Posted on 12/22/2014 6:17:46 AM PST by marshmallow
(LWI) – Rev. Martin Junge, General Secretary of The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) says relations between the Lutheran and Catholic churches have reached an epoch-making turning-point.
Speaking during a panel discussion, held 18 December, in the Lutheran church in Rome, Junge emphasized that the relationship between Lutherans and Catholics was being transformed “from conflict to communion.” Precisely in a world “in which religion and faith are regularly portrayed and perceived as trouble makers,” he said it was a phenomenal testimony that the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches continued to move “towards a profound communion that frees us to serve God and the world.”
Alongside Junge on the panel were, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) Kurt Cardinal Koch, the Catholic representative of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany Bishop Karl-Hinrich Manzke, and the chairperson of the Ecumenism Commission of the German Episcopal Conference Bishop Gerhard Feige.
Junge and Koch took the opportunity to announce plans for a common liturgical guide in connection with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017, of which publication is scheduled for 2015. Looking towards 2017, the Lutheran - Roman Catholic material is intended to enable churches all over the world to review the 500 years of Reformation. The guide will follow on from the dialogue document From Conflict to Communion published by both partners in 2013, and transpose it into liturgical acts. The material will reflect the structure of this document with its triple form of penitence for the wounds mutually inflicted; joy at the insights and dimensions of the Reformation; and hope for unity.
The panel also discussed the question of what exactly was to be commemorated in 2017. “Not church division, nor the 500th anniversary of a church and certainly not any heroic actions,” Feige was.......
(Excerpt) Read more at lutheranworld.org ...
..in the Bible once God calls you. My correction.
I don't know how I missed these nuggets. No MM it isn't the 'same' bible. If you knew Catholic vs JW apologetics your lameitude wouldn't be displayed. Google Catholics Jehovah witnesses. As a Catholic that doesn't know jack about Catholic apologetics vs JWs, it is really hard to take you seriously on the Bible and its efficacy. As for what could go wrong? Well, if the argument starts and ends with the proposer totally ignorant of the position of the JW and even in conflict with the OTC's stance it looks like the point is conceded to me.
As I perceive, unlike other Catholics, you haven't disparaged the current leader of the Catholic church which at least makes you a real Catholic, for the sake of Catholic apologetics read up on your next exampled group before you trot them out of the barn for debate.
I asked if you doubted the sincerity of the JWs' search for God and you reply with this? Muslims are "sincere"....so are many pagans. They're sincerely wrong but they're sincere.
JWs start from exactly the same premise that you've been shilling; "it's all in the Bible". And it takes them to a place which makes your argument look ridiculous.
Anecdotal at best....
I pointed out that one man sincerely searching for God plus a Bible is "the Protestant gold standard" and you reply with this little two step wiggle? Don't be coy. Is it or isn't it? If it isn't, what is?
You've told us yourself up thread that it is. All of a sudden it's "anecdotal"?? What a joke.
Christ is easy to find but it helps if your 'bible' doesn't deny Christ as the Son, or contradict their own belief that there is only one God but Jesus ain't Him but 'a god'.
The JW bible denies Christ is the Son of God? Really? Where? HERE is a link to the JW bible. Cut and paste the passage which says that Christ is not the Son of God. You're not going to weasel out of this one. This thread will go on to eternity until you back up that little gem.
The truth, is that the JWs themselves say that Jesus is not God based on what they read in the Bible. The JW apologetic is that the Bible clearly says that God's name is Jehovah, not Jesus. Furthermore, the Bible nowhere mentions the words "Holy Trinity", therefore, there isn't one. Ergo, Jesus is not God. However, their "bible" says what your bible says.
This is the entire point; The JWs get these beliefs from their own personal reading of the Bible.
But since it ISN'T, there is no checkmate....
Another silly little word play. There's a link to the JW Bible above.
Explain why that isn't a Bible.
and they aren't Christians, a requirement,(if you read and understand the Bible) for the Spirit to indwell.
A "requirement" which you've just invented.
So a pagan who's sincerely searching for the truth can't pick up a Bible and find God because he's not a Christian?
