finding truth in Christianity

[ViaCrucis]

Goodness this is not true at all. Luther rejected Catholic teachings that lead men to follow the teachings and traditions of men over the Word of God and pointed people back to the bible. The reformation only started because the Roman Catholic Church was not following what Luther read from the scriptures. From what I read in your post your more Catholic then Lutheran.

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know how silly saying my post makes me seem "more Catholic then[sic] Lutheran" is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know how silly saying my post makes me seem "more Catholic then[sic] Lutheran" is.

-CryptoLutheran

Sure I know what I am talking about. I know the bible as well as History

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sure I know what I am talking about. I know the bible as well as History

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same;" - Augsburg Confession, Article XXI

"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience.

Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - ibid.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveGodsWord]

"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience.

Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - Augsburg Confession

-CryptoLutheran

This quote you provide here is only very early in Luther's part in the reformation not the full extent of it.

"Luther (and other reformers) turned to the Bible as the only reliable source of instruction (as opposed to the teachings of the Church). The invention of the printing press in the middle of the 15th century (by Gutenberg in Mainz, Germany) together with the translation of the Bible into the vernacular (the common languages of French, Italian, German, English, etc.) meant that it was possible for those who could read to learn directly from Bible without having to rely on a priest or other church officials. Before this time, the Bible was available in Latin, the ancient language of Rome spoken chiefly by the clergy. Before the printing press, books were handmade and extremely expensive. The invention of the printing press and the translation of the bible into the vernacular meant that for the first time in history, the Bible was available to those outside of the Church. And now, a direct relationship to God, unmediated by the institution of the Catholic Church, was possible. When Luther and other reformers looked to the words of the Bible (and there were efforts at improving the accuracy of these new translations based on early Greek manuscripts), they found that many of the practices and teachings of the Church about how we achieve salvation didn't match Christ's teaching. This included many of the Sacraments, including Holy Communion (also known as the Eucharist). According to the Catholic Church, the miracle of Communion is transubstantiation—when the priest administers the bread and wine, they change (the prefix "trans" means to change) their substance into the body and blood of Christ. Luther denied this change during Holy Communion. Luther thereby challenged one of the central sacraments of the Catholic Church, one of its central miracles, and thereby one of the ways that human beings can achieve grace with God, or salvation." - Introduction to Protestantism

Your understanding of the reformation and what Luther did is more in line with Catholic teaching then what the Protestant reformation he started was about.

Hope this helps.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This quote you provide here is only very early in the reformation not the full extent of it.

"Luther (and other reformers) turned to the Bible as the only reliable source of instruction (as opposed to the teachings of the Church). The invention of the printing press in the middle of the 15th century (by Gutenberg in Mainz, Germany) together with the translation of the Bible into the vernacular (the common languages of French, Italian, German, English, etc.) meant that it was possible for those who could read to learn directly from Bible without having to rely on a priest or other church officials. Before this time, the Bible was available in Latin, the ancient language of Rome spoken chiefly by the clergy. Before the printing press, books were handmade and extremely expensive. The invention of the printing press and the translation of the bible into the vernacular meant that for the first time in history, the Bible was available to those outside of the Church. And now, a direct relationship to God, unmediated by the institution of the Catholic Church, was possible. When Luther and other reformers looked to the words of the Bible (and there were efforts at improving the accuracy of these new translations based on early Greek manuscripts), they found that many of the practices and teachings of the Church about how we achieve salvation didn't match Christ's teaching. This included many of the Sacraments, including Holy Communion (also known as the Eucharist). According to the Catholic Church, the miracle of Communion is transubstantiation—when the priest administers the bread and wine, they change (the prefix "trans" means to change) their substance into the body and blood of Christ. Luther denied this change during Holy Communion. Luther thereby challenged one of the central sacraments of the Catholic Church, one of its central miracles, and thereby one of the ways that human beings can achieve grace with God, or salvation." - Introduction to Protestantism

Your understanding of the reformation and what Luther did is more in line with Catholic teaching then what Protestantism is.

