Zobel said:

---

Hmm but literally says not all who are of Israel are Israel. So think that can't be correct.

---

What is the meaning of the two Israel's here?

Not all who are of [Israel 1] are [Israel 2].

nm, from this:

Quote:

---

St Paul says that not all who are of Israel are Israel, meaning that within the hereditary or nationalistic group, there are people who are truly Israelites and who are not. there is, in other words, a category of being and identity within Israel that has nothing to do with lineage, but is a matter of the heart. he also says "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical; no, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." we can say that then this spiritual categorization goes even further, that even if you are physical / hereditary a Jew, and outwardly even follow the nomos of the Jew (the Torah) even still (!) if you are not inwardly a Jew, you are not a Jew. You are not a judaean. You are not a member of the Judean people. (let the reader understand).

---

Israel 1 - hereditary, nationalistic, lineage Israel
Israel 2 - inward, matter of the heart, by the Spirit
?

Jesus, not Virgin Mary, saved the world, Vatican says

Glad y'all got that sorted out

94chem said:

---

Jesus, not Virgin Mary, saved the world, Vatican says

Glad y'all got that sorted out

---

Lololol... theology by MSN.

Given the title of the article, that was never in question... even with those who support calling Her Co-Redemptrix.

747Ag said:

---

94chem said:

---

Jesus, not Virgin Mary, saved the world, Vatican says

Glad y'all got that sorted out

---

Lololol... theology by MSN.

Given the title of the article, that was never in question... even with those who support calling Her Co-Redemptrix.

---

no, I think he means descended from Israel (Jacob). His next couple of sentences show that - just like not everyone descended from Abraham is his seed, not everyone descended from Israel is Israel, it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

How does that differ from what I said?

I think the difference is your Israel 1 is not a person. I am ok with saying the national, lineage, hereditary thing too, but I think that is not literally what St Paul is saying, because he jumps immediately to Abraham. I think the one follows from the other.

So there are three Israel's being referenced.
1. Those descended from Jacob, believers and not.
2. The nation of Israel composed of [1] plus those adopted from other ethnicities, believers and not.
3. All believers: from [2] and Gentiles.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

---

I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.

When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The key fallacy in your argument is that splitting from a heretical church towards restoration of the Western church is materially different than when Rome fell into heresy.

There was a multitude of attempts to reform Rome, most of which led to the death of those at the hands of Rome.
-----------------
Your second claim is also false. You certainly cannot "trace every little single break and offshoot." It's a fools errand and a claim you can't back up. But likewise, from a theological standpoint, I can just as easily point to Trent as the moment that Rome officially went into heresy from a doctrinal standpoint. It's not debatable that this was the moment they truly defined themselves as a Church for the first time.

The vagueness I speak of relates more to when the pope became the most divisive person in history. We can more or less trace all division on the church to this exact office. It's always going to be problematic to point to a specific instance when this role has been so corrupted and more myth than reality.

Quote:

---

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

---

Wrong again

International Lutheran Council: https://ilcouncil.org/

Covers 5 continents.

A key difference is that Lutherans hold to the historical and biblical view that local churches should oversee their areas as opposed to the errors or Rome that want everything under one person. We are far less concerned about manmade structures and traditions, and instead far more concerned with making sure the biblical faith and tradition is believed and taught.

-------------

Quote:

---

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The idea IS the same because, just as you pointed out, if we kill the other side, maybe we stop their ideas. I didn't say it...you did. You made the exact same argument for killing heretics that Kirk's murderers organizations make to justify shooting him. It's ok to admit your biases though..that's part of growing as a person.

---

So essentially this was an extremely long winded way to say that you can't actually point to when Rome lost its way, as I've asked multiple times. Because if you're pointing to Trent, which was post reformation, it made no sense for the reformation to occur.

Secondly, imagine you're claiming the Roman Catholic Church offshoot didn't begin until a few hundred years ago. From whom did the Orthodox split?

Wow, your International Lutheran Council has about as many adherents as there are Catholics in Burundi; so while it's not quite the 144,000, it seems your organization goes way back to the council of…..Antigua Guatemala in…..1993. Yes surely this is the Church that the Apostles founded.


This makes about as much sense as Protestantism.

---

Sure

The Bad Popes - Wikipedia

Do you want to consider Rome off the rails here or a later point?

