Why I could never follow Luther.

[JustaServant]

This is exactly what has puzzled me about Janet’s avatar. I have been meaning to ask her about this with exactly the same point you raised.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Nothing wrong IMO with Janet’s calling herself a ‘slave of Christ’, but I get your point. Being a servant of Christ is an awesome responsibility that requires humility and obedience. That obedience part is something we all struggle with, but at least we know which commands we are momentarily ignoring. Acknowledging those commands is the first step. Sifting through the innumerable “interpretations” of those commands is the merry-go-round that perplexes most evangelicals. I know it did me.

 

[taxman]

Well, Luther didn’t leave the Church voluntarily. He was excommunicated. In my opinion he had some very valid issues to contend with. I won’t pretend to know the details of his excommunication, but I’m sure someone on the forum does. IMO, it was what happened after he was excommunicated that bothers me; Rejecting the deuterocanonical books and attempting to throw out James and the Book of Revelation, among others; The notion of private interpretation; and, believing that he had any authority to administer the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. He was a priest and should have known better.

St. Francis encountered great corruption in his time as well but transformed the Church from within by his own holy example while remaining faithful and obedient. He made bishops weep at their own sinfulness through his preaching and transformed their lives as well.

My understanding is that Luther was well intentioned in weeding out corrupt practices and if we are to be honest, they were rampant during that period. He certainly crossed the line at some point, however, or he would not have been excommunicated. Maybe someone can fill in the details.

Hello everyone interested,
I’m not going to claim that I know all of the answers for this issue but as an ex elder of the Lutheran church, and someone who started to become a Deacon I did get a pretty good understanding of Luthers discontent.

1st of all he was appointed by the RCC, to teach the New Testament to those entering the priesthood as someone who was an expert in the New testament. Upon his discovery, he taught that Jesus’ death on the cross was "payment in full " for our sins, and that paying cash for our penence was contradictory to that of what the New testament and Jesus’ teachings.

When the senior priest, sent him to the Vatican to deliver a letter he witnessed priests, cardinals, bishops all partaking of sins of the flesh. When he brought this to the popes attention, that these issues and that of the false teaching among many other teachings of the church being in contradiction of the bible and what Jesus taught needed to be corrected.

The pope at the time basically came out and told him that he was just a priest and that he being the pope was the supreme authority and he needed to know his place. To basically renounce his wrongful teachings and accept that which the pope said or be excommunicated. Long story short, he addressed his patron ruler with what he had come to find in the bible and this was spread to other princes and rulers in Germany, who were willing to give their lives by beheading if they were wrong. So the church excommunicated Luther and the rulers, put a bounty on Luthers head but because he was protected by the rulers of that area of Germany, the pope wasn’t about to start a war for the teaching he was spreading.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Taxman,

Welcome to CAF - I think you will find this list a source of knowledge and insight. Now, let me address your post…

Hello everyone interested,
I’m not going to claim that I know all of the answers for this issue but as an ex elder of the Lutheran church, and someone who started to become a Deacon I did get a pretty good understanding of Luthers discontent.

1st of all he was appointed by the RCC, to teach the New Testament to those entering the priesthood as someone who was an expert in the New testament. Upon his discovery, he taught that Jesus’ death on the cross was "payment in full " for our sins, and that paying cash for our penence was contradictory to that of what the New testament and Jesus’ teachings.

When the senior priest, sent him to the Vatican to deliver a letter he witnessed priests, cardinals, bishops all partaking of sins of the flesh. When he brought this to the popes attention, that these issues and that of the false teaching among many other teachings of the church being in contradiction of the bible and what Jesus taught needed to be corrected.

The pope at the time basically came out and told him that he was just a priest and that he being the pope was the supreme authority and he needed to know his place. To basically renounce his wrongful teachings and accept that which the pope said or be excommunicated. Long story short, he addressed his patron ruler with what he had come to find in the bible and this was spread to other princes and rulers in Germany, who were willing to give their lives by beheading if they were wrong. So the church excommunicated Luther and the rulers, put a bounty on Luthers head but because he was protected by the rulers of that area of Germany, the pope wasn’t about to start a war for the teaching he was spreading.

No doubt about it, Taxman, the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) was not following Christ. Luther accepted the Catholic Church as the True Church - and then saw just how far these leaders had fallen. Truly this was a very sorry state for Christ’s Church. It appears that Luther really did try to make some positive changes - and, they did not work out. So, at least on this much we are one the same page.

