Why Christianity got many sub divisions

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Those are not part of Scandinavia.

I wasn't speaking just of Scandanavia. I was speaking of Lutherans with apostolic succession vs. those with a congregationalist polity.

Nice try, but the bishops of my church certainly DO NOT deny the Nicene Creed.

Oh really? Then why didn't the Anglican Communion take any action against Bishop John Shelby Spong? Says he, a bishop in your church:

"1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
​

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
​

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
​

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
​

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
​

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
​

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
​

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
​

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
​

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
​

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination."
​

That certainly sounds like denying the Nicene Creed to me. Sorry, orthodoxy over apostolicity. And to throw your own principle right back at you: I don't care what you believe. He was a bishop in your church.

After all, if one of us were constantly posting that the Book of Mormon, for example, is the whole truth--but he prefers to belong not to a Mormon church and instead belongs to a mainline Christian one that does not accept the BOM--that would make everyone scratch his head and wonder why that is, I think you'd agree.

You fail to understand my point.

I want desperately to be part of a church with apostolic succession. But alas, there simply isn't one that holds to the considerably more important principles of Lutheran confessional orthodoxy.

 

[Albion]

By the way, for the record:

6.9 million Lutherans in Sweden.
5 million Lutherans in Denmark.
3.9 million Lutherans in Norway.
3.9 million Lutherans in Finland--not Scandinavia
450,000 Lutherans in Latvia.--not Scandinavia
250,000 Lutherans in Iceland.--not Scandinavia
200,000 Lutherans in Estonia.--not Scandinavia

25.3 million Lutherans in Germany.

So, you're right. But it's not small.

If we really care, it's 37% or so. That seems like a clear minority to me, but I'll concede that it's not tiny. On the other hand, you don't belong to any of those churches--the Church of Sweden, for example, so it's not particularly relevant.

And lets be honest.

OK, let's.

The Evangelische Kirke of Germany isn't even really Lutheran. It was forcibly united with the Reformed/Calvinist Church there during the Prussian Union of 1817. In fact, the LCMS was founded specifically by German refugees coming to America appauled by the merger.

And the LCMS has never had bishops in Apostolic Succession and does not support Apostolic Succession. That's being both honest and to the point.

So unless you're entirely blind to the facts, tens of millions of Lutherans around the globe do have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession.

Yes, they do. I never disputed that at all. BUT YOU DON'T BELONG to one of those churches that has bishops in Apostolic Succession. So back to my question....

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps you should abandon the craving & learn to appreciate your freedom from the myth.

 

[E.C.]

Well, it's as you said--"When I read this, I see...."

That is what you saw.

What I said, though, is that IF we were to count every last resident of Scandinavia (not all of whom are Lutheran by a long shot), that figure would still be small compared to the number Lutherans in Europe.

Ah. My mistake on reading it wrong.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

On the other hand, you don't belong to any of those churches--the Church of Sweden, for example, so it's not particularly relevant.

On the other hand, you belong to a church that took no action whatsoever against a Creed-denying heretic. Why should I care about apostolic succession when the Creed itself is in jeopardy?

And the LCMS has never had bishops in Apostolic Succession and does not support Apostolic Succession. That's being both honest and to the point.

Actually, it has. And there are many of us working to restore the episcopacy to its rightful place in the synod.

Yes, they do. I never disputed that at all.

Oh? Then why did you make the case against Lutherans belonging to the Apostolic forum?

BUT YOU DON'T BELONG to one of those churches that has bishops in Apostolic Succession. So back to my question....

No, first my question. Why should I care any more about your profession of the Creed when your church takes no action against a heretic bishop denying it, than you should care about my personal belief contra my church's structure?

 

[Albion]

On the other hand, you belong to a church that took no action whatsoever against a Creed-denying heretic.

No, I don't. You lose again.

Actually, it has. And there are many of us working to restore the episcopacy to its rightful place in the synod.

The LCMS has never had bishops in Apostolic Succession. But I'd be interested to learn what you are doing to "restore" them.

Then why did you make the case against Lutherans belonging to the Apostolic forum?

Because--as you know well--the forum's rules stipulate that forum members be members of a church that claims Apostolic Succession. Since you don't belong to one, it seemed only fair to follow the rules rather than not have any. There is nothing personal in that.

No, first my question. Why should I care any more about your profession of the Creed when your church takes no action against a heretic bishop denying it, than you should care about my personal belief contra my church's structure?

Bishop Spong has never been a member of my church, so taking action would be impossible, wouldn't it? Of course, he's frequently been verbally condemned, but since he's a member of The Episcopal Church, it would be that church body which has the responsibility. Has the LCMS taken action against him? No. And for the same reason mine has not.

Now, please answer my question.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Actually, it's nonsense. It assumes that every reformer decided what he wanted to believe and then found verses to interpret that way. No reputable historian would agree. And only a partisan could take that POV seriously, even if one disagrees totally with what the reformer in question contended for. No matter what the denomination--Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, Spiritualist, whatever--it is always a mistake to conclude that they don't believe what they profess.