Or the time when there were muliple popes "divinely selected."

Western Schism | History, Background, Popes, & Resolution | Britannica

Or when pope honorius taught heresy

Pope Honorius I - Wikipedia

The role of pope has been a disaster in general. The most divisive role in humankind. These corrupt "leaders" guided the theology of Rome for centuries.
----------------
But as stated, Rome for the first time defines its theology at Trent and so we can clearly see the creation of the Roman church and the rejection of normal historical beliefs and faith.

--------------------------------
The EO will gladly say that Rome went heretical or at least heterodox when the split occurred.

----------------------
The point of the organization is not when it started. You're smart enough to know that. It was merely to disprove this claim here: " Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?"

This Lutheran organization represents 5 continents. Not the 1.5 or 2 or whatever you want to claim.

------------------

i guess, but i don't think anyone in the ancient world would have made a distinction between 1 and 2, or even have had the imaginative framework to known how to make a distinction like that (excepting only things like levitical priesthood lines).

thats why St Paul is able to say to gentile converts "our fathers" were under the cloud, baptized into Moses, etc. the converts were in, they were part of Israel, they were a people and sons of Abraham. or in Ephesians he said remember that you were separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants and promises, without hope and without God, but now in Jesus "you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

or the same thing from St Peter "once you were not a people, now you are the people of God." there's only one people of God.

Zobel said:

---

What claim did I make other than that other faiths say they are true? This seems obvious fact.

A question isn't a counter argument.

---

That wasn't the only statement you made.

You said:

Quote:

---

Both the Muslims and the Mormons say the Christian faith isn't right, and they have the true message of Jesus.

How do we know what the apostles taught? How do you know that the Bible has the right info in it?

---

Implicit in this statement (as this is a Reformation discussion) is that we need some sort of ecclesial authority to "confirm" Scripture is the "true message."

I'm left asking you essentially the same question you challenge Protestants with.

How do I know which ecclesial group knew what the apostles taught? How do we know they have the right information to make the claims they make?

so what you're saying is, it was the only statement i made.

i didnt imply anything. i asked a question. you can answer that question however you want.

i didn't challenge anyone with anything, and it wasn't directed at you.

Zobel said:

---

i guess, but i don't think anyone in the ancient world would have made a distinction between 1 and 2, or even have had the imaginative framework to known how to make a distinction like that (excepting only things like levitical priesthood lines).

thats why St Paul is able to say to gentile converts "our fathers" were under the cloud, baptized into Moses, etc. the converts were in, they were part of Israel, they were a people and sons of Abraham. or in Ephesians he said remember that you were separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants and promises, without hope and without God, but now in Jesus "you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

or the same thing from St Peter "once you were not a people, now you are the people of God." there's only one people of God.

---

Ok, so practically, it's
1. hereditary, nationalistic, lineage Israel
2. All believers "inwardly": from [1] and Gentiles.

even though technically by Paul's "descended from Israel", it's
1. Those descended from Jacob, believers and not.
2. The nation of Israel composed of [1] plus those adopted from other ethnicities, believers and not.
3. All believers "inwardly": from [2] and Gentiles.

Back to Romans,
11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

All 3 "theirs" in v12 refers to Israel 1, right?

you're confusing yourself. the first time you asked for a definition you asked for the distinction between the two uses of "Israel" in Romans 9:6.

i told you my answer, which is that one is Jacob, the other is the people of God, and you can tell because St Paul goes on to talk about Abraham and his offspring, and children of flesh vs children of God: the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

and i said, i'm ok with the understanding that "Israel" can also refer to a hereditary, nationalistic, lineage view of Israel, but that i didn't think that is what St Paul was saying in that verse.

however, you can conclude from what he did say that the other follows.

then you said there are three Israels being referenced. but there weren't - you invented the third one. since we are in a discussion (i thought) about genetics or hereditary notions of nation or people, i pointed out that in the ancient world no one would have been able to know or make the distinction between the first two groups on your list, and showed that how St Peter and St Paul both clearly identified convert gentiles as real, actual members of Israel. but that doesn't mean that there are three groups in that verse. There is one person and one group.

hope that clears it up to that point.

