United Methodist bishops acknowledge breakup is imminent

[VDMA]

They held to scriptures alone as being authoritative and inspired, believers baptism, no Papacy, does not sound catholic at all!

Believers baptism as a symbolic dunking was never taught by the apostles, as of it is something you are doing as your, “first step of obedience. Nor is it taught by any church father or Council or anywhere in church history. Sacred Scripture clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, private confession and holy absolution (Office of the Keys), the true corporal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, etc.

Episcopal form of church polity happened very early. They did not have churches bushwhacking their own theology. Non sacramental churches like Baptist were never a thing. And if you are going to be honest, the church did not have the fullness of the New Testament scripture right away, they relied on tradition, and theological disputes were settled through councils, etc.

The early church was also very liturgical, they believe in the real corporal body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. They did not teach a symbolic view of the Eucharist!

All theology is Christology, and doctrine shapes worship practices. The historic liturgy transcends across generational lines, it is the ancient worship of the church. It is Christocentric worship.

Baptist/Reformed worship practices, are the result of primary because of their errors in Christology. It really boils down to Christology and the rejection of sacraments (e.g. the “Reformed” Errors that affect the two natures in Christ). Liturgical worship has a sense of mystery, sacredness, and beauty. Even the building architecture have a lot to say about theology of the church.

Scripture give witness to the faithfulness of liturgical worship and its power to unify the Church, to faithfully teach God’s people, respect her traditions, and to reflect the unity of the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – whom we worship. Additionally, liturgy serves chiefly for the proper administration of the Word (Law/Gospel) and Sacraments (e.g. Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution, the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar).

Passages from Scripture that testify to the need for faithfulness in liturgical worshipGenesis 13:18 Exodus 25:9 Exodus 28:1-2 II Chronicles 29:27-30 I Corinthians 14:26-33Hebrews 10:24-25 Hebrews 8:2, 6Revelation 4 Revelation 5 Revelation 7:9-12Revelation 15:2-4 Revelation 19:1-8 etc. The errors of Nestorius was literally resurrected by Zwingli.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.

Let be honest!! The Baptist church resembles nothing of the historic church. They disconnected themselves from the historic, sacramental and liturgical life of the church.

For perspective I am a confessional Lutheran.

 

[Walter]

They held to scriptures alone as being authoritative and inspired, believers baptism, no Papacy, does not sound catholic at all!

None of this is supported by the early writings of the Early Church. Not a single one other than they held to the scriptures authoritative and inspired. Show us the historical proof of your claims.

 

[JesusFan]

Believers baptism as a symbolic dunking was never taught by the apostles, as of it is something you are doing as your, “first step of obedience. Nor is it taught by any church father or Council or anywhere in church history. Sacred Scripture clearly teaches baptismal regeneration, private confession and holy absolution (Office of the Keys), the true corporal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, etc.

Episcopal form of church polity happened very early. They did not have churches bushwhacking their own theology. Non sacramental churches like Baptist were never a thing. And if you are going to be honest, the church did not have the fullness of the New Testament scripture right away, they relied on tradition, and theological disputes were settled through councils, etc.

The early church was also very liturgical, they believe in the real corporal body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. They did not teach a symbolic view of the Eucharist!

All theology is Christology, and doctrine shapes worship practices. The historic liturgy transcends across generational lines, it is the ancient worship of the church. It is Christocentric worship.

Baptist/Reformed worship practices, are the result of primary because of their errors in Christology. It really boils down to Christology and the rejection of sacraments (e.g. the “Reformed” Errors that affect the two natures in Christ). Liturgical worship has a sense of mystery, sacredness, and beauty. Even the building architecture have a lot to say about theology of the church.

Scripture give witness to the faithfulness of liturgical worship and its power to unify the Church, to faithfully teach God’s people, respect her traditions, and to reflect the unity of the one true God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – whom we worship. Additionally, liturgy serves chiefly for the proper administration of the Word (Law/Gospel) and Sacraments (e.g. Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution, the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar).

