LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Rescued One]

Mainstream Christianity has been corrupted from the original. He,an nature is to take the path of least resistance. The false doctrine of my once saved always saved stems out of mans desire to be saved without the effort it takes to be saved. I find it funny that Christians have no problem with Christ doing all the work for them. Kind to of like the food stamps people get today. They think nothing of getting food for nothing.

Once saved, who is going to steal that salvation? To claim you are saved, when you aren't is another story. To say, "I'm free to sin" is a lie and proof that the person isn't saved.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does God save the worthy?

No. Because "the worthy" don't exist.

Does God save the unworthy?

"Jesus answered, 'It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.'" - Luke 5:31-32

"This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." - 1 Timothy 1:15

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--but God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:6-8

That would be a 100% save ratio. Is that what's going to happen?

The premise that that there are both worthy and unworthy is faulty, thus the conclusion that there is a "100% save ratio" is likewise faulty. But seeing as we are all unworthy sinners, and God has come to save sinners, and it is the will of God to save all; well the "ratio" is a non-issue as far as I can see. Who is "in" and who is "out" is God's prerogative, not mine. But He has promised us our hope and salvation in the crucified and risen Jesus, and to that we cling. God will Judge, and it seems like a smart idea to just let Him do the judging.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rescued One]

I thought that if you confessed Jesus you were a christian?

"Ye must be born again." I believe what Jesus said. If I'm born again, I'll confess Jesus is my Savior. That doesn't stop my hypothetical next door neighbor from telling you he's a Christian even though he isn't.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Mainstream Christianity has been corrupted from the original. He,an nature is to take the path of least resistance. The false doctrine of my once saved always saved stems out of mans desire to be saved without the effort it takes to be saved. I find it funny that Christians have no problem with Christ doing all the work for them. Kind to of like the food stamps people get today. They think nothing of getting food for nothing.

1) Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

2) "Once saved always saved", or more accurately, Perseverance of the Saints, is a distinctively Calvinist/Reformed doctrine.

3) The whole point of the Gospel is that we are getting "food for nothing", or rather we contribute nothing, it's definitely not "for nothing" as it is everything--it costs the life of God's own dear Son. But that's the whole point of the Gospel and why it's called Gospel--it is good news, god spel. Gospel. It is good news not because it is a new law or ethic or system of religious obligation; it is good news because the God of all creation has come down to meet men in their sin and weakness and to declare to God's own enemies (you and I) that we are His own beloved children chosen and adopted in Jesus Christ as heirs.

What did Lazarus do to be brought back to life by the Lord? Nothing, the Lord commanded, "Come forth" and a dead man began to breathe again. What did Abraham do to be chosen to be the father of many nations? What did Moses do to be called to lead the people of Israel? What did Israel do to be called and chosen as God's nation among the nations? God is not in the business of choosing the worthy, God is not in the business of asking our permission. God will do what He will do, He will make the dead live, the blind see, the lame walk, and will cure lepers, even to the consternation of the powers of this fallen world.

He will make enemy sinners His own sons and daughters, even if it means pouring out His own blood. Because that's who God is and what God does.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Mainstream Christianity has been corrupted from the original. He,an nature is to take the path of least resistance.

Humans have been corrupt since the original (Adam). Christianity, made up of humans, is going to be corrupt in that sense because it is made up of humans. That doesn't change the truth of God's Word and the Gospel, though.

That's why Christians don't look to a church to save us or to men (like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young) but rather to God.

The false doctrine of my once saved always saved stems out of mans desire to be saved without the effort it takes to be saved. I find it funny that Christians have no problem with Christ doing all the work for them. Kind to of like the food stamps people get today. They think nothing of getting food for nothing.

First of all, we have no choice but for Christ to do the "work" for us. There is no work we as humans can do that will save us because we are all sinners and all unworthy. So, if it's left to us, we are damned. Mormonism teaches that performing magic occultic rituals in the temple makes a person "worthy" but that directly contradicts God's Word, the Bible.

Additionally, the reason you don't understand it is because you haven't accepted the Gospel and therefore don't understand Mercy or Grace. It wouldn't be Mercy or Grace for God to make us EARN our salvation. When you give a gift to someone, do you make them pay all that they can for it first? Is that how you give gifts to your family and loved ones? Or do you just completely give it to them?

