What do Lutherans believe?

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
While off topic, I am pretty sure that Calvinists and Arminians did not get to choose their names either.
The irony is not lost on me that even "Christians" called themselves followers of The Way, it was someone else that named us Christians (little Christs).


Correct. Baptists and Methodists and Mormons and "Protestants" didn't get to choose their name either. Lutherans referred to themselves as "Evangelical" (and that is STILL the name in many countries) but Catholics called them "Lutherans."
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,075
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No.


I have no idea as to the source of the "pamphlet" you quote, but it states the Body and Blood are present "under the bread and wine" not "replacing the bread and wine."

Here is a discussion of the 3 popular Western views on this: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical






This is a matter of praxis, not doctrine. Nothing in the Lutheran Confessions addresses this point at all.

The praxis varies widely among the 300+ Lutheran denominations - and often among the member parishes within them. In the LCMS, there is a polity that there is to be "confessional unity" among those who recieve the Eucharist in member parishes, but exactly what that means and how that is "cranked out" is left largely to pastoral discretion. You will find some LCMS parishes (and even more WELS ones) that make this simple by simply requiring all participants to be members of that parish (known to the pastor) or at least Confirmed members of their denomination, but most take a far more personal and pastoral approach. I simply cannot say what a particular one of the over 100,000 Lutheran parishes in the world would say regarding YOU specifically participating. But my counsel if always to ask: simply ask AHEAD of time (perhaps via email or the phone) and to not take offense if it is the polity of that congregation to not specifically invite you. The praxis you bring up simply is personal and individual.



I hope that helps.


- Josiah

I was quoting from a web site you gave about Lutherans earlier in this thread. I didn't just google it.
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs
look it up under Lord's Supper. The quote I gave is on page 1.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
While off topic, I am pretty sure that Calvinists and Arminians did not get to choose their names either.
The irony is not lost on me that even "Christians" called themselves followers of The Way, it was someone else that named us Christians (little Christs).
I thought "Christians" was given by either Peter or Paul one time meaning "In Christ".
I saw on a history program once that at the time (when Christianity was considered a cult) that the city state refered to anyone not willing to participate in the state festivals and stayed indoors were refered to as "superstigio" the opposite of the common roman state "religio"... I thought it was interesting but I havent run across and sources observing these terminologies

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was quoting from a web site you gave about Lutherans earlier in this thread. I didn't just google it.
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs
look it up under Lord's Supper. The quote I gave is on page 1.


[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]


I see, so it came from the website and not a pamphlet; I couldn't find that quote but that's okay.

Again, as I noted earlier friend, you indicate that it states the Body and Blood are present "under the bread and wine" not "replacing the bread and wine."

Here is a discussion of the 3 popular Western views on this: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical I invite and encourage you to check that out.


While I couldn't find the quote you mention, I did find this. It comes not from the LCMS specifically but it IS from a series written by a former LCMS president in a series he wrote entitled, "What About?" There pastor Berry states,

How is Jesus present in His Supper? We do not try to explain how Jesus is present under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, rather we believe,teach, confess and rejoice that He is present.

We Lutherans let the words of Jesus stand without arguing about their possibility, or trying to explain how they are true. As Luther put it so clearly,“We maintain that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ”(SA III.6). Everyone who communes receives into their mouths the body and blood of Jesus Christ, whether they believe it or not, be they worthy or unworthy. Jesus’ Word is sure and certain. The Holy Spirit gives us faith to trust in and believe Jesus’ words,“Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” Faith in Christ’s promise is what makes us worthy to receive His Supper. Christ’s words of institution retain their validity and efficacious power and thus, by virtue of these words, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received. Your body and your blood, once slain and shed for me,are taken at your table, Lord, in blest reality. Search not how this takes place, this wondrous mystery; God can accomplish vastly more than what we think could be.