Passages from Scripture that testify to the need for faithfulness in liturgical worshipGenesis 13:18 Exodus 25:9 Exodus 28:1-2 II Chronicles 29:27-30 I Corinthians 14:26-33Hebrews 10:24-25 Hebrews 8:2, 6Revelation 4 Revelation 5 Revelation 7:9-12Revelation 15:2-4 Revelation 19:1-8 etc. The errors of Nestorius was literally resurrected by Zwingli.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.

Let be honest!! The Baptist church resembles nothing of the historic church. They disconnected themselves from the historic, sacramental and liturgical life of the church.

For perspective I am a confessional Lutheran.

one CANNOT get any of that doctrine from just the sacred scriptures, as they MUST also appeal to church traditions and erroneous views held by some ECF!

 

[JesusFan]

None of this is supported by the early writings of the Early Church. Not a single one other than they held to the scriptures authoritative and inspired. Show us the historical proof of your claims.

the early Church was not the Roman catholic church! As that did not come into formal existence until 5/6 century with first papacy!

 

[VDMA]

Church of Rome is Apostate, needed to heed the reformation and back then "clean house"

Ironically, those that came after
Luther, used Luther against Luther and the Lutherans. Thanks, Luther; ra, ra, ra! Hail Dr. Martin Luther, for freeing us from the shackle of Rome to bushwhack our own doctrine!

Zwinglians/Calvinist, to Luther and the Lutherans.

I do not like your interpretation on holy baptism (baptismal regeneration), and the real corporal present in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, Lutherans still practice private confession and holy absolution, more “reforming” is needed, that is papist, so it must not be biblical. No graven images, no genuflecting, that is idolatry! Call no man father! The papist “changed” the ordering of the 10 commandments, you Lutherans just want to genuflect before altars and statues, just the the papist, more “reforming is needed! It is absolute, absurd, Zwinglian and Calvinist nonsense. Zwingli, literally resurrected the error of Nestorianism.

Luther mince no words. I wonder what he would think of non sacramental churches such as Baptist churches.

Luther’s Works

In Luther’s Works, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Caspar Schwenkfeld—and by implication those who believe as they do—“fanatics and enemies of the sacrament” (LW, Vol.38, 287), men who are guilty of “blasphemies and deceitful heresy” (Vol. 38, 288), “loathsome fanatics” (Vol. 38, 291), “murderers of souls” (Vol. 38, 296), who “possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue” (Vol. 38, 296), and who “have incurred their penalty and are committing ‘sin which is mortal’,” (Vol. 38, 296), “blasphemers and enemies of Christ” (Vol. 38, 302), and “God’s and our condemned enemies” (Vol. 38, 316). He described Zwingli as a “full-blown heathen” (Vol. 38, 290), and wrote: “I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God” (Vol. 38, 302–303).

I believe the theology of Calvin and Zwingli (with there aggressive schematic tendencies) lead to the destruction of much of Christianity in Europe.

The so-called puritans were rebellious rebels…trouble makers, they were, a lot like modern day progressives—burn it down!! They failed with a hostile takeover of the Church of England, then fledge to American and declared themselves victims of the Church of England and the Catholic Church. They could burn down the episcopal polity (“always-reforming” nonsense, in an attempt to rid the church from alleged false teachings of papist) so they ran to American.

I will also say this as a Confessional Lutheran. Schisms are never a good thing. Our Lord suffered death on the Cross to heal all divisions (Eph. 2:11-17). He prayed, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (Jn. 17:21). Division is not good because it causes skepticism, confusion, unbelief and death. Schism is never good.

 

[VDMA]

one CANNOT get any of that doctrine from just the sacred scriptures, as they MUST also appeal to church traditions and erroneous views held by some ECF!

Many Protestants went well beyond Luther, and reject doctrines that are clearly taught in sacred scripture. They reject many doctrines that have been universally accepted and taught since the apostles. For example: baptismal regeneration. It crystal clear.

