How do Catholics hear the Gospel?

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:

Since God tells us to offer Him acceptable sacrifice, then if we do so, we are merely keeping the terms of the covenantal relationship we have entered into with Him.

That is simply not works.

"To obey is better than sacrifice..." God

Please take a good long look at your words; consider them, and then practice what you preach. "To obey is better than to sacrifice," are the words that Samuel spoke to Saul when he presumed upon himself to sacrifice to the Lord, instead of waiting for Samuel. God doesn't want your sacrifice. He wants your obedience. He doesn't want the "sacrifice of the mass." That is blasphemy to him. There is only one work that God considers at all, and that is the work of "believing on Him who sent me," Jesus said. All else is of grace, for "Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe. Sin has left its crimson stain. He washed it white as snow."

There is no covenantal relationship that we are commanded to keep. Read Jeremiah 31:31. The covenant is between Jehovah and the Jewish nation. Baptism is strictly a New Testament ordinance, symbolizing the believers death to his old life to sin, and his new life in Christ. It is a picture. It in no way replaces circumcision, and there is no Scripture that teaches that it does. Why do you take Old Testament theology and try to force it into a New Testament dispensation. Christ came to fulfill the law. He died on the cross nailing our sin to the tree, becoming a curse for us. You put yourself under the bondage of sin and the law, by a works religion, and at the same time unwittingly reject the grace of God in salvation.
DHK

 

[CatholicConvert]

You really need to think about what you just said.

The covenant is between Jehovah and the Jewish nation.

The Scriptures talk about the New Covenant being made with "my people Israel".

If this is true, then you are not saved. The Covenant of Jesus' Blood belongs not to any Gentile, but only to Jews according to what you keep telling me.

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Furthermore, this verse says you are wrong. A pure offering shall be offered. Doesn't sound like the "once and done" thingee you make Christ's sacrifice to be. Sounds perpetual to me.

Brother Ed

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:

The covenant is between Jehovah and the Jewish nation.

The Scriptures talk about the New Covenant being made with "my people Israel".

If this is true, then you are not saved. The Covenant of Jesus' Blood belongs not to any Gentile, but only to Jews according to what you keep telling me.

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

This verse is speaking of the Millennial Kingdom yet to come. God's name has not yet been made great among the Gentiles in every place. In every place incence has not been offered to Him as a pure offering. This is yet to come. What will it be like Read on:

Zech.14:16-20
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

This has not happened ever in history. It is still yet to come. Jesus will rule as King, for a thousand years on this earth. His covenant is with the Jews, not with you or any other Gentile. Sorry to disappoint you. I am saved by the blood of the Lamb, not through a Jewish covenant.
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, "
- Martin Luther, Martin Luther's Works, vol 52, pg 39

I would like to know the source of your quote, because that quote does not exist. </font>[/QUOTE]The source is provided right there. Also, I posted more than one statement from Luther on this; why did you only address this one? It must be because you couldn't dispute it, and he actually said it.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Just check the Lutheran Confessions, when he states that she was "always holy."

Luther didn't write the entirety of the confessions, he only wrote the Schmalcald articles. Besides which your quote is a contested reading (Book of Concord Kolb/Wengert).</font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter who wrote it, though I apologize for being in error in stating that Luther wrote it. Lutherans are obliged to be loyal to the Confessions if they wish to remain Luther.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
In volume 32 article 28 Luther defends the right of people to believe that the immaculate conception of Mary is false.

Yes, Lutheranism doubles back a lot. In the early writings of Luther against the Church, he (or whoever wrote it) stated that they were in agreement over the Lord's Supper, and then they'd pick something apart, and then by the end, they completely tore the Catholic belief apart. Lutheran doctrine intrisically changes to fit the need of the times (just see the ELCA on abortion).

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Officially the perpetual virginity of Mary is concidered an open question, because a. it is not a vital doctrine b. there is enough evidence for both arguments and is thus ambigous.

I see, but it's a closed question that the Pope is "the very AntiChrist." Amazing. According to your own words, this must be a vital doctrine to you, and there is ample evidence and is in no way ambiguous.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, not at all. We offer the sacrifice which He ordained us to offer. "Works righteousness" would be if we were to offer something that He never told us to offer and then expected Him to accept it on our merit. We offer Christ, the Lamb of God, and expect that God accepts this sacrifice based on the merit of Christ.