God's Mercy and Grace is real - it is real forgiveness, not a fake "earn what you can" style of "forgiveness" like the mormon religion teaches. That's why the Bible says that the Gospel is foolishness to those who perish but to those of us who are saved it is the power of God. You and most mormons find it foolish because you are still unsaved - you need to have faith in Christ and His Redemption to be saved, and at this point in time you claim it's foolishness to get something "for nothing".

So I guess you just feel it's like the bishops storehouses where people think nothing of getting food for nothing. Or do the bishops get something in return? Oh yes - they get to proselytize and judge the people they "give" food to - it's not free, one must subject himself to being judged and proselytized by the mormon church.

But the concept of helping the needy to you is foreign because it is a Christian concept, to help those in need "for nothing".

 

[Peter1000]

"Peter1000, post: 69753735, member: 382212"]JS did not follow the normal Christian view of salvation. There are too many and very confusing. That is your answer
---No its not. It never was, in fact. That was YOUR answer. Not mine, Pete. There are two camps for salvation within Christianity. Faith plus works, and, faith alone. Pretty much it. I've always said that. You, on the other hand, are the one who keeps insisting there are "hundreds of ways of salvation within Christianity", yet never mention any of them (except tried to with Calvinism which fell flat).

JS chose a salvation mode that already existed in normal Christianity. He did not.
---Yes, he did. Then he modified something which was meant to be so simple a child can understand it, into a souped up hot rod, with "ordinances" and multiple heavens galore. Face it, JS built a key principle, upon the foundation of what he himself called an "apostate" church, one that God "told" him was "abominable". So that automatically taints mormonism with the same foundational "abominable and apostate" brush, too, by your own thinking.

Jesus showed him the true way. That is your answer, regardless of what you think.
---That is YOUR answer. Not mine. God didn't require any hot rod modifications to salvation. He never did and still doesn't. That was all JS's ideas. Never God's.

So JS did not choose any normal Christian way.
---EXACTLY. JS chose it. God did not. You know not what you just admitted.

"the time of the restitution (which means to restore) of all things spoken of by all the prophets of God since the beginning of the world." (Acts 3:20-21)
---Which means SALVATION through Jesus Christ. Not some "restored" fake, hot rod gospel developed by a delusional man. "Restored" means that animals never again have to "pay" for the sins of men with their lives (as if they ever could). Jesus Christ's blood pays for the sins of men now. (That's why the Jews have no temple today. Its no longer needed.) God, once and for all, restored relational order through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord. HE alone is the declared foundation of Christianity, of the entire bible, the proclamation of every single prophet. Not a certain set of pet doctrines one "must" believe, and/or a laundry list of works to perform, or being a member of a certain church, in order to be saved. Why can't you see that? Better yet, why can't you accept it? Why do you fight it so strongly, like Saul kicking against the pricks?

God has spoken about this time through His holy prophets since the world began.
---OF JESUS CHRIST and the WAY of SALVATION God has prepared since before time began. Nothing less, nothing all souped up with double barrel chrome carbs for effect either.

We know that the time of the restitution of all things is not the time of Christ, because the prophet at that time is talking about a time in the future. It says that Jesus must stay in the heavens...(after his ascension) until this time. That is exactly what happened. Jesus was in heaven and then in the time of the restitution of all things came to the prophet JS and appeared to him and the restitution (restoring) of his church began.
---And Jesus is nowhere around in the future? I beg your pardon? He is not interceding in people's lives even today? Just chillin' in heaven, huh? Not quite. Acts 3:21 says the heavens "must" receive Him, which they did--with great joy. Never says anything about Him not being able to move around at will. He's divine. Jesus can do anything in GOD's will He needs to. He's not bound by JS's ideas, Peter. Prove that one if you were taught it, or you dreamt it up on your own.

And come to think of it, doesn't mormonism claim that Jesus "left the heavens and visited the America's" after the "heavens 'must'.... essentially keep Jesus a prisoner", after His Ascension? Peter, JS's own BoM story DISPROVES his and/or your own belief/theory here! (Not that I believe Jesus did any visiting on any continent.) Try again.