In all honesty, it is impossible to separate the period known as the Reformaiton from the policitcal realities of building nation-states. Money leaving Germany (and England, France, Switzerland, etc) and going to Italy caused additional tensions. Both religion and politics were folded into this mix in such a way that trying to pull one out without effecting the other is just not possible. As I saw it, Luther received support from the various princes and nobels becuse he was providing something to them that was more complex than a religious dispute.

There was a point when, at least in my opinion, Luther and St. Catherine of Siena had a lot in common - the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) was, like ancient Israel, stumbling around in flesh-pots of sin. Catherine found ways to bring about real reform two hundred years before Luther. Somewhere in this process, Luther stopped trying to reform and separated from the Catholic Church. His refusal to abide by the teachings of the Church (and abuses are abuses and sin but, not they are not teachings of the Church, e.g., the selling of indulgences).

If anyone thought that the Church of Christ would be free of sinful men, then they did not have long to wait before that delusion came crashing down! The next couple of verses after Christ identifies Peter as the foundation of the Church of Christ (the Catholic Church) and gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and tells Peter whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven and on earth - Peter starts to tell Christ that He need not die. Christ does not just rebuke him by calling him just any list of appropriate names - Christ calls Peter a devil! Months later, this same Peter would deny Christ to His face three times! There have been many sinful Popes (all of them, in fact!) but no one else denied Christ!

The bottom line, however, is that Christ did not return in the 16th Century, tell Luther that He was taking back His recognition of Peter and his successors and was now empowering Luther to build another church. That simply did not happen. The very fact that the Protestant groups are still here is a sign from God that He wants them around… and maybe it is to make sure that the Catholic Church stays on its toes!

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vulcano,

I think Benedictus2 gave you an excellent response. There was one item in your post that I neglected to address. Let me make up for that now…

As far as John 6 i do not think that Jesus was being literal there just as he was not being literal in Mathew 5:29
29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

There really were times when Christ used terms of speech to get a point over - and He really was not being literal. For example: When Christ said

1.) “I am the vine…” - no one thought He had become a plant.
2.) “I am the sheepgate…” no one thought He had become a fence
3.) “You are worth many sparrows…” no one wondered just how many sparrows they were worth, etc.

What makes these statements noteworthy is that he did not stress over and over again that He was an object to get them to understand His teaching. This is the single biggest difference between Matt 5:29 - an exaggeration to get the attention of listeners. After all, if you can commit adultery in your mind, you certainly do not need a eye or a hand to sin.
John 6:25-71 is unique because of its length and repitition and teaching focus about the noursishment given by God. Christ weaves this in - and focuses on Him giving Himself to be consumed by us - and that this must happen if we are to have eternal life! This is not an option. Take the time to read this - there are no less than 20 references to what will beocme the entire focus of His Last Passover Meal with His Apostles -“the night before He died”. No where else is there this kind of repitition.

But, if that were not convincing enough, note this, no one walked out on Christ because He compared himself to a plant, or a gate,or compared people to sparrows! They would not have walked out on Him if He had simply compared Himself to bread and left it as just another analogy. He did not do this - AND when challenged by His listeners, He did not back down - He was in their faces demanding that they eat His Flesh. “This is a hard saying”, is just another way of saying “He’s crazy!” They walked because they refused to believe what Christ said. New people have replaced these originals disbelievers - and they walk away for the same reason: they refuse to take Christ at His Word.

To refuse to take Christ at His Word is to refuse to believe Christ can do what He said! Ultimately, either He is God and has the Power to be physically present under the appearance of Bread and Wine - or He lied! Catholics beleve the Word of God.

God bless

 

[sv37015]

Hi, Vulcano,

I think Benedictus2 gave you an excellent response. There was one item in your post that I neglected to address. Let me make up for that now…

There really were times when Christ used terms of speech to get a point over - and He really was not being literal. For example: When Christ said

1.) “I am the vine…” - no one thought He had become a plant.
2.) “I am the sheepgate…” no one thought He had become a fence
3.) “You are worth many sparrows…” no one wondered just how many sparrows they were worth, etc.

What makes these statements noteworthy is that he did not stress over and over again that He was an object to get them to understand His teaching. This is the single biggest difference between Matt 5:29 - an exaggeration to get the attention of listeners. After all, if you can commit adultery in your mind, you certainly do not need a eye or a hand to sin.
John 6:25-71 is unique because of its length and repitition and teaching focus about the noursishment given by God. Christ weaves this in - and focuses on Him giving Himself to be consumed by us - and that this must happen if we are to have eternal life! This is not an option. Take the time to read this - there are no less than 20 references to what will beocme the entire focus of His Last Passover Meal with His Apostles -“the night before He died”. No where else is there this kind of repitition.

