Are you Methodist Church members on the Fire aware of the change being advocated in our denomination??

The Conference wants to allow same-sex celebrations, ie our ministers permitted to marry LGBTQ persons, and our ministers to be able to be "avowed practicing homosexuals". This proposed change would be AGAINST The Methodist Church's long-standing doctrine on homosexuality and homosexual activity by its leaders.

I am not trying to create dissension or havoc only wanted to know if any on here were aware of this proposed change.

Doesn't the Methodist Church already have female "pastors"?

Once you go down that road, anything goes.

Weren’t they one of the first to speak in tongues? They took that to the next level.

All churchy types and sportsmen are conservatives!

Hahahaha!

The BIG split coming to the local Methodist churches here. One heading w liberal and other w traditional. Great friends here will be leaving completely over this schism. Lots of abhorrent behavior wrapped in religion. The family leader better know the theology and vision of their home church. If it quivers, move along. Children are the greatest asset in any congregation.
Brethren in Church will not save you from God’s wrath but more importantly from baptized believers that will be in involved in the “laying on of hands” if you understand my meaning. I for one have had enough.

COEXIST



Good one Roger

I think the Methodist church has been moving that direction for some time now.

This is not new. My local church disavowed this practice. This is the reason I left the church; I will not financially support the national organization. If somebody chooses to be a member and live in sin, that is between them and God. However, I will not be a part of accepting or celebrating the sinful practice as the churches have chose to embrace.

If they go that direction will it not be time to say the the UMC is no longer a part of the small c Catholic Church?

Going that direction for any religion is accepting what to God is an abomination. Look it up.

Go ask the Episcopal church how all the liberal BS is working out.

Went woke, now they are shedding members bigly.

Jesus spoke about churches like this:

Mat 7:21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

You either follow the teachings or not. You cannot worship two masters.

I think the churches got soft because the popular narrative for many years was that gays and lesb's were "Born that way" and that any day this was going to be proven by science in DNA. However, Science has analyzed the whole genome and despite looking very hard, it has been determined that there is no genetic cause of homosexuality, and that it was just a choice of perversion all along. Now there isn't enough strong men and women to stand up against it.

Throughout long history, certain church organizations (of varying types) have openly decided to corrupt themselves by violating or altering the doctrines on which they were formed - usually with disastrous results. Once in a while an alleged "Christian" organization will head this direction - and then it becomes much more noticeable to the English speaking folks who understand the doctrine being corrupted.

If a body is based on firm belief in the Supreme Being and adherence to principles and practices following from that core, what will become of that body and its members if they choose to bow to aspects or current popular culture and bend their doctrine and practices to a shape unrecognizable in comparison to those formative tenets? What then is it, what purpose does it serve, what future does it seek?

most churches just care about money.

Agree

Maybe the Methodists should try reading the Bible for a change. As for me, I was done with the Methodists when they came out in favor of gun control in 1978. The Bible does not prohibit gun ownership but it sure as H--- prohibits LBGTQ.

Hahaha. Winner, winner...

Ours is splitting away.

As has all organized religions. It was organized religion that crucified JESUS CHRIST.

If HE were here and they could do it again they would.

They already sold us out to Satan when they rejected taking it to the SC years ago and agreed with Satan they wouldnt deal in politics in exchange for not being taxed. Humm, the love of money thing did them in.

501 C3? Iirc.

The "love is love" meme is the biggest bunch of manure I've ever heard in my entire life!

What do people who believe that do with their grandma? Or their dog?!

The Presbyterian church has recently allowed same sex couples to be married in the church, the choice of performing the service was left up to individual ministers. Recently our church accepted an openly lesbian candidate into the fellowship program for apprentice pastors. Her "wife" attended services and this individual dressed like a man, members of the congregation were not pleased and ran her off. The organist is a gay man, he does not flaunt it and he is never seen with his partner.

You're correct. I grew up in the Methodist Church. Years ago, the United Methodist Church was instrumental in founding and funding The National Coalition to Ban Handguns (and eventually ALL guns), plus they were always heavy supporters of Castro.

I left many years ago. Ain't goin' back, either.

I'm of the firm opinion that one does not need a church to worship. Churches are more social organizations it seems to me.

My opinion.

L.W.

40 years ago my parents in law were members of a UMC. My FIL was a staunch Christian who set a personal goal for himself - convert the minister to Christianity. He failed. They left the church when it offered support to another church trying to hire a queer minister.

Not Methodist, but friends are.
This is about 10 years old. They have had Homos in high positions for years. An old long standing church is about to close over it.
Much of the congregation wanted to pull away from the National organization. They were told they would have to get approval, and buy
their church from the Methodists.

They darn sure we're not going to do that, and give money to the
organization they wanted separated from. They now go to another church.


Non Denominational Fundametalist my whole life.
Follow the guide book, let it's teaching guide our actions.
Pretty straightforward.

Our offerings run the modest building, and support missions and
godly causes. No need to send our money to a huge fancy administration,
then beg for scraps to run our church and support the community.

It sure seems that way

There is a civil war coming within the organization. The pro gay side intentionally set the barn on fire. No reason for it other than a “me too” situation that they desired. Other denominations made statements and policy changes, so the UMC felt obligated to do the same. Our church will break from the UMC and become Traditional Methodist.

What Burns First.. US or Them..

Doesn't sound like allowing pastors to marry has done them any favors.

I was raised in the Methodist church. When I found out they supported Gun Control that was it for me.

The Methodist Church kicked God to the curb back in the sixties.

The United Methodist Church is breaking up. Those who are breaking away refer to themselves as the Global Methodist Church. I doubt if the United Methodist Church will survive.

My opinion is the same as those who still attend a Catholic Church. Why? It surely isn’t to follow the teachings of Christ. Maybe some like to have their sons molested, or in the case of the Methodists, to have them indoctrinated in Pagan ways.

The long and short of it right there.

If one wants to go to church and worship the Lord without these types of worries. If I, were you. I would find an independent bible believing church.
This way, you are not under the thumb of someone you don't know, or someone who cares 2 cents for you.

Wishing you all the best.

I believe the bible was ordained by God and is his message to the people. If and there likely is, beings like us on other planets, I believe God probably gave them the same message. Over time societies tend to drift away from God's message and rationalize as acceptable, things God would not consider acceptable. Organized religion tends to focus on monetary resources.
Several years ago I had a conversation with a friend who recently passed and was well known for his cowboy poetry. We were talking about this very subject. I told him I didn't think attendance at church was necessary to be a Christian. I told him in my opinion , if you were born again Christian, people would recognize there was something special or different about you and in a good way. His reply was " Without churches, how do you spread the word?"
I guess everything has a purpose. We just have to keep it in perspective. Some day we will each have to account for whetner or not we decided right.

My mother was secretary/treasurer of her local small UMC in 2006 when a controversy arose over the pastor of the St. John's UMC in Baltimore. It was woman and decided it would become a man. There were hearings about the matter in the UMC Judicial Council and at last word I heard it was allowed to remain a preacher for the UMC. The pastor's new name was Drew Phoenix. My question was why it would even be considered to leave that person in a position of authority.

Exactly how does a woman become a man?

Never could get a Baptist or a Methodist to tell me the difference between the 2 faiths. Sounds like the sodomite suprimists have taken over the Methodist church. The Methodist cave also was the last nail in the Boy Scouts.