Tell me any other time since the time of Christ that there was a restitution of all things?
---Jesus Christ restored the interpersonal, direct relationship between Man and God that Adam enjoyed, through His life, His death, His resurrection, and His Ascension.... where the heavens received Him. When Jesus returns in the future, that will be the bow on God's gift of salvation. Not salvation itself. That was addressed at Calvary, once and for all eternity. Pick up the box and open it, Peter. Don't be afraid.

Go do your research.
---Peter, take your own advice about your own system of belief. Seems like its sporting more self-made holes than you care to believe.

I'll be waiting.

When I said "that is your answer", I should have said "that is your answer from me".
JS was told by the Lord Jesus Christ not to join any of the existing churches, not that their people were abominable, but that their creeds were abominable. The creeds are a path to confusion about the true nature of God, and the nature of salvation, that lead good people into error.

If some of the salvation theology that JS was taught by the Lord sound familiar to one of the 2 camps, so what? JS was taught how a person is saved and it can be reconciled with all salvation type scriptures in the bible, not just a few precious salvation type scriptures that fit a persons personal agenda to being saved, but all.

So let's put our salvation theologies to the biblical test. But before we do that, we must define our salvation theology, then we can compare that theology to the salvation type scriptures in the bible.

So I am going to tell you a brief outline of what Mormons believe is necessary to be saved.

First, our salvation theology is divided into 2 phases.
1) Phase 1 is being "saved" from death, and from the grave.

2) Phase 2 is being "saved" from the second death, which we define as being saved from a permanent separation from the Godhead.

1) Phase 1 is fairly straight forward. Jesus is the only person that could save us from permanently smoldering in the grave. This is the part of the saving process that no amount of good works or faith, or a cheery spirit is going to open the grave and let us escape. It doesn't matter what we do in this life, we can not raise ourselves from the dead. Only by the power and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, can we be raised from the dead and given immortality. (notice I did not use "Eternal Life", or "Everlasting Life", which is life with the Godhead, but I used "immortality", which is to live forever and ever.)

To recap phase 1. We are saved from death. We are raised to immortality by the power and grace of Jesus, not by anything that we could do by ourselves, it is a free gift offered by Jesus Christ to all men, whether good or evil, all men. You cannot earn the right to be raised from the dead, it is a free gift from Jesus Christ to all men.

2) Phase 2 has to do with being "saved" from the 2nd death, which Mormons believe is a permanent separation from the Godhead. It is also in this phase that a position is chosen for you that you will enjoy or not throughout the eternities. It is in this phase that you personally have an opportunity to impact the outcome. IOW you have the opportunity to impact whether you are close to the Godhead or are some distance away, or are separated permanently.

You position in the eternities depends on the following:

1) understanding the order of the essential principles and ordinances that one must follow in order to be close to the Godhead. These are the following:
a) Principle 1 - Believe in Jesus Christ, by the power of the HS.
b) Principle 2 - Have Faith in Jesus Christ, enough faith that you will be willing to follow him and love him and obey his commandments.
c) Principle 3 - Repent of your sins and get ready to perform the first ordinance.
d) Ordinance 1 - Be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the HS, for the remission of your sins.
e) Ordinance 2 - Receive the permanent gift of the HS by the laying on of hands.
f) Ordinance 3 - Partake of the sacrament, often, to always be in remembrance of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to remember the covenant that you made to him at your baptism.
f) Principle 4 - Now as a new person in Christ and with the HS as a permanent companion, you are now ready to go into the world and do good works, and testify of Jesus Christ and in all ways be a happy embassador for Christ, and bring good fruit into the kingdom of God, all for the purpose of glorifying your Father which is in heaven.
g) Principle 5 - Overcome the lust of this world and endure to the end, that we may sit with Jesus in his throne throughout the eternities.

This is a very simplistic look at the Mormon POV of what a person must do to be saved from the 1st and 2nd deaths. I may have to amend this later if I think of something that I forgot, but this is at least a good start.

