Why I am not Catholic - Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(jmt) Hi Angainor…just for clarification…what did you mean by my descriptions of the Church’s actions being “anthropomorphisms”?

(Angainor) Well, for instance, when you say “consult the Church” I imagine you mean litterally ask the Church and the Church will literally give you back a reliable answer.

(jmt) Yes. The Church Militant today is a visible society, tangible, just as it was in the days of the Apostle Peter when a crowd asked him, “what must we do to be saved?” and he answered them, “Repent and be baptized.”

The situation as I understand it is for you would be to ask “what matters pertaining to the Revelation of Jesus Christ are indisputable?” and the Successor to St Peter’s office would/has answered, “Everything that the Church holds as ‘de fide’ - as part of The Faith.”

(Angainor) My vision of the Church is much different. It is hard to explain, but I will try. I see the Church as sort of a historical force that has preserved the truth of the Gospel through the centuries and will continue to preserve the truth of the Gospel.

(jmt) Is this ‘force’ visible or invisible? If it’s ‘invisible’ then how are we to know whether or not it has preserved th truth of the Gosple? I don’t see how you can do this without reference to a visible society.

(Angainor) It is not something an individual can directly interact with, however, the Church is an aid to an individual seeking the truth. There is much faith involved when learning truth from the Church because no assurances are given to the individual. I know the Church exists because the truth of the Gospel is still revealed 2000 years later.

(jmt) But how do you “learn truth”? How do you know that the Gospel revealed today is the Gospel preached by the Apostles 2000 years ago? and specifically, how do you know that your understanding of what the Gospel message demands from us has not been changed or corrupted?

(jmt) …may I ask, do you believe that Jesus is God?

(Angainor) **You may. It might help if I describe the progression of my understanding of Jesus after my time as a Deist.

When I first came to believe in Jesus, my understanding of him could be summarized by the greek fish acronym: ΙΧΘΥΣ, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. I accepted Jesus as the Son of God, but didn’t really know what that meant.**

(jmt) Do you believe that Jesus - as God’s Son - became man inorder to communicate to mankind what we must believe and do inorder to be saved? In other words, when we say “I believe in Jesus”, does “believing” contain “dogmatic truth”? If God has revealed through the teaching ministry of Jesus “a truth” - for example, that He is One God in Three Persons - if we say we “believe in Jesus” must we also accept as truth “the doctrine of the Trinity”? If so, then would this hold true for everything that Jesus has revealed as true?

How do we come to a knowledge of what Jesus has revealed?

(Angainor) Today I still believe in Jesus as God’s Son. I believe Jesus was a divine person with a human nature. “God in a bod” might be a crude but fairly accurate way to explain it. This is not the Catholic understanding at all. I don’t think Lutherans try to pin down the exact nature of Jesus, so I might be OK there.

(jmt) You say “I might be OK there” in your understanding of Jesus? Wouldn’t you like to know whether or not you are? Wouldn’t you like to know the truth about the nature of Jesus Christ such that you don’t fall into heresy as did the Gnostics who St John called “antichrists” because they misunderstood the nature of Christ’s “flesh”?

(Angainor) I think for Lutherans this would fall under the Romans 14:1 category of “disputable matter”.

(jmt) For the record it’s not a disputable matter. It matters to God that we accept as true what He has in fact declared to be true, as our Lord has affirmed, the Father seeks those who worship in Spirit and in Truth.

The question becomes, what means has God provided for mankind - for you and for me - to come to a knowledge of what He has Revealed? such that to “believe in Jesus” is to believe in every truth He has taught us from God for our salvation?

The historcial evidence is that Jesus established a visible society - His Church - to make known the saving truth we are to believe without dispute.

The reason I’m not Protestant is because it can easily be seen that their understanding of God’s Revealed Truth is both contradictory (if I look at Protestantism as a whole) and of later origin (if I look at each branch of Protestantism individually).

Bascially, I see your position as reducing God’s Revelation to “trust in Jesus” when to “believe in Jesus” reguires more than just trust - it reguires knowledge of and assent to dogmatic truth.