But, if that were not convincing enough, note this, no one walked out on Christ because He compared himself to a plant, or a gate,or compared people to sparrows! They would not have walked out on Him if He had simply compared Himself to bread and left it as just another analogy. He did not do this - AND when challenged by His listeners, He did not back down - He was in their faces demanding that they eat His Flesh. “This is a hard saying”, is just another way of saying “He’s crazy!” They walked because they refused to believe what Christ said. New people have replaced these originals disbelievers - and they walk away for the same reason: they refuse to take Christ at His Word.

To refuse to take Christ at His Word is to refuse to believe Christ can do what He said! Ultimately, either He is God and has the Power to be physically present under the appearance of Bread and Wine - or He lied! Catholics beleve the Word of God.

God bless

I just wanted to throw something out there being a former Catholic. I have had communion in the Catholic Church when they used to dip the wafer into the wine. To me it tasted like bread and wine. not flesh and blood. If you say that it is to be a literal interpretation and that it is turned into the actual body and blood of Christ then would the texture of the elements be different or even taste different. when Jesus turned the water into wine, i would think they could tell the difference between the water and the wine. they would taste different. But if he literally turned the water into wine then it would seem to me that it would tast like wine and not water. Just a thought.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SV,

Thank you for your thought. Now, let me share one with you…

I just wanted to throw something out there being a former Catholic. I have had communion in the Catholic Church when they used to dip the wafer into the wine. To me it tasted like bread and wine. not flesh and blood. If you say that it is to be a literal interpretation and that is turned into the actual body and blood of Christ then would the texture of the elements be different or even taste different. Just a thought.

None of the material I presented is based on my sensations, sight, hearing, taste touch and smell. In fact, there are elements on the Periodic Chart that can not be observed with our unaided senses. In the same manner, there are galaxies billions of light years away from the Milky Way that we can preceive with our unaided senses. When it comes to experience of the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - our senses can only be aided by Faith. Christ said it and He can neither deceive or be deceived.

So, here is the issue. For whatever reason you have applied the wrong measurement toward the Eucharist - you have only assessed the accidents of common bread and wine. The issue for Faith is to be welcomed into the loving intamacy of Jesus Christ through Faith.

I would recommend that you review those verses in John 6 and just tell Christ that all those words He used were for naught. Then review the Synoptic Gospel writers account of the Last Supper and tell Christ those words, too, were for naught. There is a good chance that such a review may help you to return Home.

God bless

 

[sv37015]

Hi, SV,

Thank you for your thought. Now, let me share one with you…

None of the material I presented is based on my sensations, sight, hearing, taste touch and smell. In fact, there are elements on the Periodic Chart that can not be observed with our unaided senses. In the same manner, there are galaxies billions of light years away from the Milky Way that we can preceive with our unaided senses. When it comes to experience of the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - our senses can only be aided by Faith. Christ said it and He can neither deceive or be deceived.

So, here is the issue. For whatever reason you have applied the wrong measurement toward the Eucharist - you have only assessed the accidents of common bread and wine. The issue for Faith is to be welcomed into the loving intamacy of Jesus Christ through Faith.

I would recommend that you review those verses in John 6 and just tell Christ that all those words He used were for naught. Then review the Synoptic Gospel writers account of the Last Supper and tell Christ those words, too, were for naught. There is a good chance that such a review may help you to return Home.

God bless

I am not saying that Christ words were used for naught. I am just trying to understand what literal means to the Catholic Faithful. Lets take the water and wine miracle. When those people tasted the wine, it was actual wine and not water. That to me would be literal. If you are to exercise your faith when taking comunion and by doing that it would become his actual body and blood and not still the bread and wine then that would be literal. but if it is still the bread and wine then the only conclusion you can come to is that it was figuritive or symbolic.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I am not saying that Christ words were used for naught. I am just trying to understand what literal means to the Catholic Faithful. Lets take the water and wine miracle. When those people tasted the wine, it was actual wine and not water. That to me would be literal. If you are to exercise your faith when taking comunion and by doing that it would become his actual body and blood and not still the bread and wine then that would be literal. but if it is still the bread and wine then the only conclusion you can come to is that it was figuritive or symbolic.

Well, I will give this a go… Briefly…

The bread and wine LITERALLY become the Body and Blood of Christ. What we feel may or may not change (you can read up on Eucharistic miracles at your leisure) but the substance the “matter” of the thing changes.