I liken the gay issue like this. What if a bunch of guys got together and said we advocate screwing as many women as we want despite being married. We call ourselves the big baller club. If you say what we do is wrong and don’t agree you’re a hater and a bigot, you’re also discriminating. Indeed you need to say it’s ok and fly a flag in support of it. We need to have a big baller month. After all we were born wanting to mount as many women as we can. We can’t help it. The gay issue is no different. All of us are born with weakness and temptation toward certain things. That is why the Bible teaches morality. We have to control ourselves as people v

First off, the atheists on here should just move on and not comment on this, as it's not something that pertains to them since they don't believe in religion anyway. Also, it really is a matter for the Methodists to resolve, which means it doesn't involve other denominations. But, with that being said, and the comments already posted, I'll give my two cents worth.

I am a Southern Baptist, but I attended a UMC church for many years before going back to the Baptist church. I left because I did not like the extreme liberal shift that the UMC hierarchy was putting forth. There is a huge difference in congregations and the UMC will, without a doubt, split over the queer and tranny issue. The small rural UMC church like I attended was mostly conservative, and did not encourage members who were not. As some other poster pointed out, this is really old news, and nothing new.

Churchs in general, have become more tolerant of behavior that was once considered strictly forbidden and taboo. Usually, the larger and more urban a church is, the more liberal it is, and vice versa for small and rural. Does that mean that the rural church is better at following God's laws...................it sure seems that way.

Let the UMC work it's problems out, and I'll bet the end result will be churches that are better and not allowing Satan to take them over.

Anyone who believes this is a Methodist issue has not been paying attention. It is happening in all major denominations, the last several SBC conventions, the general assembly of the PCUSA, the Lutherans, not to mention the Red Pope. Main thing is know what you believe and question if a person in authority is preaching other than the Word.

I hear this all the time........

The Lutheran Church is divided into separate organizations called Synods. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Synod (ELCA) went off the rails on the homosexual issues a while ago. The Missouri Synod refused to go along with it. The Wisconsin Synod is even more conservative than the Missouri Synod.

God calls homosexuality an abomination!

Any “church” that supports homosexuality and homosexual ‘marriage’ is a church for Satan. Period, end of story.

Exactly. No two ways about it.

Lots of tongue talking churches are quite conservative on that issue.

Organized religion is liberal as hell and should be avoided at all costs.

Dont the Methodists support homo weddings and abortion?

Many years ago I was a member of a very small group of churches that broke away from the United Methodist Church in the 1890’s because the church had gotten too liberal. They’ve only continued their downward spiral! memtb

Just about all the churches around Big D are flying the rainbow (homo) flag.

Home church and home school will be a reality some day for those Christians who won't bow to the world.

Probably.

Sodomite suprimist flag

Home schooling is already huge amongst conservative Christians who care what their children are being taught and home church is a growing thing.

Once the Bible is declared to be hate literature, the church will have to go underground.

Watched the movie “a river runs through it” last night. I chuckled at the line the narrator, the elder son, said his father claimed about a girl he was dating.

Said: they were Methodists, who were simply Baptists who could read!
LOL

Been out of Church for a long time. Was an independent Baptist last time around.

Bottom line is that any church that openly violates clear Biblical teaching is apostate, and no church at all really, just a business, social club, or maybe political organization. Believe or don’t, but don’t teach contrary to the Word and claim to be a church. There may be something to the notion that we’re in a post-church age. Certainly good ones are few and far between IME.

Well if theyre anti gun and anti booze of course theyd be pro homo.

It wasn't the female pastors in my Methodist church that made me leave. It was the congregation-wide newsletter attacking the pastor for a little drinking. Dragging this poor pastor and his family through the mud for a minor indiscretion. It was over the top bullschit and mean-spirited, even malevolent.

Told the wife I won't be a part of these a-holes. Never went back.

Christ turned water into wine.

There is going to be a split, just like the Presbyterian Church a few years ago.

Any hard data on that?

Really?

Some things are obvious, duh.

Magic!

Our church this very morning voted to separate ourselves financially from the Southern Baptist Convention. We are apparently going to wait until the next regular business meeting to decide whether to actually file for divorce from the SBC. I stood up and said that I was resigning from the SBC right then but would remain a member of the local church if allowed.

The reason was the increasingly liberal movement of the SBC and the hiring of a law firm connected to the LGBTQ movement in some way. I had been suggesting for some time that we consider using the thousands of dollars we were sending to SBC for our own local community. As I told them we have plenty of fish to fry here without going looking for more.

SBC has become mixed up in some pretty sordid scandals of their own just not quite on the scale of the RCC (that we know of).

The UMC is being lead by one church located in the KCMO area. That church is, in turn, being run by a young woman who is flagrantly anti-male, anti-white and pro-the cause du jour and pro-LGTBQ-blah-blah-blah. She and some of her toadies have to be seen to be understood. Their’s is not the Christian religion of the Bible, it is a religion of whatever they say it should be. They are not open and loving towards people and neither is their version of Christianity. People are, according to them, to be stratified by skin color, age, sexuality, relationships, politics, etc. Older white people are the most evil and are to be demonized, except for their money. Their money is eagerly accepted!!!

The United Church of Christ (a.k.a. Congregational Church), the Presbyterian Church -USA and the Episcopal Church have all gone through this battle and have lost. The Methodists are about a decade or two from it…

I quit the Methodist Church many years ago, and the more I found out through the years, the more I was happy with my decision. There are many Conservative regular folks going to that church around the country that have been kept in the dark about the bunch of Leftists that have ran it for decades. I foresee a large split in the church coming. They have been slowly headed downhill since the "United Methodist Church " formed from several different factions in the early 70s. The ones at the top care only about their retirements and getting more money, no matter what the cost.

Most large corrupted churches just care about money. All churches need money to exist, but there are some that only care about money. There is a HUGE difference.

^^
Fact.

Yep azzes in the pews mean $$ in the collection plate!!!

“We’re in a post church age”.

There’s something to ponder on that strikes a deep chord.

The Disciples of Christ national leadership is a huge mess. But they have no real authority over the individual churches so many of the individual churches just ignore them.

The Methodists aren't that simple, however. All of the individual churches are "held in trust" by the national leadership. Those churches that want to split off have to hire lawyers and go through a bunch of trouble.

A lot of Methodists are just bailing out of the denomination.

Sometimes liars are funny to a certain demographic.

Baptists can read well enough to know

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Hopefully you and other unbelievers along with dimocommies will keep thinking it a joke.

Bunch of trouble stems from real estate issues some of which are very high dollar ones.

It was a funny line in a movie.

Unclench and drop the log out yo ass.

Are you a Baptist?

Actually, I think this is prophesized in the bible. Maybe not word for word but it says christians will be prosecuted for their faith and I think this will drive them underground into private homes. Private schools, charter schools and home schooling are becoming more popular and are often associated with religion. Around here the "cowboy churches" are springing up. Some are recognizable as money schemes for the organizers but some are genuine.

Those would be good churches to avoid.

The UMC owns the church and land.I belong to a small Central Texas church we are going to split from the liberal group.Buy out number is 12k which is fair for a 100 year old church in need of repair. Will be glad when its final.pipeliner

I dumped western Christianity several years ago and found a home. We don't have anyone I can think of anywhere around the world buying into, promoting or accommodating the Rainbow Mafia or a lot of the other trendy nonsense these days.




Yup. And it was the real stuff, NOT a divine version of Welch's. Jesus was a vintner.