What I would like you to do is give me a similar look at what your saving theology looks like and then we can start to compare these theologies with the bible saving type scriptures. I look forward to your response.[/QUOTE]

 

[fatboys]

Humans have been corrupt since the original (Adam). Christianity, made up of humans, is going to be corrupt in that sense because it is made up of humans. That doesn't change the truth of God's Word and the Gospel, though.

That's why Christians don't look to a church to save us or to men (like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young) but rather to God.


First of all, we have no choice but for Christ to do the "work" for us. There is no work we as humans can do that will save us because we are all sinners and all unworthy. So, if it's left to us, we are damned. Mormonism teaches that performing magic occultic rituals in the temple makes a person "worthy" but that directly contradicts God's Word, the Bible.

Additionally, the reason you don't understand it is because you haven't accepted the Gospel and therefore don't understand Mercy or Grace. It wouldn't be Mercy or Grace for God to make us EARN our salvation. When you give a gift to someone, do you make them pay all that they can for it first? Is that how you give gifts to your family and loved ones? Or do you just completely give it to them?

God's Mercy and Grace is real - it is real forgiveness, not a fake "earn what you can" style of "forgiveness" like the mormon religion teaches. That's why the Bible says that the Gospel is foolishness to those who perish but to those of us who are saved it is the power of God. You and most mormons find it foolish because you are still unsaved - you need to have faith in Christ and His Redemption to be saved, and at this point in time you claim it's foolishness to get something "for nothing".

So I guess you just feel it's like the bishops storehouses where people think nothing of getting food for nothing. Or do the bishops get something in return? Oh yes - they get to proselytize and judge the people they "give" food to - it's not free, one must subject himself to being judged and proselytized by the mormon church.

But the concept of helping the needy to you is foreign because it is a Christian concept, to help those in need "for nothing".

Because of the corruption of man Gods word is not perfect because of man.

 

[tickingclocker]

1) Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

2) "Once saved always saved", or more accurately, Perseverance of the Saints, is a distinctively Calvinist/Reformed doctrine.

3) The whole point of the Gospel is that we are getting "food for nothing", or rather we contribute nothing, it's definitely not "for nothing" as it is everything--it costs the life of God's own dear Son. But that's the whole point of the Gospel and why it's called Gospel--it is good news, god spel. Gospel. It is good news not because it is a new law or ethic or system of religious obligation; it is good news because the God of all creation has come down to meet men in their sin and weakness and to declare to God's own enemies (you and I) that we are His own beloved children chosen and adopted in Jesus Christ as heirs.

What did Lazarus do to be brought back to life by the Lord? Nothing, the Lord commanded, "Come forth" and a dead man began to breathe again. What did Abraham do to be chosen to be the father of many nations? What did Moses do to be called to lead the people of Israel? What did Israel do to be called and chosen as God's nation among the nations? God is not in the business of choosing the worthy, God is not in the business of asking our permission. God will do what He will do, He will make the dead live, the blind see, the lame walk, and will cure lepers, even to the consternation of the powers of this fallen world.

He will make enemy sinners His own sons and daughters, even if it means pouring out His own blood. Because that's who God is and what God does.

-CryptoLutheran

That made me stand up and shout "hallelujah"! Thank you. I needed that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Mainstream Christianity has been corrupted from the original. He,an nature is to take the path of least resistance. The false doctrine of my once saved always saved stems out of mans desire to be saved without the effort it takes to be saved. I find it funny that Christians have no problem with Christ doing all the work for them. Kind to of like the food stamps people get today. They think nothing of getting food for nothing.

So, you are saying that Christ did not do it all on the cross? I think BY talked sermons show that Christ's blood is not considered payment for some sins.

That is the opposite of Christians belief of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

 

[fatboys]

So, you are saying that Christ did not do it all on the cross? I think BY talked sermons show that Christ's blood is not considered payment for some sins.

That is the opposite of Christians belief of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Then You misunderstood

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because of the corruption of man Gods word is not perfect because of man.

Fortunately for us the Word of God, ultimately, is not a book, a doctrine, or an idea: it is the Uncreated and Eternal Logos who took on flesh, Jesus the Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tickingclocker]

When I said "that is your answer", I should have said "that is your answer from me".
JS was told by the Lord Jesus Christ not to join any of the existing churches, not that their people were abominable, but that their creeds were abominable. The creeds are a path to confusion about the true nature of God, and the nature of salvation, that lead good people into error.