Your naivete is noted and a little sad. Since you have little discernable knowledge of scripture, any pleasant sounding word can sway. The lack of knowledge of the whole counsel of God leaves you unable to determine when someone is blowing smoke.
So school me, Obi Wan. The link to the JW Bible is upthread. Feel free to point out any changes from your Bible.
The essential part is 'no they aren't Christians'.
Uh huh....and how did they get to that point?
Sack up and pick the side of Christ. They are manifestly NOT Christian no matter how sincere they are. Even the RC can acknowledge that. It has gotta hurt sitting on the fence. For the sake of the truth, make a stand. Laodicean or what? (Revelation Bible talk)
Yeeaaaah! Hey, I've got an idea....why don't the JWs just read the Bible! It's....*cough...laugh*......"clear"!! Remember?
The 'Bible' hasn't taken them anywhere, they don't have it!
What's that at the link?
They do have a ton of man-made theology.
ROFL.....yeah....I wonder where they got that??
You haven't had a point in all these postings other than denying the power of God's recorded Word.
Well don't worry pal, that's about to change.
We're going to go through the JW Bible at the link above, passage by passage and you're going to explain to me where the problem lies with the Bible which "they don't have".
Time for a little summary of your ever shifting position, I believe. Feel free to correct anything below which you have not said.
1) When you discuss the Bible, you're not using "judgements" and it's not you who is speaking. The Bible speaks for itself.
2)Point 1) modified to indicate that the Bible doesn't speak for itself when JWs read it.
3)The Bible is "clear". "Scripture interprets scripture, takes care of the difficult passages." (quoted verbatim, post #37)
4) Point 2) amended to indicate that a non-Christian can't understand the Bible. It isn't "clear" for them. (Question In that case, is the Bible any use to non-Christians?")
5) You are an official arbiter of Scripture "because you can read". (And presumably, the JWs can't)
6) You don't "spin" the Bible. When you talk about it, the Holy Spirit guides you. But not me or the JWs.
Have at it.
The Yahweh vs Jehovah issue?
Is that what I don't "know jack about"?
JWs start from exactly the same premise that you've been shilling; "it's all in the Bible".
Jws have altered their 'bible' to make Jesus a 'god' no God. John 1:1, the Gospel for today. Since you have access to both, read them and see if they are the same.
This is the entire point; The JWs get these beliefs from their own personal reading of the Bible.
And to get there, they had to change John 1. Hardly a sincere group reading the same thing as all Christendom. Your argument fails.
They do have a ton of man-made theology. ROFL.....yeah....I wonder where they got that??
Catholics? Seems to be working for them.
A "requirement" which you've just invented
John 14:16-18; Matt. 28:18-20; John 1:12-13; John 3:3-21; 1Cor. 3:16; John 14:26. Seriously, read the Book, this is embarrassing.
So a pagan who's sincerely searching for the truth can't pick up a Bible and find God because he's not a Christian?
No one come to God unless he is called. A pagan called by God can come to the knowledge of the true God through power of the Gospel. John 6:44; Rom 1:16-17
The essential part is 'no they aren't Christians'. Uh huh....and how did they get to that point?
By their denial of the Son of God. No different then a Muslim.
The 'Bible' hasn't taken them anywhere, they don't have it! What's that at the link?
A poor counterfeit of the truth. One with no discernment or knowledge of God's Word can fall for it. Even RCs know this. Poor catechesis seems to be the problem here.
We're going to go through the JW Bible at the link above, passage by passage
Well pal, we won't be going through any passage until you harmonize John 1 with a real Bible. You'll also need to demonstrate a working knowledge of JW doctrine and its difference to orthodox Christianity. I don't have time to waste holding hands and instructing a student that can't verbalize the difference between the two.
When you discuss the Bible, you're not using "judgements" and it's not you who is speaking. The Bible speaks for itself.
When I quote the Bible, I let the plain words speak.
2)Point 1) modified to indicate that the Bible doesn't speak for itself when JWs read it.