No, the scary part is that they do believe what they profess, they just reject the authority of Sacred Tradition that Christ's Holy Catholic Church has put forth to intepret, the Holy Scriptures, Ergo every man claims that his fallibe intepretation----err, rather distortion of scripture can not only be obtained solely on the basis of each person's individual conscience, but that it is the will of the Holy Ghost. This fails to factor in, that the Holy Ghost does NOT guide folks' interpretation of Scripture to conflict one another, when in fact that is exactly what happens. The Holy Ghost is not the author of confusion, ergo, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura must NOT be of the Holy Ghost, because the abundancy of Contradictions conflict with the clarification, and clear message of the truth that is always made manifest when the guidance of Holy Ghost is at work.

 

[Rick Otto]

We reject your definition, as well as your uncharitable attitude.

 

[Albion]

No, the scary part is that they do believe what they profess, they just reject the authority of Sacred Tradition that Christ's Holy Catholic Church has put forth to intepret

All right. They clearly did reject the manmade traditions that the Church was requiring Christians to accept as being of divine origin. I was only commenting on the silly idea that the Reformers were not sincere in their efforts.

the Holy Scriptures, Ergo every man claims that his fallibe intepretation

I hope you do not actually believe that. None of the Reformers taught that. To be able to read the Scriptures is certainly not tantamount to thinking that one's conclusions are infallible.

rather distortion of scripture can not only be obtained solely on the basis of each person's individual conscience,

Of course that is possible, but you do the same thing when you decide to accept as infallible someone else's opinion on the same matter. That is to follow your own individual conscience just as much as if you went to the Word of God and read it for yourself.

This fails to factor in, that the Holy Ghost does NOT guide folks' interpretation of Scripture to conflict one another, when in fact that is exactly what happens. The Holy Ghost is not the author of confusion, ergo, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura must be of the Holy Ghost, because the abundancy of Contradictions conflict with the clarification, and clear message of the truth that accompanies the guidance of Holy Ghost.

The mistake you are making there is in thinking that Sola Scriptura is at fault. There will always be disagreements among Christians and you are included in that as well. But relying upon Scripture to be our guide is to speak only of the METHOD, not of the result. If people misunderstand or misintertret, that is not Scripture's failing. Or do you think it is?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

No, I do NOT think it is Scripture's failing, IT is man's. I'm merely asserting that when, one does not have a guide, other than one's conscience (because men's consciences are indeed fallible and capable of error) then, one ultimately can read any interpretation they believe in Scripture. Each person that reads a certain scripture passage, gets a conflicting opinion, due to the fact that each person has his own notion on what a particular scriptural passage means.

 

[Albion]

No, I do think it is Scripture's failing, IT is man's. I'm merely asserting that when, one does not have a guide, other than one's conscience

Just a moment there. One's conscience is NOT the guide; it is Scripture. All that is in question is the interpretation of it, and everyone has to follow some methodology when it comes to understanding it. Protestants are no different from Catholics in that regard.

then, one ultimately can read any interpretation they believe in Scripture.

Yes, that's so. But this is not--as you've already noted--the fault of scripture, so Sola Scriptura is not shown to be wrong for this reason.

Each person that reads a certain scripture passage, gets a conflicting opinion, due to the fact that each person has his own notion on what a particular scriptural passage means.

But while I may agree to that as it stands, this doesn't make Scripture wrong, only man. AND it doesn't make any other system better, such, for example, as agreeing in advance to take, uncritically, as correct what some OTHER man or group of men say is his/their interpretation of it.

IOW, Sola Scriptura will indeed give us more interpretations, but we cannot say that all of them are wrong for that reason. And then we have the Catholic position that gives us a more unified (but not total) answer, but not necessarily the right answer.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Sorry, I did edit my post to say "NOT", I looked over it, and saw my mistake.

 

[Albion]

Sorry, I did edit my post to say "NOT", I looked over it, and saw my mistake.

Sure. I read it as meaning to say NOT. My reply assumes that NOT was your intention.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

IOW, Sola Scriptura will indeed give us more interpretations, but we cannot say that all of them are wrong for that reason. And then we have the Catholic position that gives us a more unified (but not total) answer, but not necessarily the right answer.

I agree with that for the most part, except I obvious believe the Catholic position to valid and true.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I think, that I'll observe more. I don't often like to debate. I didn't even know this forum existed until about three days ago. It's amazing what one finds out on one's daily musings.

 

[Albion]

I agree with that for the most part, except I obvious believe the Catholic position to valid and true.

Of course you do. And that is your personal decision, a personal opinion, you can say. So it's no different from what a Protestant does when he reads the Bible for himself (and hopefully some commentary) and reaches his own conclusion.