No. Believer but mainly Lutheran extract. Have attended CofC, Methodistt, Penticostal and Baptist on occasion.

Me two.

Deut 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

This isn't talking about a woman wearing jeans like some churches seem to think. It's talking about cross dressing, trying to be the opposite sex. They'll have no answer when their sin is laid out as they stand in judgement.

The good part: Our sins are all washed away by the blood of Jesus.
People are just that. People. Not to have faith in any man. Just Jesus and Jesus alone.
He is the way, the truth and the life. Trust in Him.

Take care

If you want to look for biblical truth in the UMC, it seems to exist in African UMC churches. Here are remarks of Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, Dean of Gbarnga School of Theology, United Methodist University in Liberia, to the Reform and Renewal Coalition Breakfast at the United Methodist Church Special General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri, Saturday, 23 February 2019. I used to know of a recording of these remarks but can't find it now. At any rate, he was somewhat difficult to understand given his heavy accent. But he nails the issue inside the UMC squarely. It's worth a read:

HE's a mighty great guy.

The Methodist church has been an apostate institution for the last 5 years. Also a big supporter of gun control.

Churches (Christian denominations) failed to fight .GOV on forced Rona closures...

That was a huge mistake.

HUGE...

We (as Christians) are not called to be protesters. Churches become apostate when they get out of the Word and make up their own mandates.

https://bible.org/seriespage/10-submission-authorities-1-peter-213-25

How about a gay mayor who teaches Sunday school in the Presbyterian church? Alfred Hitchcock could not make this up? It is true!

Pastor of the Methodist church not very far from my home has a Jaguar,Escalade and a Mercedes in his Garage. I think he is an upright Christian and his parishioners think he should be rewarded for his leadership.

The Methodist church has been compromised for far longer than five years. When John Kerry ran for president they passed out a flyer that was flattering to him. I inquired how they can justify his ethics and moral problems with the biblical truth. They had no answer.

It is a sad state of affairs when church officials and political dictators from sub-Saharan Africa are rightfully lecturing the Americans in the USA about morals. I am reminded of when Robert Mugabe was totally correct when he excoriated Obama over homo marriage and pointed out how out of touch he was with the teachings of God. For all his failings Mugabe was right this time.

Well, it's worth noting that there are many dirtbags and false prophets who disguise themselves under the veil of Christianity. It's more of an indictment on humans that it is anything else. Where there are groups of people, it will be a clown show, no matter the industry/business sector. Find somewhere that teaches and preaches the Holy Bible and forget about what they call themselves.

I never understood the above rationale.

I was "born that way" to want to do all manner of ungodly stuff.

At some point, as humans with a functioning brain, don't we have to take responsibility for the acting out on our desires?

Of course we do....

podcact

I came across as 12 minute podcast this morning that discusses the change in a new denomination that is being formed into which conservative UMC congregations can transition.

God has allowed the separating of the wheat from the chaff since time began. And it is rarely done without a fair bit of stress and turmoil.

We should all remember that there is the church, and there is the Church.

The "invisible" Church is simply all those who belong to Christ. Wherever they are and whatever they may call themselves.

The church is all the man-made stuff that all too often passes for the Church, in the minds of the people.

The only thing that Jesus seemed to consistently position Himself against were the people on the religious side of the aisle; He seemed to have kind of a perennial conflict with the Pharisees.

And it seems that the stance of some denominations nowadays is: become like us and then you can join us; but while we think you’re embracing those sinful lifestyles or bad habits or supporting candidates that we don’t agree with, then stay over there. But once you become like us then you can join us.

In the New Testament, that sounds like the Pharisees.

Well there are planning for a church split over that now, and have been for the last couple of years. Most are already “woke”, and there are already “pastors” that are homos and performing marriages against their rules (don’t know their lingo well enough to know the terminology). The more conservative ones want them to enforce their rules and the powers that are in charge won’t. And they don’t seem to want to comment on abortion.

It’s confusing but from what I can gather, there is an issue over who keeps ownership of the property when the more conservative ones leave and the libs are saying they are free to keep benefits but only if they wait until it’s official, but keep delaying the big meeting for the last couple years- which I suspect is to hope they leave before they can keep the property they occupy.

Really! Is what he posted "insider" info, or what?

Might that not be like saying "most ranchers are parasites and perverts" and expecting others to accept it without better knowledge?

At our church we welcome anyone that doesn't come to disrupt. We have had the gay, the alcoholic, unwed couples, dope heads, ex-convicts, you name it. They are welcome because we all admit to falling short of what we should be. But we are careful who we put in a position of authority, and we do not endorse immoral life styles. And we are very careful as to who teaches children.

Amen Brother.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner."

We bought out the very rural Methodist church in Catfight, TN. Mainly for the graveyard that so many of our elders are buried in. Put a new roof on it, we had built an annex that had stoves and multiple bathrooms and a serving line for meals. We rent it out for events like weddings and such and do a "Homecoming" and all day singing and dinner on the ground for member families each year. Pop moved the graveyard gratis till he died, we keep enough in donations to have it kept up.

Told UMC to pound sand...

I recently began attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. (low church, no pageantry)

I grew up Methodist, then after a fairly significant "wild oats" period, I began looking around. I bounced around Baptist Churches, Disciples of Christ Churches, Church of Christ Churches,..

I never thought I'd end up at a Lutheran Church. But I really like the way things are done at this no pageantry Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. It's very "based" and fairly conservative.

One thing I learned when researching the Lutheran Church. The different Synods have different ideas about how things are done,...and there's differences even within the same Synod. The denomination has been around for 500 years, so there's been a lot of time for differences to be implemented between not only each Synod, but each individual congregation.

Personally, I won't consider any Lutheran Church that isn't in the Missouri Synod,...and I won't consider the high pageantry congregations within the Missouri Synod.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Synod (ELCA) got bit by the social justice homosexual agenda a while ago,..so they're out and the Wisconsin Synod is extremely traditional and conservative with a lot of high pageantry congregations,...which I don't like.

Anyway, if you're a Protestant that's getting put out with all the nonsense that's going on in the various Protestant Churches, you might want to visit a low pageantry, Missouri Synod Lutheran Church.

It's the OG as far as Protestants go,...formed by Martin Luther during the reformation 500 years ago. It adheres to the five Solas,..which is the original foundation of the Protestant Christian religion.

https://www.concordia.edu/blog/five-solas-of-the-protestant-reformation.html

SOLA GRATIA

SOLA FIDE

SOLUS CHRISTUS

SOLA SCRIPTURA

SOLI DEO GLORIA

,...and you might have to check out a few of them before you find one that suits you. Like I said, there's a lot of differences to be found in the Lutheran denomination.

Wouldn't a religion whose identity consists of protest have a foundation based on the thing they were protesting? Or if it is reformation rather than protest, the thing they were reforming? If grace, faith, Christ, scripture, and the glory of God alone are the foundation, why identify as protestant or reformed?

Read up on the reformation.

Someone said you are HappyCamper with a new name. Is that true?

If you want to think about it, Catholicism is reformed Judaism and the Lutheran denomination is reformed Catholicism.

That should be enough to cause some gnashing of teeth.

If you really want to get a squabble started, get a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian involved in a debate over which is the original Christian Church.

The schism that split the Catholics/Orthodox happened in 1047. 500 years later Martin Luther decided that they had both lost their way and decided it was time to get back to the basics.

This is quite good.

