Choice of Denomination

[st. Worm]

Hi Pax.

I assume you are a Romanist. Well at least I can say if my choice were a RC church or most churches that go by the term evangelical these days I might be forced to worship with you! Unfortunately the RC church required Luther's Reformation because of not only the corruption of indulgences but also the rejection of justification by faith ALONE. Of course those of us who hold to that important Reformation teaching are considered doomed to hell by your church. I also think Luther's refinement of the Sacraments to two instead of seven is a very important clarification of NT teaching based on OT shadows and signs. At any rate, thank you for welcoming me and I look forward to interjecting as time allows an orthodox Lutheran view into all of the strange stuff here concerning home churching, decision theology and the like. Clearly fundamentalism and biblicism scare me more than you RC's!

Like you I am sad by the extremism and the anti-Reformation brought about by the anabaptists and their spiritual offspring. How sad that most evangelicals have no concept of church history and refuse the idea of Sacraments.

Blessings.

[MrSealedEternal]

Merry Christmas Horizoneast!!!

You keep showing up for a post here and there, but you won't stay around to chat? St. Worm seeems to have a good handle on things and I am always glad to see new people on this site. What St. Worm has written I totally believe, except I wouldn't consider Luther or Calvin a Church father. Both took teachings of the early Church and decided to interject their own theology. Thus we have the Protestant Reformation and 28,000 different Churches doing exactly what St. Worm stated. St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius are the early Church fathers one would read if they wanted to know the teachings of the early Church. This will put a person back 300 years after the time that Jesus Christ walked on earth. Luther and Calvin only go back to the 1500's.

Luther and Calvin were both Catholics, and essentially agreed with Catholicism in regard to the Fundamentals of salvation. They had faith in the Catholic Church were trying to fix it rather destroy it. They both taught baptismal regeneration, and both supported the Catholic Church's murder of the Ana-baptists as heretics. The true "ekklesia" of Christ was murdered throughout history by both the Roman church, and the so-called Protestants, as I explained earlier. This is a typical dialectic of false religions arguing with a false pretext as to what the "ekklesia" of Christ really is.

Mr SE

[Waimahia]

St Worm wrote,

"What training have you had in interpretating the Bible? More than St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and every other credible church father who embraced the biblical Trinity?"

The problem we have accepting the trinity is because of those church fathers who never did embrace or teach the trinity but who only spoke of God the Father and God the Son and never stated that the Holy Spirit was the third person in the Godhead. I am speaking of Paul, Peter, John, James etc.

Just study the formulaic introduction to the epistles and you will see that these true "church fathers" obviously did not consider the Holy Spirit to be a part of the Godhead in the now classical sense.

BTW Martin Luther; a Christian?! This the man who urged the slaughter of peasants and the telling of "strong lies" and rejected the book written by Our Lord's own brother. Gimme a break.

Waimahia

[other one]

"Thank you all for this thread. After reading through it again, I am reminded of why I stopped going to church several years ago....."

Not good. A rejection of Christ's church is a rejection of Christ himself. God's Word was not given to us so that each believer could make up his own interpretation and creat his own little church. This was never a principle of Luther's Reformation.

I know a lot of people who are deeply Christians who have not rejected Christ, but who are so fruestrated with organized religon that they don't attend services. It is not Christ that they have rejected but the self richeous members of denominations that consider themselves correct at everyone elses expense.

You can have a close relationship with the Lord without a "church building" in your life. There are many places to gather in small groups, and we gather here also. Church doesn't save you Jesus does..........

[st. Worm]

quote:

"Luther and Calvin were both Catholics, and essentially agreed with Catholicism in regard to the Fundamentals of salvation. They had faith in the Catholic Church were trying to fix it rather destroy it. They both taught baptismal regeneration, and both supported the Catholic Church's murder of the Ana-baptists as heretics. The true "ekklesia" of Christ was murdered throughout history by both the Roman church, and the so-called Protestants, as I explained earlier. This is a typical dialectic of false religions arguing with a false pretext as to what the "ekklesia" of Christ really is."

A lie wrapped with the skin of the truth. Of course both Luther and Calvin were Roman Catholics at some point. What else could they possibly have been at that time! How silly! However neither agreed with the RCC concerning soteriology. Both men believed in justification by faith alone. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Have you read Bondage of the Will or Calvin's Institutes? Clearly you are full of misinformation. Luther properly taught that baptism works faith as the NT teaches while Calvin did not view baptism at all in that sense. You are sinfully slandering two very important men of the church with your diatribe and false teaching about what both believed.