1. Jesus said that his church would stand and the gates of hell would not prevail again it (Matthew 16:18)
2. The Bible says the church is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)
3. The entire church throughout history believed in baptismal regeneration and the only ones to deny baptismal efficacy were the anabaptists of the reformation who were largely heterodox or even Heretical (anti-Trinitarian) in their doctrines. All the church fathers (Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by Apostle John) affirmed it. Every council that spoke of baptism affirmed it, and, what's more, a straightforward reading of the baptism passages also teaches baptismal regeneration.

What, it took the anti-Trinitarian anabaptists and the 1689 Baptist to figure out we have been wrong all these years—right?

So either Christ failed to keep his promise, or your view is not apostolic.

The Office of the Key, that is another doctrine that is clearly taught in sacred scripture and the historic church since the apostles (this is a biblical doctrine that was never rejected by Luther or the Lutherans, it’s the 3rd sacrament).

The real corporal presence, had been universally understood and accepted through out church history.

Zwingli, really? Zwingli, literally resurrected the error of Nestorianism. His Christological errors on the two natures of Christ lead him to reject the real corporal presence, etc.

 

[JesusFan]

Ironically, those that came after
Luther, used Luther against Luther and the Lutherans. Thanks, Luther; ra, ra, ra! Hail Dr. Martin Luther, for freeing us from the shackle of Rome to bushwhack our own doctrine!

Zwinglians/Calvinist, to Luther and the Lutherans.

I do not like your interpretation on holy baptism (baptismal regeneration), and the real corporal present in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, Lutherans still practice private confession and holy absolution, more “reforming” is needed, that is papist, so it must not be biblical. No graven images, no genuflecting, that is idolatry! Call no man father! The papist “changed” the ordering of the 10 commandments, you Lutherans just want to genuflect before altars and statues, just the the papist, more “reforming is needed! It is absolute, absurd, Zwinglian and Calvinist nonsense. Zwingli, literally resurrected the error of Nestorianism.

Luther mince no words. I wonder what he would think of non sacramental churches such as Baptist churches.

Luther’s Works

In Luther’s Works, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Caspar Schwenkfeld—and by implication those who believe as they do—“fanatics and enemies of the sacrament” (LW, Vol.38, 287), men who are guilty of “blasphemies and deceitful heresy” (Vol. 38, 288), “loathsome fanatics” (Vol. 38, 291), “murderers of souls” (Vol. 38, 296), who “possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue” (Vol. 38, 296), and who “have incurred their penalty and are committing ‘sin which is mortal’,” (Vol. 38, 296), “blasphemers and enemies of Christ” (Vol. 38, 302), and “God’s and our condemned enemies” (Vol. 38, 316). He described Zwingli as a “full-blown heathen” (Vol. 38, 290), and wrote: “I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God” (Vol. 38, 302–303).

I believe the theology of Calvin and Zwingli (with there aggressive schematic tendencies) lead to the destruction of much of Christianity in Europe.

The so-called puritans were rebellious rebels…trouble makers, they were, a lot like modern day progressives—burn it down!! They failed with a hostile takeover of the Church of England, then fledge to American and declared themselves victims of the Church of England and the Catholic Church. They could burn down the episcopal polity (“always-reforming” nonsense, in an attempt to rid the church from alleged false teachings of papist) so they ran to American.

I will also say this as a Confessional Lutheran. Schisms are never a good thing. Our Lord suffered death on the Cross to heal all divisions (Eph. 2:11-17). He prayed, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (Jn. 17:21). Division is not good because it causes skepticism, confusion, unbelief and death. Schism is never good.

Luther did not reform his theology enough, as still kept some of the erroneous views of Rome, especially in regards to the sacraments!

 

[Walter]

Luther did not reform his theology enough, as still kept some of the erroneous views of Rome, especially in regards to the sacraments!

He kept them because they were biblical and had been accepted by Christians since the very beginning of the Church. Same reason top theologians like N.T. Wright accept them.

 

[VDMA]

Luther did not reform his theology enough, as still kept some of the erroneous views of Rome, especially in regards to the sacraments!