Keep the Faith
John
 
quote=John Taylor But how do you “learn truth”? How do you know that the Gospel revealed today is the Gospel preached by the Apostles 2000 years ago? and specifically, how do you know that your understanding of what the Gospel message demands from us has not been changed or corrupted?
[/quote]

The Apostle’s main concern was teaching people how to learn truth. Their epistles speak to this.

Truth must be taught from one generation to the next, but are we to swallow everything we are taught, hook, line, and sinker? No. We are to test everything (1 Tim 5:21).

quote=John Taylor Do you believe that Jesus - as God’s Son - became man inorder to communicate to mankind what we must believe and do inorder to be saved?
[/quote]

That is a very thought-provoking question. This is what I wrote as my first reaction:No. God sent prophet after prophet to communicate his will to mankind. “Communication” is not why Jesus became man (although Jesus did communicate the Father’s will far better than any single prophet).

Then I remembered the parable of the Tenants. Perhaps you are right.
John Taylor:
In other words, when we say “I believe in Jesus”, does “believing” contain “dogmatic truth”? If God has revealed through the teaching ministry of Jesus “a truth” - for example, that He is One God in Three Persons - if we say we “believe in Jesus” must we also accept as truth “the doctrine of the Trinity”? If so, then would this hold true for everything that Jesus has revealed as true?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I entirely follow you, but my vision of being a Christian has more to do with who we must become than what we must do.

quote=John Taylor You say “I might be OK there” in your understanding of Jesus? Wouldn’t you like to know whether or not you are?
[/quote]

That’s the million dollar question. Of course I would like to know for absolute certain. Absolute certainty is not God’s will for me. Absolute certainty was not God’s will for Jesus, either.Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the Test.’” Matt 4:7
 
quote=John Taylor Is this ‘force’ visible or invisible? If it’s ‘invisible’ then how are we to know whether or not it has preserved th truth of the Gosple? I don’t see how you can do this without reference to a visible society.
[/quote]

As to what my understanding of The Church is,

No offense intended, but I personally think it is rather ego-centric to ask the question “How am I to know whether or not The Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel.”

I view the Church’s first priority is to the preservation of knowledge of the truth. The Church protects the truth from constant assults from false philosophies. Its methods may be mysterious to us. I think the Church works primarily for the benefit of the truth, not primarily for my personal benefit. Of course we all indirectly benefit by having the truth preserved through the centuries.
 
40.png
Angainor:
As to what my understanding of The Church is,

No offense intended, but I personally think it is rather ego-centric to ask the question “How am I to know whether or not The Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel.”

I view the Church’s first priority is to the preservation of knowledge of the truth. The Church protects the truth from constant assults from false philosophies. Its methods may be mysterious to us. I think the Church works primarily for the benefit of the truth, not primarily for my personal benefit. Of course we all indirectly benefit by having the truth preserved through the centuries.
Click to expand...
You asked the question, how are you to know whether or not the Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel. The gospel was put together by the church, therefore to trust the gospel is to trust those who put it together. If an author tells us what his book means, that’s what it means. When the gospel is treated like modern art where each individual interpretation is “valid” then we come into the protestant problem of multiple interpretations that have no end nor coherence. If we believe that truth exist, then there should be one definitive interpretation to these things and all deviations from this is by default, not true.

in XT.
 
While I am certain that it pains Our Lord to see divisions in His church, judging, whether disputable or indisputable is a two way street.
40.png
Angainor:
Part I

Catholicism could review the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod’s (LCMS) confessional documents and say "We agree with your confessions. You are welcome to consider yourselves Catholic ‘as-is’. No strings attached.

Catholicism doesn’t do that, of course. I can only assume it is because it has in fact reviewed the LCMS confessional documents and said instead "We have reviewed your confessions and concluded that you cannot consider yourselves Catholic because of Theological matter “A”, Theological matter “B”, Theological matter “C”, etc.

It is perfectly within Catholicism’s right not to associate with those it does not agree with. I have no dispute with that.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Romans 14:1

If Theological matters A, B, & C are all indisputable matters than Catholicism also has every right to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS and declare them outside of Christ’s Church.