The quoted article is riddled with error. To suggest Luther challenged the Holy Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist and of the miraculous power of God in the Sacrament is beyond absurd.

Here is what Luther has to say,

"Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.

...

Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine.

But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive." - Large Catechism, Part V, 8-10, 13-14

The bread and wine of the Eucharist is the very true and actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ which was broken and shed for us, and thus there is forgiveness of sins here in this Holy and Blessed Sacrament.

Yes, there is forgiveness and grace here at Christ's Table, because here is Christ Himself--His own body and blood--given to us.

"We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29." - Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article VII, Affirmative Theses 6-7

The reason what I'm saying doesn't sound "Protestant" to you, is because Lutheranism doesn't sound Protestant to you--because for most Protestants the only kind of Protestantism they know is the stuff that came long after the Reformation. And even then, most of that came out of the Reformed tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox. And don't confuse Luther with them, they were not saying the same things, their reformation was not his, even less so the "reform" of the radicals and the enthusiasts.

It's not that I sound "more Catholic than Lutheran", it's that Lutheranism isn't just another off-brand Protestant rip-off.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The quoted article is riddled with error. To suggest Luther challenged the Holy Sacraments, especially the Most Holy Eucharist and of the miraculous power of God in the Sacrament is beyond absurd.

Here is what Luther has to say,

"Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.......
It's not that I sound "more Catholic than Lutheran", it's that Lutheranism isn't just another off-brand Protestant rip-off.

-CryptoLutheran

The Sacrament doctrine of Transubstantiation

The sixteenth-century Reformation gave this as a reason for rejecting the Catholic teaching. The Council of Trent did not impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents or the term “transubstantiation” in its Aristotelian meaning, but stated that the term is a fitting and proper term for the change that takes place by consecration of the bread and wine. The term, which for that Council had no essential dependence on scholastic ideas, is used in the Catholic Church to affirm the fact of Christ's presence and the mysterious and radical change which takes place, but not to explain how the change takes place,[14] since this occurs "in a way surpassing understanding".[7] The term is mentioned in both the 1992 and 1997 editions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and is given prominence in the later (2005) Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an Aristotelian "pseudophilosophy"[35] imported into Christian teaching and jettisoned in favor of Martin Luther's doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.[36]



Title page of Martin Luther's De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae

In the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation became a matter of much controversy. Martin Luther held that "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist".[37] In his "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (published on 6 October 1520)

Luther wrote:

Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread", and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine". Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning. Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea – until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.[38]

In his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper he wrote:

"Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body", even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union", because Christ's body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[39]"

What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called "consubstantiation" by non-Lutherans. In "On the Babylonian Captivity", Luther upheld belief in the Real Presence of Jesus and, in his 1523 treatise The Adoration of the Sacrament, defended adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Huldrych Zwingli taught that the sacrament is purely symbolic and memorial in character, arguing that this was the meaning of Jesus' instruction: "Do this in remembrance of me."[40]

King Henry VIII of England, though breaking with the Pope, kept many essentials of Catholic doctrine, including transubstantiation. This was enshrined in the Six Articles of 1539, and the death penalty specifically prescribed for any who denied transubstantiation.

This was changed under Elizabeth I. In the 39 articles of 1563, the Church of England declared: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions".[41] Laws were enacted against participation in Catholic worship, which remained illegal until 1791.[42][43]

For a century and half – 1672 to 1828 – transubstantiation had an important role, in a negative way, in British political and social life. Under the Test Act, the holding of any public office was made conditional upon explicitly denying Transubstantiation. Any aspirant to public office had to repeat the formula set out by the law: "I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever."

In 1551, the Council of Trent declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a dogma of faith[44] and stated that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[45] In its 13th session ending 11 October 1551, the Council defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".[45] This council officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ's presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[46] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term "accidents", and the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[47] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same "οὐσία" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) as the Father.

.......................

You were saying?