But God didn't give it to us to offer. He did that himself. So to say you can offer a sacrifice is works-righteousness.</font>[/QUOTE]This is nothing but confusion of definitions.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Chemnitz]

The source is provided right there. Also, I posted more than one statement from Luther on this; why did you only address this one? It must be because you couldn't dispute it, and he actually said it.

Actually I disputed it, because it doesn't exist. I own the complete set of Luther's Works and the quote you gave does not exist.

Yes, Lutheranism doubles back a lot. In the early writings of Luther against the Church, he (or whoever wrote it) stated that they were in agreement over the Lord's Supper, and then they'd pick something apart, and then by the end, they completely tore the Catholic belief apart. Lutheran doctrine intrisically changes to fit the need of the times (just see the ELCA on abortion).

As of the Convention of 2001 the ELCA is not recognized as orthodox Lutheran. The true confessional Lutheran churches (LCMS, WELS, and ELS) have not changed their stances.

And it was stated that we agree that Christ is truly physically present. It never agreed to transubstantiation.

[ October 02, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The source is provided right there. Also, I posted more than one statement from Luther on this; why did you only address this one? It must be because you couldn't dispute it, and he actually said it.

Actually I disputed it, because it doesn't exist. I own the complete set of Luther's Works and the quote you gave does not exist.</font>[/QUOTE]Fine, I'll accept that. Now tackle the other ones.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, Lutheranism doubles back a lot. In the early writings of Luther against the Church, he (or whoever wrote it) stated that they were in agreement over the Lord's Supper, and then they'd pick something apart, and then by the end, they completely tore the Catholic belief apart. Lutheran doctrine intrisically changes to fit the need of the times (just see the ELCA on abortion).

As of the Convention of 2001 the ELCA is not recognized as orthodox Lutheran. The true confessional Lutheran churches (LCMS, WELS, and ELS) have not changed their stances.

And it was stated that we agree that Christ is truly physically present. It never agreed to transubstantiation.</font>[/QUOTE]On what authority is this happening? What Lutheran body actually has the right to renounce another Lutheran body? Interested to hear your answer.

Also, deny it all you wish, but the early confessions were written in completely different manners, even in such a way that there looked like there were no differences. Either the doctrines of Luther continued to evolve and change, or the early documents were written in a deceitful manner.

 

[GraceSaves]

Augsburg Confession

Article XXIV: Of the Mass
1] Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained amoung 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverance.

Compare that to the Smalcald Articles in reference to the Mass. It started out as retaining it, while attempting to correct abuses. Then it turned to getting rid of it all together.

Just found it:

Smalcald Articles

Article II: Of the Mass

5] Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men's twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be ommitted without sin, and that no one will be condemned who does not observe it, but that he can be saved in a better way without the Mass.

So...which is it? I thought they were falsely accused of ommitting it, and here they are literally preaching that the Mass is evil, and that man should omit it.

Well?

[ October 02, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[GraceSaves]

I'd like to add that abortion is not discussed in the Lutheran Confessions, nor is the ordination of women (as far as I've seen). So how are they considered unorthodox in the first place? I mean, the Confessions state that Mary was "always [Holy] and always a virgin," and you say that Lutherans can deny that. You sound unorthodox to me.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

Rule and Norm

5] In the third place, since in these last times God, out of especial grace, has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy through his faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther . . .

So God can chose Luther...just not a pope. Excellent.

 

[GraceSaves]

More Lutheran fun:

Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

Articles in Controversy with Respect ot the Antithese, or Opposite Doctrine.

18] Secondly, we reject and condemn all heresies and sects which are rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary of the Confession of our churches.

Amazingly, Lutherans freely condemn not all in full agreement with them. What amazing authority.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Of course, DHK, this is assuming that your premillenialist version of eschatology is "spot on". I happen to disagree highly with it, being a Partial Preterist.

But I guess, judging from the way most of the Fundamentalist Premillenialist leadership is foaming at the mouth over the Iraq situation that we shall see soon, at least, if you are correct.

Brother Ed

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Of course, DHK, this is assuming that your premillenialist version of eschatology is "spot on". I happen to disagree highly with it, being a Partial Preterist.