[st. Worm]

quote:

"It is not Christ that they have rejected but the self richeous members of denominations that consider themselves correct at everyone elses expense."

When you find that perfect church without sinners that you are seeking please do not enter its door because you will certainly corrupt it.

Seriously that view you are espousing is the all time cop out. Wah! I cannot have my way and do as i please so I will leave the church. How sad.

[MrSealedEternal]

quote:

"Luther and Calvin were both Catholics, and essentially agreed with Catholicism in regard to the Fundamentals of salvation. They had faith in the Catholic Church were trying to fix it rather destroy it. They both taught baptismal regeneration, and both supported the Catholic Church's murder of the Ana-baptists as heretics. The true "ekklesia" of Christ was murdered throughout history by both the Roman church, and the so-called Protestants, as I explained earlier. This is a typical dialectic of false religions arguing with a false pretext as to what the "ekklesia" of Christ really is."

A lie wrapped with the skin of the truth. Of course both Luther and Calvin were Roman Catholics at some point. What else could they possibly have been at that time! How silly! However neither agreed with the RCC concerning soteriology. Both men believed in justification by faith alone. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Have you read Bondage of the Will or Calvin's Institutes? Clearly you are full of misinformation. Luther properly taught that baptism works faith as the NT teaches while Calvin did not view baptism at all in that sense. You are sinfully slandering two very important men of the church with your diatribe and false teaching about what both believed.

Have you read them?

The following statements are quoted from INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, John Calvin, Eerdmans Publishing, 1994

BOOK IV

Chap XIV.

7. ...It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us His mercy, and a pledge of His grace, both in His sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when attending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the work is produced in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.

17. Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the Word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in Him, the treasures of heavenly grace. ...

Chap XV.

1. Baptism is the sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being engrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. ...for it is His will that all who have believed, be baptized for the remission of sins. Hence those [Anabaptists] who have thought that [water] baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise,

[st. Worm]

Amen to Luther's comments.

As for Calvin you misunderstand his covenant interpretation of the Bible and his understanding of baptism and the Supper as presented in the Institutes. His words do not indicate that baptism is the same means of grace that Luther describes at all. Calvin equated baptism with OT circumcision as a sign and seal of the new covenant and believed covenant infants (children of believers) should receive the sign. He believed it to be a means of grace but not effectual.

Nice try though.

[Pax]

St Worm wrote,

"What training have you had in interpretating the Bible? More than St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and every other credible church father who embraced the biblical Trinity?"

The problem we have accepting the trinity is because of those church fathers who never did embrace or teach the trinity but who only spoke of God the Father and God the Son and never stated that the Holy Spirit was the third person in the Godhead. I am speaking of Paul, Peter, John, James etc.

Just study the formulaic introduction to the epistles and you will see that these true "church fathers" obviously did not consider the Holy Spirit to be a part of the Godhead in the now classical sense.

BTW Martin Luther; a Christian?! This the man who urged the slaughter of peasants and the telling of "strong lies" and rejected the book written by Our Lord's own brother. Gimme a break.

Waimahia

I have to sit down for Post Christmas leftovers......but will be on later tonight to chat. St. Worm its good to have you around. Yes I am Catholic and defend that position. This is a good site with quality people. I respect all people and their views, but don't necessarily agree with them. Smalcald is a Lutheran I have much respect for him or her.

[MrSealedEternal]

Amen to Luther's comments.

As for Calvin you misunderstand his covenant interpretation of the Bible and his understanding of baptism and the Supper as presented in the Institutes. His words do not indicate that baptism is the same means of grace that Luther describes at all. Calvin equated baptism with OT circumcision as a sign and seal of the new covenant and believed covenant infants (children of believers) should receive the sign. He believed it to be a means of grace but not effectual.

Nice try though.

My whole point is that neither of these men believed in justification by faith alone. I never said that their understandings were identical, but they both believed in Sacramental salvation, regardless of how they tried to twist scripture to make it fit. They were both disciples of Augustine, and both have a "gospel" based on works rather than faith alone, regardless of the fact that that they make that claim.

Mr SE