 

[Albion]

You are right, of course. Luther did not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It's not that I sound "more Catholic than Lutheran", it's that Lutheranism isn't just another off-brand Protestant rip-off.
-CryptoLutheran

This is where your wrong dear friend. Luther was one of the earliest reformers that God used to start the Protestant reformation with the aim of calling for people to leave following the unbiblical teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. indulgences etc), to return to the living Word of God. Catholicism which seems to be what you are promoting is the opposite. It is a call back to Church teachings and traditions in place of the Word of God. Luther did not teach this.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You are right, of course. Luther did not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Thanks Albion, agreed.

 

[Mountainmike]

It points to the making of a religion built upon the already existing structures of Rome. Yet Jesus represented a culture counter to the culture of man. Man just can't help themselves it seems in continually making God over in their own image, and turning a counter-culture back into yet another institution of man..

thanks for advocating for the church or rome but rome is inconsistent, thus truth is present in most of the protestant churches we accepted it (not like we never read those writing from the church fathers)

I think you both missed the point completely.

The first ones were taught by the apostles. The faith was handed down to disciples.
John knew what he meant when he wrote john 6 for example: it is inconceivable that either John made an error in teaching, or indeed our Lord would have allowed such a misunderstanding to prevail in his church. So what his disciples said is what he taught them.

So that when Iraneus and Polycarp, disciples of John, state for example that the eucharist is the real presence, that it is invalid unless sanctioned by a bishop in succession, and that to take it unworthily is to profane it. The didache states it is a sacrifice. Those are clearly Christs intentions. There is no "gap" in time for the truth to get lost.

Yet many if not most of the post reformation congregations dont believe that. Why? It was clearly the faith handed on by apostles. And the bible is only the word of God if the right interpretation is used of it. In the case of John 6 the literal. The word "eat" used means "gnaw" as of meat. Not consume as a spiritual word.

Rome has always believed that. Never inconsistent.

I observed (as ex protestant and evangelical) few of them seem to have heard of or studied those first christians.

So my suggestion is all go back to the post apostolic fathers, indeed the ones who chose the canon and creed. What did they beliveve it meant? Matthew assures us in 24 that the gospel will be preached to the end of time (ie not go off the rails for 1000 years the presumption of many reformationists!

 

[timothyu]

So my suggestion is all go back to the post apostolic fathers, indeed the ones who chose the canon and creed. What did they beliveve it meant? Matthew assures us in 24 that the gospel will be preached to the end of time (ie not go off the rails for 1000 years the presumption of many reformationists!

The key is to go back to the beginning, not at some 'post' point where changes have already been made, especially by gentiles building a gentile institution with their own purposes in mind. As for gospel, the only gospel was the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught which of course is usually no where to be found when it comes to institutional Christianity.

 

[Albion]

So my suggestion is all go back to the post apostolic fathers, indeed the ones who chose the canon and creed. What did they beliveve it meant?

It wouldn't seem logical to go all the way back to, say, the fourth century, after many changes in the faith had already occurred, to stop there, and then base a firm conclusion on those people while pointedly ignoring all that is known of the first century church!

Matthew assures us in 24 that the gospel will be preached to the end of time (ie not go off the rails for 1000 years the presumption of many reformationists!

What is NOT promised is that the institutional church will never make a mistake. What Matthew tells us is that the gates of hell will not PREVAIL against the church. And they haven't. We can see this in the fact that Christianity is still the largest religion in the world and has continued to reach more and more nationalities with the Gospel.

 

[pescador]

The key is to go back to the beginning, not at some 'post' point where changes have already been made, especially by gentiles building a gentile institution with their own purposes in mind. As for gospel, the only gospel was the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught which of course is usually no where to be found when it comes to institutional Christianity.

Basically I agree with you, although "institutional Christianity" -- the modern church -- does use the same Bible as you and me, even if they misinterpret it somewhat. The Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught is there for anyone to read it and let the Holy Spirit guide them into all truth. The church officials may or may not have it right; the Word of God is infallible.