SIGH: LUTHER DID NOT REFORM ENOUGH!!!! PAPIST LIGHT!!

In your view, what was the purpose of the reformation? What is enough reforming!

Do you think Luther meant to open a “pandora’s box” for anyone with a bible could bushwhack there own theology as if they are the first ones to ever do so?

For Luther and the Lutherans, the purpose of the reformation was not to be as un-catholic or anti-Catholic as possible (like the “Reformed” who claimed to be “always Reforming”) but faithfully Catholic. Martin Luther would not consider “The Reformed or any flavor of Baptist” as legitimate churches. Interesting, Luther still consider the Catholic Church a legitimate church even after he was excommunicated. He spoke highly of the Orthodox.

HOW, ironic, those that came after Luther used Luther against Luther and the Lutherans and “Reformed” themselves right off a cliff- “always Reforming” and ended up rejecting clear biblical teachings on sacraments (e.g. Holy Baptism-baptismal regeneration, true corporal body and blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins, private confession and holy absolution, etc.).

This begs the question, which version of “scripture alone” is the correct one? How do you know you have the right interpretation of holy baptism? Baptismal regeneration is clearly taught in sacred scripture. It took the radical Anabaptist (who were anti-trinitarian heretics) and 1689 Baptist to figure out that the church has been wrong all these years—right? How about the false teaching of “once saved always saved”, that is clearly not taught in sacred scripture.

At least the Lutherans tried their best to substantiated their truth claims with sacred scripture and the church fathers. That cannot be said with the 1689 Baptist or any flavor of Baptist.

—————————

Do you know why you reject the real corporal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?

Quick Christology lesson.

Short Excerpt

“Take, eat; this is my body” (Matthew 26:26, ESV). And again Jesus gave the cup and said, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27–28, ESV). Since Jesus says so it is so. Faith believes what Jesus says. For this reason, St. Paul asks the rhetorical question, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16, ESV). The Apostle knows the answer from the words of Jesus. The cup of blessing is in fact a participation (communion) in the blood of Christ and the bread is a participation (communion) in the body of Christ.”

It is the devil who comes says, “Did God really say that?”

In Christology, the fundamental Zwigians principle is finitum no est capax infiniti, that is, the finite is not capable of the infinite. With this principle, Zwigians teach that the finite human nature of Christ is not capable of having real communion with the infinite divine nature. Thus, the human nature of Christ is not capable of being omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. For this reason, the Zwigians deny that the true body and blood of Jesus are given in the Sacrament of the Altar. Such a teaching is contrary to human reason.

Likewise, for the Zwigians the human nature of Jesus should not rightfully receive divine worship, honor, and glory. Based upon this principle, a Calvinist/Zwigians can only worship the divine nature of the Son of God. Since Calvinists/Zwigians teach that the divine attributes cannot be communicated to the human nature of Christ, by default, they confess that the Christ consists of two persons. They have fallen into the ancient heresy of Nestorianism which taught that the Christ is comprised of a divine person (the eternal Logos) and a human person (Jesus of Nazareth).

On the other hand, those who teach the personal union between the divine and human natures, confess that Christ is one person and has two natures. This personal union includes the communication of the divine and human attributes. For example, God in His essence is eternal. He cannot die. However, in the holy incarnation, God took upon flesh in order to die. Thus, we can correctly confess that God died on the cross. In contrast, the Calvinist can only say that the man Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, because God cannot die. With this Calvinist principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite, the divine attributes are separated from the divine nature. Consequently, Calvinists would say that Jesus Christ has a divine nature, but He does not have the divine attributes. For this reason, Calvinists cannot confess that the human nature of the Christ is omnipresent which provides for the gift of the true body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Author Fr. Kachelmeier

