``Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?''
506 years of not ringing coffers
Reformation Day
8,310 Views |
117 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Terminus Est
``Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?''
506 years of not ringing coffers
A few of our very online resident Catholics about to get big mad.
Nah....You have to be a lot more brash about the Catholic bashing. People post inaccurate stuff all the time and any discussions that ensure have likely never converted anyone to another denomination. People who have settled into their church don't like the idea of having to dig deeper and question things. Its far easier to just disagree and keep the status quo. This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.craigernaught said:
A few of our very online resident Catholics about to get big mad.
I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
Quitters
The plural of thesis is theses.
Any of these theses turn out to be true?
Any of these theses turn out to be true?
Jabin said:I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
I don't think he means people leaving the faith. He means people switching denominations.
Probably, but leaving the faith altogether is an even harder step than simply switching denominations.The Banned said:Jabin said:I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
I don't think he means people leaving the faith. He means people switching denominations.
Plus, the data shows that people are also leaving denominations in droves. The growth of the megachurches has not been through conversion of the unsaved, but through people leaving the RCC and the older, established Protestant denominations.
From the Gospel according to Johncraigernaught said:
A few of our very online resident Catholics about to get big mad.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one 23 I in them and you in meso that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Don't think anyone is more upset about this revolt than Christ himself. After all he started the Church and it is his bride.
craigernaught said:
A few of our very online resident Catholics about to get big mad.
I'm not sure why...The 95 Theses were a Roman Catholic document...
I think that, unfortunately, this is true. People are just doing the a la carte choice for their churches these days. I mean who does want to have a Starbucks and an indie-funk band on Sunday. Not sure the mega churches are saving more souls but just enticing others who are looking for novelty.Jabin said:Probably, but leaving the faith altogether is an even harder step than simply switching denominations.The Banned said:Jabin said:I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
I don't think he means people leaving the faith. He means people switching denominations.
Plus, the data shows that people are also leaving denominations in droves. The growth of the megachurches has not been through conversion of the unsaved, but through people leaving the RCC and the older, established Protestant denominations.
praying for all of you
Jabin said:Probably, but leaving the faith altogether is an even harder step than simply switching denominations.The Banned said:Jabin said:I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
I don't think he means people leaving the faith. He means people switching denominations.
Plus, the data shows that people are also leaving denominations in droves. The growth of the megachurches has not been through conversion of the unsaved, but through people leaving the RCC and the older, established Protestant denominations.
I think it's two fold here.
1. There are a lot of people who checked the "Christian" box who really were "christian in name only," who given societal shifts, no longer check that box. Think of it as the Church Membership numbers vs actual attendance.
2. As you mentioned, the younger generations are turning to other "religions" as opposed to Christianity.
Indeed... Martin Luther was the first Catholic priest to post cringe.AgLiving06 said:craigernaught said:
A few of our very online resident Catholics about to get big mad.
I'm not sure why...The 95 Theses were a Roman Catholic document...
Siding with the "other, less informed thief" at their detriment. Choices...lead to consequences. Some cannot be undone or mitigated after the fact.AgLiving06 said:Jabin said:Probably, but leaving the faith altogether is an even harder step than simply switching denominations.The Banned said:Jabin said:I don't think that's correct. The data I've seen shows that all churches, RCC, liberal Protestant, and conservative Protestant, are hemorrhaging members, particularly from among the young. Of course, I've only looked at the data at a surface level so could easily be wrong or misled.Quote:
This is why most people stay in the same denomination they were raised in. Most...not all.
I don't think he means people leaving the faith. He means people switching denominations.
Plus, the data shows that people are also leaving denominations in droves. The growth of the megachurches has not been through conversion of the unsaved, but through people leaving the RCC and the older, established Protestant denominations.
I think it's two fold here.
1. There are a lot of people who checked the "Christian" box who really were "christian in name only," who given societal shifts, no longer check that box. Think of it as the Church Membership numbers vs actual attendance.
2. As you mentioned, the younger generations are turning to other "religions" as opposed to Christianity.
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Why the Reformation Was NecessaryBut Protestantism Was Not
Article
Article
Quote:
Reformation of Western Christianity was necessary and, in that sense, justified. At the same time, reformation was also sinfulsomething that should not have happened. How could it have been both?
Modern historians generally speak of the Reformations of the sixteenth century: the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Reformation. (The Protestant Reformation is divided into magisterial Protestantism, which employed the power of magistrates, and the radical Reformation, which at first ignored and then at times sought to overthrow the existing political order.)
The Catholic Reformation was the movement within the Catholic Church to renew the doctrinal, spiritual, moral, and institutional life of Western Christianity. That reform, sometimes called the Counter-Reformation, didn't change doctrine, the sacraments, Christian morality, or church structures, although many Catholics had to change their lives.
Catholic Reformation was necessary and justified. Although Catholics contributed sins of their own, the "sin" of the Reformation, it seems to me, was the division among Christians brought about by Protestant changes of doctrine, practice, and church structures.
...
dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
No. I believe that's limited to Calvinism. (pun not intended, but still great)
And this is pretty important stuff pertaining to the character of God and eternal theology.
If you go to a reformed church I would ask the pastor what he believes.
It is fascinating how many folks who claim to be Calvinists do not know about double predestination.
If you go to a reformed church I would ask the pastor what he believes.
It is fascinating how many folks who claim to be Calvinists do not know about double predestination.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:
And this is pretty important stuff pertaining to the character of God and eternal theology.
If you go to. Reformed church I would ask the pastor what he believes.
Yeah. I actually don't know how many Reformed are fully TULIP in their beliefs. I want to say I heard that most aren't these days.
Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
ETA - It is my belief God, being omniscient knows who will accept His grace and 'choose' His son as Lord and savior. I do not believe He determines said choice and so confirms His giving man 'free will'.
dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Luther absolutely did not believe in double predestination.
If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
My reading seems to indicate Luther did.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)dermdoc said:What does ETA mean?whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
It's not hard to tell.
If you look at Lutheran sources, they will tell you that "no Luther did not believe in double predestination."
Reformed sources will claim he did. The reason is that Luther is a precursor to both Zwingli and Calvin and the Reformed like to try and cling to the language of the Bondage of the Will to say that Luther agreed with them.
This is from Article XI of the Formula of Concord:
Quote:
[9] Moreover, no one should consider this eternal election or God's preordination to eternal life merely as the secret, inscrutable will or counsel of God, as if it had nothing more to it and nothing more to consider than that God perceived beforehand who and how many would be saved, and who and how many would be damned. Nor should it be conceived of as a military muster, in which God said, "this one shall be saved, that one shall be damned; this one will remain faithful, that one will not remain faithful."
[10] For such a view leads many to devise and formulate strange, dangerous, and harmful ideas. Such ideas would cause and strengthen either false security and impenitence or faintheartedness and despair. As a result, people might fall into burdensome thoughts and say:320 "Since God has foreseen his elect to salvation 'before the foundation of the world' (Eph. 1[:4*]) and since God's foreknowledge does not fail, nor can anyone change or impede it (Isa. 14[:27*]; Rom. 9[:19*, 11*]), if then I am foreseen to salvation, it cannot harm me if I practice all kinds of sin and vice without repentance, despise Word and sacrament, and have no concern for repentance, faith, prayer, or godly living; still I will and must be saved, for what God foreknows must take place. And if I am not foreknown, it will not help if I hold to God's Word, repent, believe, etc., for I cannot impede or change God's foreknowledge."
[11] Such thoughts no doubt also arise in godly hearts, even when by God's grace they possess repentance, faith, and good intentions. Especially when they see their own weakness and the examples of those who did not persist in the faith but fell away again, they may think, "If you are not foreknown from eternity to salvation, everything is in vain."
Luther, nor Lutherans accept double predestination and rejected it throughout our Confessional documents
Not Lutheran as well, but as I recall Luther argued children were to be buried among baptized Catholics (accepted "saved" believers) even though they were not baptized themselves. The underlying issue is whether 'original sin' from birth exists, OR whether one is accountable for sin before the 'age' of accountability?dermdoc said:What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
My reading seems to indicate Luther did.
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin". Deu. 24:16 KJV
Do infants even know sin and its consequences? Me thinks not and doubt God would punish an unknowing child.
dermdoc said:What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
My reading seems to indicate Luther did.
Lutheran Confessional documents all reject it. So no it's not a "present day Lutheran" thing.
The last document, which I posted a screenshot of before is from 1577, which rejected it.
What you're doing is going off Reformed blogs that want to claim that Lutheranism doesn't represent Luther. That's not a good place for research. Go to the Confessional documents themselves!
Thanks.whatthehey78 said:"ETA" - Edited to Add (subsequent commentary)dermdoc said:What does ETA mean?whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
Do you believe Luther believed in free will?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
No I just googled Luther and double predestination.AgLiving06 said:dermdoc said:What does ETA mean? And I know the present day Lutheran church does not believe in double predestination. And I applaud them for that.whatthehey78 said:Please see "ETA" on my earlier post.dermdoc said:If you google Luther and Zwingli and double predestination it is hard to tell what they believed for sure on the issue.whatthehey78 said:Calvin yes. Zwingli and Luther doubtful. It is my understanding the idea of predestination is/was part/parcel of Agustine's concept of 'original sin' from birth, leading to concept for infant baptism.dermdoc said:whatthehey78 said:Never heard of the term.dermdoc said:
Just curious, do all you reformers believe in double predestination?
Calvin believed in it and Luther probably did. I believe Zwingli did also.
It is that God preordains who will be saved and those who have no chance of being saved.
So that means if you have kids and God has preordained them not to be of the elect or saved, they have no chance and end up in eternal torment hell.
Unconditional election means that only certain people will be of the elect so what happens to the others?
My reading seems to indicate Luther did.
Lutheran Confessional documents all reject it. So no it's not a "present day Lutheran" thing.
The last document, which I posted a screenshot of before is from 1577, which rejected it.
What you're doing is going off Reformed blogs that want to claim that Lutheranism doesn't represent Luther. That's not a good place for research. Go to the Confessional documents themselves!
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.
[url=https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html#:~:text=Luther%20understood%20that%20in%20terms,is%20not%20sovereign%20at%20all.][/url]Many more links saying the same thing.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I'm currently tasked with writing a paper on the doctrine of election. From what I've gathered so far, Luther is just as much if not more "Calvinistic" than Calvin. I am constantly going back and forth on my interpretation. Whatever my conclusion may be, it will be held with a very open hand. Ultimately, I don't think election/predestination is something our finite minds can comprehend.
Mostly Peaceful said:
I'm currently tasked with writing a paper on the doctrine of election. From what I've gathered so far, Luther is just as much if not more "Calvinistic" than Calvin. I am constantly going back and forth on my interpretation. Whatever my conclusion may be, it will be held with a very open hand. Ultimately, I don't think election/predestination is something our finite minds can comprehend.
Agree. And I am okay with that. I know the Lord. Whether it was all Him or some of me I have no idea.
But no way does the God I love and worship who revealed Himself in Christ Jesus send people to eternal torment who have no chance.
That is worse than Hitler.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Featured Stories
See All
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
15h ago
6.7k
12 Key Statistics: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Luke Evangelist
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
12:07
14h ago
15k