Or, to be even more accurate, most Protestant churches teach their people what to believe, just as yours does with you, so there's even less difference at the bottom line. People go with what is most persuasive to them and tend to do so not totally on their own but relying to some degree upon experts.

Put another way, it's something of a well-worn myth that Protestants with Sola Scriptura teach that everyone's on his own and whatever you come up with in reading the Bible is just as good as the next man's idea. Sola Scriptura merely says that the Bible is the ultimate source of our understanding, all that God intended to give us for our guidance in this life, containing all the is necessary to know for our salvation...to the exclusion of all else. What you understand from the reading of the Bible is actually a separate issue.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I agree with that for the most part, except I obvious believe the Catholic position to valid and true.

Catholics have scripture and we have the oral teachings from the Apsotles which enrichs our understanding of God and scripture.

If you think about the New Testament it is nothing more then the writings from the Apostles that have been preserved with out error. Scripture tells us to keep what the Apostles taught both written and oral.

For Protestants they only have Sola Scriptura and so they lose out on many teachings of the Apostles and geater understanding of scripture.

Yes, I too believe the Catholic teaching to be valid. And when scripture says that the Pillar of Truth is the Church then I know it is speaking of the Catholic Church since no other Christian church existed at that time. I also know that since Peter is the Rock and the Catholic Church was built on Peter and maintains the seat of Peter that the Gates of Hell will not stand against it.

Ahhh... What a peaceful feeling to be Catholic.





When I think of all the divisions that occured from the "reformation" I can not help but feel sad. I will think of the Gospel of John 17 where Jesus has left the seder meal and forgone the last cup of wine until on the cross and then goes to pray his last prayer to the Father. Being his last known prayer it seems to me it should be one of great importance. Especially when an entire chapter is devoted to it. And what is a major theme of our Lords prayer? UNITY

Jesus prays that all those that the Father brings to him are unified as Jesus and the Father are unified. It is sad because I can sense Jesus and his desire for all Christianity to be united. But since the 16th century there has been such an increasing division with Chrisitans that people have been weakened in their Faith.

I say weakened because I am reminded of what Jesus said when accused of being a demon when he was casting out demons. remember? Jesus said Lucifer is smart enough not to cause division and so Lucifer and the demons would not cast out demons. Yet what has man done since the "reformation"? If you guessed division then that is what I was thinking too.

Very very sad...

 

[Rick Otto]

Wrong, Jack.

"For Protestants they only have Sola Scriptura and so they lose out on many teachings of the Apostles and geater understanding of scripture."

Everybody has the oral tradition, Prots aren't forbidden access to those traditions...just not everybody makes the mistake of elevating them to the level of authority scripture provides.
Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful that you have something you feel good about belonging to - other than God, but you shouldn't allow it to distort your perceptions so fundamentaly about those who don't buy into it.

BTW, can you tell me where to get a copy of the teachings of the apostles that aren't realy a copy of the teachings of their students?


Your pity sounds a little patronizing. What you might consider as "very very sad" is what your exclusive club did to the Reformers.

 

[Albion]

Catholics have scripture and we have the oral teachings from the Apsotles which enrichs our understanding of God and scripture.

Uplifting commentaries on God's goodness or poetry like the psalms that extoll God's work among us could be called an enrichment. Adding to the Word of God is not an enrichment.

If you think about the New Testament it is nothing more then the writings from the Apostles that have been preserved with out error. Scripture tells us to keep what the Apostles taught both written and oral.

But nowhere does it say that what they taught in either written or oral fashion was anothing other than what the scriptures taught them. It was not a second-track or supplement.

For Protestants they only have Sola Scriptura and so they lose out on many teachings of the Apostles and geater understanding of scripture.

Again, you don't know that. You are assuming that the Apostles taught something other than what the Word of God teaches all of us. There is absolutely no evidence that such was the case. In addition, why would anyone think that the Word of God revealed is insufficient for our guidance?

Yes, I too believe the Catholic teaching to be valid. And when scripture says that the Pillar of Truth is the Church then I know it is speaking of the Catholic Church

What it is speaking of is not a denomination.

I also know that since Peter is the Rock and the Catholic Church was built on Peter and maintains the seat of Peter that the Gates of Hell will not stand against it.
Ahhh... What a peaceful feeling to be Catholic.

Frankly, I just cannot feel good about superiority attitudes or denominational pride.

Jesus prays that all those that the Father brings to him are unified as Jesus and the Father are unified. It is sad because I can sense Jesus and his desire for all Christianity to be united. But since the 16th century there has been such an increasing division with Chrisitans that people have been weakened in their Faith. [/quote[

Not to mention the hundreds of divisions that existed PRIOR to the Reformation before there were any Protestants to blame for it.

And by the way, is there any church in Christendom that has suffered or been the cause of MORE splits and divisions than the Roman Church? Well, no.

 

[ibba23]

Bump, God Bless!!