But I guess, judging from the way most of the Fundamentalist Premillenialist leadership is foaming at the mouth over the Iraq situation that we shall see soon, at least, if you are correct.
Brother Ed

Though I am pre-trib, and pre-mill., Ed, I am by no means a date-setter or a sensationalist. I do believe that Christ could come at any time. But His coming could also still be some years down the road. No man knows the day thereof. I refuse to get caught up in the current sensationalism as tempting as it is. "In the fulness of time Christ came." He will likewise come again (on His time-table, not mine).
DHK

 

[Chemnitz]

You know it would help Grant, if you would stop prooftexting the Confessions. Article 24 starts out by saying we celebrate the mass and then goes on to elaborate the papal abuses found in the Roman Mass ( Article 24 A.C. ). Which is the exact same thing that article 2 of the Schmalcald articles does ( Article 2 Schmalcald ). And the apology goes into even greater detail. ( Apology for the AC article 23 )

I'd like to add that abortion is not discussed in the Lutheran Confessions, nor is the ordination of women (as far as I've seen). So how are they considered unorthodox in the first place? I mean, the Confessions state that Mary was "always [Holy] and always a virgin," and you say that Lutherans can deny that. You sound unorthodox to me.

Is this the best you can do, I think abortion is pretty well covered by the 5th Commandement. Women's ordination wasn't even a concideration at that point, so I am not surprised that it isn't even discussed in the confessions. You would have to ask the ELCA why they decided to ignore 3 books of the Bible.

Smalcald article 1: "and was born of the pure, holy Virgin Mary" (Book of Concord Kolb/Wengert ed). This article is only to maintain the virgin birth not to establish any official belief on her continuing on as a virgin.

Rule and Norm

5] In the third place, since in these last times God, out of especial grace, has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy through his faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther . . .

So God can chose Luther...just not a pope. Excellent.

Concidering the Pope was/is quite willing to bury the Gospel under so called pious works why not.

18] Secondly, we reject and condemn all heresies and sects which are rejected in the writings, just mentioned, of the comprehensive summary of the Confession of our churches.

Amazingly, Lutherans freely condemn not all in full agreement with them. What amazing authority.

And this is any different than the Council of Trent how?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
You know it would help Grant, if you would stop prooftexting the Confessions. Article 24 starts out by saying we celebrate the mass and then goes on to elaborate the papal abuses found in the Roman Mass ( Article 24 A.C. ). Which is the exact same thing that article 2 of the Schmalcald articles does ( Article 2 Schmalcald ). And the apology goes into even greater detail. ( Apology for the AC article 23 )

You avoided the whole point of my argument. First, the Mass is a great thing, and they celebrate it eagerly; it just needs refined. Then, the Mass is to be ommitted, and readily, for it both isn't needed, and it's stated that there is a better substitute. The Mass was abandoned; that's a complete change from "celebrating it" openly and with fervor, merely seeking to cease abuses.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Is this the best you can do, I think abortion is pretty well covered by the 5th Commandement. Women's ordination wasn't even a concideration at that point, so I am not surprised that it isn't even discussed in the confessions. You would have to ask the ELCA why they decided to ignore 3 books of the Bible.

"Thou shalt not kill." Of course; but when does life start? 4 months into the pregnancy? 1 month? A week? The next day? As soon as a zygote forms? This is an unanswered question scientifically, and thus an open definition.

Either way, did God not allow but also help His people in battle, where many men were killed? Is it not a hard (if not almost impossible) question to answer as to if the killing of someone in war is justifiable (or, rather, non-sinful)? There's a lot of interpretation; what makes you think yours is correct, since your Church never discussed it?

Oh, and as for ignoring books of the Bible, it was Luther who called James "an epistle of straw," and took it and other books out of his personal Bible. Yes, this holy man chosen by Gods, spoken of as the greatest hero of the Church in the Lutheran Confessions, and the one whose interpretations you trust. Of course, you also deny the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, taken out by Lutherans during the Reformation...so what makes you different than the ELCA, "ignoring" books of the Bible as you say, especially since the topic was not addressed?

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Smalcald article 1: "and was born of the pure, holy Virgin Mary" (Book of Concord Kolb/Wengert ed). This article is only to maintain the virgin birth not to establish any official belief on her continuing on as a virgin.

Fine, so explain the "pure, holy" part of it, since that was what I was arguing in the first place.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Concidering the Pope was/is quite willing to bury the Gospel under so called pious works why not.