If some of the salvation theology that JS was taught by the Lord sound familiar to one of the 2 camps, so what? JS was taught how a person is saved and it can be reconciled with all salvation type scriptures in the bible, not just a few precious salvation type scriptures that fit a persons personal agenda to being saved, but all.

So let's put our salvation theologies to the biblical test. But before we do that, we must define our salvation theology, then we can compare that theology to the salvation type scriptures in the bible.

So I am going to tell you a brief outline of what Mormons believe is necessary to be saved.

First, our salvation theology is divided into 2 phases.
1) Phase 1 is being "saved" from death, and from the grave.

2) Phase 2 is being "saved" from the second death, which we define as being saved from a permanent separation from the Godhead.

1) Phase 1 is fairly straight forward. Jesus is the only person that could save us from permanently smoldering in the grave. This is the part of the saving process that no amount of good works or faith, or a cheery spirit is going to open the grave and let us escape. It doesn't matter what we do in this life, we can not raise ourselves from the dead. Only by the power and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, can we be raised from the dead and given immortality. (notice I did not use "Eternal Life", or "Everlasting Life", which is life with the Godhead, but I used "immortality", which is to live forever and ever.)

To recap phase 1. We are saved from death. We are raised to immortality by the power and grace of Jesus, not by anything that we could do by ourselves, it is a free gift offered by Jesus Christ to all men, whether good or evil, all men. You cannot earn the right to be raised from the dead, it is a free gift from Jesus Christ to all men.

2) Phase 2 has to do with being "saved" from the 2nd death, which Mormons believe is a permanent separation from the Godhead. It is also in this phase that a position is chosen for you that you will enjoy or not throughout the eternities. It is in this phase that you personally have an opportunity to impact the outcome. IOW you have the opportunity to impact whether you are close to the Godhead or are some distance away, or are separated permanently.

You position in the eternities depends on the following:

1) understanding the order of the essential principles and ordinances that one must follow in order to be close to the Godhead. These are the following:
a) Principle 1 - Believe in Jesus Christ, by the power of the HS.
b) Principle 2 - Have Faith in Jesus Christ, enough faith that you will be willing to follow him and love him and obey his commandments.
c) Principle 3 - Repent of your sins and get ready to perform the first ordinance.
d) Ordinance 1 - Be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the HS, for the remission of your sins.
e) Ordinance 2 - Receive the permanent gift of the HS by the laying on of hands.
f) Ordinance 3 - Partake of the sacrament, often, to always be in remembrance of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to remember the covenant that you made to him at your baptism.
f) Principle 4 - Now as a new person in Christ and with the HS as a permanent companion, you are now ready to go into the world and do good works, and testify of Jesus Christ and in all ways be a happy embassador for Christ, and bring good fruit into the kingdom of God, all for the purpose of glorifying your Father which is in heaven.
g) Principle 5 - Overcome the lust of this world and endure to the end, that we may sit with Jesus in his throne throughout the eternities.

This is a very simplistic look at the Mormon POV of what a person must do to be saved from the 1st and 2nd deaths. I may have to amend this later if I think of something that I forgot, but this is at least a good start.

What I would like you to do is give me a similar look at what your saving theology looks like and then we can start to compare these theologies with the bible saving type scriptures. I look forward to your response.

[/QUOTE]
That is not what the crux of the matter is. I've told you that numerous times, so perhaps either I'm not making myself clear enough or you are failing to understand what it is.

 

[Peter1000]

1) Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

2) "Once saved always saved", or more accurately, Perseverance of the Saints, is a distinctively Calvinist/Reformed doctrine.

3) The whole point of the Gospel is that we are getting "food for nothing", or rather we contribute nothing, it's definitely not "for nothing" as it is everything--it costs the life of God's own dear Son. But that's the whole point of the Gospel and why it's called Gospel--it is good news, god spel. Gospel. It is good news not because it is a new law or ethic or system of religious obligation; it is good news because the God of all creation has come down to meet men in their sin and weakness and to declare to God's own enemies (you and I) that we are His own beloved children chosen and adopted in Jesus Christ as heirs.