We can discuss what you like as long it fit my paradigm as a Christian or follower of Christ reading scripture guided by the Holy Spirit. JWs aren't Christians. They don't fit. Nor do so-called Christians that through their social and theological statements demonstrate unwillingness to abide by the clear words of scripture. Apostate denominations like those in the article.
3)The Bible is "clear". "Scripture interprets scripture, takes care of the difficult passages." (quoted verbatim, post #37) 4) Point 2) amended to indicate that a non-Christian can't understand the Bible. It isn't "clear" for them. (Question In that case, is the Bible any use to non-Christians?")
In that case, is the Bible any use to non-Christians?
Of course, how else does a non-Christian hear the Gospel?
5) You are an official arbiter of Scripture "because you can read". (And presumably, the JWs can't)
Interpreting means spinning it as the one I must use is in English; plain words. JW are non-Christians.
You don't "spin" the Bible. When you talk about it, the Holy Spirit guides you. But not me or the JWs.
See above, plain words. JW are christian, have no clue about you.
you may not know that either, but I was referring to this: As a Catholic that doesn't know jack about Catholic apologetics vs JWs,
IOW an apparent lack of knowledge of the Catholic instruction on JWs.
Correction: Aren't
There was no misquote. They deny it because the Bible never uses the word "Trinity". That's their take on the Bible. The Bible says God's name is Jehovah (Yahweh). Their sincerity simply takes them to a different place than you. Disagreement with your understanding of Scripture shouldn't be mistaken as insincerity.
Jws have altered their 'bible' to make Jesus a 'god' no God. John 1:1, the Gospel for today. Since you have access to both, read them and see if they are the same.
No kidding. And Protestants altered their Bible by deleting seven entire books. Does that mean that the Protestant Bible is not a Bible?
Apparently this temptation is quite common and Luther wasn't immune. He disputed the authenticity of Hebrews, James and Revelation and wanted to axe them. He actually did so in his initial version. Those books didn't sit well with his theology. I hope that doesn't cause you to doubt his "sincerity"? The JWs are in the minor leagues when it comes to monkeying with Scripture.
And to get there, they had to change John 1. Hardly a sincere group reading the same thing as all Christendom. Your argument fails.
No, they didn't have to change John 1.1 "to get there". There are numerous of other examples of JWs reading the same words as you and forming different beliefs. John 1.1 exactly proves my point. This is what happens when the Bible is severed from Tradition. It leads to heresy, confusion and an entirely subjective and personal understanding of Scripture. From there, it's a small step to the actual words of the Gospel being mutilated. John 1.1 is the result of their flawed approach to Scripture.
John 14:16-18; Matt. 28:18-20; John 1:12-13; John 3:3-21; 1Cor. 3:16; John 14:26. Seriously, read the Book, this is embarrassing.
Contradictory would be a better word. Again. You claimed that since the JWs were not Christian, the Scriptures were of no use to them and therefore, their twisted understanding of the Bible should not be taken as evidence that reading Scripture divorced from Tradition, was guaranteed to lead to error.
On the contrary, it proves it.
No one come to God unless he is called. A pagan called by God can come to the knowledge of the true God through power of the Gospel. John 6:44; Rom 1:16-17
Right.
Thanks for clearing that up.
By their denial of the Son of God...
Good.
Now finish that sentence.....caused by a subjective, individualistic approach to Scripture divorced from Tradition.
We can discuss what you like as long it fit my paradigm as a Christian or follower of Christ reading scripture guided by the Holy Spirit.
Fits your paradigm of a Christian. Impressive. Is yours the official paradigm?
Since the Holy Spirit doesn't lie, I'm wondering how two people who read Scripture, sincerely and who take different meanings from the same verses can both be "guided by the Holy Spirit". Is there more than one truth?
JWs aren't Christians. They don't fit. Nor do so-called Christians that through their social and theological statements demonstrate unwillingness to abide by the clear words of scripture.