as for Romans 11:11, this whole thing opens with St Paul talking about his brothers, "my kinsmen according to the flesh - they are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." He says in 10:1 that his desire for them is that they may be saved, and in 11 he talks about the natural branches of the olive tree etc.

so the "theirs" here are Israel according to the flesh, his kinsmen according to the flesh - in your list "hereditary, nationalistic, lineage Israel". which absolutely includes people not descended from Jacob - like the people who descended from Caleb in Judah, because circling back, ancient people didn't have a notion of genetic race.

the above quote from 9:5 translation is from the ESV which is my usual go-to, but it's kind of confusing for this discussion, especially because it adds the clause with "race" there which is kind of the point of contention. what St Paul wrote more literally there is "my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the worship, and the promises, whose are the patriarchs, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed to the ages, amen."

Ok, I'll leave that conversation to you and Sapper because it's not really important here. How do you take the phrase "how much more will their full inclusion mean"? Is it just a hypothetical?

(aside it may be relevant that a few sentences after saying "they are Israelites" St Paul says "not all who are of Israel are Israel" vs "Israelites".)

i don't know. St John seems to make an argument from the Greek here

Quote:

---

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness?

Here he is speaking to gratify them. For even if these had fallen a thousand times, the Gentiles would not have been saved unless they had shown faith. As the Jews likewise would not have perished unless they had been unbelieving and disputatious. But as I said, he is solacing them now they are laid low, giving them so much the more ground to be confident of their salvation if they altered. For if when they stumbled, he says, so many enjoyed salvation, and when they were cast out so many were called, just consider what will be the case when they return. But he does not put it thus, When they return. Now he does not say "how much more their" return, or their altering, or their well-doing, but "how much more their fullness", that is, when they are all about coming in. And this he said to show that then also grace and God's gift will do the larger part, or almost the whole.

---

Ambrosiaster says

Quote:

---

Paul says here what I have recorded above, that these people have not fallen into unbelief in such a way as to make their ultimate conversion impossible. It is clear that the world will be even richer in good people if those who have been blinded are converted. Paul is showing the Gentiles here how much he loves the Jews. For he magnifies his ministry, by which he is the apostle of the Gentiles, if by loving his own people he wins them to the faith as well. For he is more honored still if he wins to eternal life those to whom he has not been sent. For he who finds his lost brothers will have the greatest honor with his parents. This is why Paul worked so hard for the conversion of the Jews, since the handicap of their blindness will be removed at the time when their sin is paid for, so that they might receive the free exercise of their will.

---

Cyril of Alexandria

Quote:

---

I marvel at your kindness, Paul, and the way in which you so artfully craft the words of the divine dispensation. You assert that the Gentiles were called not because the Israelites had lost all hope of salvation after they had stumbled on Christ the stumbling stone but rather that they would imitate those who were so unexpectedly accepted by God, that they would recognize their wickedness, that they would want to understand better than before and that they would accept the Redeemer.

---

so, with that, i would guess (and guess only) that it is something like - Israel was God's plan to save the world. if through their failure the gentiles are saved and that is obviously a great and good thing, their success will ultimately mean the conclusion of God's saving work.

which is why we should pray for their salvation, so they can be grafted back in to Israel (where they belong).

I take that as a hypothetical - it's a nice thought if it happens.

To dermdoc's original post, I don't see how it makes sense to take "Israel" in Rom. 11:26 as Israel 2.

25 Lest [you Gentiles] be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon [Israel 1], until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all [Israel 2] will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from [Israel 1],
he will banish ungodliness from [Israel 2]";
27
"and this will be my covenant with [Israel 2]
when I take away [Israel 2]'s sins."

Seems forced and unnatural. A partial hardening of Israel 1 "until" the Gentiles believe. Then what? Seems the natural flow would be that after the Gentiles believe, the partial hardening will be removed and Israel 1 will believe. For it's written that ungodliness will be banished from Israel 1 and God's covenant is to take away Israel 1's sins.

By intermingling the Israels in v25-27, I get lost and the flow of thought doesn't make sense.

That's because in addition to "Israel" 1 and 2 there is a third thing which is "All Israel" as opposed to "all of [Israel 2]".

