/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>599639

Another problem I see is that many Lutheran groups have gone completely degenerate (Sweden, for example)

>>599642

I actually am Orthodox at the moment. I know Orthodox and Catholic (I was raised a Catholic) doctrines well. My main problem with this are the veneration of Saints, and the intercession of the priest (ex. Catholic priest declares he absolves you, in the name of Christ, yes, but you still need the priest to get absolved from your sins)

>>599639

I know this feel. My big question for Prots is where was their church before Luther?

I can't say I feel a strong animosity towards any one denomination but there seem to be valid things in each of them. Reading Luther made a lot of sense to me but I still can't find concrete evidence of people who believed similar things, although to be fair Luther was more of a reformist Catholic and his descendents have gone much further than him. It's possible that there were early Christians who believed salvation through faith of the event of the Cross, eucharist as symbolic, while still believing in infant baptism and certain traditions.

A lot of what I lean on is how I felt welcomed in the church. Had good experiences in the Orthodox and Baptist churches, so-so at Catholic churches.

>>599659

Luther solved this problem quite well actually. He said there are two kind of churches:

Churches lead by "ordinary" men, for example the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Armenian Church (all founded by Apostels, I know)

And the one, the holy, the catholic (in the sense, that it literally includes everyone regardless of first-type-church) and apostolic church, that doesn't manifest itself outside of good spirit, charity and love.

Obviously a luthern first-type-church didn't exist before the Reformation, but that doesn't mean it lacks legitimacy

Maybe Anglican

I don't see why you care about man's traditions though

>>599640

it's not a good standard to judge.

Forget about what you agree with or what you think is degenerate or cool, learn what Church Jesus Christ built. Ask yourself these questions

> Where does the Bible come from

> Why did Protestants and their doctrines not exist before 16th century AD

>how do we know the books in the Bible are inspired

>does the bible interpret itself? How do I know I interpreted it correctly? Why does St Peter warn about the dangers of interpreting scriptures (that is determining what is dogma and doctrine based on your own authority) on your own and says you can damn yourself? (2Pet 3:16-17)

>Why are there 40,000+ protestant denominations?

Depending on how honest you are you'll be free from protestant errors after researching these questions.

>>599665

Not bad tbh, so I guess it goes back to salvation not being visible to anyone but yourself and God, since it is based on faith. So there may have been many apostolic churches lead by ordinary men on the outside (visibly) but perhaps invisibly they were acting based on faith, and would manifest good spirit, charity and love? Am I understanding it properly?

Luther's idea of a universal church through charity and love etc is actually extremely appealing to me. I've always had a hard time believing outside of the Apostolic churches there is no salvation, I've never felt like I could make that judgement and not feel hypocritical or prideful. I don't see that attitude anywhere in the Gospels. You really have to interpret the line about Peter being the rock in a specific way and then assume it can justify the rest of history.

>>599675

Is there a doctrine that states specifically the church only needed to exist for as long as to compile the Bible, afterwards the church becomes the Bible + people who have sinned against God many times and then repented believing Jesus to be the son of God (ie Peter) and it is this which is the rock that will outlast the gates of hell?

>>599646

>My main problem with this are the veneration of Saints, and the intercession of the priest

Read St. John of Damascus

>>599639

Catholic bishops converted into Lutheranism, so the apostolic succession was preserved. Of course the Catholic Church disagrees.

>>599659

Lutherans do not believe that the eucharist is merely symbolic but believe that Christ is really physically present. (He said so, after all.) It's called Sacramental Union and it's different from transubstantiation because it's not based on scholastic philosophy.

>>599695

> It's called Sacramental Union and it's different from transubstantiation because it's not based on scholastic philosophy.

How is this different from what the Orthodox believe? Which iirc, Christ is physically present but it's a mystery how, no scholastic philosophy explaining it.

And what of Luther saying it was symbolic? Did he not say that? How can we repeat what happened on the cross?

visit all the churches and see where god is calling you. don't listen to the memers on this board. ask god for a difficult faith

>>599676

> I've always had a hard time believing outside of the Apostolic churches there is no salvation, I've never felt like I could make that judgement and not feel hypocritical or prideful.

Ah, I see what this is about. You don't want to feel bad, or that you're a bad guy or rigid or mean. So let's say you encounter a muslim, wouldn't you feel hypocritical and prideful telling him there's no salvation outside of Christ? that would be very uncharitable and mean. After all, aren't all faith traditions valid ways to God?