You could have added...."to your satisfaction"
Ahh...so it's not only the JWs who fail. Apparently their disease also extends to those who read John 1.1 as you do; "so-called Christians" (i.e. so named by themselves but not by you). So can we say that John 1.1 is really a side issue? A symptom rather than the disease as I wrote above. Neither necessary nor sufficient for an abandonment of the "clear words of Scripture".
So would you say that those who teach a "Rapture", for instance, are unwilling to abide by "the clear words of Scripture". Or is it in fact those who deny the "Rapture" who are unwilling to abide by the "clear words"? Both claim guidance by the Holy Spirit as I understand it. Yet both can't be right, can they? If that's not a worthy topic for discussion, then how about the predestination/no predestination issue? I don't care. There's a million and one examples of Christians "guided by the Holy Spirit" arguing about the Bible's "true" meaning.
Seeing as you're the possessor of a cast iron paradigm of a Christian, perhaps you could resolve this apparent anomaly. Feel free to embarrass me. Dunce that I am, I assume that all those guided by the Holy Spirit will profess the same faith.
As I understand it, both groups check the boxes which you've proposed for us for authenticity; "sincere" Bible readers...check. Unencumbered by Catholic errors....check. Claiming assistance of the Holy Spirit....check.
Since the JW example doesn't work for you give this one a try. Explain how sola Scripture is not responsible for this confusion. It shouldn't be hard since you've already told us that Scripture explains itself.
Include in your answer a discussion of who decides whether a group of "so-called Christians" is guided by the Holy Spirit. Also, be aware that "so-called Christians" may also consider themselves qualified to make a similar call and may exclude you from the list.
Finally, with regard to the JWs, I'm surprised you didn't mention "the comma". To save me further embarrassment, no doubt.
Of course you did, the posts are there to see.. Whether JWs deny the Trinity because the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible isn't the point. JWs deny the Trinity as part of their doctrine, their Bible rewrite came later. As for the thought of the Trinity not being in the Bible, the JWs sure thought John 1 served it up, that's why they changed it.
No kidding. And Protestants altered their Bible by deleting seven entire books. Does that mean that the Protestant Bible is not a Bible?
This myth has been destroyed so many times on FR that is has become stereotype.
No, they didn't have to change John 1.1 "to get there".
Of course they did, that fact that they dispute more doesn't disprove that fact. The Satanic Bible is a useful comparison tool. I find it telling that your only example can be from a notoriously non-Christian cultic group.
You claimed that since the JWs were not Christian,
I did, they are, and it wouldn't, which is why they had to make their own. A real Bible would destroy their doctrine on its face, they needed something else for their man-made baloney. In that way they also mirror Catholics that don't rely on the scripture for doctrinal formation and need Tradition to sustain their doctrine.
I had just been going down your answer attending to each bit ie I hadn't read ahead then this: Thank you, you even bolded it. Now finish that sentence.....caused by a subjective, individualistic approach to Scripture divorced from Tradition.
How magnificent is God!
Catholics, are smarter than the God wrote inspired the Bible. They would never try real hard and rewrite scripture, too many witnesses. So create an analogue that only they control, respond as required from the Bible, but when cornered by the Word, shift to Tradition. Make it Holy Tradition to make it more presentable.
You could have added...."to your satisfaction"
I could have, but that would have changed the meaning.
Fits your paradigm of a Christian. Impressive. Is yours the official paradigm?
No, but it is the paradigm I referenced when you first began your list of complaints. Ostensibly, it is what you were warring against. Now you want to move the goal posts and start again? Can you not get to where you want to get within those easy constraints? Now that's a shame.
two people who read Scripture, sincerely
You use that word a lot, does it possess magical powers in Tradition? Since only God can know the heart, Christians can only use the fruits of an action, what are the fruits of 'sincerity?
As I understand it, both groups check the boxes which you've proposed for us for authenticity; "sincere" Bible readers...check. Unencumbered by Catholic errors....check. Claiming assistance of the Holy Spirit....check.
Your list, not mine, is this your paradigm? Couldn't play without having it your way? I'm impressed you added'Catholic errors'. First step is admitting the problem.