"All Israel" is a prophetic concept that is both Judah and Israel -- the promise of the restoration of the lost northern kingdom and its tribes. This is in Ezekiel 37, Hosea 1, Jeremiah 3, Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 50, Zechariah 10, Micah 2. St Paul also makes a reference to the "fullness of the gentiles" in Romans 11 which comes from Genesis 48:19 - literally that Ephraim (who became the largest tribe of the northern kingdom) his seed will become the fullness of the gentiles.

Important to note that the second two quotes - Isaiah 27 and Jeremiah 31 - both are talking about the restoration of Israel. "when I take away his sin" is Isaiah 27:9, and it concludes in v13 "And in that day a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain at Jerusalem." Jeremiah 31:31 says "the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah". Two separate houses. St Paul is referring to this concept, touches on it three times in as many verses.

So the great mystery here is that through the fall of Ephraim / Israel, the seed is scattered into the nations, and the return of the nations to faithfulness in God fulfills all of these prophecies... restoring the lost sheep, the dry bones, the broken stick, the wild vine (Hosea 10, Jeremiah 2) to the fold. Saving the world, through or in spite of the faithlessness of those who received the promises.

Which goes back to his rhetorical question earlier - it isn't as if God's promise has failed.

same imagery used by St John in his Revelation by the way, the restored tribes.

That's even more of a stretch and completely abandons the line of thinking from Rom. 9-11. It would seemingly come out of nowhere.

it's actually the flow of the whole passage starting in 9. he describes that many have rejected Christ, been faithless, and that doesn't mean God's promises are in vain. instead, God uses them for good (potter analogy). then he follows up by saying - does that mean they're totally lost? and the answer is no, they stumble specifically to accomplish the purpose of bring in the gentiles, which is how their rejection brought reconciliation to the world.

absent this, how is their rejection required? why would they need to be broken off otherwise?

he concludes by saying - i don't want you to be ignorant of this mystery. what is the mystery? that Israel has been hardened until "the fulness of the gentiles" (reference to the blessing of Ephraim) has come in, because in this way All Israel will be saved.

immedatiely he quotes three separate things from the prophets, Isaiah 59, Isaiah 27, and Jeremiah 31. The first says that God will save with His own arm to save those in Jacob who repent, the second and third quotes deal directly with the salvation of both Judah and Israel.

otherwise what's the mystery? that God loves Israel? is that some big secret? and otherwise how is the salvation of all Israel - both Judah and Israel - accomplished?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.

Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.

And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.

However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."

Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals

Quote:

---

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

----

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

---

Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.

I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.

---

I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.

Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".

Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?

---

I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.

To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.

Should I be burned at the stake?

---

When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?

Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.

Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.

---

A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).

But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.

It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.

Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.

---

Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.

You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?

Your effeminance knows no bounds.

"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"

---

This is your argument?

Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.

You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?

Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.

Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.


-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.

But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.

btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy

Quote:

---

If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.

---

This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.

But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.

---

I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.

When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The key fallacy in your argument is that splitting from a heretical church towards restoration of the Western church is materially different than when Rome fell into heresy.

There was a multitude of attempts to reform Rome, most of which led to the death of those at the hands of Rome.
-----------------
Your second claim is also false. You certainly cannot "trace every little single break and offshoot." It's a fools errand and a claim you can't back up. But likewise, from a theological standpoint, I can just as easily point to Trent as the moment that Rome officially went into heresy from a doctrinal standpoint. It's not debatable that this was the moment they truly defined themselves as a Church for the first time.

The vagueness I speak of relates more to when the pope became the most divisive person in history. We can more or less trace all division on the church to this exact office. It's always going to be problematic to point to a specific instance when this role has been so corrupted and more myth than reality.

Quote:

---

Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?

---

Wrong again

International Lutheran Council: https://ilcouncil.org/

Covers 5 continents.

A key difference is that Lutherans hold to the historical and biblical view that local churches should oversee their areas as opposed to the errors or Rome that want everything under one person. We are far less concerned about manmade structures and traditions, and instead far more concerned with making sure the biblical faith and tradition is believed and taught.

-------------

Quote:

---

The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.

---

The idea IS the same because, just as you pointed out, if we kill the other side, maybe we stop their ideas. I didn't say it...you did. You made the exact same argument for killing heretics that Kirk's murderers organizations make to justify shooting him. It's ok to admit your biases though..that's part of growing as a person.

