprises us Catholics is the AUDACITY of this man to do so. But this is the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgement; no authority outside of oneself. And the result we have seen the corruption of God’s Holy Word.

 

[mozart-250]

Gottleofgeer, your profile states you are a Catholic, but it doesn’t sound to me like your heart is really in the Catholic church. Your old Protestant ways are coming back to haunt you.

If more Catholics were like GottleOfGeer, Catholicism would be much more credible to me.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

If more Catholics were like GottleOfGeer, Catholicism would be much more credible to me.

AMEN!!!

 

[NDfan]

Firstly, someone had to have the idea to call God, the “Blessed Trinity”.

Trinity simply is derived from 2 Latin words tres meaning 3, and unitas meaning one. GOD the father, the son and the Spirit are described in scripture so coining a term like trinity is not inventing an idea that doesn’t have scriptural support.

No where does the bible teach that each Person of God is fully God, they do not share the divine nature. Each possesses the divine nature.

How can you say they don’t share the divine nature when Jesus flat out tells us “I and the Father are one in the same”, and the Holy Spirit is said to be of GOD as in Matthew 3.

Mortal and venial sin, are only touched upon in the bible.

You won’t find a distinction of sin in the Bible. Jesus equates hatred with Murder, and Lust with Adultery.

The Marian dogmas.

Just because the RCC has declared Marian Dogmas doesn’t mean they come from GOD. The RCC uses scripture to support Marian dogmas although incorrectly.

I don’t believe that the bible says that the Holy Spirit is eternal and uncreated. I really believe that Protestants have accepted the Catholic Church’s teachings on God. They couldn’t have found such detail in the bible.

The Bible says the Holy Spirit is of GOD so what do you think that means??

As far as enough detail in the Bible there are some church fathers who would disagree with you. In Athanasius’ statement against the Arians he said the following and I quote:

“Vainly then do they (the Arians) run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6).

So even though the council of Nicea defined the trinity they didn’t do it without scripture by inventing detail that didn’t exist. All claims made by the council are supported by scripture.

This is just the start. There are so many details of Catholicism that’s not explicitly stated in the bible.

It’s no start really at all. Details of the RCC not in scripture don’t belong anywhere in Christ’s church.

Catholics believe that the Church is a teaching body itself appointed by God. She does proclaim her teachings using BOTH Scripture AND Tradition handed down from the apostles. Scripture is not the only source of truth. God is.

Actually scripture tells us that we all are given gifts including that of teaching. No where in scripture does it say that teaching is secluded to one group, or that teaching is appointed as you say by GOD to one person or group.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

I am speaking about when you open up your Protestant bible, you will find 7 books fewer than there are in the Catholic bible. and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are
Tobias
Baruch
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
I Maccabees
II Maccabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel commonly called ‘the song of the three children’ (Daniel iii, 24-90, Douai version).
These were deliberately cut out, and the bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these 7 books of the OT show to what depths these unhappy men allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true church.
Luther, flinging out the Epistle of St. James calling it an ‘Epistle of straw’.
Whenever any book, such as the book of Maccabees taught a doctrine that he didn’t like, he said ‘throw it overboard’ and overboard it went.
Luther also **changed **St. Paul’s doctrine, not pleased with it instead of ‘we are saved by faith’, Luther changed it to 'we are saved by faith alone.
What surprises us Catholics is the AUDACITY of this man to do so. But this is the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgement; no authority outside of oneself. And the result we have seen the corruption of God’s Holy Word.

Righteousone aside from the inaccuracies of the Apocrypha it might interest you to know that Jerome who created your Vulgate Bible disregarded the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. Josephus the most prominent Jewish historian ever, never accepted them. Pope Gregory the Great stated they are not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan who opposed Luther clearly states that the apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith. So the reformers were not that crazy to exclude them.

Luther’s comments of James may have been harsh but he’s not the only scholar to question the validity of James.

As far as any Apocryphal book being used for doctrines of Faith, plenty of Catholics also seemed to agree with Luther as pointed out above.

Luther’s changing of Paul’s letter to say Faith alone doesn’t appear in any of my Bibles: NLT, NIV, ESV etc. etc. It may have at one time but certainly doesn’t now.

With respect to audacity, I would say Luther was rightfully addressing the terrible corruption that crept into the church. Maybe he could have worked from within to institute reform but that’s not what happened. How do you know he wasn’t being moved by the Holy Spirit?? You don’t.

How about making an effort to put forth some ideas for uniting the churches??

PEACE

 

[JonNC]

How about making an effort to put forth some ideas for uniting the churches??
PEACE

Originally Posted by Righteousone
I was wondering why non-Catholic Christians don’t follow what Jesus gave to St. Peter, the church, the holy Catholic church. Since everything was Catholic back then (Early Church Fathers, etc…).
Why not become Catholic as it was in the days BEFORE these gentlemen decided to go off on their own?

As someone who prays for corporate reunification, but is also willing to consider my own individual conversion, I’ve seen nothing in the way of an effort on this thread to convince me to take that very large step in that direction. I wait for someone to point out how where I am, what I believe as a Lutheran is the stepping stone to Rome. What is it in Lutheranism that has brought to this point of considering conversion, or praying for unity? Maybe I’m asking too much from a forum like this.

BLessings to all,
Jon