So would you say that those who teach a "Rapture", for instance, are unwilling to abide by "the clear words of Scripture". Or is it in fact those who deny the "Rapture" who are unwilling to abide by the "clear words"? Both claim guidance by the Holy Spirit as I understand it. Yet both can't be right, can they? If that's not a worthy topic for discussion, then how about the predestination/no predestination issue? I don't care. There's a million and one examples of Christians "guided by the Holy Spirit" arguing about the Bible's "true" meaning.
Is the salvation of an individual reliant upon the outcome of these topics?
Explain how sola Scripture is not responsible for this confusion.
For this particular discussion, SS doesn't apply, since JWs aren't Christian. SS means that the Word of God is the final and supreme authority of doctrine and practice. One can't prove a negative. OTOH, using SS one can readily understand non-Catholic Christians disagreement with Catholicism's approach to Mary and its Holy Tradition. Neither found in scripture. However to be charitable there is mentioned that Jesus said and did other things. But it then states that the words and deeds recorded were sufficient for one to believe that Jesus is the Christ and have salvation in His Name.
Include in your answer a discussion of who decides whether a group of "so-called Christians" is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Not so-called' at all. Read the Bible. Christians are individuals.
Finally, with regard to the JWs, I'm surprised you didn't mention "the comma". To save me further embarrassment, no doubt.
You have suffered enough.
No. They deny the Trinity because it isn't in the Bible. The Bible says that God's name is Jehovah (Yahweh), not Jesus. The Bible is where it begins. Likewise their teaching about blood transfusions, Jesus being hung on a tree, and many more. This is a direct result of their approach to Scripture. The change in John 1.1 was required as a result of their complete misreading of the rest of Scripture. It didn't cause their errors. It's a result of them.
As for the thought of the Trinity not being in the Bible, the JWs sure thought John 1 served it up, that's why they changed it.
No, the JW alteration of John 1 is unnecessary for their denial of the Trinity. They also deny the Holy Spirit's divinity as simply being the spirit of God.
This myth has been destroyed so many times on FR that is has become stereotype.
Like the Religion forum on FR is some sort of organ of record.
No, but it is the paradigm I referenced when you first began your list of complaints. Ostensibly, it is what you were warring against. Now you want to move the goal posts and start again? Can you not get to where you want to get within those easy constraints? Now that's a shame.
No goal posts have been moved.
The subject is exactly the same as it was at the outset; the dangers of private interpretation of Scripture and the errors to which it leads. Nothing has changed. The JWs are simply a prime example of that. Given the extremes to which this has taken them, your reluctance to accept it as an example is unsurprising.
You dismiss them as being non Christian as if this somehow nullifies the argument when in fact, this is the very point. Indeed they are and they made it to that point through their approach to Scripture.
I listed several other examples off the top of my head involving Christian groups proposing contradictory doctrines as a result of private interpretation and you have no answer, except this:
Is the salvation of an individual reliant upon the outcome of these topics?
Does truth matter? Is the spreading of falsehoods and lies a trivial matter? Can we get to heaven believing any old fable? How many Gospels are there? Is heresy no big deal?
Yes, the salvation of an individual is absolutely reliant upon these things.
You can't ignore the totally fractured nature of American congregationalism so you attempt to minimize it. It's utterly adrift on a sea of individualism and subjectivism. Everyone waves a Bible and claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet we're either predestined or we're not. We'll either be raptured or we won't. Those who are in error with these teachings are clearly not inspired by the Holy Spirit, despite their protestations to the contrary and their ability to quote Scripture. They are leading people astray.
Which brings us back to a question which you can't and won't answer; How do we know who is and who isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?" How do we sort the wheat from the chaff? Of the multitude who claim to be so inspired, as best I can tell, you've invented some arbitrary litmus test which involves being "Christian" (so the JWs don't qualify) and then some sort of circular argument which requires them to be "inspired by the Holy Spirit" when that's, in fact, the object of our search.
You have no answer except the fatuous line that "Scripture explains itself" when your lying eyes tell you it doesn't.