---

So essentially this was an extremely long winded way to say that you can't actually point to when Rome lost its way, as I've asked multiple times. Because if you're pointing to Trent, which was post reformation, it made no sense for the reformation to occur.

Secondly, imagine you're claiming the Roman Catholic Church offshoot didn't begin until a few hundred years ago. From whom did the Orthodox split?

Wow, your International Lutheran Council has about as many adherents as there are Catholics in Burundi; so while it's not quite the 144,000, it seems your organization goes way back to the council of…..Antigua Guatemala in…..1993. Yes surely this is the Church that the Apostles founded.


This makes about as much sense as Protestantism.

---

Sure

The Bad Popes - Wikipedia

Do you want to consider Rome off the rails here or a later point?

Or the time when there were muliple popes "divinely selected."

Western Schism | History, Background, Popes, & Resolution | Britannica

Or when pope honorius taught heresy

Pope Honorius I - Wikipedia

The role of pope has been a disaster in general. The most divisive role in humankind. These corrupt "leaders" guided the theology of Rome for centuries.
----------------
But as stated, Rome for the first time defines its theology at Trent and so we can clearly see the creation of the Roman church and the rejection of normal historical beliefs and faith.

--------------------------------
The EO will gladly say that Rome went heretical or at least heterodox when the split occurred.

----------------------
The point of the organization is not when it started. You're smart enough to know that. It was merely to disprove this claim here: " Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?"

This Lutheran organization represents 5 continents. Not the 1.5 or 2 or whatever you want to claim.

------------------

---

Go back even further why don't you. You'll love this tidbit, our first Pope contradicted himself so hard he literally denied Christ 3 times shortly after naming him as the Messiah! What a dunce!

Nothing any other Pope has done has had a candle to Peter's denial of Christ in one of his greatest moments of need, yet he was still chosen and set apart as the foremost of the Apostles.

It's always funny to hear Protestants talk about what a disaster the Catholic Church has been over the years; despite being around for 2000 years, vs 1993. Congrats dude, you've managed to avoid any sort of unpleasantries by being a complete nonentity on the global stage, forming a new church whenever there's an internal disagreement, and keeping your membership numbers less than the attendance of SEC home games during a season.

---

the first pope didn't do that. Peter, who was an Apostle did that. Fortunately he was never a pope and people like James and Paul were there to correct, rebuke, and decide above and beyond Peter.

Likewise, it's always funny to hear Rome dismiss how disastrous the pope has been historically, but also claim he can somehow speak in the place of God.

But you do make an interesting observation that really doesn't help you. Protestants in general fall under a wide umbrella of agreement on many things, but some disagreement on others. We agree on the solas, we agree that Scripture is the only infallible Word of God

Rome is no different. The only unifying thing Roman Catholics seemingly agree on is the pope. Beyond that, the jesuits and dominicans can have whatever theology they want, most roman catholics believe in abortion, contraception etc...but as long as the believe in the pope, they are part of the big tent.

This is why I pointed out pages ago that nothing Luther taught from history was outside of Rome's theology at the time. The real problem Luther had was realizing there was no historical or scriptural support for the Roman claimed pope. There's no historical supremacy that can be claimed. And in the end...this is what the real issue boiled down to. Do you follow Christ or the claims of a men.

Zobel said:

---

it's actually the flow of the whole passage starting in 9. he describes that many have rejected Christ, been faithless, and that doesn't mean God's promises are in vain. instead, God uses them for good (potter analogy). then he follows up by saying - does that mean they're totally lost? and the answer is no, they stumble specifically to accomplish the purpose of bring in the gentiles, which is how their rejection brought reconciliation to the world.

absent this, how is their rejection required? why would they need to be broken off otherwise?

he concludes by saying - i don't want you to be ignorant of this mystery. what is the mystery? that Israel has been hardened until "the fulness of the gentiles" (reference to the blessing of Ephraim) has come in, because in this way All Israel will be saved.

immedatiely he quotes three separate things from the prophets, Isaiah 59, Isaiah 27, and Jeremiah 31. The first says that God will save with His own arm to save those in Jacob who repent, the second and third quotes deal directly with the salvation of both Judah and Israel.

otherwise what's the mystery? that God loves Israel? is that some big secret? and otherwise how is the salvation of all Israel - both Judah and Israel - accomplished?

---

Is this in the commentaries you posted above?