I concur.

Most certainly Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees, and they with Him, as He didn't play by their rules. Their rules were designed to keep the people in line, and the money coming to them. A lot of people look at the New Testament and say that Jesus preached love, and that we are therefore allowed to love who we please. Furthermore, they use their own translations of certain verses to come up with the idea that homosexuality is not a sin. Also, they say that what God said in the Old Testament about homosexuality no longer applies, because Jesus's coming changed all that.

I believe God laid down some very good laws in the Old Testament for man to live by, and I believe they apply today just as much as they did back then. I believe those laws forbid homosexuality, and nothing Jesus said or did takes away from that. I also believe that homosexuality is a sickness, and you choose to do it, not because you're born that way. Practicing homosexuals may attend church and take part in the activities, but they are going to burn in Hell for their behavior. Make no mistake about it.

There was more than rules involved.

John 8:38 through 44 spells out the problem very plain.

No.

&Bristoe

I’ve been taking my family to an LCMS congregation for about 3 years. I spent the last 6 years becoming familiar with the doctrine and views. My oldest son was confirmed into the church earlier this year and my wife and I became members as of Sunday.

There are some differences but like you pointed out it’s pretty much unchanged since 500 years ago. A couple of years ago a German student spent a week with us. Other than the English being spoken he said that the service is much the same.

I can't speak for what's transpired over the past 500 years. But it's fairly obvious that the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church that I attend holds close to tradition.

The ELCA Churches have "jumped the shark" from what I've read. I've never attended one, however.

I think a lot of the Protestants who are having to fight their leadership over the homosexual issue should just jump ship and find a LCMS church that suits them.

So far it's not having any of that nonsense,...no women Pastors, either.

Several years ago I wouldn't have thought nothing about women Pastors. But I've learned a lot about women since then.

Bristoe - our church these days is not Lutheran, but we have a bunch of experience from the past. Your comments about the variants (synods) seem to be right on the mark.

If we go back to Jesus, he was a Jew. The first Christians were Jews and did not think they were leaving Judaism. So I am going to have to believe we have converted to Judaism and believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. The rest of the unbelieving Jews (and Moslems, and wayward Christians) will believe before long.

Isn't the foundation of the reformation church the Roman Catholic church? Luther and other reformers identified with it, came from within it, and attempted to reform it. It was certain doctrines within the Roman Catholic church that they protested. How can this agree with the principle of Solus Christus? "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Was the Roman Catholic church God's institution on earth? Did it simply have some errors that needed to be reformed? Or had the Catholic church in Luther's time originated as the State Church of the Roman Empire through Constantine I's Edict of Milan and Edict of Thessalonica? With a Protestant and Reformed identity, isn't the history and origin of a Lutheran identity inextricably linked to the Roman Catholic institution?

Is the Roman Catholic church the great whore that sitteth upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication, with the name written upon her forehead, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH? I'm not asserting that these are one and the same, but there is a lot of evidence that causes me concern. I can certainly see protesting something like Romanism and Papism, but why would I want to identify with something that only tried to fix a few things with it? The history has something to learn from, but what value is that identity offering the people of God?

Can you condense this down to a few key points?

At the same time, it's necessary that they never be told that their sin is acceptable. The idea is to bring them to repentance. That's how Jesus did it. He came for the sinners and he cured them. At no time did he tell them that they could continue sinning and be ok.

Apostle Peter clearly disagreed with you. He made this issue crystal clear at the First Jerusalem Council when he said that it is through the grace of Jesus that Jews are saved, just as the Gentiles are. Grace…not the Mosaic Law.

And James (Jesus’ own brother) clearly disagreed with you. He also made this issue crystal clear at this same Council when he said that the early church should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God by requiring them to convert to Judaism.

The implication of both Peter and James (both Jews, and both leaders in the early Jesus movement) is that Jesus-following Jews must move in the same direction as the Gentiles and stop expecting the Gentiles to move in the direction of the Jews.

Grace…not the Mosaic Law.
NEW Covenant…not the old covenant.

Sure. If the Catholic church is the great whore, then the Lutheran church is a harlot and abomination of the earth because she is its mother.

And is the mother of every Protestant Church ever conceived,...including the snake handling Pentecostals.

But I'm not in agreement with your take on the book of Revelations.

LIQUOR GUNS BACON & TITS

Not every church is Catholic or Protestant though.

To be sure, it was a suppositional 'take.' If you don't agree with it, how certain are you?

Bristoe...wtf are you doing?


Dawg!

Need some Nuns and a Monsignor to come in and give these folks some Catechism lessons, eh?

So you're,....like,..a Buddhist or somethin'?

Gonna be a great multitude of people expecting a front row seat finding out they are not invited to the party.

In your opinion, who will be invited?

The thief hanging next to Jesus had the right attitude. He knew he did not live right and was getting what he deserved. A person that is really saved never loses that attitude. They know what they are and have been and that of themselves will never reach the mark. They know they can have life but not of themselves.

There isn’t a church denomination in America that can avoid the Catholic Church in its lineage. Please don’t trot out the pathetic book “Trail of Blood”. They guy tried to make his point and was well intended. I’ve read the book, considered his hypothesis and discussed the issue with people well studied in church history. Baptist doctrine doesn’t have a straight line forward from the NT.

It seems to me that the idea of infidelity is carried through scripture from the beginning of Genesis. God’s people are always unfaithful. The example is always there. It seems to me that we should consider ourselves no better. Redeemed but unfaithful and sinners.

LCMS is definitely not large C catholic. I started studying their doctrine about 7? years ago. Definitely not Catholic. Truth be told, modern Catholic doctrine doesn’t vary much from modern American Evangelical doctrine.

The devil is in charge of just about all mainline denominations, now.

I think that the ELCA jumped the shark decades ago. We’ve never attended one. Several years ago when I lived in Columbia we would drive over to Bowling Green and visit the LCMS there. I’m attending one in Florence now. They are almost identical if not identical in order of service.

From what I’ve studied up on the church has been pretty much unchanged. I think that there are some churches that have moved to a little more modern music but not the praise and worship junk that almost every church out there has adopted.

Welcome, brother Bristoe. ;-{>8

Conservative believers of all Christian faiths have a lot in common. That said, the biggest difference is found in the sacraments.

If the devil is in charge of anything, it's only because God has allowed it.

I’ve been thinking about that throughout the day. I’m not sure that they do. The same language is used but people mean very different things even when using the same or like phrases. The religious discussions on this forum bear that out. There are a lot of competing ideas that resemble but very different.

I do ageee that a big difference exists related to sacraments. Most don’t believe or aren’t taught means and presence and believe that the sacraments are simply symbolic or a sign of unity or identity.

From what I’ve seen most differences can be traced back to the understanding of justification. If justification isn’t dialed in all other theology and doctrine becomes pretty skewed.

Winner winner right off the bat.

Egalitarianism will get you to where they are now eventually. The underlying presuppositions make it inevitable.

The only power Satan has is the power we give him.




P

Yep, African Methodist’s pushed for the split, defended the traditional interpretation, then states one Ted to the liberal side to keep donations/charity coming in, go figure.

lol,..In some respects the Lutheran Church wants to make sure that it's not mistaken for Catholicism.

During the recitation of the Apostle's Creed, I was surprised to see that the Lutheran Church I'm attending changed the wording from "The Holy Catholic Church" to "The Holy Christian Church".