For instance, what makes snow snow?

• Snow exists, we know this. Yet what are the defining characteristics of snow? It is white. But can you have a pile of white? Can you put your hand into white? No. White is an “accident” of that thing we call snow.
• Snow is cold, but can you have a big ol’ pile of cold? No. Cold is an accident of snow.

Substanceof a thing (what a thing IS fundamentally) can differ quite dramatically from the accidents (secondary aspects of substance that flow from the substance but do not necessarily equal the substance) a thing seems to possess.

The same is true of the Eucharistic Species. What it seems to be (bread and wine) do not necessity its substance. Taste is an accident. Feel is an accident. If all you ever believe in is that which you can feel with your hands, see with your eyes, and taste with your tongue, then you have no call to believe in God at all.

But that is just a knee-jerk reaction at 1130 pm on a saturday night when I should be sleeping and preparing for mass in the morning.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Okay lets try this again.
Remain on the OP topic.
And…ah…if you are going to circumvent, dont.
You will get caught.
Hunting trolls is becoming one of my favorite pastimes.

 

[benedictus2]

Hello everyone interested,
I’m not going to claim that I know all of the answers for this issue but as an ex elder of the Lutheran church, and someone who started to become a Deacon I did get a pretty good understanding of Luthers discontent.

1st of all he was appointed by the RCC, to teach the New Testament to those entering the priesthood as someone who was an expert in the New testament. Upon his discovery, he taught that Jesus’ death on the cross was "payment in full " for our sins, and that paying cash for our penence was contradictory to that of what the New testament and Jesus’ teachings.

Christ did pay in full for our sins, but to say that indulgence is paying cash for our penance is to profoundly misunderstand indulgences.

Luther was also heavily influenced by Nominalism (which happens to be the parent of modern day relativism and deconstructionism) so he ended up with the wrong theology.

When the senior priest, sent him to the Vatican to deliver a letter he witnessed priests, cardinals, bishops all partaking of sins of the flesh. When he brought this to the popes attention, that these issues and that of the false teaching among many other teachings of the church being in contradiction of the bible and what Jesus taught needed to be corrected.

I doubt the accuracy of your summary here. But I do not doubt that the corruption of the members of the church had to be exposed. However, that is something else to coming up with one’s own doctrine. Here Luther displayed an inordinate amount of pride.

The pope at the time basically came out and told him that he was just a priest and that he being the pope was the supreme authority and he needed to know his place. To basically renounce his wrongful teachings and accept that which the pope said or be excommunicated. Long story short, he addressed his patron ruler with what he had come to find in the bible and this was spread to other princes and rulers in Germany, who were willing to give their lives by beheading if they were wrong.

That is a fairy tale. The princes who sided with Luther was not so much interested in the theology but in the chance to be able to aportion Church property for themselves. Straight away these princes and rulers who sided with Luther proceeded to confiscate Church property. Hardly the noble motive and action you portrayed.

As I mentioned earlier too, Luther would later write that the Protestants had become much more vile than the people they were hoping to reform.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Swords99,

In an effort to add more light than heat … would you please give a reference link that supports your position?

On another matter… the term “…box of Roman Catholicism…” really sounds like a defaming remark and one that is not appropriate for CAF.

I know you can do better.

God bless

What’s happening here is you are not looking outside of the box of Roman Catholicism. If you research the history (not RCC) you will learn that the apocrypha were never accepted as canonical by Jesus or His apostles.The OT which Jesus knew is our OT today. Jesus’ OT was the Hebrew OT. It has never numbered these apocryphal writings. The apostles mention many Old Testament events, but they never refer to any incidents or characters of the Apocrypha.

The Septuagint is merely the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Jewish Scriptures…

 

[Janet1983]

Hi, No one to my knowledge is judging your faith. I, however, am questioning your logic on how you can claim to follow Christ as a ‘slave’ yet pick and chose which of His commands you will ‘submit’ to.

