Why I could never follow Luther.

[TracyR]

Luthernism isn’t about Luther. Luther never planned on even starting a new religion. If you read the 95 Theses they were basically a list of complaints about the church at that given time. During the 1600s there were many dishonest people running the Church. Selling of indulgences, excessiveness when it came to having the good pleasures in life while the masses lived in abject poverty. Those where Luther’s complaints.

Luther objected to the selling of indulgences, which was not something Christ preached to His flock. Luther objected to the excessiveness that the popes, bishops, etc. were living. Things were not good during that time. Luther wanted to expose what was going on in hopes that it would change these things for the better of the church.
He never took out books of the Bible, or never stated certain ones didn’t belong in there. He didn’t preach that someone had to be “Born Again” to reach the kingdom of Heaven. Nor did he ever mention ‘sola scriptura’, etc. None of these things did he ever mention in the 95 Theses. If you really sit and read it you will see that it repeats itself many times and the common theme was that it was all about money.
I’ve never read any objections about the teaching of the church. It was objections of the bad things that were going on by the clergy. Plain and simple.

 

[benedictus2]

Luther objected to the selling of indulgences, which was not something Christ preached to His flock.

I think this has to be understood in the right context. While it is true that there was abuse of the system, the “selling” is not so much “selling” but what we consider alms giving. That alms giving helps the poor souls in purgatory is a correct doctrine. It was the wrong application of this doctrine that was question.

Luther objected to the excessiveness that the popes, bishops, etc. were living. Things were not good during that time. Luther wanted to expose what was going on in hopes that it would change these things for the better of the church.

And he was very right in bringing this to attention. The major problem is that he afterwards came up with heretical doctrine. And this is where pride came in. To think that by himself he could come up with the correct doctrine.

He never took out books of the Bible, or never stated certain ones didn’t belong in there.

But when you question the authenticity of certain books (declaring them not canonical) and put them as an appendix or call one an epistle of straw then, then you as good as took them out.

We call the Bible the Canon of Scripture. If you say that one is not canonical then it therefore is not part of of the Canon because it is not canonical.

He didn’t preach that someone had to be “Born Again” to reach the kingdom of Heaven. Nor did he ever mention ‘sola scriptura’, etc. None of these things did he ever mention in the 95 Theses.

Just because it was not part of the 95 Thesis does not mean that Luther did not teach them. Luther wrote more than the 95 thesis. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were definitely part of Luther’s teaching.

There was even a time when he and John Calvin finally realized how untennable this doctrine was.

If you really sit and read it you will see that it repeats itself many times and the common theme was that it was all about money.
I’ve never read any objections about the teaching of the church. It was objections of the bad things that were going on by the clergy. Plain and simple.

Yes there was objection about the teaching of the Church. That is why he threw out the doctrine on purgatory which is very integral to the doctrine of salvation because it did not jive with Sola Fide.

 

[benedictus2]

here are a few questions for you to consider?
Where is scripture does it say one Holy catholic and apostolic Church?

Here are a few questions for you to answer.
Where in scripture does it say that only Scripture has all the truth about Jesus?
Do you know that before we had Scripture (NT) we only had Holy Tradition?
Do you know that there was already one Holy Catholic and Apostollic Church way before we had the canon of Scriptures?

What about the meaning of the word Church. the called out ones.
Is Jesus not the head of the Church?

Which Church would that be?
Would that not be the Church that Jesus founded? Which one is that?
Would that not be the one that He built upon Peter?
Where can we find that Church that He built upon Peter?
Perhaps we should look at history, don’t you think?

You know the pharisees were here long before the roman catholic church.

Too right. And they were not Christians. Are we not talking only about Christ’s Church here?

 

[benedictus2]

I think that the Great Schism of 1054 created a division in which at least part of the Christian world did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and as the head of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

One of the conversion stories in Suprised by Truth (I can’t remember which one) , cited this fact as one reason why he ruled out the Orthodox Churches that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church had fallen in to one heresy or another. Christ promised the guidance into Truth by the Holy Spirit for His Church. To teach heresy could hardly be called being guided by the Holy Spirit.