If you think that sounds ludicrous then realize that is how you sound, you are saying the Church established by Christ is hypocritical and prideful for claiming man made churches have as much standing as itself for the salvation of souls.

>>599678

>Is there a doctrine that states specifically the church only needed to exist for as long as to compile the Bible,

To anyone who couldn't figure out what the word of God is by the Holy Spirit, I will quote John 8:47.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Anyone who was confused about the apocrypha being inspired or not, thinking we needed a council to decide, wasn't saved. It's that simple. The word of God is self-evident. Also those same people claiming to compile the Bible (they didn't) did it wrong. That should easily clear up this issue.

We, the people of God (1 Peter 2:10), have always received the word of God as it is, in truth. No council was ever needed to do this. And if the word of God effectually works in those of us that believe, it is impossible to fail to recognize it. Just as what John 8:47 and John 10:4-5 also teaches.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

>>599646

"Ite ad Thomam" is good option in almost every case so let me use it to clear those doctrines.

I start with veneration of Saints since it’s harder.

Firstly no one sane would say that that we are ought to not remember saints or dead as a whole. "Let us now praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation" as wiseman proclaim and Paul adds the "ancients" are our "testimony", "so great a cloud of witnesses over our head". We have pictures of our dead family members, we bulit staues for national heroes etc. So much more heroes of faith deserve it than they do? So, objection to veneration of the saints is not question of rememberance but it comes down to devotion, chiefly prayer. And with regard to prayer we can ask three questions:

>Do Saints even hear us?

First objection to it is as fallows: Issiah 63:16 says, that "Thou art our father and Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us" and as Augustine explains in De Cura pro Mort. xiii "the dead saints know not what the living, even their own children, are doing. (…) If such great men as the patriarchs knew not what was happening to the people begotten of them, how can the dead occupy themselves in watching and helping the affairs and actions of the living?"

Therefore the saints cannot be cognizant of our prayers.

Secondly: To King Joas in 2 Kings 22:20 those words are said: "Therefore" (i.e. because thou hast wept before Me), "I will gather thee to thy fathers . . . that thy eyes may not see all the evils which I will bring upon this place." But King would not have such advantage if he could hear prayers.

Therefore the saints cannot be cognizant of our prayers.

Thirdly: The more perfect is ones charity, the more he wants to help their neighbor when he is in danger. And alive saints do that. So since after dead thier charity is much greater they should assit thier neighbors even more. But this seams to be false.

Therefore the saints cannot be cognizant of our prayers.

Fourthly: Even though Saints see Word after death, so do Angels (Matthew 18:10). But angels do not know all things and higher angels clean lower choirs from thier lack of knowlage as Dionysius teaches Coel. Hier. vii.

Therefore although the saints see the Word, they do not see therein our prayers and other things that happen in our regard.

Fifthly: God alone is the searcher of hearts. Now prayer is seated chiefly in the heart. Therefore it belongs to God alone to know our prayers.

Therefore the saints cannot be cognizant of our prayers.

There are probably more but those are most important and most concrete. If you have further objection I will anserw it. Now, let's continue.

>>599808

On the contrary, Gregory, commenting on Job 14:21, "Whether his children come to honor or dishonor, he shall not understand," says (Moral. xii): "This does not apply to the souls of the saints, for since they have an insight of Almighty God's glory we must nowise believe that anything outside that glory is unknown to them." Therefore they are cognizant of our prayers.

Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii): "All creatures are little to the soul that sees God: because however little it sees of the Creator's light, every created thing appears foreshortened to it."

Now apparently the chief obstacle to the souls of the saints being cognizant of our prayers and other happenings in our regard is that they are far removed from us. Since then distance does not prevent these things, as appears from the authority quoted, it would seem that the souls of the saints are cognizant of our prayers and of what happens here below.

Further, unless they were aware of what happens in our regard they would not pray for us, since they would be ignorant of our needs. But this is the error of Vigilantius, as Jerome asserts in his letter against him. Therefore the saints are cognizant of what happens in our regard.

Thomas answers: God's Essence is sufficient medium to know all things since God by seeing it sees all things. But that does not mean, that whoever happen to see Divine Essence knows all things but only those who comprehend it even as the knowlage of thing does not mean knowlage of all things that fallows from it unless the whole virtue of the thing can be comprehended.