I'm new to the Lutheran Church and it's interesting to see how, even 500 years later, They still have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about the Catholic Church.

My wife is Catholic and I occasionally attend Mass with her on Saturdays.

I've decided that it's best not to let it be known that I attend a Lutheran Church around those Catholics. I'm also not overly comfortable about the Lutherans learning that I'm married to a Catholic. But I suppose it's going to come out eventually.

I wouldn't worry very much - caring about your being married to a Roman Catholic is probably way, way down the list for most folks in the MS churches.

That's not what I read in the book of Job.

Our carnal will and the power of satan are two different things.

We still use the phrase “Holy catholic Church” even though spelling predictor doesn’t like having me type it with a small c. They definitely still distinguish the difference. I appreciate the order of service. In American Evangelicalism I was always taught that I was going to church to do something for God. It’s very refreshing to have the emphasis placed on going to church to receive something FROM God. Another significant distinction.

It’s interesting that the African Methodists are the ones holding the line. Other African denominations are also strong on holding to the lines of traditional doctrine. It would be interesting to pick that apart and see what cultural factors differ to drive them to be so consistent.

“catholic” in the Apostles Creed refers to the universal church of Jesus. It’s meant to encompass all of the denominations, not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. There is certainly a lot of overlap between the mainstream Christian denominations.

The Africans have definitely held the line in this fiasco. Their congregation hasn’t been filled with those only participating in the church to push the gay agenda. When the stateside leeches figured out that they didn’t have the votes to shove their agenda down our throats, they cancelled General Conference for the second time and pushed the meeting out two years. The American Methodist bureaucracy is ripe with militant leftists. If you research the statements and actions of the bishops here, it’s embarrassing.

Any religious organization is ran by men and we are all flawed. The problem is when they are allowed to go against the scripture and start delving in things that go against it. The Roman Catholic church is the oldest organized religion I know of but since it's founding it has been plagued by borderline satanic leadership. When the Methodist church United they started going away from their founding principles. Any church organization that goes against the scriptures is satanic by definition. You cannot have two masters.

Even most of those arguments are distinctions without differences.

While we'd love for you to join us in worship (and we'll say it), most of us are happy you are on the narrow path.

I wish that it were that straight forward but unfortunately it isn’t. The distinctions are stark only appearing to be without difference.

There are at least two if it’s three views that are reflected in the posts on this forum. Palagian/Finneyism, semi-Palagianism and Pauline. Tabula Ross’s vs sick and needs help vs dead and incapable.

Depending on the understanding of justification the view of the self and God are directly impacted. I was raised Anna-Baptist or Palagian and transitioned to semi-Palagian then to a Pauline understanding. The difference that it makes in my understanding of salvation, security of salvation, etc is polar opposite. Definitely more than mere distinction.

To me, it seems like a lotta this issue and discussion is about churches and denominations…and the individuals that comprise them…makin’ a point — instead of makin’ a difference.

The Gospels and the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul kinda provide a roadmap about how to make a genuine difference — and the early body of Jesus’ followers pulled it off. Within the first three hundred years of Jesus’ movement the Roman Empire embraced Christianity.

Jesus’ original ekklesia toppled an empire in terms of an ideology, and it toppled a religious system that’d been in place for thousands of years. And they didn’t do it by makin’ a point.

They didn’t have a platform, they didn’t have any leverage in culture, they didn’t have any wealth, and they had very little organization. But they were clearly successful in bringing about cultural change.

The problem with that view is that people build the church. From what I read I’m the NT God takes credit for making things change. Of course He doesn’t do it without people which isn’t the point. He simply does what He will as He will. Well, that pattern is consistent through the OT also.

From what I’ve seen in the history of the church things get messed up royally when people try to “make things happen”, “usher in the kingdom”, “take dominion”, etc. Those points in history typically correlate with false teaching and heresies.

What was Jesus’ reputation among the most ‘religious’ people back then…the scripture thumpers of their day…what did they say about Jesus…? “He’s the friend of tax collectors and sinners.” His reputation was that He spent too much time with the people that He shouldn’t be spending any time with.

So there’s Jesus hangin’ out with with the tax collectors and the sinners. Does that mean that by hanging out with tax collectors He thinks it’s OK for them to cheat people on their taxes…? Does that mean that by hangin’ out with sinners He thinks it’s OK for them to sin…?

Nope. Sin is what ultimately killed Him. Sin is what ultimately had Him nailed to a cross. Sin is what ultimately cost Him His life. He wasn’t condoning sin. He was tryin’ to reach sinners. He was tryin’ to make a difference.

To me, some churches and denominations…and the individuals that comprise them…choose to sit safely back in their congregation of people who all believe the same thing. And who all sing the same songs, and who all get along and who all agree about everything from politics to theology. Entities and individuals that sit back and occasionally throw hand grenades out into the culture to make a point.

Some others…entities and individuals…are actually trying to engage people who need the message of the Gospel. And they could care less that other’s…especially ‘religious’ people…criticize them for who they associate with. You never, ever, find Jesus being concerned about being guilty by association.

Within 300 years the Christian church gave up and joined the Roman Empire. What resulted was not the church of John and Jesus. And that organization is still masquerading as Christianity today.

The UMC and a bunch more just lower case catholic.

That is certainly the view of the modern Hebrew Roots Movement and those that comprise it.

Mathew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

God still has a true church despite the efforts of man to change it.

That is true and that true church has people all over the world scattered among many denominations and some true believers in Jesus' message are even Hindu or Moslem. While the Roman church certainly has some true followers of Jesus the hierarchy is off the deep end. But so is the hierarchy of every denomination that has a hierarchy including the SBC which my church recently began divorce proceedings with.

Gee, who coulda seen this coming.

There’s a pretty big difference between ‘the Church’ and a church. Tarbe mentioned it earlier and he was right.

I’m attracted to the original ekklesia established by Jesus and modeled by Him and His Apostle’s and the other earliest first-century Christians; the ekklesia that relies on the event of the resurrection of Jesus as its foundation. The stand-alone version.

Much of what we see nowadays (in my opinion) regarding churches and denominations…and the individuals that comprise them…is very different from the first-generation passion of what it meant to follow Jesus back then.

The problem with using the events of the Book of Acts is that the book is written as a history rather than a book of doctrine. As a history it must first be read descriptively. To say that it is prescriptive and the definition of what the church was to be throughout time is to ignore and discredit all that the Apostles did and taught, under the continued direction of the Holy Spirit, for the rest of their lives.

I see no problem with the true historicity of Jesus and His resurrection and His original ekklesia. At all. None. Christianity is an event-based faith, not a doctrine-based or text-based faith. Jesus’ Apostle’s made this crystal clear. You seem to be refuting an assertion that wasn’t made by anyone that I’m aware of. Regardless, the foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. His Apostle’s made this crystal clear.

Without the Resurrection, there would be no Christian doctrine, there would be no Christian Bible, and there would be no Christianity. At all. Period.

Yes and they’ve marrying openly admitted homos and bragging about it for 10 years

Not sure why now this is some sort of “ASTONISHING” news to folks on the campfire

But….ya know, there’s dumbfukks on here that ain’t heard of Foghat either.

I’ve heard some women that can flat-out preach the Gospel. And I’ve heard some women that are excellent teachers regarding the practical application of Biblical principles to one’s everyday life.