I think that that should be a good marker for the Church of Christ, as the one who teaches the truth against all odds, to teach the truth when the truth is not fashionable. This is borne out by fact that the Catholic Church stood by what Christianity for 1930 years had always taught about contraception when every single Christian Church has fallen into this heresy. Recently I read of a Baptist minister who was openly advocating for abortion.

 

[vulcano37214]

Here are a few questions for you to answer.
Where in scripture does it say that only Scripture has all the truth about Jesus?
Do you know that before we had Scripture (NT) we only had Holy Tradition?
Do you know that there was already one Holy Catholic and Apostollic Church way before we had the canon of Scriptures?
Which Church would that be?
Would that not be the Church that Jesus founded? Which one is that?
Would that not be the one that He built upon Peter?
Where can we find that Church that He built upon Peter?
Perhaps we should look at history, don’t you think?

Too right. And they were not Christians. Are we not talking only about Christ’s Church here?

Actually before you had the new testament you had the old testament. When Paul and Peter were preaching, they were preaching on what they had seen but they were also preaching the Gospel from the old testament. when Paul referred to the Gospel of God what scriptures was he referring to. the new testament was not written yet. Here is the greek word for tradition as found in corinthians 11
παρά-δοσις (para-dosis, 3862), -εωε, ἡ, (παραδίδωμι), a giving over, giving up; i. e.

1. the act of giving up, the surrender; of cities, Polyb. 9, 25, 5; Joseph. b. j. 1, 8, 6; χρημάτων, Aristot. pol. 5, 7, 11 p. 1309a, 10.
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence i. q. instruction, Epict. diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plat. legg. 7 p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul’s teaching, 2 Th. iii. 6; in plur. of the particular injunctions of Paul’s instruction, 1 Co. xi. 2; 2 Th. ii. 15. used in the sing. of a written narrative, Joseph. c. Ap. 1, 9, 2; 10, 2; again, of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did, were to be obeyed with equal reverence (Joseph. antt. 13, 10, 6 distinguishes between τὰ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων and τὰ γεγραμμένα, i. e. τὰ ἐν τοῖς Μωϋσέως νόμοις γεγραμμένα νόμιμα): Mt. xv. 2 sq. 6; Mk. vii. 3, 5, 9, 13; with τῶν ἀνθρώπων added, as opp. to the divine teachings, Mk. vii. 8; Col. ii. 8 [where see Bp. Lghtft.]; πατρικαὶ παραδόσεις, precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the Ο. Τ. books or orally, Gal. i. 14 (al. restrict the word here to the extra-biblical traditions; cf. Meyer or Bp. Lghtft. ad loc). Cf. B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Tradition.] [This definition cites every instance of this word in the Greek NT.]

Yes Paul gave oral instructions but they did not contradict the Holy Scriptures or they did not contradict what he saw.

what is the catholic definition of tradition.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually before you had the new testament you had the old testament.
When Paul and Peter were preaching, they were preaching on what they had seen but they were also preaching the Gospel from the old testament.

Sorry but this statement already wrong.  There is no OT gospel, the Gospel is NT.  I don’t know where you got the idea that there is an OT Gospel.

when Paul referred to the Gospel of God what scriptures was he referring to. the new testament was not written yet.

When Paul referred to the Gospel of God He was referring to Christ. He was not referring to scripture. That is why he said that it was handed down to him.

Here is the greek word for tradition as found in corinthians 11
παρά-δοσις (para-dosis, 3862), -εωε, ἡ, (παραδίδωμι), a giving over, giving up; i. e.