So, since Saints do not comprehend Divine Essence it is not logical to say that they know all things that can be known by seeing it (and this is reason why lower angles ask higher ones for help even though they all see same Essence)

But fact remains that Saints do see Divine Essence and it is necceserry that they see in it all that thier perefect happiness requires (Heaven is perfect happiness of course). For perfect happiens requiers two things: to have whatever is willed and to will nothing wrong. And everyone wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. And since in Saints there is no rightouessnes lacking they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word.

Now it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation: for thus they become God's co-operators, "than which nothing is more Godlike," as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Wherefore it is evident that the saints are cognizant of such things as are required for this purpose; and so it is manifest that they know in the Word the vows, devotions, and prayers of those who have recourse to their assistance.

tl;dr They hear prayers because it is necessary to them to hear them.

>>599809

And if it comes to objections:

Firstly: Augustine is speaking hear about natural knowledge of souls and not knowledge in Word. And it's clear that Isaiah could not speak about Abraham haveing such knowalge since noone had such knowlage before Lord's passion.

Secondly: Even though Saints know what happens down here they do not grieve through knowing the woes of those whom they loved in this world: for they are so filled with heavenly joy, that sorrow finds no place in them.

And maybe not-glorified souls would indeed grieve (and thus Augustine uses this argument to show lack of thier natural knowlage of deeds of the living). But Saints are glorified.

Thirdly: Saints have souls full of charity. But thier will is conofmed to Divine Will. And thus they do not help neighbor if it goes against Divine Justice. But nonthelles they help them very much by intercesion.

Fourthly: Although it does not follow that those who see the Word see all things in the Word, they see those things that pertain to the perfection of their happiness, as stated above.

Fifthly: God alone of Himself knows the thoughts of the heart: yet others know them, in so far as these are revealed to them, either by their vision of the Word or by any other means.

So, Saints can indeed hear us. But are we ought to pray to them?

It seems that we should not. For no one ask someone for something (and I remind that prayer means asking) unless he believes to find favor with him. But God is more merciful than any saint. So it's seems pointless to pray to saints.

Secondly: The holier person the more powerful prayer is (as James teaches in his epistle). o we should pray only to the greatest of saints anyway, never lesser ones.

Thirdly: Christ is true Man, and as a Man is called "Holy of Holies". And yet we never ask Christ to pray for us. So why would we ask saints who are less holy?

Fourthly: When someone intercedes for someone, he present his petitions to one to whom he intercedes for him. But to God all things are present. So asking saints to pray for us is pointless.

Fifthly: Thing is pointless if not doing it and doing it would have same result. And Saints pray for us no matter if we pray to them for they know is someone is worthy of it. So it is pointless.

Again there are more objections but those are best ones.

>>599810

On the contrary, It is written (Job 5:1): "Call . . . if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints." Now, as Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) on this passage, "we call upon God when we beseech Him in humble prayer." Therefore when we wish to pray God, we should turn to the saints, that they may pray God for us.

Further, the saints who are in heaven are more acceptable to God than those who are on the way. Now we should make the saints, who are on the way, our intercessors with God, after the example of the Apostle, who said (Romans 15:30): "I beseech you . . . brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God." Much more, therefore, should we ask the saints who are in heaven to help us by their prayers to God.

Further, an additional argument is provided by the common custom of the Church which asks for the prayers of the saints in the Litany.

Thomas anserws, that, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) the order established by God among things is that "the last should be led to God by those that are midway between." Therefore it fallows that we, priglims on earth should be brought to God by Saints, who are between use and them - and this happens when goodnes of God pors it's efect by saints.

And since our return to God should correspond to the outflow of His boons upon us, just as the Divine favors reach us by means of the saints intercession, so should we, by their means, be brought back to God, that we may receive His favors again.

tl;dr We should pray to saints becuase "God, art gracious and true, patient, and ordering all things in mercy."

And now answer to objections:

Firstly: There is no defect or lack in God's power when He uses secondary causes but he does it to perfect order of universe.

Secondly: There are five reasons why sometimes praying to lesser saint is more porfitable than to the greater:

>First, because sometimes one has greater devotion for a lesser saint than for a greater, and the effect of prayer depends very much on one's devotion.

>Secondly, in order to avoid tediousness, for continual attention to one thing makes a person weary; whereas by praying to different saints, the fervor of our devotion is aroused anew as it were.

>Thirdly, because it is granted to some saints to exercise their patronage in certain special cases, for instance to Saint Anthony against the fire of hell.

>Fourthly, that due honor be given by us to all.

>Fifthly, because the prayers of several sometimes obtain that which would not have been obtained by the prayers of one.