Luther twice in his entire life used the word "under" to refer to the bread and wine. As I shared with MC above, Luther did this (only twice) in the context of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation was not dogma (or even official teaching) in Luther's day and so was by no means binding. It was one of many theories invented by western, medieval, RCC Scholastics to use modern pop ideas to explain away "mysteries" of the faith. Luther clearly rejected that theory (again, permitted in his day - it was not made dogma until 3 years after his death). Luther rejects this imputation of two pagan pre-science theories because he found them unbiblical, unnecessary and (above all) dangerous. Luther (like the Catholic Church then and now) stressed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (again, see the link provided above). He felt - strongly - that this particular Scholastic theory destroyed the biblical basis of Real Presence - which absolutely depended on taking the Eucharistic texts "as is" fully embracing that each word means exactly what it says. But if "is" doesn't mean "is".... if most of what comes after the "is" actually is NOT (at least fully) then Luther believed there was no reason to accept that Christ IS present. Indeed, Zwingli would follow precisely in the footsteps of the RCC's theory and did EXACTLY as Luther predicted would be done. To Luther, to surrrender the literal reading of the texts is to destroy the ancient, universal embrace of Real Presence (Zwingli proved him correct). IMO, Luther's twice use of "with" is better than his twice use of "under" but the point is the same: to stress that all the texts say is true. To Luther (as to Catholics) the bread and wine are insignificant but to iuphold the presence of the Body and Blood we must accept them as well - or destroy the whole textual reason for accepting Body and Blood. Note that this whole discussion was allowed at the time; after Luther's death the RCC would make this particular medieval Scholastic RCC theory into dogma (another "nail" to put in Luther's coffin - albeit after his death) but when Luther shared these views, it was far from dogmatic status and lively discussion (and disagreement) with it was not at all uncommon. Note too how Dr. Berry notes the Lutheran emphasis on MYSTERY.

Again, see the link provided above in his post.



Thanks! I hope that helps!


- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,311
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I thought "Christians" was given by either Peter or Paul one time meaning "In Christ".
I saw on a history program once that at the time (when Christianity was considered a cult) that the city state refered to anyone not willing to participate in the state festivals and stayed indoors were refered to as "superstigio" the opposite of the common roman state "religio"... I thought it was interesting but I havent run across and sources observing these terminologies

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

The Acts of the Apostles says that the believers were first called [by divine providence] Christians in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Barnes Notes on the Bible
Acts 11:26
That a whole year - Antioch was a city exceedingly important in its numbers, wealth, and influence. It was for this reason, probably, that they spent so long a time there, instead of traveling in other places. The attention of the apostles was early and chiefly directed to cities, as being places of influence and centers of power. Thus, Paul passed three years in the city of Ephesus, Act 20:31. And thus he continued a year and a half at Corinth, Act 18:11. It may be added that the first churches were founded in cities; and the most remarkable success attended the preaching of the gospel in large towns.

They assembled themselves ... - They came together for worship.

With the church - Margin, in the church. The Greek å en will bear this construction; but there is no instance in the New Testament where the word church refers to the edifice in which a congregation worships. It evidently here means that Barnabas and Saul convened with the Christian assembly at proper times, through the space of a year, for the purposes of public worship.

And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name Christian there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian; 1Pe 4:16, Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed. No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here. The word used here, and translated were called - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means:
  1. To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers.
  2. to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.
  3. to be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, She shall be called an adulteress. It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they were called, but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.

It is, however, an honored name - the most honorable appellation that can be conferred on a mortal. It suggests at once to a Christian the name of his great Redeemer; the idea of our intimate relation to him; and the thought that we receive him as our chosen Leader, the source of our blessings, the author of our salvation, the fountain of our joys. It is the distinguishing name of all the redeemed. It is not that we belong to this or that denomination; it is not that our names are connected with high and illustrious ancestors; it is not that they are recorded in the books of heraldry; it is not that they stand high in courts, and among the frivolous, the fashionable, and the rich, that true honor is conferred upon men. These are not the things that give distinction and speciality to the followers of the Redeemer. It is that they are Christians. This is their special name; by this they are known; this at once suggests their character, their feelings, their doctrines, their hopes, their joys.

This binds them all together - a name which rises above every other appellation; which unites in one the inhabitants of distant nations and tribes of men; which connects the extremes of society, and places them in most important respects on a common level; and which is a bond to unite in one family all those who love the Lord Jesus, though dwelling in different climes, speaking different languages, engaged in different pursuits of life, and occupying distant graves at death. He who lives according to the import of this name is the most blessed and eminent of morals. This name shall be had in remembrance when the names of royalty shall be remembered no more, and when the appellations of nobility shall cease to amuse or to dazzle the world.​
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,311
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My next question is

What do Lutherans believe about God's eternal decree? Do they use that term? Does the concept have a place in Lutheran teaching? Is there any Lutheran teaching about the concept described in the following from the WCF

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree


I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Acts of the Apostles says that the believers were first called [by divine providence] Christians in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Barnes Notes on the Bible
Acts 11:26
That a whole year - Antioch was a city exceedingly important in its numbers, wealth, and influence. It was for this reason, probably, that they spent so long a time there, instead of traveling in other places. The attention of the apostles was early and chiefly directed to cities, as being places of influence and centers of power. Thus, Paul passed three years in the city of Ephesus, Act 20:31. And thus he continued a year and a half at Corinth, Act 18:11. It may be added that the first churches were founded in cities; and the most remarkable success attended the preaching of the gospel in large towns.

They assembled themselves ... - They came together for worship.