This is exactly what has puzzled me about Janet’s avatar. I have been meaning to ask her about this with exactly the same point you raised.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I do not believe myself to be picking and choosing any more than Martin Luther did. I know you can and will not follow him.
I do not believe myself to be a follower of Luther, but a follower of Jesus Christ.
I do not believe my faith or my logic to be deficient. My logic seems sound to me, even though it might not for you as we have different prerequisites.
The fact that I simply do not agree with your interpretation does not keep my logic from being just as sound as yours. My logic would only fall if we had the same grounds for arguing, but we do not.
I do not consider myself to be omniscient. I am human and I may err.
I do not believe your faith to be deficient inasmuch as I do not believe my faith to be deficient. I respect your faith, even though I do not share it personally.
I believe myself to be a follower of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, not of Martin Luther and not of the pope or the magisterium.
I understand if you do not agree with my logic and I know that you are driven by noble motives. I will however neither be reconverted nor try to convert you. Jesus Christ is the way and He is the only way.
If I am not in Christ I pray that He might lead me there and if I am I pray that He might keep me there. May He do the same for you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

This took me a little longer than I initially anticipated. So, here goes - Page 1 of 2

As you probably guessed, I have some concerns about your post - but, what I want to do is to stick to the thread. But, first - a working definition. The idea of a logical presentation is that it does not contain either inconsistencies or contradictions. I think once these are in place the finer points of logical discourse tend to fall into place… So, let’s begin…

I do not believe myself to be picking and choosing any more than Martin Luther did. I know you can and will not follow him.

To the best of my knowledge, Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing. For example, here are two items for your consideration:
1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
2.) The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) - Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.
As I see it, ‘picking and choosing’ was a way of life for Luther. If you do not believe you are picking and choosing - yet use Luther as your role model, I see this as an internal contradiction in your statement.
.

I do not believe myself to be a follower of Luther, but a follower of Jesus Christ.

People may claim to follow Christ in the abstract - but for the day-to-aspects of life, following Christ is a practical exercise. Christ established His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and gave Peter the authority to bind and lose. Christ did not come back and revoke this gift and give it to Luther. If you calim to follow Christ, but reject the Church He founded (and, that would be the Catholic Church, I would see that as an internal contradiction. We are required for the very health of our humanity to conform our behavior to our belief. Most find it easier to conform their belief to their behavior…

I do not believe my faith or my logic to be deficient. My logic seems sound to me, even though it might not for you as we have different prerequisites.

On of the problems with evaluating one’s self is that unless there is a mirror or another person around, it is easy to miss something. For example, you may run a comb or brush through your hair - but, to see if your hair is the way you want it, you need something outside of yourself - like a mirror. If others are raising a flag about your logical presentations, maybe this is the time to step back and take a look at it.

To the best of my knowledge, there are few prerequisites to making a logical choice. One must be of sound mind, be free of chemical or physical impediments and have sufficient information to make a choice. As I see it, these are pretty standard throughout the human race. While more items can be added - I do not think I missed any essential ones. Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing.

Continued

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

This took me a little longer than I initially anticipated. So, here goes - Page 2 of 2
COLOR]

The fact that I simply do not agree with your interpretation does not keep my logic from being just as sound as yours. My logic would only fall if we had the same grounds for arguing, but we do not.

The fact that you disagree does not have anything to do with the logic you present in your disagreement. While this thread is to set the “…same grounds for arguing…” logic can fail if, in the process of presenting your position, you are internally inconsistent or contradictory. I have given examples of where your logic has come short of the mark. If you do not think we have the “…same grounds…” would it not be best if we were on the same page from which we could have an intelligent discussion? .

I do not consider myself to be omniscient. I am human and I may err.

Omniscience is an atribute of God and not of man. Actually, as a human, there is no “…may…” about it - you and I and everyone else WILL err. .

I do not believe your faith to be deficient inasmuch as I do not believe my faith to be deficient. I respect your faith, even though I do not share it personally.

The deficiency or sufficiency of anyone’s Faith is not the issue. Rest assured, establishing that one’s Faith is not deficient by comparing it to someone else’s Faith is a dangerous practice. They, being human, can fall and lead you astray. The issue rather is are we following what Christ taught? Luther looked around and found deficiencies in the moral behavior of leaders of the Catholic Church. When his efforts to reform the Catholic Church failed - instead of looking to St. Catherine of Siena (200 years his senior in this process of reforming the Catholic Church) he struck out on his own in schism. Thank you for your respecting my Faith.

I believe myself to be a follower of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, not of Martin Luther and not of the pope or the magisterium.

This thread is about someone saying that they could never follow Luther. Lumping Luther with the Pope and trying to come out with a consistent answer is simply not possible (unless you are saying that they were both men). If you will notice, Scripture did not describe Jesus as turing His Apostles lose with the command to, “Do your own thing”. Rather, we are instructed to do as Christ taught us - and He promsed the Holy Spirit to guide His Church and keep it from teaching error. He did not promise this to any 16th Century ‘Reformer’ or 21st Century free spirit.