Thirdly: Prayer is act, and act belongs to person. So when we would to say "Christ, pray for us" that means that we would say that ethier Nestroius or Arius is right.

Fourthly: Saints presnt prayers not as though they would inform God of things that he know not but because they ask God to grant those prayers a gracious hearing, or because they seek the Divine truth about them, namely what ought to be done according to His providence.

Fifthly: A person is rendered worthy of a saint's prayers for him by the very fact that in his need he has recourse to him with pure devotion. Hence it is not unnecessary to pray to the saints.

We could also ask "Whether the prayers which the saints pour forth to God for us are always granted?" but I think that it's enough for you. But you might want to check Thomy yourself http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5072.htm

And now absolution, is it proper to say "I absolve thee" i.e. do you still need the priest to get absolved from your sins

Firstly: To absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). So Priest should say: Christ absolves you.

Secondly: In Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1 Christ gives apostles power to heal, to cast out demons etc. But when apostles healed they used expression: "Christ heals you" (Acts 9:34).

Thirdly: some explain this form by stating that when they say: "I absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved." But neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by God, wherefore, as we read in Matthew 16:19 before it was said to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth," etc., it was said to him (Matthew 16:17): "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has received no revelation on the matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee absolved."

On the contrary, As our Lord said to His disciples (Matthew 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc., so did He say to Peter (Matthew 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ, says: "I baptize thee." Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament: "I absolve thee."

Thomas anserws, that since all sacraments needs matter and form and matter is taken from words or deeds of penitent, form should come from priest.

Now Sacraments of the New Law accomplish what what they signify, it means that form of sacrament signify effect of sacrament as is the case with Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.

And this Sacrament does not consecrate, nor use matter but removes it.This removal is expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee": because sins are fetters, according to Proverbs 5:22. "His own iniquities catch the wicked, and he is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins." Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: "I absolve thee."

>>599812

And now, anserws:

Firstly:God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words.

Secondly: . Power was given to the apostles, not that they themselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at the prayer of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they did not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the indicative or imperative: thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to the lame man: "What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk."

And finally: It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve thee" mean "I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is incomplete. Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect what they signify.

Hence Augustine says (De Adult. Conjug. ii): "There is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been washed away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently there is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.

It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution."

Again, ite ad Thomam http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4084.htm

>>599789

To anyone who still cannot figure out what the word of God is by the Holy Spirit, I will quote John 8:47.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Anyone who was confused about the deutercanon being inspired or not, thinking he has better judgment than church, wasn't saved. It's that simple. The word of God is self-evident. Also those same people claiming to "Purify the Bible" (they didn't) did it wrong. That should easily clear up this issue.

We, the people of God (1 Peter 2:10), have always received the word of God as it is, in truth. But since not all are perfected in faith council was needed to guide them. And if the word of God effectually works in those of us that believe, it is impossible to fail to recognize it. Just as what John 8:47 and John 10:4-5 also teaches.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

>>599751

What did Pope Francis mean by "My Jewish atheist Lacanian shrink that I visited to help me sort out some problems was a good person."

>>599789

I don't really know enough about the formation of the Bible to get what you're saying. Because there was hesitation about the Apocrypha being divinely inspired means that it couldn't have been divinely inspired?

>>599940

>Because there was hesitation about the Apocrypha being divinely inspired means that it couldn't have been divinely inspired?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Scripture itself tells us none of that process was necessary. Whoever came up with that whole idea of deciding what is scripture, was creating a spinoff of true Christianity, because the real thing always knew. The fact those people even hesitated on this and didn't already know shows they were unqualified to decide. And it's no surprise they finally decide, in the 1540's, to include man-made apocrypha as scripture. Because they can't tell the difference.

>>599973

>That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Scripture itself tells us none of that process was necessary. Whoever came up with that whole idea of deciding what is scripture, was creating a spinoff of true Christianity, because the real thing always knew.

And here you played yourself my friend for there is NONE A SINGLE ONE canon of Bible that is protestant in early Church. Closest one is Jewish but they rejected in the same category NT and Deutercanon. According to your standard you are spin off Christianity

>The fact those people even hesitated on this and didn't already know shows they were unqualified to decide.

You don't know how it even looked like. You know this Council operated?

<Chief of Council: Are we all agree that those books are inspired?

<All bishops: Ay

<Chief: Ok, let me write this and move to next topic

>And it's no surprise they finally decide, in the 1540's, to include man-made apocrypha as scripture. Because they can't tell the difference.