1. the act of giving up, the surrender; of cities, Polyb. 9, 25, 5; Joseph. b. j. 1, 8, 6; χρημάτων, Aristot. pol. 5, 7, 11 p. 1309a, 10.
2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i. e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. (see παραδίδωμι, 4); hence i. q. instruction, Epict. diss. 2, 23, 40; joined with διδασκαλία, Plat. legg. 7 p. 803 a. objectively, what is delivered, the substance of the teaching: so of Paul’s teaching, 2 Th. iii. 6; in plur. of the particular injunctions of Paul’s instruction, 1 Co. xi. 2; 2 Th. ii. 15. used in the sing. of a written narrative, Joseph. c. Ap. 1, 9, 2; 10, 2; again, of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did, were to be obeyed with equal reverence (Joseph. antt. 13, 10, 6 distinguishes between τὰ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων and τὰ γεγραμμένα, i. e. τὰ ἐν τοῖς Μωϋσέως νόμοις γεγραμμένα νόμιμα): Mt. xv. 2 sq. 6; Mk. vii. 3, 5, 9, 13; with τῶν ἀνθρώπων added, as opp. to the divine teachings, Mk. vii. 8; Col. ii. 8 [where see Bp. Lghtft.]; πατρικαὶ παραδόσεις, precepts received from the fathers, whether handed down in the Ο. Τ. books or orally, Gal. i. 14 (al. restrict the word here to the extra-biblical traditions; cf. Meyer or Bp. Lghtft. ad loc). Cf. B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Tradition.] [This definition cites every instance of this word in the Greek NT.]

What has this long definition got to do with the fact that Christian tradition came before the written NT?

Yes Paul gave oral instructions but they did not contradict the Holy Scriptures or they did not contradict what he saw.

That is true. Paul did not write the Gospels either. The Gospels were written by Mark, John, Matthew and Luke.

what is the catholic definition of tradition

Holy Tradition is that which has been passed down from generation to generation beginning with the apostles. An example would be the Mass. The liturgical celebrations of the early Christians are not in the NT but it is part of Holy Tradition, that which the first Christians have handed down to us…

Before scripture was written there was only Holy Tradition - the teachings that the apostles preached by word of mouth.

 

[benedictus2]

As one who is not Catholic, I can’t see the issue through the same lens that you do. While I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as an important, and very likely, the pre-eminent, leader of Christianity, I don’t believe that I need to be subject to him in order to follow Christ faithfully. I think the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is larger than that. This doesn’t mean that I don’t pray for the unity that will bring us together in one earthly expression of the universal church.

But if it is Christ’s will that we be of one flock under His appointed shepherd in the manner of Peter, then how can we claim to be truly following Christ’s will if we willfully exclude ourselves from His Church?

To oversimplify: suppose a father says to a child you must study, help clean the hose and obey your older brother because I leave you in his charge. Could we say that the child is following the father’s will if he studies and clean the house but refuses to obey the older brother insisting that he will only obey direct orders from the father?

If the Church hierarchy is part of Christ’s will, can we be said to have obeyed His will buy refusing to follow the hierarchy that He himself has set up?

Is a refusal not tantamount to following Christ on our own terms?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Nice to have you on this thread. Great post!

God bless

Hmmm, this is quite an old thread.

Perhaps for a while you would be Lutheran. But if you are passionate about the Truth (like Fr Neuhaus) you’d soon cease to be one.

Or as Blessed John Henry Newman found out - once you are steeped in history, there’d be no other option but be Catholic.

Or even like Scott Hahn who followed the truth where it led.

 

[gcnuss]

But if it is Christ’s will that we be of one flock under His appointed shepherd in the manner of Peter, then how can we claim to be truly following Christ’s will if we willfully exclude ourselves from His Church?

To oversimplify: suppose a father says to a child you must study, help clean the hose and obey your older brother because I leave you in his charge. Could we say that the child is following the father’s will if he studies and clean the house but refuses to obey the older brother insisting that he will only obey direct orders from the father?

If the Church hierarchy is part of Christ’s will, can we be said to have obeyed His will buy refusing to follow the hierarchy that He himself has set up?

Is a refusal not tantamount to following Christ on our own terms?

I certainly don’t think that I am following Christ on my own terms. I follow him based on the teachings I have received in the Lutheran tradition which include much that existed before 1517.

