On non-essentials and their Amillennialism, Lutherans are about the same as Rome.So then, are we in agreement that Lutherans still retain many Catholic-influenced aspects of religion that are considered ‘pre-Reformation.’
Last edited:
On non-essentials and their Amillennialism, Lutherans are about the same as Rome.So then, are we in agreement that Lutherans still retain many Catholic-influenced aspects of religion that are considered ‘pre-Reformation.’
There is no contrary. We agree completely. I think you misunderstood the last line I had posed.-On the contrary, and I do not say this to be argumentative in any way but even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles from the New Test.
In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition over and above Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
OK. Yes.........I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification!There is no contrary. We agree completely. I think you misunderstood the last line I had posed.-
"I think a case could be made that the NT caused the formation of the RCC, not the other way around."
This in no way means the RCC based itself on the scriptures, or that the scriptures formed the RCC. Scriptures caused the formation of the RCC, in that, scriptures brought the churches together and made a power base that Constantine recognized he could use to unite the empire under his control. So he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire to serve his purposes, which directly created the RCC and gave it power.
We've seen many instances of TV preachers using the scriptures to create a base of power and money for their own purposes. It is just evil to use the scriptures in this way. Power corrupts humans.
There is power in the scriptures because it is God's Word. The great thing is that God can use something like the RCC to advance His purposes.
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. What did God say? Well, the answer to that rests in the Bible. But, as we showed above, the text of the Bible was curated by the nascent Catholic church in 325 and 419. Were there other scriptures being passed around from church to church before that time that were considered inspired? I am sure there were, but because they were not selected for inclusion as canon material we'll never know.We MUST always verify what a MAN says to what GOD HAS SAID!
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. What did God say? Well, the answer to that rests in the Bible. But, as we showed above, the text of the Bible was curated by the nascent Catholic church in 325 and 419. Were there other scriptures being passed around from church to church before that time that were considered inspired? I am sure there were, but because they were not selected for inclusion as canon material we'll never know.
I agree 100%, but then we must reconcile why the Bible went from 73 to 66 books during the Protestant Reformation.The canon is the list of those that God has given to the church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The extra SEVEN (7) books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.I agree 100%, but then we must reconcile why the Bible went from 73 to 66 books during the Protestant Reformation.
God's word is immutable and unchanging. Man's understanding of God's word, unfortunately, is a different matter.
Nor were they quoted by Jesus or the Apostles in their Epistles, or included in the Jewish Canon.The extra SEVEN (7) books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.
Absolutely correct my dear brother!Nor were they quoted by Jesus or the Apostles in their Epistles, or included in the Jewish Canon.