What did Lazarus do to be brought back to life by the Lord? Nothing, the Lord commanded, "Come forth" and a dead man began to breathe again. What did Abraham do to be chosen to be the father of many nations? What did Moses do to be called to lead the people of Israel? What did Israel do to be called and chosen as God's nation among the nations? God is not in the business of choosing the worthy, God is not in the business of asking our permission. God will do what He will do, He will make the dead live, the blind see, the lame walk, and will cure lepers, even to the consternation of the powers of this fallen world.

He will make enemy sinners His own sons and daughters, even if it means pouring out His own blood. Because that's who God is and what God does.

-CryptoLutheran

I just wanted you to know that I enjoy your posts. You are knowledgeable, you are articulate and you know a lot of history. I like to read what you say.

I don't always agree with you, (is that surprising?), but I do enjoy your posts.

Here is the way i look at it: just the simple fact that you are a Lutheran, tells me volumes. You must believe that the corruption or at least a partial apostasy is real. Otherwise, with your knowledge and logic, you would still be Catholic.

You even say it in your post: "Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

So I'm not sure what to think?

 

[Peter1000]

tickingclocker says:
That is not what the crux of the matter is. I've told you that numerous times, so perhaps either I'm not making myself clear enough or you are failing to understand what it is.[/QUOTE]

Peter1000 says;
That's it?

You have been given an interesting challenge, and all you say is this is not the crux of the matter?

It seems that it is the reason for this OP. JS lied about the apostasy. One of the main lies is that what JS says about how a person is saved is a lie.

I'm saying it is not a lie and I outlined the theology, and asked you to outline your theology and lets compare our theologies to the bible. You have now said in affect, "I am not going to do that", and have side-stepped the challenge.

You have not side-stepped it, you have declared that the Mormon theology is correct, and if you wish to challenge what I say, step up and declare your theology and then lets compare our theologies with the bible. It is simple and straight forward.

What do you think?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I just wanted you to know that I enjoy your posts. You are knowledgeable, you are articulate and you know a lot of history. I like to read what you say.

I don't always agree with you, (is that surprising?), but I do enjoy your posts.

Here is the way i look at it: just the simple fact that you are a Lutheran, tells me volumes. You must believe that the corruption or at least a partial apostasy is real. Otherwise, with your knowledge and logic, you would still be Catholic.

You even say it in your post: "Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

So I'm not sure what to think?

The confusion is in thinking that Lutheran and Catholic are mutually exclusive terms. Lutherans are Catholics. The history of the Reformation is incredibly complicated, there are a lot of players, a lot of politics and politicking, and virtually no good guys or bad guys--just regular, fallible, sinful people on every side.

Lutheranism, as a term, originated basically as a polemical term. Historically "isms" were used to label heresy and heretical movements, so going back to antiquity Marcionism was named after Marcion of Sinope, Sabellianism is named after Sabellius, etc. Thus the term "Lutheranism" was largely a way of speaking of the "heresy of [Martin] Luther"; it was a polemical device. It also stuck in English; the original Lutherans called themselves Evangelische, that is, "Evangelical"--and in fact continued to call themselves that, in modern German Evangelische is still used to refer to Protestants.

The issues of the Reformation were never about "Protestants" vs Catholics; but was an intra-Catholic dispute. It would be better to say it was between Catholics who believed in the Evangelical reforms of Luther and co. and Catholics who remained loyal to the leadership in Rome. The Reformation began not with a critique against the Pope, or against the Church, the Reformation began as an open invitation to the Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and the clergy/academics in the region to address the open abuses of the indulgence-sellers, most notorious among them being Johan Tetzel who infamously claimed that the purchase of indulgences could remit the most grievous of sins, even the sins of one who violated the mother of God herself; promising salvation by putting a few coins in the money box. It's worth noting that Tetzel was dealt with, eventually. Luther did this by writing a letter to the Archbishop in which he is not only cordial, but deeply reverent; as well as by posting his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg--he posted these in Latin, and nailing something to a church door was basically what you did in those days as it acted as a public bulletin. The Theses were published in Latin because Luther wanted an academic discussion.