On the topic of the OP - but only in some comparison with the Methodist situation - we happened to visit a Missouri Synod Lutheran church today and paid close attention to the statements and the doctrines expressed. My take is that there is NO WAY that the LGBTQXYZ style and behavior would be in any way acceptable in membership there.

There were a couple of things that surprised me a bit, but the above was patent.

Im sure thats the case, just as there are a lot of women who are smarter than their husbands. Doesnt mean, contrary to the ideas of many of those women, they should be head of the house, or church.

HE had other considerations i expect, such as the fact that HE made woman from man and for man and not vice versa.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

As all here know, crap has gone sideways in this country since lowyers and womens lieb happened.

Women in upper positions in church are going to be drawn to instructing men, just as they are at home.

They would be dealing with a lot of males in church. We know what that lead to in the Garden. Cain.

Acts is a bridge between the Gospels and Paul’s letters and explains why the kingdom of God on earth did not come (as the Jews had anticipated) and how God responded to Israel’s disbelief and rejection of Jesus. Acts is Volume Two and continues the account of the Jewish disbelief and rejection of their Messiah, Jesus Christ. There is hope with the beginning of Acts because of the resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But, sadly, Acts ends with Israel’s rejection of Jesus, their Messiah.

Due to God’s AMAZING GRACe, Paul was saved and commissioned by the risen Lord to begin a new program, the Church, the body of Jesus Christ. Under the new program of grace, salvation was by faith alone, not faith and works, in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

The Methodist “take” on abortion is as much or a little more disconcerting than their gay rights stance.

In contrast to the Texas law, the official United Methodist stance on abortion, found in Paragraph 161 of the Social Principles, states: “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers. We support parental, guardian, or other responsible adult notification and consent before abortions can be performed on girls who have not yet reached the age of legal adulthood. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection or eugenics.”

So it seems the Methodists have a subtle pro-choice” stance?

Trying to stay seeker friendly relevant to bump the numbers.

Yeah, I gotta problem with that exhortation, as well as the one tellin’ us that we must obey our government rulers, and that slaves must obey their human owners.

Women were certainly seen in a different light back then, just as slavery was. If it’s OK for slavery to be seen in a different light nowadays…and it clearly is…why isn’t it OK for women to be seen in a different light nowadays too…?

Agreeing with the above Biblical exhortations is ‘not’ a requirement for salvation. If I get chastised for seein’ em’ the way I do when I stand before God, then I just will; I’m already gonna be chastised for a bunch when that time comes anyway.

Women are seen in a different light nowadays. Are things mo'better than they were 100 years ago?

I dont remember HIM advocating slavery, just saying about if one was one.

Exactly!

I think that you are correct. Such a church would likely end up migrating to the ELS one way or another.

The order of worship was totally different than anything I’d ever experienced. When I began to see the specific purpose of each portion it by a long shot made more sense than anything I’ve ever seen or experienced.

It’s a fairly clear assertion that comes though in all of your posts where church history is discussed. I’ve tried to figure out if you have any extensive understanding of church history or if these conclusions are your own. They are somewhat consistent with some things that I’ve seen come out of the New Apostolic Reformation teaching.

I think there’s a big difference between the true historicity of Jesus and His resurrection and His original ekklesia and it’s message…especially during the first, second, and third centuries…and the later history of church doctrine and the later history of church theology and the later history of church traditions.

Is the foundation of our faith theology or doctrine or traditions…? Or is the foundation of our faith an event in history…? Paul said apart from that event…the resurrection…our faith is useless. I would add that church theology and church doctrine and church tradition is useless as well. Makes sense to me to lean into, and drive home, the reality of the resurrection. Consistently.

The RCC uses that verse to claim Peter as the 1st pope. Please study that verse in the Greek, the language Mathew was written in. In the Greek, words have masculine and feminine genders and the meanings can be totally different. The Greek for rock can be either petra, feminine, or petros, masculine, but they aren't the same thing. Petra is a solid, immovable rock, like the Rock of Gibraltar. Petros is small moving rocks, not solid, like rolling gravel. Both words are used in this verse. Using the original Greek words for rock, as written by Mathew, would read:
"And I tell you, you are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." Or, in English "And I tell you, you are loose moving gravel and on this solid immovable rock I will build my church.

Jesus called Peter moving, loose gravel, not secure. That's totally different than the rock he built his church on. The Petra, the rock, is Peter's testimony in verse 16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." All believers today are hanging tight to that solid rock that hell hasn't prevailed against, not to gravel that's insecure and often sinful.

How can there be a big difference between "the true historicity of Jesus and His Resurrection"? In truth, you cannot have one without the other. We only see Jesus's life for about 3 years, except a few things like His Birth, flight to Egypt, and his parents "losing" Him in the Temple. But once He was baptized by His kin who was John the Baptist, the Lord began His journey of amazing miracles that would change the world forever, for those who believe. I agree that had His resurrection not happened and had He being seen by over 500 people who were familiar with Him over the course of the 40 days He was still among his disciples and friends sometimes, it was the Crowning event that also showed us that we will be resurrected as He was, also in time.

I've noticed you are using the Greek ekklesia which has several meanings, like the called out ones, congregation, and simply church that also can be a church service in someone's home, which was important for His believers as they were being killed horribly over about 300-400 years. But that just shows how important those who loved Him believed and had no problem with laying down their lived for Him fully knowing they would be with Him as He had defeated death.

But then came the dark ages for those who believed but did not agree with the popery. It is estimated that between 50 and 100 million believers were slaughtered from about the year 500 through the 1500's during the Inquisition which forbade biblical translation and is an untold story of the Bible.

You’ve misunderstood me and misquoted me. Tremendously so. Look again at my post. Closer this time.

I agree .......... I guess my point was more about "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and how no matter what we see in history or in present times, our sovereign God will have a people here on earth no matter what the apostate churches are doing.

We all fall short of the glory of God in some way.
I'm not picking on you specifically, Antlers, but I can't pass up a teaching moment.

This is the difference between being a saint of heroic virtue and just being another believer. If we were to attain the perfection that God desires for us, we'd trust His word no matter what our instincts told us. His ways are not our ways, so something like this is guaranteed to show up. He calls us to follow and trust His will anyway.

Depending on the subject, this doesn't necessarily mean someone won't get to Heaven, but if they die still holding on to something like this, it does mean they will have to have the impurity burnt off in Purgatory.

Jesus called Simon "Kepha". Aramaic for rock.

The Aramaic is consistent with the Greek that was used in Mathew.

Few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks” that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.

“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .” The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.

Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:

1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.

Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.

3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large” or “small” with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks” in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone” when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,” or “pebble.”

5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.

Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.

6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”). Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:

Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.

Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father” over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father” in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope” or “papa,” as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).

7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David” who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister” among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister” in ancient Israel:

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”

No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

Purgatory is a filament of your amalgamation, priest.

Will anything unpure enter Heaven?

You used the phrase “saint of heroic virtue”. I’ve never heard that phrase before nor do I have a reference point for that concept.

Would you mind breaking that concept down into a very simple explanation?

Saint of heroic virtue is redundant for the sake of clarifying what a saint is - a person of heroic virtue. God calls all of us to heroic virtue, our prime example being Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the salvation of the human race.

Tyrone,

I don’t feel picked on when someone’s opinion differs from mine. Nor do I feel threatened when someone’s opinion differs from mine. I appreciate it when you post on these matters. Despite our differences of opinion.

Catholics think Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred when He said He was gonna build His church upon it. And Protestants think the declaration that Peter made is the rock to which Jesus referred when He said He was gonna build His church upon it.