God So Loved the World : Lange

Errors that affect the two natures in Christ

"Nestorianism separated the two natures in Christ so that there were two natures and two persons. Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople in 428. He objected to calling Mary “the bearer of God” (theotokos in the Greek). He suggested that Mary be called “the bearer of Christ” (Christotokos in the Greek). By making this distinction, he was saying that a person must distinguish between Christ’s humanity and his divinity, that some of the things said of him are to be applied to the humanity and some to the divinity. This effectively divided Jesus into two beings whose unity consisted in agreement rather than a union in one person. Ultimately, if only the human nature of Christ died, we are not saved. It took God in the balances of divine justice to substitute for the whole human race. Jesus also had to be true man to get onto the scales of God’s justice in the first place. The Council of Ephesus in 433 condemned the error of Nestorius, who spent the rest of his life in exile. The Athanasian Creed specifically rejects this error when it says, “Christ is not two persons but one.”

The error of Nestorius was resurrected in the 16th century by Ulrich Zwingli. He also separated the two natures in Christ and denied that there was any sharing of attributes between the two natures. His error in Christology also led him to err regarding the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. If Christ’s human nature was not present everywhere, but confined to a place at the right hand of God, then the words “This is my body,” “This is my blood” must mean “This represents my body,” “This represents my blood.” Yet the Bible clearly teaches that Christ’s human body is also omnipresent (Mt 18:20), and the simple words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper also clearly teach that Christ’s body and blood are present with the bread and the wine."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

United Methodist bishops acknowledge breakup is imminent | AP News


Methodists Agree on Compromise to Split Denomination…… | News & Reporting | Christianity Today


United Methodists At-A-Glance

Good… I find that most of those residing in the USA to be apostate and going down the drain anyway!

 

[Salty]

Good… I find that most of those residing in the USA to be apostate and going down the drain anyway!

dont know if "most" - as this could be a major split in the UM - and The Global Methodist Church is being organized
Global Methodist Church - Wikipedia

Leadership of the GMC : About Us | Support Our Mission | Global Methodist Church

 

[JesusFan]

Many Protestants went well beyond Luther, and reject doctrines that are clearly taught in sacred scripture. They reject many doctrines that have been universally accepted and taught since the apostles. For example: baptismal regeneration. It crystal clear.

1. Jesus said that his church would stand and the gates of hell would not prevail again it (Matthew 16:18)
2. The Bible says the church is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)
3. The entire church throughout history believed in baptismal regeneration and the only ones to deny baptismal efficacy were the anabaptists of the reformation who were largely heterodox or even Heretical (anti-Trinitarian) in their doctrines. All the church fathers (Irenaeus, who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by Apostle John) affirmed it. Every council that spoke of baptism affirmed it, and, what's more, a straightforward reading of the baptism passages also teaches baptismal regeneration.

What, it took the anti-Trinitarian anabaptists and the 1689 Baptist to figure out we have been wrong all these years—right?

So either Christ failed to keep his promise, or your view is not apostolic.

The Office of the Key, that is another doctrine that is clearly taught in sacred scripture and the historic church since the apostles (this is a biblical doctrine that was never rejected by Luther or the Lutherans, it’s the 3rd sacrament).

The real corporal presence, had been universally understood and accepted through out church history.

Zwingli, really? Zwingli, literally resurrected the error of Nestorianism. His Christological errors on the two natures of Christ lead him to reject the real corporal presence, etc.

You are doing the very same error here as the Jews did, as they took what Jesus meant to be spiritual truth, symbolic at times, and tried to apply it as being physical and literal!

 

[JesusFan]

He kept them because they were biblical and had been accepted by Christians since the very beginning of the Church. Same reason top theologians like N.T. Wright accept them.

No, he kept their errors due to not breaking cleanly from Rome!
And NT Wright is so wrong in area of Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

SIGH: LUTHER DID NOT REFORM ENOUGH!!!! PAPIST LIGHT!!

In your view, what was the purpose of the reformation? What is enough reforming!

Do you think Luther meant to open a “pandora’s box” for anyone with a bible could bushwhack there own theology as if they are the first ones to ever do so?