What a level-headed, well thought out statement. What's even better is that it is a defined, unquestionable doctrine of your Church.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
And this is any different than the Council of Trent how?

Do you realize how well you just set yourself up? The Catholic Church has a teaching authority that you reject; it's not a problem for me to refer to the Council of Trent. But, unfortunately, you just justified my statement by referring to a belief (in the teaching authority of the Magesterium) as a justification for the statement in the Lutheran Confessions.

If you reject a teaching authority, you cannot condemn those who teach differently than you. To do so claims self-authority.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Chemnitz]

Oh, and as for ignoring books of the Bible, it was Luther who called James "an epistle of straw," and took it and other books out of his personal Bible. Yes, this holy man chosen by Gods, spoken of as the greatest hero of the Church in the Lutheran Confessions, and the one whose interpretations you trust. Of course, you also deny the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, taken out by Lutherans during the Reformation...so what makes you different than the ELCA, "ignoring" books of the Bible as you say, especially since the topic was not addressed?

Concidering the Deutrocanonicals were never in until the Council of Trent that is a moot point. Second, you must not know your history very well because Luther left in the epistle of James.

"Thou shalt not kill." Of course; but when does life start? 4 months into the pregnancy? 1 month? A week? The next day? As soon as a zygote forms? This is an unanswered question scientifically, and thus an open definition.

As a former scientist, I can tell you they know when life begins. They just don't want to admit it. The great inconsistancy of science is that for every creature (plant or animal), except human, life begins at conception according to them. Of course this is a pointless argument and leads me to believe you know you are being dishonest with the confessions are are trying to sidetract the discussion.

You avoided the whole point of my argument. First, the Mass is a great thing, and they celebrate it eagerly; it just needs refined. Then, the Mass is to be ommitted, and readily, for it both isn't needed, and it's stated that there is a better substitute. The Mass was abandoned; that's a complete change from "celebrating it" openly and with fervor, merely seeking to cease abuses.

If you had read closely he described the removal of the Papal Mass. Mass was and still is celebrated, just with out all of the junk that had been added on to it by the roman curia. You should try reading, you would of seen that in the Smalcald Articles, Luther was describing a response to a papal loyalist.

Fine, so explain the "pure, holy" part of it, since that was what I was arguing in the first place.

What you want to make a big deal that they were emphasizing that she was a pure virgin? Remember holy does not mean sinless.

If you reject a teaching authority, you cannot condemn those who teach differently than you. To do so claims self-authority.

This is a common misconception in both prot. and rcc circles. Lutherans never rejected tradition, they just returned it to its proper place, subordinate to Scripture. All tradition is subject to scrutiny by Scripture.

 

[mikesnedding]

My problem with the pope religion is basically this.

It is not so much their love of pagan idolatry, frocks, fetishes, bells, smells, and putrid, prancing, processing, prelates, that gets me, but that wicked spirit of anti-Word which is at the root of it all. One only has to go into one of their temples and feel the strength of this particular demonic power.

Until they are born again of the Spirit, they cannot know Him.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Concidering the Deutrocanonicals were never in until the Council of Trent that is a moot point. Second, you must not know your history very well because Luther left in the epistle of James.

Explain how the first printed-press Bible, before Luther's time, contained these books if they were not added until the mid 1500's at the Council of Trent. It's this same lack of sense of history that claims that Luther never held a Bible until he joined a monastery, mere folklore that has been disproven time and time again. And yes, Luther took that and other books (such as Revelation) from his Bible; thankfully that didn't carry over into his church.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
As a former scientist, I can tell you they know when life begins. They just don't want to admit it. The great inconsistancy of science is that for every creature (plant or animal), except human, life begins at conception according to them. Of course this is a pointless argument and leads me to believe you know you are being dishonest with the confessions are are trying to sidetract the discussion.

If it's a pointless argument, 1/3 of Lutherans wouldn't disagree with it.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
If you had read closely he described the removal of the Papal Mass. Mass was and still is celebrated, just with out all of the junk that had been added on to it by the roman curia. You should try reading, you would of seen that in the Smalcald Articles, Luther was describing a response to a papal loyalist.

Any reason it is never referred to as "The Mass," then?

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
What you want to make a big deal that they were emphasizing that she was a pure virgin? Remember holy does not mean sinless.