If, however, Theological matters A, B, & C are instead “disputable matters” then there Catholicism has no right at all to pass judgment on the beliefs of the LCMS, much less take it upon itself to declare the LCMS outside of Christ’s Church.

It is my belief that Theological matters A, B, & C are “disputable”. I regard Catholicism’s judgment of those matters to be a 500 year old unreconciled injustice.
Click to expand...
 
(jmt) But how do you “learn truth”? How do you know that the Gospel revealed today is the Gospel preached by the Apostles 2000 years ago? and specifically, how do you know that your understanding of what the Gospel message demands from us has not been changed or corrupted?

(Angainor) The Apostle’s main concern was teaching people how to learn truth. Their epistles speak to this.

(jmt) Are you saying that the Scriptures “interpret themselves”? If Protestantism teaches us anything it is that men must interpret the Scriptures and when they do so - divorced from Sacred Tradition and from the teaching Authority of the Church founded by Christ - they come to contradictory conclusions as to the meaning of what God has revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

In any event, what instructions from the Apostles do you have in mind which show you how to arrive at a true understanding of their writings? I have in mind 1Thess 2:13, 2Thess 2:15, and especially 2Tim 2:2

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1Thess)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2Thess)

*And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. * (2Tim)

If I want to know and properly understand “the word of God” as it was recieved by the Apostles - must I not seek those who have received the Apostle’s instructions and inquire as to their understanding of it?

(Angainor) Truth must be taught from one generation to the next, but are we to swallow everything we are taught, hook, line, and sinker? No. We are to test everything (1 Tim 5:21)

(jmt) But from Scripture, whose test has the authority to bind the believer in conscience? Again, I refer you to Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

(jmt) Do you believe that Jesus - as God’s Son - became man inorder to communicate to mankind what we must believe and do inorder to be saved?

(Angainor) **That’s a very thought-provoking question. This is what I wrote as my first reaction:

No. God sent prophet after prophet to communicate his will to mankind. “Communication” is not why Jesus became man (although Jesus did communicate the Father’s will far better than any single prophet).

Then I remembered the parable of the Tenants. Perhaps you are right.**

(jmt) Continue thinking about the question. Read the Gospels and pay attention to what Jesus does: He teaches and He works miracles to prove that His teachings are from God…and some of His teachings are “hard to accept”…

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60)

but because of the miracles He worked

The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me (John 10:25)

St Peter was able to keep faith in Jesus:

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-9)

(continued)
 
(jmt) In other words, when we say “I believe in Jesus”, does “believing” contain “dogmatic truth”? If God has revealed through the teaching ministry of Jesus “a truth” - for example, that He is One God in Three Persons - if we say we “believe in Jesus” must we also accept as truth “the doctrine of the Trinity”? If so, then would this hold true for everything that Jesus has revealed as true?

(Angainor) I’m not sure I entirely follow you, but my vision of being a Christian has more to do with who we must become than what we must do.

(jmt) Angainor! How is it that you can separate who we are from what we do? Doesn’t our Lord affirm that by our fruits we are known? and doesn’t the things we believe play a large role in what we decide to do?

Question: does God definitively reveal through Jesus Christ that human life begins at the moment of conception and so abortion is murder?

If you believe “yes” then you will act in ways to combat the evil of abortion and seek to help those who are faced with a problem pregnancy.

If you believe “no” then will you not act in ways that tolerates abortion, maybe even promoting it as a “loving action” in “the hard cases”?

Make no mistake about it, Jesus came not just to provide for us the forgiveness of sins but to teach us what is and isn’t sin so that we might chose to “sin no more”.

(jmt) You say “I might be OK there” in your understanding of Jesus? Wouldn’t you like to know whether or not you are?