For Luther and the Lutherans, the purpose of the reformation was not to be as un-catholic or anti-Catholic as possible (like the “Reformed” who claimed to be “always Reforming”) but faithfully Catholic. Martin Luther would not consider “The Reformed or any flavor of Baptist” as legitimate churches. Interesting, Luther still consider the Catholic Church a legitimate church even after he was excommunicated. He spoke highly of the Orthodox.

HOW, ironic, those that came after Luther used Luther against Luther and the Lutherans and “Reformed” themselves right off a cliff- “always Reforming” and ended up rejecting clear biblical teachings on sacraments (e.g. Holy Baptism-baptismal regeneration, true corporal body and blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins, private confession and holy absolution, etc.).

This begs the question, which version of “scripture alone” is the correct one? How do you know you have the right interpretation of holy baptism? Baptismal regeneration is clearly taught in sacred scripture. It took the radical Anabaptist (who were anti-trinitarian heretics) and 1689 Baptist to figure out that the church has been wrong all these years—right? How about the false teaching of “once saved always saved”, that is clearly not taught in sacred scripture.

At least the Lutherans tried their best to substantiated their truth claims with sacred scripture and the church fathers. That cannot be said with the 1689 Baptist or any flavor of Baptist.

—————————

Do you know why you reject the real corporal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?

Quick Christology lesson.

Short Excerpt

“Take, eat; this is my body” (Matthew 26:26, ESV). And again Jesus gave the cup and said, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27–28, ESV). Since Jesus says so it is so. Faith believes what Jesus says. For this reason, St. Paul asks the rhetorical question, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16, ESV). The Apostle knows the answer from the words of Jesus. The cup of blessing is in fact a participation (communion) in the blood of Christ and the bread is a participation (communion) in the body of Christ.”

It is the devil who comes says, “Did God really say that?”

In Christology, the fundamental Zwigians principle is finitum no est capax infiniti, that is, the finite is not capable of the infinite. With this principle, Zwigians teach that the finite human nature of Christ is not capable of having real communion with the infinite divine nature. Thus, the human nature of Christ is not capable of being omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. For this reason, the Zwigians deny that the true body and blood of Jesus are given in the Sacrament of the Altar. Such a teaching is contrary to human reason.

Likewise, for the Zwigians the human nature of Jesus should not rightfully receive divine worship, honor, and glory. Based upon this principle, a Calvinist/Zwigians can only worship the divine nature of the Son of God. Since Calvinists/Zwigians teach that the divine attributes cannot be communicated to the human nature of Christ, by default, they confess that the Christ consists of two persons. They have fallen into the ancient heresy of Nestorianism which taught that the Christ is comprised of a divine person (the eternal Logos) and a human person (Jesus of Nazareth).

On the other hand, those who teach the personal union between the divine and human natures, confess that Christ is one person and has two natures. This personal union includes the communication of the divine and human attributes. For example, God in His essence is eternal. He cannot die. However, in the holy incarnation, God took upon flesh in order to die. Thus, we can correctly confess that God died on the cross. In contrast, the Calvinist can only say that the man Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, because God cannot die. With this Calvinist principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite, the divine attributes are separated from the divine nature. Consequently, Calvinists would say that Jesus Christ has a divine nature, but He does not have the divine attributes. For this reason, Calvinists cannot confess that the human nature of the Christ is omnipresent which provides for the gift of the true body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Author Fr. Kachelmeier

God So Loved the World : Lange

Errors that affect the two natures in Christ

"Nestorianism separated the two natures in Christ so that there were two natures and two persons. Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople in 428. He objected to calling Mary “the bearer of God” (theotokos in the Greek). He suggested that Mary be called “the bearer of Christ” (Christotokos in the Greek). By making this distinction, he was saying that a person must distinguish between Christ’s humanity and his divinity, that some of the things said of him are to be applied to the humanity and some to the divinity. This effectively divided Jesus into two beings whose unity consisted in agreement rather than a union in one person. Ultimately, if only the human nature of Christ died, we are not saved. It took God in the balances of divine justice to substitute for the whole human race. Jesus also had to be true man to get onto the scales of God’s justice in the first place. The Council of Ephesus in 433 condemned the error of Nestorius, who spent the rest of his life in exile. The Athanasian Creed specifically rejects this error when it says, “Christ is not two persons but one.”