You're totally avoiding the statement by asking new questions. Good luck convincing me that "pure, holy" means significantly less than it sounds.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
This is a common misconception in both prot. and rcc circles. Lutherans never rejected tradition, they just returned it to its proper place, subordinate to Scripture. All tradition is subject to scrutiny by Scripture.

So men determine what is in line with Scripture and what isn't. Sounds like the Catholic Church to me, since you won't find a Catholic (especially a knowledgable one) who will claim that the Church's teaching authority supercedes the Scriptures, but is rather a servant of the Scriptures. It's all just definitions, and the misinterpretations of them.

By the way, I had several other statements in there that you didn't reply to. Any reason for that?

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by mikesnedding:
My problem with the pope religion is basically this.

It is not so much their love of pagan idolatry, frocks, fetishes, bells, smells, and putrid, prancing, processing, prelates, that gets me, but that wicked spirit of anti-Word which is at the root of it all. One only has to go into one of their temples and feel the strength of this particular demonic power.

Until they are born again of the Spirit, they cannot know Him.

BobRyan was right. Protestants don't try to convert Catholics; they just damn them to hell as a general principle.

mikenedding,

May the Lord Jesus Christ, my Savior, for whom I rely on constantly for grace, peace, and mercy, of which I, a sinner, do not deserve, open your eyes, for you know not what you speak. By His death on the cross (a life He freely gave), He has destroyed sin, death, and hell for me and all of the world that we might be saved and counted as worthy before Our Father in Heaven. By his resurection and ascension, he restored our life, and He WILL come again in Glory!

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might. Heaven and earth are full of Your Glory! Hosannah in the Highest! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord! Hosannah in the Highest!

I love Jesus with all of my heart and soul, and desire nothing but to serve Him.

Still feel the same way about me, considering I have come to know Him in this awesome way through the Holy Catholic Church?

God bless,

Grant

 

[Chemnitz]

Explain how the first printed-press Bible, before Luther's time, contained these books if they were not added until the mid 1500's at the Council of Trent. It's this same lack of sense of history that claims that Luther never held a Bible until he joined a monastery, mere folklore that has been disproven time and time again. And yes, Luther took that and other books (such as Revelation) from his Bible; thankfully that didn't carry over into his church.

The apocryphal books were and are concidered decent spiritual material and worthy of study but they were never truly anything more before Trent. The whole thing about removing books from the canon is a gross miss-representation by anti-reformation scholars. Luther was openly disdainful for a long time about several books but they were never removed as people claim. Tell me why did Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, put up a fuss about being forced to translate and include the apocryphal books.

You're totally avoiding the statement by asking new questions. Good luck convincing me that "pure, holy" means significantly less than it sounds.

Good luck convincing me it means what you claim it means.

So men determine what is in line with Scripture and what isn't. Sounds like the Catholic Church to me, since you won't find a Catholic (especially a knowledgable one) who will claim that the Church's teaching authority supercedes the Scriptures, but is rather a servant of the Scriptures. It's all just definitions, and the misinterpretations of them.

Oh come now, you expect me to believe that about a church that teaches ex cathedra pronouncements are infalliable.

[ October 06, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
The apocryphal books were and are concidered decent spiritual material and worthy of study but they were never truly anything more before Trent. The whole thing about removing books from the canon is a gross miss-representation by anti-reformation scholars. Luther was openly disdainful for a long time about several books but they were never removed as people claim. Tell me why did Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, put up a fuss about being forced to translate and include the apocryphal books.

Tell me why Luther put up such a fuss about James and Revelation, but as you claim, kept them in. If he indeed kept them in, then your Jerome argument is moot. Your argument still doesn't address that the deuterocanonical books were present since the Council of Hippo as part of the Canon of Scripture, and this was merely reaffirmed and formally declared at Trent since this was being openly challenged.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Good luck convincing me it means what you claim it means.

So, according to this little argument, it's not clear, and I am not wrong in holding my belief that Luther (or his colleages) intended to show the Immaculate Conception of Mary. And since Luther is gone, and the Lutheran Church is split in more than three ways, the authority is split. Frankly, anyone is free to interpret the Lutheran Confessions as he (or she) sees fit, since the authors are long gone and left no sucessors.

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Oh come now, you expect me to believe that about a church that teaches ex cathedra pronouncements are infalliable.

Yes, becuase my Church doesn't pretend and hide behind a belief of Sola Scriptura that it doesn't actually intend to follow.

God bless,

Grant