>Deutercanon was decided on Trent

>What is Hippo

Really dude.

>>599973

Deutorocanon as a term was coin by a Jewish convert to Catholicism in the 15th century to explain the differences between the catholic and Jewish old testaments. The "deutorocanon" up to then had always been see as one and the same as all the canon because they were all in the Septuagint and it was the Jews who removed them after Christ in order to remove prophecies about Christ or the gentiles inheriting Israel. There was never any doubt or differentiation of the deutorocanon being canon when the scriptures were compiled.

>>599700

fug :D:D:D but BEGOME GADOLIG

>>599973

>Whoever came up with that whole idea of deciding what is scripture, was creating a spinoff of true Christianity, because the real thing always knew.

I don't get it. I'm trying to be favorable to Lutheranism but you're telling me the Bible descended from heaven? Is the Bible a Quran? Don't we have missing texts written by Paul or is this not true? Stuff like The Gospel of Thomas, Gnostic Scriptures…they were all self-evidently not the word of God, but then the books that are the word of God were always selected consistently by the Apostles and it's only later hesitations/revisions that proved that those who were re-compiling the Bible were in error and lacked authority/Holy Spirit? Is that what you're saying?

>>600416

>but you're telling me the Bible descended from heaven?

No, you got mixed up between the word of God and the physical Bible. The word of God can be written down but it can also be spoken. It's the same words, but you don't need to be literate in reading and writing to receive it. That's just one good way to record it. And God made sure that it was for our sake, because of his words in Matthew 24:35 and elsewhere.

>Don't we have missing texts written by Paul or is this not true?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

>but then the books that are the word of God were always selected consistently by the Apostles

Yep, and they warned that there were deceivers on the rise who would try to confuse others. But nevertheless, the word of God works effectually in those that believe.

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>and it's only later hesitations/revisions that proved that those who were re-compiling the Bible were in error and lacked authority/Holy Spirit?

That's what I'm saying. Whoever tasked themselves with this didn't understand the above and didn't want others to. Whoever credited themselves with this was out for their own gain. It was their best way to cause others not to read it. Along with eventually mixing in other stuff as soon as it was politically possible.

Acts 20:27-32

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

We have the word spreading greatly already in the book of Acts, see Acts 12:24 for instance. According to the catholic timeline, this shouldn't be possible without a council telling everyone what it is. When John sent the Apocalypse directly to the seven churches in Asia, he already knew the brethren among those churches would receive it as it was in truth, the word of God. The Word that we have in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 makes this clear.

>>599646

>and the intercession of the priest (ex. Catholic priest declares he absolves you, in the name of Christ, yes, but you still need the priest to get absolved from your sins)

The apostles do the same thing in the bible, Jesus Christ literally gives them the power to do so in the gospels.

Do you actually have any argument against it?

>>600504

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

>>600509

>So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Precisely. "Us." Only listen to the direct witness of the apostles. Since we're not living in the 1st century, we listen to their letter. Is there some contradiction here?

Galatians 1:9

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

That would be people with false traditions which are not coming from them by direct word or direct letter.

>>599639

I'm weighing my options for going to rome myself…

>I agree with the Lutheran doctrine

Yeah, I used to as well…when you really dig through 2nd century church history, though, you start to realise that some of the positions become dubious.

Then when you really read the apologia to the augsburg confession, you realise that these dubious positions are supported by bad arguments that bastardize scripture just to shove square protestantism into a round bible.

For example, Apologia article II maintains that concupiscence is sin based on Romans 7:7, which melanchthon maintains as showing paul calling concupiscence sin verbatim. This only makes sense if you're being dense and using the vulgate, though. Paul in Rom. 7:7 is referring to "thou shalt not covet", and if we take melanchthon's autism literally in a greek bible, then jesus himself performs the same verb when he *desires* to eat the passover meal with the desciples in luke 22:15; the lutheran position then makes christ a sinner.

Most other lutheran doctrines from the book of concord fall apart like this when pressed, even from a sola scriptura perspective.

>>599794

have some intellectual honesty. Lutheran doctrine != luther himself drunkenly rambling as per usual.

Most of lutheran doctrine was written by Melanchthon or Lutherans who came after Luther's death during the Phillipist controversy (basically, an argument between "really real" lutherans and lutherans who followed melanchthon more).

the only things of luther that are actually doctrine are his catechisms and the smalcald articles. Nothing else is his.

So, if you want to destroy lutheranism, end it rightly and attack *actual* lutheran doctrine.