The error of Nestorius was resurrected in the 16th century by Ulrich Zwingli. He also separated the two natures in Christ and denied that there was any sharing of attributes between the two natures. His error in Christology also led him to err regarding the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. If Christ’s human nature was not present everywhere, but confined to a place at the right hand of God, then the words “This is my body,” “This is my blood” must mean “This represents my body,” “This represents my blood.” Yet the Bible clearly teaches that Christ’s human body is also omnipresent (Mt 18:20), and the simple words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper also clearly teach that Christ’s body and blood are present with the bread and the wine."

The reformation was mainly to get the true Gospel of Pauline Justification back into eh churches, as Rome had heresy of sacramentalism salvation!

 

[LaGrange]

Despite the issues with German Bishops and Pope Frances. I do not think their will be a schism within the Catholic Church. They need to clear house, by either natural death or excommunication. I have zero confidents in Pope Francis and I am not even Catholic (confessional Lutheran).

I was just in Lexington Ky and walked by St. Paul’s Catholic Church. They had a rainbow flag banner. Went to their parish website and they had our Lady, the blessed virgin St. Mary, the mother of God, wrapped in a rainbow flag, etc. I emailed the parish and asked them, how do you square this ministry with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Homosexuality
Sacred Scripture
OT Ge 19:1–29, Le 18:22, 20:13, Dt 23:17, Jdg 19:22, 1 Ki 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 Ki 23:7, Job 36:14
NT Ro 1:24–27, 1 Ti 1:10, 1 Co 6:9

Church Teaching Catechism CCC 2357–2359

Ecclesiastical Writers

Apostolic Fathers Barn 19.4
St. Augustine Conf. 3.8.15
St. Thomas Aquinas STh., II-II q.154 a.11–a.12

Shockingly, they never replied.

I know it is not a reflection on all Catholics. There are plenty of liberal rainbow flying Baptist.

Lutheran Satire just put out an hilarious video on Pope Frances.

Frank the Hippie Pope Resigns

Hi VDMA,

I hope you are right. Thanks for your Charity. One of my best friends is a Lutheran, Missouri Synod.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yup, that's why you have a zillion different denominations all claiming that the Holy Spirit directed them in the development of their doctrines. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic? Like is it limited atonement or unlimited atonement, Yeshua1?

The 'inclusive Methodist' use Isaiah 43:19 to show that the Holy Spirit is doing a 'New Thing' in the church in ordaining practicing homosexuals to the ministry.

Queers don’t get a vote nor do they get a ministry for they are living in opposition to God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The reformation was mainly to get the true Gospel of Pauline Justification back into eh churches, as Rome had heresy of sacramentalism salvation!

Still do

 

[VDMA]

You are doing the very same error here as the Jews did, as they took what Jesus meant to be spiritual truth, symbolic at times, and tried to apply it as being physical and literal!

Sight: No. I should not have posted that reply here, because it is unrelated to the original post.

The reformation was mainly to get the true Gospel of Pauline Justification back into eh churches, as Rome had heresy of sacramentalism salvation!

Baptist are Sacramentarians. Clearly, sacraments impart dive grace to those who have faith. If you want to discuss Christology and sacraments feel free to start a new post on the subjects.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sight: No. I should not have posted that reply here, because it is unrelated to the original post.



Baptist are Sacramentarians. Clearly, sacraments impart dive grace to those who have faith. If you want to discuss Christology and sacraments feel free to start a new post on the subjects.

Define Sacramentarians.

 

[Salty]

Sight: No. I should not have posted that reply here, because it is unrelated to the original post.



Baptist are Sacramentarians. Clearly, sacraments impart dive grace to those who have faith. If you want to discuss Christology and sacraments feel free to start a new post on the subjects.

First of all - this thread is about the United Methodist Church- NOT Baptists - lets get back on subject.