With the church - Margin, in the church. The Greek å en will bear this construction; but there is no instance in the New Testament where the word church refers to the edifice in which a congregation worships. It evidently here means that Barnabas and Saul convened with the Christian assembly at proper times, through the space of a year, for the purposes of public worship.

And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name Christian there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian; 1Pe 4:16, Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed. No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here. The word used here, and translated were called - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means:
  1. To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers.
  2. to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.
  3. to be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, She shall be called an adulteress. It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they were called, but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.

It is, however, an honored name - the most honorable appellation that can be conferred on a mortal. It suggests at once to a Christian the name of his great Redeemer; the idea of our intimate relation to him; and the thought that we receive him as our chosen Leader, the source of our blessings, the author of our salvation, the fountain of our joys. It is the distinguishing name of all the redeemed. It is not that we belong to this or that denomination; it is not that our names are connected with high and illustrious ancestors; it is not that they are recorded in the books of heraldry; it is not that they stand high in courts, and among the frivolous, the fashionable, and the rich, that true honor is conferred upon men. These are not the things that give distinction and speciality to the followers of the Redeemer. It is that they are Christians. This is their special name; by this they are known; this at once suggests their character, their feelings, their doctrines, their hopes, their joys.

This binds them all together - a name which rises above every other appellation; which unites in one the inhabitants of distant nations and tribes of men; which connects the extremes of society, and places them in most important respects on a common level; and which is a bond to unite in one family all those who love the Lord Jesus, though dwelling in different climes, speaking different languages, engaged in different pursuits of life, and occupying distant graves at death. He who lives according to the import of this name is the most blessed and eminent of morals. This name shall be had in remembrance when the names of royalty shall be remembered no more, and when the appellations of nobility shall cease to amuse or to dazzle the world.​
This was copied and pasted from a guy named Barnes? He doesnt speak like any RomanCatholic Ive ever known.
Most Ive talked to, and especially their hierarchy, place great importance on denominationalism, particularly their own.

Also, for most of my years, no one I knew from that denomination ever really referred to themselves as christians.
It was always, Im a Catholic, or Im Catholic, but very rarely did I ever hear them say, Im a christian. In fact, many of them equated 'christian' with being a protestant, lol, (whatever that means).
It wasnt uncommon to hear it said 'the catholics and the christians' among the schoolkids, as if they were two different groups. (Well....ACTUALLY.... LOL)
Its only been recently that its becoming common to hear RomanCatholics refer to themselves as christians, and its rumored that its not by accident that more are expecting... almost demanding... to be called that now. Its like saying they're catholics is an insult or something, but saying they're christians is the new cool way for them to self-identify. I wonder if the globalist, one-world religion conspiracy has anything to do with it?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
33,435
Age
58
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This was copied and pasted from a guy named Barnes? He doesnt speak like any RomanCatholic Ive ever known.
Most Ive talked to, and especially their hierarchy, place great importance on denominationalism, particularly their own.

Also, for most of my years, no one I knew from that denomination ever really referred to themselves as christians.
It was always, Im a Catholic, or Im Catholic, but very rarely did I ever hear them say, Im a christian. In fact, many of them equated 'christian' with being a protestant, lol, (whatever that means).
It wasnt uncommon to hear it said 'the catholics and the christians' among the schoolkids, as if they were two different groups. (Well....ACTUALLY.... LOL)
Its only been recently that its becoming common to hear RomanCatholics refer to themselves as christians, and its rumored that its not by accident that more are expecting... almost demanding... to be called that now. Its like saying they're catholics is an insult or something, but saying they're christians is the new cool way for them to self-identify. I wonder if the globalist, one-world religion conspiracy has anything to do with it?

This isn't on topic to the thread.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
This was copied and pasted from a guy named Barnes? He doesnt speak like any RomanCatholic Ive ever known.
Most Ive talked to, and especially their hierarchy, place great importance on denominationalism, particularly their own.

Also, for most of my years, no one I knew from that denomination ever really referred to themselves as christians.
It was always, Im a Catholic, or Im Catholic, but very rarely did I ever hear them say, Im a christian. In fact, many of them equated 'christian' with being a protestant, lol, (whatever that means).
It wasnt uncommon to hear it said 'the catholics and the christians' among the schoolkids, as if they were two different groups. (Well....ACTUALLY.... LOL)
Its only been recently that its becoming common to hear RomanCatholics refer to themselves as christians, and its rumored that its not by accident that more are expecting... almost demanding... to be called that now. Its like saying they're catholics is an insult or something, but saying they're christians is the new cool way for them to self-identify. I wonder if the globalist, one-world religion conspiracy has anything to do with it?