(Angainor) That’s the million dollar question. Of course I would like to know for absolute certain. Absolute certainty is not God’s will for me. Absolute certainty was not God’s will for Jesus, either.
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the Test.’” Matt 4:7

(jmt) Indeed faith is required to “believe in Jesus” but Jesus has affirmed that He will guide us “into all truth” and promised to preserve His “assembly of called out ones” from being overpowered by the forces of hell which includes the preservation of His truth from error. So if I truly “believe in Jesus” then it follows that I must believe in His promise to lead His Church into truth and to preserve it from error…and that this is what He has in fact done from the time of the Apostles to the present.

Keep the Faith
John
 
40.png
Angainor:
It is my belief that Theological matters A, B, & C are “disputable”. I regard Catholicism’s judgment of those matters to be a 500 year old unreconciled injustice. I fully admit that defining “disputable matters” is problematic. Recognizing “disputable matters” appears to be a highly subjective process. What is “disputable” in one Christian’s beliefs might be “indisputable” in another’s. As Christians we should be on guard against subjectivism in any form. Having said that, Paul did set apart some matters as “disputable”. Furthermore, Paul counted on the Romans to be able to tell what matters are “disputable”. Because of this, I am confident that a) Some matters are disputable, and b) those matters are recognizable as disputable.

I would say you have dropped your alleged “guard against subjectivity”. We are also told to “be subject to the Presbyters” - how can the Presbyters be “over” us if they don’t get to decide when something is disputable or not?

The second extreme would be for one party in a dispute to say “This matter is not disputable because I say it is not disputable”. This should be obviously nonsense…, but it is the position of Catholicism.

You failed to substantiate the reason why it is “obviously nonsense” for Peters successor to make that claim. If it is so obvious, please illuminate us.

Between those two extremes there should be a way to determine “disputable matters”. In a straight-forward case a “disputable matter” would be a matter where one party in a dispute says to the other party “I believe this, but I see how you could believe that, and since we are not discussing a well-known fundamental Christian truth, it is OK for us to dispute that fact.”

You seem to be assuming that each party has an equal “right” to give an opinion, and that they are only bound to their own opinion. Scripture does not teach this unequivocably. Again: “Likewise, you younger members BE SUBJECT TO THE PRESBYTERS”…

A disputable matter would be a matter that cannot be reasonably determined definitively using the tools God gave us for determining the truth.

You simply return full circle to the problem: what is the tool God gave us? Is it intellect? Is it the bible? Or is it the Church? Scripture indicates that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth - even for someone who “knows the Scriptures”.

I give for example, the assumption of Mary. I believe this to be a “disputable matter”. I don’t think that matter can be determined definitively using the tools God gave us for determining the truth.

Who cares what you think? Who cares what I think? How much of Scripture can be “determined definitively using the tools God gave us” (Whatever that means…)? Any of it? On what basis do we accept it? Tradition my friend.

I believe it to be an injustice that Catholicism judges my faith on this disputable matter.

No one is judging your faith. If you believe Im wrong, please let me know which bishop has condemned you. Perhaps you feel convicted when you read the teachings of the Church, but that is not the Church condemning you or your faith - thats simply your reaction to their proclomation of the truth. The question that remains unawered is whether you are ignoring the tool that God gave us to resolve the dispute or not. You call yourself a Lutheran - what did Luther have to say about Mary? Did he condemn her as idolatrous? Did he deny the assumption?
Click to expand...
 
(Angainor) …I see the Church as sort of a historical force that has preserved the truth of the Gospel through the centuries…

(jmt) Is this ‘force’ visible or invisible? If it’s ‘invisible’ then how are we to know whether or not it has preserved th truth of the Gosple? I don’t see how you can do this without reference to a visible society.

(Angainor) …No offense intended, but I personally think it is rather ego-centric to ask the question "How am I to know whether or not The Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel."

(jmt) Ahh…now why do you think it ego-centric to question whether or not “the Church” has preserved the truth of the Gospel? Could it be you recognize that to repudiate the Church is to repudiate Christ? Could it be that to question whether or not “the truth of the Gospel” - the true and proper understanding of it - has been preserved without error by “the Church” is to question the Divinity and Authority of Jesus Christ Himself? Afterall, if Jesus promises to guide His Church “into all truth” but instead His Church “falls into error” then what does this say about Jesus of Nazereth? What does this say about the “inspiration” of St Paul’s writings when he describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?