In his Theses and his letter to Albrecht he does not attack the Pope or the Church, quite the opposite, he saw what he was doing as a defending the honor of the Pope against the unscrupulous words and actions of the indulgence-peddlers.

The problem is that the information as it filtered its way back to Rome largely came to be interpreted as an attack on the Pope and a criticism against the Church; it was, after all, the Pope who had called for the need for money to build a new cathedral (what we know today as St. Peter's Cathedral) and the selling of indulgences which, while technically an abuse did kind of help fund that project.

Long story short. Luther was called by the Emperor to the Diet of Worms where he was commanded to recant, to which he responded that he couldn't recant because it would be in violation of his conscience and because there existed no real formal charges of heresy against him. Regardless, a papal bull was signed which marked him a heretic, the Emperor made him a wanted criminal. With Luther holed up in the castle of Prince Frederick the Wise--which gave him the opportunity to translate the Scriptures into German--back in Wittenberg the fanatical Zwickau Prophets came to power, and Andreas Karlstadt effectively took control and hysteria erupted, churches were sacked by peasants, icons and images destroyed. Luther was blamed for the Peasant Revolts, Luther called upon the German princes to respond--but he never imagined the brutality with which they would use--the princes slaughtered, massacred, men and women.

There was a lot going on. Luther, for his part, didn't help when he did things like publish a cartoon of the Pope depicted as a pair of buttocks playing a trumpet, or in calling the Pope the Antichrist. Of course, on the other side of the Tiber they were calling Luther the Antichrist.

Schism happened.

But the Reformation was never about breaking away from the Catholic Church, it was about reform within the Catholic Church. To be Lutheran is not to not be Catholic, quite the opposite; to be Lutheran is to be Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Because of the corruption of man Gods word is not perfect because of man.

God's Word is not just a book, but as far as the book - the Bible - is concerned, it is inerrant and preserved. I find it interesting that mormons like to say the Bible is corrupted by man while ignoring that the same criticism can be applied to all of their scriptures - BoM, D&C, PoGP - as well. Who knows how the Mormon church has changed those documents and hidden the changes since they control those documents entirely. It's already known that many revisions have been made to all of them, what about all the changes made by corrupt men in the mormon church who changed things and hid the changes? Very corrupt.

Just look at the fact that there are so many mormon sects and that the Salt Lake sect broke away from the real LDS Church, the RLDS, aka "Community of Christ".

 

[fatboys]

Fortunately for us the Word of God, ultimately, is not a book, a doctrine, or an idea: it is the Uncreated and Eternal Logos who took on flesh, Jesus the Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe that but the bible is not perfect

 

[Peter1000]

The confusion is in thinking that Lutheran and Catholic are mutually exclusive terms. Lutherans are Catholics. The history of the Reformation is incredibly complicated, there are a lot of players, a lot of politics and politicking, and virtually no good guys or bad guys--just regular, fallible, sinful people on every side.

Lutheranism, as a term, originated basically as a polemical term. Historically "isms" were used to label heresy and heretical movements, so going back to antiquity Marcionism was named after Marcion of Sinope, Sabellianism is named after Sabellius, etc. Thus the term "Lutheranism" was largely a way of speaking of the "heresy of [Martin] Luther"; it was a polemical device. It also stuck in English; the original Lutherans called themselves Evangelische, that is, "Evangelical"--and in fact continued to call themselves that, in modern German Evangelische is still used to refer to Protestants.

The issues of the Reformation were never about "Protestants" vs Catholics; but was an intra-Catholic dispute. It would be better to say it was between Catholics who believed in the Evangelical reforms of Luther and co. and Catholics who remained loyal to the leadership in Rome. The Reformation began not with a critique against the Pope, or against the Church, the Reformation began as an open invitation to the Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and the clergy/academics in the region to address the open abuses of the indulgence-sellers, most notorious among them being Johan Tetzel who infamously claimed that the purchase of indulgences could remit the most grievous of sins, even the sins of one who violated the mother of God herself; promising salvation by putting a few coins in the money box. It's worth noting that Tetzel was dealt with, eventually. Luther did this by writing a letter to the Archbishop in which he is not only cordial, but deeply reverent; as well as by posting his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg--he posted these in Latin, and nailing something to a church door was basically what you did in those days as it acted as a public bulletin. The Theses were published in Latin because Luther wanted an academic discussion.