I agree with the above Protestant view. To me, it’s ‘that’ rock…the declaration that Peter made…that Jesus built His brand new movement around.

I also don’t think that any impurity of a believer will need to be “burnt off in Purgatory” before they're allowed to spend eternity with the Creator. I’m fully confident of Jesus’ atoning work on the cross — and that alone. The blood of His atonement will cover a believer’s impurity (sin) — just as God’s people…who were marked by the blood of a lamb…were ‘passed over’ by the angel of death just prior to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt.

Our differences of opinion in no way diminish the truth of the Gospel, or the historicity of Jesus and His resurrection and His original ekklesia and it’s message.

How do you keep having these fun thought and I don't? Never the less, thanks for posting.


There is a little difference in you and me. I am convinced those who don't agree with me are wrong. Otherwise I would agree with them. If I do, then my new idea is correct and those who don't agree with me are wrong.

I certainly agree with your last statement. That is why, after several decades, I settled into the LCMS. I have attended many other denominations and studied even more. I have found no other denomination that actually presents Christ to you. Every aspect of the service is oriented toward that. All of the many denominations that I’ve studied and experienced talk ABOUT Christ and talk ABOUT the Gospel but do not give you Christ or the Gospel.

I’d like to discuss the first part of your reponse later but my mind is totally and thoroughly fried at the moment.

lol

Reminds me of the guy who continues to be impressed with his own humility…!

Seriously though, I do think that God wants us to have an assured knowledge of who we are in Him.

I’ll take “theologies of glory” for $200 please Alex

As Les Feldick wisely said, Heaven won't be a boring Place, just sitting on a cloud, and strumming on a harp.

We could spend the first few thousand years just like this.

This should as good a place as any to ask, Was it the Emperor that had the Apostol Paul beheaded?

Or have I got my wires crossed?

I really don't get into all that gnat-straining mumbo-jumbo.

You either love God or you don't. If you love God, you will take the narrow path. If you love God, you will do what He asks of us - not only in the treatment of our neighbor, but in our worship as well. The better you conform to these, the more treasure you build in Heaven, i.e. the closer you will be to God.

You can try to be an underachiever, doing the minimum of what God asks, but what if you miss? As Paul says, you have to run the race to the finish, not quit the race or be a spectator. Phoning it in doesn't work. The lukewarm are spit out.

Actually, it was the conservative African’s that forced the issue to surface. They wanted the traditional conservative views upheld. When the UMC voted to split the African’s ended up going with mostly liberal churches instead. As I understood it, they are very much anti-homosexual but the bulk of their charitable income comes from the liberal congregations or something to that effect. It’s a cluster that I’m not sure is fully figured out. There is some areas the UMC is holding up owning church property. I’m not involved in it so can’t say if there are financial reasons like interest free loans or what not tied to the properties. I know our pastor runs the gun store on days off and open Carries.

All churches will be forced to go completely woke or lose their tax exempt status. They will start there. Then our injustice system will continue to allow leftists to vandalize church properties and terrorize the members. The government will support running the churches and members out.

At that point church goers may have to take note of who the terrorists and arsonists are and be less than Christian in dealing with them.

I think things will get sporty in California first and I think it will start in the next few years. You will see groups like antifa, blm, and other communist/Satanist groups start burning churches and terrorizing members. It will get bad enough that the last somewhat human people in California will want to follow the others out who've already left.

Then I'll end up with more Californian neighbors complaining because I put a pool on our 1 acre lot and a small chicken coop. Both of which are allowed by our covenants. And complain because I ride my 4 wheeler to the neighbors. The same bike I've used to plow their cheap and lazy Californian ass driveway for free with. Theyll also complain like my other California neighbors because our hose sprayed 2 feet into the road for a minute while whipping around under pressure.

These our my California conservative neighbors who now are demanding an hoa even though our neighborhood has no common area.

I remember as recently as the early 90s when Californians could almost pass for cool because they were from California. A few decades before that it was a thriving beautiful state dominating the markets with the latest and greatest ideas. Now I look at all these awkward geeks and douchebags flooding into our state from California and think wait a minute, where are the cool people you guys used to claim to have. I know they really existed because I used to know a few. Did they disappear with California's decent from cultural leader to cultural dumpster fire.

I think California still leads the way our nation is just in total cultural decline. They are still trendsetters the trend is just downward. Look at gruesome Newsome. The guy is such a flaming pillar of douchebaggedness he makes Mitt Romney look like and incredibly cool guy you'd want to hang out with instead of the try hard who had to pay for protection in high school then later became the contractor you had to sue.

California will once again lead the way with open assaults on churches and church growers. I'm placing my bet it starts within 2 years and if the commies steal this next presidential election too it will look like an open war on Christians there by 2027.

Bb

I've heard more than 1 minister say that they need to get rid of the tax exempt status. As it is, churches are apt to bow to unscriptural government rules in order to protect that status. I recall a guy who said 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's' in response to the question of whether it's lawful to pay Roman taxes.

For those here who present info/expertise on the "saints" - what would be your reply to a Christian who does not believe there are any humans that actually have become saints?

Heaven is empty?

Tyrone - am supposing that I should have made it clear - was referring to those highly rated/recognized saints for whom churches, locations and other such are "named".

CCCC, a saint is simply someone who made it to Heaven.

The named ("canonized") saints are people who are recognized (not made) by the Church to have lived lives of heroic virtue. Evidence of this virtue was that Jesus heard their prayers and granted them miracles. These miracles are in accord with numerous verses, such as James 5:16-18, which makes it evident that not only does God answer prayer, but that the prayers of the virtuous are more efficacious than the prayers of those of lesser virtue.

There are several reasons behind declaring saints. One is for us to have models of virtue to imitate. Another is to have virtuous people who we know can effectively pray for us. Lastly, the saints are testaments to the power of God.

The Church has a long investigative process for determining if someone is a saint.
Here's the current process in a nutshell - https://www.usccb.org/offices/public-affairs/saints

The next question is, I know, does this declaration change a person's salvation status?
No. While it is highly unlikely that someone could be canonized and be damned, it is hypothetically possible.

Let us never forget The Cross, and what, It means.

I think that heaven is totally devoid of “super achievers”. The Bible is pretty clear that if we are in Christ we are there in the first place by His work and kept there by his work.

Having said that, all that are saved are saints, I guess with a little s.

I’m a bit disappointed since you are the one who brought up the phrase. That being the case, I’m not sure how you can then call it gnat straining.

What's a "super achiever"?
Someone who is greedy or simply goes for money, fame or power?

I'm sure I didn't mention "theology of glory".

Be careful with anything from Martin Luther, he set up a lot of straw men. Among other reasons to be careful of him.

Is the status of sainthood a Devine recognition(?), or a title bestowed by those that feel they are sitting in a position of an authority to make that judgement on their own?

Your argument here is extremely disjointed and lacking in self awareness.

1) a man who is arguing in favor of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching and practice on sainthood should not be talking about “gnat-straining”

2) I’m glad you quoted the Apostle Paul because he also quoted King David who said in Romans 3, “there is none righteous; no not one. No one understands. No one seeks God. All have turned aside…” which would seem to say a lot re: sainthood as defined by Rome.

3) the phrases “theologies of glory” vs “theology of the cross” aren’t complicated. In the former set are all ideas the efforts of the human seeking salvation are front & center. In the latter good news is truly good; that God has come into history expressly to save lowly, unworthy sinners… He did the work because he knows we couldn’t.