I believe, teach, and confess according to the three ecumenical creeds which are included in the first section of the Book of Concord.

I believe, teach, and confess according to the Augsburg Confession which went to considerable length to show the Lutherans’ continuity with the historic church.

And, above all, I believe, teach, and confess according to Holy Scripture, much of which (the Old Testament) predates the Church. Now, I admit that my understanding of Scripture is influenced by Lutheran theology and that this is not always consonant with what the Catholic Church teaches. If I am ever convinced that the Catholic Church is the only one that has it right, then I would have to consider seriously where I belong. I am not at that point.

 

[vulcano37214]

Sorry but this statement already wrong. There is no OT gospel, the Gospel is NT. I don’t know where you got the idea that there is an OT Gospel.
When Paul referred to the Gospel of God He was referring to Christ. He was not referring to scripture. That is why he said that it was handed down to him.
What has this long definition got to do with the fact that Christian tradition came before the written NT?

That is true. Paul did not write the Gospels either. The Gospels were written by Mark, John, Matthew and Luke.


Holy Tradition is that which has been passed down from generation to generation beginning with the apostles. An example would be the Mass.  The liturgical celebrations of the early Christians are not in the NT but it is part of Holy Tradition, that which the first Christians have handed down to us..

Before scripture was written there was only Holy Tradition - the teachings that the apostles preached by word of mouth.

Read Romans
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power** by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Gospel was promised beforehand through the his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. There were a lot of prophecies fullfilled about Jesus that are in the old testament. Paul quotes the old testament at times when he is preaching, so to say that my statement was wrong to start with is incorrect. Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ but he also knew the Holy Scriptures (old testament) better than anybody.

i gave the definition so to better understand what tradition is. A lot of people think to have tradition is to have turkey on thanksgiving but Paul gave instructions to the people which is tradition. And it is not going to contradict the Scripture. If the first christians have handed down these tradition that you refer to like the mass, why would they have not been in there new testament writings.**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vuclano,

What an interesting set of questions. Let me try my hand at answering them…

here are a few questions for you to consider?
Where is scripture does it say one Holy catholic and apostolic Church?

It does not say this in the scriptures!

The phrase was first used by the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381 AD. The Canon of Scripture that you are holding so tightly was established 12 years after this phrase of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic was written. The Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the Canon - all the Books in the Bible. Luther did not come around for 1,200 years later. I think one needs to have a sense of time to really get a perspective on this matter.

But, where in the Scriptures does it say that the Scriptures contain everything we need for salvation? And, please 2Tim 3:16 does not say this…! You may, however, want to look at:

John 16:12 - Christ tells us He has not told us everything because we could not bear it at that time.

John 21:25 - Not everything that Christ said and did is written.

What about the meaning of the word Church. the called out ones.

Hi, Vuclano,

What about it? God the Father chose Peter and Christ recognized this in front of the other Apostles - and then Christ builds His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter.

In the 16th Century a group decided that they were ‘called’ by someone else and left the Church established by Christ and went to churches established by men and the fragmentation continues to this very day.

Is Jesus not the head of the Church?

Yes, Vuclano, Jesus is the Head of the Church - and the Successor of Peter is the Visible Head - the Vicar or Christ on Earth. Since the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church toward Christ - per the promise made by Christ - (John 16:13) - there is no conflict here. Christ did not promise that the leaders of His Church would be perfect, or even good, or even average … He promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail. The quality of the leadership is another issue - and, while we would like to have saintly leaders … our Faith is in Christ to bring this ship safely to harbor.

You know the pharisees were here long before the roman catholic church.

And they were here an even longer time than any of the proponents of the Reformation. By the way, what does longevity have to do with anything? Do you want to join the Jewish faith because they were here longer? The whole of idea of the NEW Covenant is that Christ completed everything that was necessary - and guess what, the Pharsiees are not needed in this New Creation of the Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) by Christ.

Strictly as a matter of information and correct usage, proper nouns are capitalized. The way you wrote Roman Catholic Church could be considered as insulting. I am sure you did not mean it that way.