Yes I think so. Cause Catholics are not christians of course and secretly MoreCoffee is the pope who wants to convert us to Buddhism.
Corrie ten Boom was in a concentration camp and if someone was a catholic she was like: yes!!! another christian!!! and they worked together to get the rest of the ppl there saved before they got killed.
I find it so arrogant from protestants to assume catholics are not christian and then their own reformation leaders were murderers but that doesnt matter at all. If someone says they're reformed or evangelical it doesnt mean that they're christian. Some dont even know Jesus and live like the devil, but to throw the whole bunch on one heap just because their theology is not exactly like yours I find dumb.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,311
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes I think so. Cause Catholics are not christians of course and secretly MoreCoffee is the pope who wants to convert us to Buddhism.
Corrie ten Boom was in a concentration camp and if someone was a catholic she was like: yes!!! another christian!!! and they worked together to get the rest of the ppl there saved before they got killed.
I find it so arrogant from protestants to assume catholics are not christian and then their own reformation leaders were murderers but that doesnt matter at all. If someone says they're reformed or evangelical it doesnt mean that they're christian. Some dont even know Jesus and live like the devil, but to throw the whole bunch on one heap just because their theology is not exactly like yours I find dumb.

I appreciate the sarcasm and humour. Thanks Imalive. God bless.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I find it so arrogant from protestants to assume catholics are not christian and then their own reformation leaders were murderers but that doesnt matter at all. .
Well, if leaders who were murderers decides anything, Catholics still lose that argument.

But I have another question...

Is the issue here more a matter of believing or not believing that Catholics are Christian...or is it more a matter of terminology, i.e. what any church wants to call itself or its people or, for that matter, other people? It seems to me that many people who are Protestant and say that they are Christian in distinction to Catholic (which is relatively few Protestants, if truth be told) are meaning that Catholicism is a cult.

We all confront this same issue when it is said that Mormons, for example, are not Christian even though they say they are.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Well, if leaders who were murderers decides anything, Catholics still lose that argument.

But I have another question...

Is the issue here more a matter of believing or not believing that Catholics are Christian...or is it more a matter of terminology, i.e. what any church wants to call itself or its people or, for that matter, other people? It seems to me that many people who are Protestant and say that they are Christian in distinction to Catholic (which is relatively few Protestants, if truth be told) are meaning that Catholicism is a cult.

We all confront this same issue when it is said that Mormons, for example, are not Christian even though they say they are.

Yes. If they say protestants are christian and catholics not, it means they believe catholicism is a cult. But even if someone is a Jehovas witness. Why are christians such jerks? Show them the truth. Pray for them.
And just because you know ppl who are catholic and not saved doesn't mean all are not. I know evangelicals who think they're saved, but are not. They live in sin.
I see it on a Dutch reformed forum too. One guy is evangelical. He keeps telling a reformed woman she isnt saved and he cares so much about her, go say the sinners prayer, you're not saved. Sorry but if you ask me she's saved. Then he's amazed if she gets grumpy lol.
Catholics don't even post there anymore. There was one. He left. He got tired of the nastiness. On any forum I see protestants behave like jerks to catholics and some evangelicals who have the full gospel and are ultimately superior can be jerks to reformed and catholics. And reformed can be jerks. All christians are just jerks LOL.
Oh it was funny. I was once reading on a forum for Messianic believers and one woman could not believe that us heathen pork eatin folk could be christian.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes. If they say protestants are christian and catholics not, it means they believe catholicism is a cult.
So it is not quite the same thing as saying they are pagans or belong to some other religion like Islam or Zoroastrianism.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
So it is not quite the same thing as saying they are pagans or belong to some other religion like Islam or Zoroastrianism.

Well, if I say a JW is not a christian I mean he's a not saved cult member.
A cult from christianity. Don't know what's worse.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,311
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What do you want to discuss?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well, if I say a JW is not a christian I mean he's a not saved cult member.
If I understand you, you are saying that such a person is a Christian but not saved. Yet you know that because the JW and Mormons hold to some unorthodox beliefs, even while accepting Jesus, it is commonplace for Christians to say that those religions actually are not Christian.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,311
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My next question is

What do Lutherans believe about God's eternal decree? Do they use that term? Does the concept have a place in Lutheran teaching? Is there any Lutheran teaching about the concept described in the following from the WCF

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree


I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

What do you want to discuss?

I asked a question of our Lutheran brethren about their beliefs. Let's try that.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I asked a question of our Lutheran brethren about their beliefs. Let's try that.
They already answered that one. Did you want a different answer?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And protestants named them Roman Catholic back lol
Catholics like to say that, but it is not true. The Church was called Roman before the Reformation and it is used by the church herself when filing legal documents in this country. OTOH, Romanist was introduced during the Reformation, but how often do you hear anyone use that word?
 
Top Bottom