I understand if you do not agree with my logic and I know that you are driven by noble motives. I will however neither be reconverted nor try to convert you. Jesus Christ is the way and He is the only way.
If I am not in Christ I pray that He might lead me there and if I am I pray that He might keep me there. May He do the same for you.

We all make choices. Digging one’s heels in is a real choice. Luther attempted to conform Christ’s teachings to Luther’s understandings of it, complicated by his idea of church leaders being free from setting bad example. Christ, The Way, established His Chruch as the way we are to reach Him effecively. While one does not have to be a Catholic to be saved, there is no real room for picking and choosing which of His commands one will follow.

Thank you for your prayers - you and your intention in coming Home are mine…

God bless

.

 

[Janet1983]

If you do not believe you are picking and choosing - yet use Luther as your role model, I see this as an internal contradiction in your statement.

I actually don’t use Luther as a role model as I have stated. I don’t follow him. I follow Jesus Christ alone. I would not follow a mere man. He did however serve as a good example of someone believing himself to be thoroughly following God’s will, even though he was criticized heavily by the Catholic Church.

People may claim to follow Christ in the abstract - but for the day-to-aspects of life, following Christ is a practical exercise.

I have to agree to that. My faith however does have a strong impact on my day-to-day life. To follow Jesus Christ every day requires me to refocus on Him every single morning.

To the best of my knowledge, there are few prerequisites to making a logical choice.

The prerequisites determine which reaction would be logical. In the case of you and me I would like you to consider this:
Your prerequisites are based upon the assumption that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. As you believe that to be true it can only follow that if you wish to follow Jesus Christ you need to remain inside the Catholic Church.
My prerequisites are based upon the assumption that the Catholic Church is not equivalent with the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. I do not believe that there is a visible church in the Catholic sense and I do believe that the One True Church Christ founded is the assembly of all those who believe and follow Jesus Christ. Based upon that prerequisite it is logical for me to assume that I do not require to remain part of the Catholic Church in order to follow Jesus Christ.

The deficiency or sufficiency of anyone’s Faith is not the issue. Rest assured, establishing that one’s Faith is not deficient by comparing it to someone else’s Faith is a dangerous practice.

It is indeed a problematic and dangerous practice to compare ourselves by ourselves. We are measuring with a rubber ruler. Only God’s standard is what we should compare ourselves to.

This thread is about someone saying that they could never follow Luther.

I could never follow Luther either, though I guess I have different motives. The same reason goes for me not following the Catholic Church which leads us back to the fact that we have different prerequisites. This is where we differ.

 

[mountaintop]

Hi, Mountaintop,

Welcome to CAF!

I think you will find this list to be an on-going source of faith and inspiration.

You have made an excellent observation and one that truly deserves to be acknowledged for clearly stating what it was that took place in Matthew 16.

There are those who go to great lengths to either ignore or minimize elements in the Bible that they really do not agree with - but, they really can’t say that! So, they interpret it out of both true meaning and existence.

We have God the Father selecting Peter - and - giving him the answer to Christ’s question on “Who do men say I am?” Peter was truly hand-picked by God to lead the Church.

We have God the Son identifying what His Father had done - and then stating that He was building His Church - and, doing so on this truly sinful, bragging and loud-mouthed man!!

And, just in case there some some confusion … Christ gives Peter the Keys to bind and lose - both on earth and heaven. There were not 12 sets of keys … only one set!

Peter remained a sinful man - but, a man who really wanted to follow Christ…but, in his own way! In the next verse, Peter chides Christ for ‘scaring the boys’ with talk about dying in Jerusalem. And, what does Christ call the head of His Church - a devil! This is most telling in that we see Christ will demonstrate the Power of God by using the weak and not the strong. Nothing basic has changed - just the degree to which we sin. In the First Century it was not possible to abort millions of unborn babies, have devious bishops look the other way at Catholic politicians who encourage, promote and vote for abortion, have the capacity to kill millions of people with a nuclear weapon, have a few devious priests sexually abuse many children or manipulate securities so that millions of people lost many millions of dollars! We have come a long way!

Today the Catholic Church is in crisis. We have the choice today of responding like St. Catherine of Siena or Martin Luther - it is really in our hands if and how we respond to the Grace of God to help move the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) ever closer to Christ.

God bless

Thank you for your response history hasn’t changed much.If your journey is to be one with Christ how can someone do that without the Eucharist? just one of the keys or did luther take that with him along with the bible?

 

[benedictus2]

I do not believe myself to be picking and choosing any more than Martin Luther did.