God bless

 

[hrwilliams]

These debates are all well and good, but I’m going to jump in anyway.

I think there’s a reason God has allowed all these different schools of thought to form within Christianity. We balance each other out - often helping each other to avoid extremes. That is, we do this when we communicate respectfully. If we’re just trying to prove why the other person is wrong, we’re not doing anything but widening the divide between denominations. And, oh yeah, we’re shaming the name of Christ. “By this the world will know you are My disciples, if you love one another.”

I’m a hardcore Lutheran. I love it. But if someone else really feels they can’t be Lutheran, that is totally fine with me. I don’t even care what the reasons are. If you confess the Creed, if you live it with your life, we don’t really have anything worth arguing about.

 

[gracelife]

Can we agree, a person can be a Christian without the Roman Catholic Church, but not a Christian without Christ? If so, what truly is the point of this debate if we are all children of God?

Dear ones, as Advent approaches let us keep our focus on our Lord. Oh come oh come Emmanuel.

Peace.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

I do not know about anyone else, but I can not agree to this. Let me tell you why…

Can we agree, a person can be a Christian without the Roman Catholic Church, but not a Christian without Christ? If so, what truly is the point of this debate if we are all children of God?

I have no idea where (if anywhere! ) Christianity would be without the Catholic Church! You see, from a theological perspective, Christ did not found a ‘generic church’ He founded His Church on Peter, promised the gates of Hell would not prevail, promised the Holy Spirit go guide it, advised that He had more to say to us - and then entrusted all of the details to His Apostles and Ascended into Heaven.

To use an analogy: at one time, there was no such thing as ‘corn flakes’ as a breakfast food. A company named Kellogg first patented this corn product in 1894 (here is an interesting link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_flakes ) and today - there are multiple brands, sizes, additives, prices and what-have-you on this breakfast cereal. We think this is great to have so much choice given to us - and somehow get the idea this is the way it should be with everything. This is not the case with the church founded by Christ on Peter as identified in Matt 16:18.

But, note, if it were not for the Catholic Chruch, there would have been no articles defining the faith, no bible, and none of the work done by the many saints who brought the word of Christ to all nations. For example, we do not question about Christ being both True God and true man - and this is because the Catholic Church resolved this matter. It is this same Catholic Church that preserved the Faith from its founding on Peter to the present day - and that includes the various splinterings caused by those who thought they could ‘reform’ the Church founded by Christ into one founded by men who claim to follow Christ by ignoring what He said (Baptism, Holy Communion, Penance, and Holy Orders just to name four) and moving into various abominations like approving homosexual behavior, same sex marriage and embryonic stem cell experimentation.

Seriously, to use an anlaogy… why not just ignore the contributions made by Alexander the Great - and see if anyone can make sense of history without seeing how he effected the history of the world that is still with us today.

Yes advent is very close - and preparing a place in our heart for the Christ Child is the order of the day. God bless all and may the Joy the New Born Savior be in your heart all year long.

God bless

COLOR]

Dear ones, as Advent approaches let us keep our focus on our Lord. Oh come oh come Emmanuel.

Peace.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hrwilliams,

Welcome - always nice to have another jump in …

These debates are all well and good, but I’m going to jump in anyway.

I think there’s a reason God has allowed all these different schools of thought to form within Christianity. We balance each other out - often helping each other to avoid extremes.

Yes, indeed, God has a Divine Purpose that has included everything up to this very second … and then the next second, and the one after that… and so on! No doubt about it.

But your idea of ‘balance’ sounds more like a modified form of dualism, a hot to ‘balance’ a cold, an up to ‘balance’ a down… and I do not think this is the way to go. I realize that ‘extremes’ have gotten a lot of poor press lately - but not nearly as bad as ‘radical’! What I submit is that if we look at John the Baptist as a ‘moderate’ we have totally misunderstood John and his mission. John was an in-your-face extremist … with a Truth to power approach in every recorded sermon. Pointing out the errors in both religion and society of his time, he balzed as dramatic path that ultimately lead to his death. I think anyone who would have spoken to John about ‘balance’ would have had some locusts thrown at them!