Make no mistake about it…if “the Church” could ever fall into error - such that it might declare a matter “indisputable” (as in the case of defining the Canon of the New Testament) when in truth such was not the case - then the world would have every reason to doubt everything “the Church” claims about Jesus of Nazereth.

As for me, my faith is that Jesus is God and as God He has and always will preserve His Church from ever “dogmatically” teaching error.

(Angainor) I view the Church’s first priority is to the preservation of knowledge of the truth. The Church protects the truth from constant assults from false philosophies. Its methods may be mysterious to us. I think the Church works primarily for the benefit of the truth, not primarily for my personal benefit. Of course we all indirectly benefit by having the truth preserved through the centuries.

(jmt) AMEN! Now, please, Angainor, direct me to this Church.

Keep the Faith
jmt
 
quote=John Taylor Truth must be taught from one generation to the next, but are we to swallow everything we are taught, hook, line, and sinker? No. We are to test everything (1 Tim 5:21)

(jmt) But from Scripture, whose test has the authority to bind the believer in conscience? Again, I refer you to Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
[/quote]

Matthew 18:15-20 does not speak to discerning the truth.
verse 15: "If you brother sins against you,…
“Your brother’s” actions are known to be sinful. The truth is already recognized. In Matthew 18:17 you are coming no closer to the truth by telling the Church your brother sinned against you.

Matthew 18:17 is useful to be sure, just not useful as direction for discovering the truth.
 
quote=John Taylor …No offense intended, but I personally think it is rather ego-centric to ask the question "How am I to know whether or not The Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel."

(jmt) Ahh…now why do you think it ego-centric to question whether or not “the Church” has preserved the truth of the Gospel?
[/quote]

I think it is ego-centric for an individual to expect the Church to both preserve the truth of the Gospel and actively reveal that truth to that individual on demand.

I think the Church has put in a good day’s work if it simply preserves the truth. The individual then has responsiblility to come to the truth.
John Taylor:
Make no mistake about it…if “the Church” could ever fall into error - such that it might declare a matter “indisputable” (as in the case of defining the Canon of the New Testament) when in truth such was not the case - then the world would have every reason to doubt everything “the Church” claims about Jesus of Nazereth.
Click to expand...
The Church can never fall into error. But again, I think “declare a matter ‘indisputable’” is improper anthropomorphism. I do not think it is the Church’s role to actively reveal the truth to an individual on demand.

This is a wide chasm between me and Catholicism, and it is “why I am not Catholic - Revisited”
 
quote=John Taylor …I see the Church as sort of a historical force that has preserved the truth of the Gospel through the centuries…

(jmt) Is this ‘force’ visible or invisible? If it’s ‘invisible’ then how are we to know whether or not it has preserved th truth of the Gosple? I don’t see how you can do this without reference to a visible society.

(Angainor) …No offense intended, but I personally think it is rather ego-centric to ask the question "How am I to know whether or not The Church has preserved the truth of the Gospel."

(jmt) Ahh…now why do you think it ego-centric to question whether or not “the Church” has preserved the truth of the Gospel? Could it be you recognize that to repudiate the Church is to repudiate Christ? Could it be that to question whether or not “the truth of the Gospel” - the true and proper understanding of it - has been preserved without error by “the Church” is to question the Divinity and Authority of Jesus Christ Himself? Afterall, if Jesus promises to guide His Church “into all truth” but instead His Church “falls into error” then what does this say about Jesus of Nazereth? What does this say about the “inspiration” of St Paul’s writings when he describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?

Make no mistake about it…if “the Church” could ever fall into error - such that it might declare a matter “indisputable” (as in the case of defining the Canon of the New Testament) when in truth such was not the case - then the world would have every reason to doubt everything “the Church” claims about Jesus of Nazereth.

As for me, my faith is that Jesus is God and as God He has and always will preserve His Church from ever “dogmatically” teaching error.