 

[timothyu]

The Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus taught is there for anyone to read it and let the Holy Spirit guide them into all truth.

Precisely. Less reliance on the middle man and more on the source. But then that may result in the fall of institutions, which of course is not always bad especially when doctrine is formulated to protect themselves. Nothing that is not of the Kingdom is of value to a follower of Jesus.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are on dodgy ground there Albion. If you dispute 4 th century teaching you also dispute the New Testament and creed.

the problem with those proclaiming apostasy, is they never seem to find it when they look: “ life of Anthony” shows the teaching pre and post Constantine was unchanged, yet he is often blamed!



In my view , those who think the faith started going off the rails in the early centuries have a very low view of Christ. Why would he allow His church to go off the rails or allow many generations to be lost, or tell Paul he got it wrong saying “ stay true to tradition” or indeed that the “ pillar of truth” is no longer the church?

It wouldn't seem logical to go all the way back to, say, the fourth century, after many changes in the faith had already occurred, to stop there, and then base a firm conclusion on those people while pointedly ignoring all that is known of the first century church!


What is NOT promised is that the institutional church will never make a mistake. What Matthew tells us is that the gates of hell will not PREVAIL against the church. And they haven't. We can see this in the fact that Christianity is still the largest religion in the world and has continued to reach more and more nationalities with the Gospel.

 

[Albion]

You are on dodgy ground there Albion. If you dispute 4 th century teaching you also dispute the New Testament and creed.

I didn't dispute either the NT or the Creed. There must be a misunderstanding of that post.

the problem with those proclaiming apostasy,

Neither of us has proclaimed apostasy.

 

[Mountainmike]

I didn't dispute either the NT or the Creed. There must be a misunderstanding of that post.


Neither of us has proclaimed apostasy.

I misunderstood this then

It wouldn't seem logical to go all the way back to, say, the fourth century, after many changes in the faith had already occurred, to stop there, and then base a firm conclusion on those people while pointedly ignoring all that is known of the first century church!

I thought you implied changes between first and fourth century?

 

[mlepfitjw]

Have you found the truth in Christianity?

From my understanding the Lord Jesus Christ existed in this world, lived a life without sinning, died for you and God rose him up again on the third day, and because of this all people sins have been forgiven. It is now a choice to believe ; Love God, and to Love Others. You are given a spirit by God not of fear, but of power (over your mind and how it is with its feelings), love, and self-control. You are going to die, and you are going to go to God and be judged. You will given a spiritual body by God afterward as a believer. You will end up in the Kingdom of God if you die a believer. If you are an unbeliever you will go on the outside of the Kingdom of God.

There is choices every day to make, the only one truth that is really been made unto all the world is that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[Ennon Slegers]

I was baptised in a protestant church, so my exposure is merely protestant. The problem with protestant is that we the bible only mindset, we are proud of our reformation in the 16th century, and that can makes us bias and willing to open up to the true christianity. The sad part about protestantism it is a mess, each denomination interpret their bible in their own way and no true unity btw them, each claim they are right and know how to read the bible best, this open up to false teaching and invite wolves into the churches.

so how does one find truth in Christianity. i don't deny the authority of the bible but i'm interested in the correct interpretation of the bible. that being said I've to read the early christian writings, read tons of theologian from different branch of christianity including roman catholic and eastern orthodox, study hard about church history.. right? I was an ostrich I mainly listen to whosoever pastor me in a church, I think it's time for me to do my due diligence. What are some of the advice I can get for those who have went through it?

Hebrews 5:14 says that we should always have our senses trained so that we may able to discern truth from error. so there are many false teachings that you may hear being promoted across the pulpit at your church and if you do I want to encourage you to strongly consider and pray about looking for another church that teaches sound doctrine. You can also click here>>>
bit.ly/faLse_TeaChings
to learn more important things about how to avoid false teachings.

 

[timothyu]

and if you do I want to encourage you to strongly consider and pray about looking for another church that teaches sound doctrine.

Why not just speak up within your own church?