In his Theses and his letter to Albrecht he does not attack the Pope or the Church, quite the opposite, he saw what he was doing as a defending the honor of the Pope against the unscrupulous words and actions of the indulgence-peddlers.

The problem is that the information as it filtered its way back to Rome largely came to be interpreted as an attack on the Pope and a criticism against the Church; it was, after all, the Pope who had called for the need for money to build a new cathedral (what we know today as St. Peter's Cathedral) and the selling of indulgences which, while technically an abuse did kind of help fund that project.

Long story short. Luther was called by the Emperor to the Diet of Worms where he was commanded to recant, to which he responded that he couldn't recant because it would be in violation of his conscience and because there existed no real formal charges of heresy against him. Regardless, a papal bull was signed which marked him a heretic, the Emperor made him a wanted criminal. With Luther holed up in the castle of Prince Frederick the Wise--which gave him the opportunity to translate the Scriptures into German--back in Wittenberg the fanatical Zwickau Prophets came to power, and Andreas Karlstadt effectively took control and hysteria erupted, churches were sacked by peasants, icons and images destroyed. Luther was blamed for the Peasant Revolts, Luther called upon the German princes to respond--but he never imagined the brutality with which they would use--the princes slaughtered, massacred, men and women.

There was a lot going on. Luther, for his part, didn't help when he did things like publish a cartoon of the Pope depicted as a pair of buttocks playing a trumpet, or in calling the Pope the Antichrist. Of course, on the other side of the Tiber they were calling Luther the Antichrist.

Schism happened.

But the Reformation was never about breaking away from the Catholic Church, it was about reform within the Catholic Church. To be Lutheran is not to not be Catholic, quite the opposite; to be Lutheran is to be Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

You say: Mainstream Christianity is the original. Or rather, the apostolic and catholic Church from the beginning continues within the Christian mainstream, not in novel sectarian movements which have no legitimate claim to the apostolic beginnings of the faith.

I see what you are saying, but I believe the result is the same. The Lutheran church became a sectarian movement which has no legitimate claim to the Roman apostolic beginnings of the faith.

In fact didn't Luther himself wrestle with the idea that he would lose the apostolic line of priesthood once he severed his ties with the RC? It is my understanding that he came to grips with this problem by declaring that all church members were priests of God and that it was a royal priesthood for all. This concept is a true concept and it was from the beginning, that Jesus no longer wanted the priesthood to be tied to 1 particular people or tribe. He wanted all men to step up and take upon them the priesthood of God become a nation of priests unto God.

However, all new Christian men did not stand up and become priests unto God, only a few did, they were quickly made bishops by the apostles and set in charge of a local area of the church. The bishop then selected deacons, and elders and priests, to help him out in the governance of the church in his area.

Soon, however, especially after the apostles were killed, those who held the priesthood, quickly became a special class of people in the church. They became very powerful and could pretty much what they wanted to do, even excommunicate and eventually could even put people to death. They were the priesthood class and the men that did not want to be involved in the priesthood became and laity.

It was not supposed to be that way. All men were supposed to be priests unto God, but what eventually turned out is a professional class of doctors of religion became the priests unto God, the other men were out.

The Lutheran church just picked up where the RC left off, but the apostolic line was severed, Peter holding the keys of the kingdom of God. You remove yourself from the control of Peter and you remove yourself from the priesthood of Peter. You removed yourselves and all the blustering that Luther wrote and prayed about would not be able to connect you back unless you dissolved the Lutheran church and became RC again.

 

[Rescued One]

Because of the corruption of man Gods word is not perfect because of man.

God is a lot more powerful that His creation. He didn't abandon His sheep. He is still the Good Shepherd.

Had He not cared, He would have let men corrupt His word. But He said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16). He didn't lie and He didn't leave His sheep to be devoured by wolves!

 

[fatboys]

God is a lot more powerful that His creation. He didn't abandon His sheep. He is still the Good Shepherd.

Had He not cared, He would have let men corrupt His word. But He said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16). He didn't lie and He didn't leave His sheep to be devoured by wolves!

Then God should have showed his power before the fall