(Angainor) I view the Church’s first priority is to the preservation of knowledge of the truth. The Church protects the truth from constant assults from false philosophies. Its methods may be mysterious to us. I think the Church works primarily for the benefit of the truth, not primarily for my personal benefit. Of course we all indirectly benefit by having the truth preserved through the centuries.

(jmt) AMEN! Now, please, Angainor, direct me to this Church.

Keep the Faith
jmt
[/quote]

I’d love to direct you to this church: 😃
The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.
It’s great to be Catholic 😃
 
Angainor, so what do you really want? Do you really want to learn something about the Catholic faith?
You can find truth in so many places, take the coming home network and ewtn, do you really want answers to your questions?
Will any answer ever really make you happy? Nothing you can say to me will ever change the fact that I will never leave the Catholic church and since you obviously feel the same way about your faith, what do you get out of this? Are you trying to convert Catholics? I just don’t get it, you obviously are not really wanting to learn anything and you have made sure we know “this is why I’m not Catholic” Well, then what are you doing on a Catholic message board?? Just wondering :confused:
 
40.png
kamz:
It’s great to be Catholic 😃
Click to expand...
It very well may be. I’m just telling you why I’m not Catholic.

I presume I am not Catholic because Catholicism has reviewed the confessional documents I profess and Catholicism has declared Theological matters A,B,&C found therein to disqualify me for Catholicism.

It’s that simple.
 
:confused: So why are you at this message board? To learn about the Catholic faith? Why? You have made it crystal clear the Catholic faith is not for you so why would you have to let us know this is why you are not Catholic?? So, you are not Catholic and you don’t want to be Catholic, so don’t, we all have free will and this is U.S.A. and we are so lucky we have the right to religious freedom, so you want to be LCMS and you are happy with this? Then why come to a Catholic message board and let us know why your not? Do you want us to try to change your mind? I doubt it, so what do you get from this, please tell me
 
40.png
kamz:
Angainor, so what do you really want?
Click to expand...
That is a good question. Perhaps I am just looking to be understood.
40.png
kamz:
Do you really want to learn something about the Catholic faith?
You can find truth in so many places, take the coming home network and ewtn, do you really want answers to your questions?
Click to expand...
The “coming home network”, eh?

Catholics invite me to “come home”, impling that Catholicism is the natrual home for Christians. I stand where I stand. Catholicism has erected yellow tape barriers that I happen to stand outside of. I would be violating my conscience to leave my spot and walk under the yellow tape.

What do I really want? Maybe I would be happier if Catholicism ended its standing invitation for me to betray my conscience.
 
Hey, I’ve gone to many LCMS message boards and been “blasted for being Catholic” and of course told that the only way is the LCMS way also happened at Baptists boards, so…I am now staying away from them. I come to this board to visit with Catholics as I think protestants like to visit with fellow protestants, I don’t think anyone is going to come looking for you if you don’t want them to. You say you want to be understood? Well, we are Catholic and we love you as a member of the family of Christ but we will never say "oh, yeah, we are all gonna join you in the LCMS, and it just seems like from my view, that is what you want and it is never going to happen and I accept that you have no desire to be Catholic and I respect that and really, hey, do what you will and be happy in your life, when your happy with yourself and you know your faith is right you don’t need to be understood by others when you are understood by God, why care what we think? If you really are happy in the LCMS if we understand you or not should really not matter, correct? So, are you really happy? I hope you are and I’ll pray for you. 🙂
 
40.png
Angainor:
I presume I am not Catholic because Catholicism has reviewed the confessional documents I profess and Catholicism has declared Theological matters A,B,&C found therein to disqualify me for Catholicism.

It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
Then shouldn’t we as brothers in Christ - wanting to be in obedience to Christ when He teaches us through His Apostle St Paul…

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1Cor 1:10)

…investigate “theological matters A,B, & C” and seek agreement? If these matters are - in your opinion “debatabele” - then why should the Lutheran Church allow them to be a cause of division?

Keep the Faith
jmt
 
40.png
mlchance:
There’s a circular argument.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...

I don’t think so - it looks to me like the statement of a principle.​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top