That is, we do this when we communicate respectfully.

In my opinion, there is a well honed sense of civility and decorum on CAF - and the Mods have much of the credit for this usually cordial atomosphere.

If we’re just trying to prove why the other person is wrong, we’re not doing anything but widening the divide between denominations. And, oh yeah, we’re shaming the name of Christ. “By this the world will know you are My disciples, if you love one another.”

You know, Hrwilliams, maybe I did not do too good a job of understanding you concept of ‘balance’ so, I am sure I will do much worse with your concept of “…shaming the name of Christ…”! I got this mental picture of one of the members of the Sanhedrin approaching Christ with an idea of ‘balance’ … you know… maybe something like, “You already know that the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses. Try to be diplomatic, you know, they do have some good points about them and if You spoke about those as much as You spoke about their failings, there would be a sense of ‘balance’. Besides, with all of this comotion You are causing, You are shaming the name of Moses!” While such a conversation never took place … I was just imaging how it would go. What do you think?

I’m a hardcore Lutheran. I love it.

I am very happy for you, Hrwilliams, by the way, what is the difference between ‘hardcore’ and ‘free’ (as in ‘free Lutheran’)?

But if someone else really feels they can’t be Lutheran, that is totally fine with me. I don’t even care what the reasons are. If you confess the Creed, if you live it with your life, we don’t really have anything worth arguing about.

This is truly a nobel sentiment… sort of reminded of a chemistry term: Nobel Gases (you know, He, Ne, Ar and the rest of that group). I would have thought that if someone was ‘hardcore’ they would be saddened by someone leaving their church. I personally am saddened when I hear of an apostate - for their decision really does have an impact on the Body of Christ. It is not the same, as when some leave the ‘Rotary Club’ to join the ‘Lions Club’ - at least I don’t think it is the same. After all we are talking about how we will spend all eternity.

As I look back on this post, I see I have not agreed with you on much. So, maybe, since you have jumped in, you will give me some much needed clarifications.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

I certainly don’t think that I am following Christ on my own terms. I follow him based on the teachings I have received in the Lutheran tradition which include much that existed before 1517.

I believe, teach, and confess according to the three ecumenical creeds which are included in the first section of the Book of Concord.

I believe, teach, and confess according to the Augsburg Confession which went to considerable length to show the Lutherans’ continuity with the historic church.

And, above all, I believe, teach, and confess according to Holy Scripture, much of which (the Old Testament) predates the Church. Now, I admit that my understanding of Scripture is influenced by Lutheran theology and that this is not always consonant with what the Catholic Church teaches. If I am ever convinced that the Catholic Church is the only one that has it right, then I would have to consider seriously where I belong. I am not at that point.

That is a fair enough comment.

But what if the tradition itself (Lutheranism) is a following of Christ on one’s own terms because it pushes aside the very clear will of Christ as to His Church?

We can always hark back to the earlier schisms, but schisms are precisely that, a breaking away from Christ’s church.

 

[benedictus2]

Can we agree, a person can be a Christian without the Roman Catholic Church, but not a Christian without Christ?

No. Because the only reason we know of Christ is because of the Catholic Church, the Church that He established on earth.

You can be whatever denomination you are but in the end every denomination has it’s root in the Catholic Church.

If you came to know Christ because of the Bible then you came to know Christ because of the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible.

So no, you cannot be a Christian without the Catholic Church. It was through this Church that He built Himself that He caused the Gospel to be spread. This is the way that Christ willed it. As simple as that.

If so, what truly is the point of this debate if we are all children of God?

The point is Truth. Truth matters because Christ said I am the Truth.

Dear ones, as Advent approaches let us keep our focus on our Lord. Oh come oh come Emmanuel.