For this particular discussion, SS doesn't apply, since JWs aren't Christian. SS means that the Word of God is the final and supreme authority of doctrine and practice.
It doesn't apply? Even though that's how you entered the thread; with the claim that "lib Lutherans" had abandoned God's word (just like the Catholics)? It's the gold standard by which Protestants live or die. It certainly applies. It is the point at issue. JWs are just one extreme example. Since sola scriptura is an error, it's unsurprising that it begets errors. Look around....see what it has caused! You can't ignore it! There is an entire spectrum of wavelengths with the JWs being at one end of it (the far, far infrared), all the way through the various Protestant faith groups to the visible light and ultraviolet. There are the outrageous teachings (such as the JWs) all the way through to the more subtle errors.
You absolutely cannot explain to us the formula for wading through this confused mess of contradictory teachings in order to arrive at the truth.
That's it in a nutshell.
They dismiss themselves from consideration of being led by the Spirit, the condition of mine you dismissed.
Your attempt to deny the efficacy of the Word of God is driven by the need to sell the Catholic model. There is no Christian outfit example for you to uphold Tradition as equal to the Word of God and necessary to keep the laity from being 'confused'. Your substitution of a group of priests to tell people what the Word says lead to the mess of Catholicism. Pursuit of the Truth fell by the wayside as secular power was pursued. Worse the people to whom the Catholic church ministered were left bereft of the truth and superstition reigned in the laity as greed, decadence immorality gouged the leadership. Tradition, unrecorded and generated as necessary became the norm until it not God's Word that was taught or preached by a set of rules for salvation.
Your efforts to tar anyone with a Bible is somehow a JW equivalent is just another symptom of the rot that is Rome. This major undertaking with the libs at the LWF is just another symptom of the same disease. And it will turn out a same result as the JW.
As to the rest of your post. Catholics have always been fans of the collectivization of salvation with the Catholic church at the fore. "Do what we say and you'll be saved' 'Don't read the Bible, you can't understand it.' Same old same old.
I don't have a problem with boilerplate anti-Catholicism.
To return to the "lib Lutherans" and their apostasy, the final thing I want to say here is that this comes with the territory. So long as one man's understanding of Scripture is considered to be of equal worth to the next man's, this will always occur. There must be a final court of human ecclesiastical authority which can rule on these matters and safeguard the authentic interpretation of Scripture.
Many Protestants have a negative view of ecclesiastical authority but it is the one word which has been missing from this discussion.
In the end, that's what it all comes back to; authority.
Because God's Word isn't final. You quibble about minor theology. The apostasy of the LWF outfits on abortion and homosexuality didn't come about because of a difference of opinion on what God's Word says. It is unrealistic to think that it supports those positions. It was accomplished through a systematic effort by the Left and other assorted forces of evil. The same type of effort is occurring in Catholicism by that same human authority. Good luck with that.
In the end, that's what it all comes back to; authority.
Very true, you have chosen human authority as have the LWF libs. I prefer God's.
The authority entrusted with the Bible’s authentic interpretation is the authority which gave it to us; the Church.
Even then, the way you put things;
is example of near entirely circular reasoning, unless one can well enough determine what the "authentic interpretation" of this "Church" you speak of was in it's original intended meanings.
But go ahead, continue to circle the 'ol wagons. Just don't think one can turtle-up, and make it across the plain to the mountains in the distance, using the same processes, at the same time.
A return to 16th century European superstitions could be in the offing, though. (the RC wagons are half-full of that sort of religiosity churchiness junk, which has Jesus as an excuse for the junk itself, but not Him as true origins, or source)
True the members of Christ's church, you know the Priests of God, made so by Christ. Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10; 1Pet 2:5-9. Another failure of your group of human authority. You don't even pay attention to what the first 'Pope' said.
The ministerial orders are bishop, presbyter (priest in English) and deacon.
And in the references provided. Or have those been adjudged by the Star Chamber to be otherwise?
Regardless,
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.""If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus-St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans (110 A.D.)
Coming from a Catholic background, I'm not surprised. Christians are the church, they are the kings and priests mentioned in those passages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.