Quote:

---

How many Protestant churches have/allow

Women pastors
Gay marriage

---

These are not churches

Would you be indifferent if your priest was from South America, like Francis, or Germany? Or if it was father Martin? Bishops here still permit the Eucharist for politicians that support abortion. There is clear and obvious dissent within the Roman church to its teachings, but the pope hasn't extinguished such things. None of these are hidden, by the way, they're all very much out in the open for the public to see.

What does that mean for unity of teaching and doctrine?

i only have the complete St Johns, the rest are from a verse-by-verse commentary reference. St John's homily on this passage is focused differently, mainly on the general gentile vs Jew theme of the whole book of Romans versus the prophetic side. St John's commentary on ch 11 is focused on a kind of overall equality between all men in the course of salvation; God calls gentiles, they are disobedient, so he forms Israel, and through their disobedience he calls the gentiles again, and then because of jealousy the Jews will come back - his conclusion is that in the end, all are reconciled to God through repentance, not special status. which of course is true, and also very relevant to this discussion regarding heredity.

i think a lot of people don't catch the distinction made between "Jew" and "Israel". they're not interchangeable, Judah and Israel weren't the same thing.

It seems like a fairly new interpretation of Rom. 11. I've never heard it. Is it new?

AGC said:

---

Would you be indifferent if your priest was from South America, like Francis, or Germany? Or if it was father Martin? Bishops here still permit the Eucharist for politicians that support abortion. There is clear and obvious dissent within the Roman church to its teachings, but the pope hasn't extinguished such things. None of these are hidden, by the way, they're all very much out in the open for the public to see.

What does that mean for unity of teaching and doctrine?

---

Father Martin should be fired into the sun, but even he doesn't go so far as to espouse heresy. He's very very sly in the way he goes about things. Just giving his personal opinion, and making sure to live in the grey area of plausible deniability.

Same with the bishops who allow pro aborts to be communicated. Even though the Pope is the head of the church, the bishop of a diocese has a ton of power over his flock in that diocese. All of the excuses are BS, but they do make excuses, citing some sort of "limiting harm" or "not wanting to get political".

The church does not have a teaching that pro-abortion people cannot receive communion. The church has a teaching that those who have committed grave sin cannot take communion, and that material support for abortion is a grave sin. However modern Catholics live in the definition of "grave" and "material".

Quote:

---

modern Catholics

---

how does this work? is it possible to be a "modern" Catholic?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

Would you be indifferent if your priest was from South America, like Francis, or Germany? Or if it was father Martin? Bishops here still permit the Eucharist for politicians that support abortion. There is clear and obvious dissent within the Roman church to its teachings, but the pope hasn't extinguished such things. None of these are hidden, by the way, they're all very much out in the open for the public to see.

What does that mean for unity of teaching and doctrine?

---

Father Martin should be fired into the sun, but even he doesn't go so far as to espouse heresy. He's very very sly in the way he goes about things. Just giving his personal opinion, and making sure to live in the grey area of plausible deniability.

Same with the bishops who allow pro aborts to be communicated. Even though the Pope is the head of the church, the bishop of a diocese has a ton of power over his flock in that diocese. All of the excuses are BS, but they do make excuses, citing some sort of "limiting harm" or "not wanting to get political".

The church does not have a teaching that pro-abortion people cannot receive communion. The church has a teaching that those who have committed grave sin cannot take communion, and that material support for abortion is a grave sin. However modern Catholics live in the definition of "grave" and "material".

---

I understand the framework. I'd point out the logic is the same in Protestant churches for gay and female inclusion in the priesthood or pulpit. We're all subject to modernity, and not even the papacy can extinguish its influence (and sometimes seems to be under it).

These parishes all exhibit issues a 'reformer' would want to address and call out for the sake of the faithful. Their fate is that of bishop Strickland. I don't think Roman adherents are as far from the reformers as they think, especially if they support Strickland and his stand. Reform is always possible inside the church until the clock runs out or you're kicked out.

I don't think so.

My question comes back to - what is the difference between Judah and Israel?

This passage provides perfect exegesis for how God is accomplishing the restoration of Israel and Judah as foretold multiple times in the prophets. As far as I know it's not explained anywhere else in the NT but the effects of this being accomplished are (pagans being referred to as part of Israel, tribes restored in Revelation).