Sorry but THAT is exactly what Martin Luther did.

I know you can and will not follow him.

I disobey Him a lot of times when I sin (and that is precisely why we have confession), but I know and acknowledge what He has commanded.

What you are doing is telling Jesus that you will follow Him only in the things that you decide you will follow.

It is very evident that you refuse to follow Christ because you were the one who left His Church.

Now I asked you before, if you were willing to debate your position that the Catholic Church is not who she claims to be but it seems you can’t.

Perhaps deep down you know we’re right about that one.

I do not believe myself to be a follower of Luther, but a follower of Jesus Christ.

Oh yes you are a follower of Luther. The Christ you follow is Luther’s own construct. It is evident in the way you and most protestants quote. How you quote chapter and verse from St Paul’s writing but rarely ever mention the Gospels. This is very much Luther.

I do not believe my faith or my logic to be deficient.

We have just shown you that your logic is deficient. Whether you believe that to be the case is beside the point, because it is. The deficiency of your logic does not depend on whether you believe it to be so or not.

My logic seems sound to me, even though it might not for you as we have different prerequisites.

Unfortunately, the thing with logic is that it is not relative. It either is logical or not logical. Belief does not play a part on whether it is true or false.

The fact that I simply do not agree with your interpretation does not keep my logic from being just as sound as yours. My logic would only fall if we had the same grounds for arguing, but we do not.

But we do have the same grounds for arguing. And that is exactly the point. The kind of argument I am employing here I cannot use when debating an atheist.

I do not consider myself to be omniscient.

No one was crazy enough to suggest you are.

I am human and I may err.

So we all do.

I do not believe your faith to be deficient inasmuch as I do not believe my faith to be deficient.

I think I clarified that in a previous reply. You have to make a precise definition of what you mean here by faith. If by Faith, you mean the body or set of beliefs you hold to be true then it is deficient. But if you are talking about your faith (as in the strength of your belief in Christ), then I think that is quite strong.

I respect your faith, even though I do not share it personally.

I can’t say I respect your faith (as in your set of beliefs) because they are erroneous. I have no respect for false teachings. They should be shown for what they are - corruptions of the truth.

But, I have a lot of respect for you because I do believe you really love our Lord and are sincerely trying to live a Christian life…

I believe myself to be a follower of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, not of Martin Luther and not of the pope or the magisterium.

You do try to follow Jesus Christ, but the image of Christ you follow is that of Martin Luther’s.

I understand if you do not agree with my logic and I know that you are driven by noble motives. I will however neither be reconverted nor try to convert you. Jesus Christ is the way and He is the only way.

And the Only Way provided us a Church. Which you conveniently overlook. The Only Way willed to save you in this manner : by building a Church NOT by writing a book. And that, is a fact.

If I am not in Christ I pray that He might lead me there and if I am I pray that He might keep me there. May He do the same for you.

And I am sure He will grant that prayer, because that is a most humble and beautiful prayer. I think St Joan of Arc said the same thing.

Thank you for praying the same for me. It is similar to my prayer. I offer myself to Jesus and pray “I am yours. Do with me what you will. May I never will anything that is contrary to Your will”.

 

[benedictus2]

I actually don’t use Luther as a role model as I have stated. I don’t follow him. I follow Jesus Christ alone.

Sorry but no you don’t. You follow Luther. The image of Christ you follow is Luther’s version.

Every Protestant to some degree or another follow Luther.

Take for instance your insistance on Sola Scriptura. Why, that is Luther’s. Christ never every taught that. If that were so He would have written the NT instead of establishing a Church whose members in turn wrote the NT.

Before Luther, 1500 years of Christianity never every followed that.

Your insistence on Sola Fide. Same thing here. For 1500 years, no one taught such a thing. Christ did not teach it either. You will not find one single support for it in the Gospels. So therefore who do you, follow? Well obviously the one who invented it… Luther.

So you might want to believe that you follow Christ and Christ alone but that is a fairy tale you are using to convince yourself and shield your eyes from the glaring fact that you are disobeying His will by being separated from His Church.

It is like a Father who built a house and wished that all His children would live in this house but one daughter said “Much as I love you Dad, I cannot stand my brother so even though it is your wish that I remain under this roof, NO CAN DO. Then she pitches a tent on the lawn”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

I think that your posts have identified that you are doing your ‘own thing’ when it comes to the practice of faith.