 

[benedictus2]

Read Romans
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power** by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. **
Yes, but he makes the connection of the OT to Gospel. The OT is not the Gospel. Paul makes the connection that Christ is who the OT spoke about.

The Gospel was **promised **

 

[gracelife]

No. Because the only reason we know of Christ is because of the Catholic Church, the Church that He established on earth.

You can be whatever denomination you are but in the end every denomination has it’s root in the Catholic Church.

If you came to know Christ because of the Bible then you came to know Christ because of the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church that gave you the Bible.

So no, you cannot be a Christian without the Catholic Church. It was through this Church that He built Himself that He caused the Gospel to be spread. This is the way that Christ willed it. As simple as that.

The point is Truth. Truth matters because Christ said I am the Truth.

Ooops, unintended can of worms!!!

Agreed, the historical significance of the RCC cannot be denied. That was not my contention; it’s a given. By God’s grace, He preserved His Gospel despite sinful man.

Let me clarify what I meant.
A person can be a Christian without being a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but not a Christian without Christ.

Amen, amen. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

We sound like the Corinthians (chapter 1)…

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Benedict”, or “I follow Luther,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Benedict crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther? … but we preach Christ crucified…And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption… [considering 1 Corinthians Chapters 1 and 2]

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. 1 Corinthian 3:21-22

My “poke” then is that Catholic apologetics so easily takes it’s focus off of Christ and puts it on other things … the Church, etc.

Lutheranism…striving to keep the main thing the main thing; Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[benedictus2]

Ooops, unintended can of worms!!!

Agreed, the historical significance of the RCC cannot be denied. That was not my contention; it’s a given. By God’s grace, He preserved His Gospel despite sinful man.

Let me clarify what I meant.
A person can be a Christian without being a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but not a Christian without Christ.

Amen, amen. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

We sound like the Corinthians (chapter 1)…

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Benedict”, or “I follow Luther,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Benedict crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther? … but we preach Christ crucified…And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption… [considering 1 Corinthians Chapters 1 and 2]

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. 1 Corinthian 3:21-22

My “poke” then is that Catholic apologetics so easily takes it’s focus off of Christ and puts it on other things … the Church, etc.

Lutheranism…striving to keep the main thing the main thing; Christ Jesus our Lord.

The question is can a person be said to be fully Christian without following the fullness of Christ’s will? To be a Christian means not selectively choosing which bit of Christ’s will we follow. When we do that we are not following Christ but our own will. We follow Christian teachings that suit us, not all of Christian teaching. We follow Christ on our own terms.

Now, the Church is something that Christ very clearly willed. It is also very clear in the gospels that He established a hierarchical Church. He prayed for His Church to be one. And it was so till the schisms started (which I suppose is inevitable, us being failed human beings). But He knew that too, that is why, even though He prayed for His Church’s unity, what He did guarantee is that His Church will be led into Truth. You could say that the one marker of His Church will be that of the speaker of Truth.

Interestingly enough, He did not guarantee her member’s holiness (and yet He could so easily have done that).
He did not claim goodness for Himself either. He said that only the Father is good. But what He did claim for Himself is that He is the Truth. And since His Church is His Body, she therefore must be true to her head and proclaim truth as well.

So therefore you are right it is not about being for Benedict or Luther but rather about being for Christ.

The thing is, while Pope Benedict is in the line of the apostolic succession, Luther is not and while you can trace the Catholic Church back to Christ, Lutheranism stops with Luther.

The point is, while the Popes ( though some were terribly immoral) never taught heresy, Luther did. So whoever veered from the Truth, veered away from Christ.

So your poke is terribly off tangent and wrong.

Catholic Apologetics is about Christ because it is about the Church and the Church is Christ’s Body.

You wish for a spiritual decapitation – the Head minus the Body. But this can’t be so because this is not what Christ willed. For sure He did not need to establish a Church. But He did. So His will is very clear on this matter.

So based on the above, Lutheranism can hardly be said to be striving to keep the main thing – Jesus Christ… What Lutheranism insists on keeping is Lutheranism – the primacy of the I.