The amount of study on this is fascinating for sure. Hard to say in one verse Jesus means Peter is the literal Rock but the next verse when he calls Peter Satan he means Peter’s intent. So either he literally built his church on one he literally thinks is Satan or he’s referring to Peter’s statements.

God is all around us. The Bible is written by man. Good is real. Evil is real. There is some of each in all of us.

Church brings community. That’s a good thing. To claim that one religion or one denomination has all the answers, and the others are wrong is foolish, IMO. Just try to be good.

That said, good must fight evil, whether it be within us or around us. It’s an ongoing struggle.

All I know is, I’m not perfect. I screw up, but I try to be good. I try to learn from my mistakes. If I answer to God one day, I hope he understands.

Yep, Tyrone., those cannoned folks are the ones whose exceptional sainthood was in the question. Thanks for focusing the matter.

I've read up on "theology of glory" more and I've come to the conclusion that you don't understand your own theology.

I don't believe what you say accurately represents Protestantism of any sect that I'm familiar with. What you present is a lazy man's excuse. I have known far too many Protestants of great virtue for your interpretation to be true.

"Theology of glory" refers to people who work for their own Worldly glory, as in the prosperity gospel. It's the old, Hebrew view that successful people are favored by God and those who suffer or are poor are not.
The saints are people who heroically did God's will, in spite of whatever crosses the had to embrace.
What you present is a theology of envy, of excuses by the spiritually lazy who avoid carrying out the Beatitudes. You are also purporting to judge the hearts of people you don't even know, which to me is a huge no-no.

If I seem a little angry, it's because you besmirch good people everywhere.

Again disjointed and lacking self awareness.

Are you saying that King David & Apostle Paul were incorrect in their assessment of human nature? If you’re laying all that at my feet your anger is misplaced; the Prophet/King & the Apostle said it all, not me. If you are angered by what I said take it up with them. I must point out that all of the above applies to me; I’m not exempt. My greatest works are as filthy rags and worth nothing whatsoever toward salvation. All I plead on that account is the blood of the righteous one slain for me.

It may serve you to judge your tradition’s theology according to the Scripture rather than vice/versa.

You are confusing salvation with building treasures in Heaven.

Why bring up a theology of glory. That would only cloud your definition.

And why dredge up a partial quote that I made on another thread.

My question to you is simple and not meant as a set up. You used a phrase with which I am unfamiliar. I assume that the concept represented by the phrase has a source. I’m trying to understand your statement from that perspective. It may well be a spontaneous phrase that you came up with.

I learned a long time ago that many people use the same or similar words and phrases with totally different intent and meaning.

Are you asking about "saint of heroic virtue" or "theology of glory"?

Simply a phrase that I used to get close to what you were saying. I was simply tired and too lazy to scroll back and find your exact wording. Sorry for the confusion.

If saint of heroic virtue was your original statement then that is what I’m trying to understand. Is that a common phrase within a certain line of theology or is it just a phrase that you used to denote another concept?

Those are the ones - "saint of heroic virtue" - the ones they put in the cannon.

If a Christian didn't believe in those or accept that elevated status for certain humans - how would such disbelief affect one's Christianity?

It's a redundant term I came up on the fly with to describe saints. Saints are, by definition, people of heroic virtue.Disagreeing with the recognition of one saint in particular? Not at all.

Disagreeing that saints exist or disagreeing that saints can be identified? Either way, I'd say it's a matter of education. Did the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration tell us anything about their characters?

Did the parting of the Red Sea tell us anything about Moses?

Has my shadow ever cured the sick? What does that say about me?

Are the people to whom God says "Depart from me, I never knew you" any different from Moses, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist?

These are the kinds of questions we each must answer in our faith journey.

Oh rings, shocks, stones, knives Florence hardware



More than a few problems crop up when we start talking about “building up treasures” and “Christian’s of exceptional virtue”.

First, a metric is set up for which there is no known measurement. Only God would know the measure so mankind would be playing a guessing game based on wishful hoping.

Second, the law or command is of necessity elevated to a means of progression, righteousness, holiness. The problem then becomes the contrary teaching that the law was added to increase the knowledge of sin and the broad teaching that no one is made righteous by the law.

Third, such an approach would, of necessity be directed at God and our fellow man. Since works are to be done out of a motivation other than self interest an obvious problem arises. By performing works to “build up treasure” God and our fellow man has been objectified so they they can be used as a means to an end. That would seem to be quite a sinful action.

Fourth, opportunity and ability have to be considered. Since I don’t know much about her I will make reference only. If we contrast a Mother Teresa type person against a poor mother in a third world country we see immediate differences in opportunity to participate, distraction related to other obligations, support differences, cultural, many things that would stifle the one and enable the other. Hardly an even playing field given by God.

In whose eyes is the assessment completed? God’a or Man’s? Scripture repeatedly reinforces that God looks on the heart of man and not his works or ability. Men look at and measure such people by their own standards and interpretations of what is important. God’s important always seems different to what men think.

About 350 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, on February the 27th in 380 AD, the Roman Emperor Theodocious the 1st issued the Edict of Thessalonica. And this brand new law made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

And it ended State support for the pagan priesthood that had been supported by Rome for many years. All of that financial support was now shifted to support the Christian church. Christianity was now the official religion of the Roman Empire.

How’d it go from Jesus being crucified to this…? Rome crucified the leader of a Nazarene sect with the help of His own people, and then later Rome considers this same leader to be God who replaces the entire assemblage of Roman Gods…!

Jesus wasn’t even Roman. He’d never even been to Rome. And today there is no Roman Empire. And today Rome is a city full of crosses, but they don’t represent Roman crucifixion, all of the crosses in Rome represent a single crucifixion ~ they represent the crucifixion of Jesus.

And today the cross is no longer a symbol of shame and terror and suffering (which the Romans intended it to be). Today it represents hope and salvation and compassion, and the love of God. And no one in the early first century who’d ever seen and heard and smelled an actual Roman crucifixion could’ve ever even imagined this.

And today, 1500 miles from Rome, Jerusalem is filled with many thousands of Christian tourists from all over the world who wanna walk where that crucified leader of that Nazarene sect once walked.

Now, if the above was all you knew…a troublemaker rabbi crucified by Rome, then later considered God by the very Empire that crucified Him…and nowadays billions of people the world over believe that He’s God and worship Him. If the above was all you knew…and by the way, all of the above is historically indisputable…then the question ya’ gotta wrestle to the ground it this…”What happened…?”

Not “What was written…?” But “What happened…?” Because something extraordinary clearly happened to bring all of this about. Clearly something extraordinary caused all of those monumental changes to happen in such a short period of time.

And what happened was recorded for us by Matthew who was there, and by Mark who got his information from Peter (who was there, and who also documented it), and by Luke who investigated it and talked to many eyewitnesses, and by John who was there, and by James (the brother of Jesus) who was part of these events.

And then the Apostle Paul who stepped into history as someone who despised Christians and was intent on putting the Jesus movement out of commission, becomes a Jesus follower himself and writes about half of the New Testament.

They all tell us what happened.

I'll ask here.?
Les Feldick says the Tower of Bable was the origin of every false, and pagon religion.

What do you think?

Um no

Read Genesis 3

That’s where you’re find the origin of all violations of all 10 commandments.