CAF is basically a discussion group where people with different views can meet and share ideas. To repeatedly claim that you are, ‘…following Christ…’ while providing no more detail thtn that is really not helpful in establishing a dialogue. To claim you are different from others is obvious and of little benefit for one wanting to discuss differences. To reject the Church founded on Peter (Matt 16:18) to reject the Eucharist (John 6 50-70), to reject Confession (John 6:20) and fail to provide a reason simply frustrates the goal of a discussion group. To reject the idea that you are following Luther - yet conform to his way (not The Way established by Christ) is simply a contradiction. And, then we get back to those annoying aspects of internal consistency and logical discourse.

As I see it, you have been provided many opportunities to explain your position. Simply stating “I believe this and reject that” without saying why is inadequate. Use this post as a spring board for engaging in dialogue. Quite honestly, Luther had some valid concerns when he started off - but, got carried away by pride … and then lead others off the edge. The Catholic Church was far from perfect in 1517 - and that statement could be made today in 2010 with equal validity.

What has always amazed me - and, this is simply do to my lack of Faith - has been all of the times when the Catholic Church really deviated in the public scandal and poor example its leaders gave - yet - never taught error! In the three examples I gave you, the Catholic Church from its earliest teaching has recognized the leadership of Peter, the Real Presence of the Eucharist and the Power of God delegated to men to forgive sin.

My belief in the Catholic Church as the One True Church founded by Christ is based on Faith and that Faith is not a wild fling in the dark, but one based on solid evidence. I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it. This is the essence of beginning a dialogue - to know what you believe and being willing to articulate this to others. Digging in your heels serves no purpose if you are on this list - and, it surely puts into question just what it is you are saying that you believe (getting over those internal contradictions has been a problem).

So, why not start afresh? This post is about the OP refusal to follow Luther. Christ actually laid down some specific ways we are to follow Him. For example, He gave us the words to the Our Father (Matt 6:9), He gave us the Beautitudes (Matt 5:1-12), He gave us a visible leader to the Church He founded (Matt 16:18) with the total authority to make whichever changes are necessary, He also told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would be guiding His Church (John 16:13). If one is ‘…following Christ…’ then using Scripture to measure one’s behavior is a straight forward process. So, Janet1983, how are you following Christ and not Luther?

God bless

I actually don’t use Luther as a role model as I have stated. I don’t follow him. I follow Jesus Christ alone. I would not follow a mere man. He did however serve as a good example of someone believing himself to be thoroughly following God’s will, even though he was criticized heavily by the Catholic Church.

I have to agree to that. My faith however does have a strong impact on my day-to-day life. To follow Jesus Christ every day requires me to refocus on Him every single morning.

The prerequisites determine which reaction would be logical. In the case of you and me I would like you to consider this:
Your prerequisites are based upon the assumption that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. As you believe that to be true it can only follow that if you wish to follow Jesus Christ you need to remain inside the Catholic Church.
My prerequisites are based upon the assumption that the Catholic Church is not equivalent with the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ. I do not believe that there is a visible church in the Catholic sense and I do believe that the One True Church Christ founded is the assembly of all those who believe and follow Jesus Christ. Based upon that prerequisite it is logical for me to assume that I do not require to remain part of the Catholic Church in order to follow Jesus Christ.

It is indeed a problematic and dangerous practice to compare ourselves by ourselves. We are measuring with a rubber ruler. Only God’s standard is what we should compare ourselves to.

I could never follow Luther either, though I guess I have different motives. The same reason goes for me not following the Catholic Church which leads us back to the fact that we have different prerequisites. This is where we differ.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

These writings were determined to be inspired by the Catholic Church about the year 400AD - or about 1,200 years before Luther said they were in error. Now, you will notice that it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Books of the NT - the same NT you have in your hand. Don’t you think it odd that the Catholic Church - under the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit got the books of the NT ‘right’ - but somehow with that same Holy Spirit got it wrong with the OT?
Give it some thought.

I think this is where we misunderstand each other. You believe that the Catholic Church united with the Bishop of Rome that most everyone refers to as the Roman Catholic Church are one in the same that developed the biblical canon around 400. The fact is that the church that existed in 1500 follows to exist today. If the church in 400 was the one holy catholic apostolic church, it ceased to be that immediately with the split between East and West. And again the church became less with the Reformation.

If you follow Paul’s view of the Church as being the Body of Christ, then the split between East and West could be seen as the mutual amputation of the body from the waste down or the waste up depending on ones perspective. And again with the Reformation we have something akin to losing an arm.

We have all become remnant churches. And the Body of Christ is splintered and regardless of what Rome thinks, it is without legs and an arm.