We lost two babies, and I do pray to God that, if he could, let them know we love them and miss them and we will see them soon. That's as far as I take it.
I can’t believe how much time it must take to read a million comments and answer them. You are doing an eternal service to the world and making Lutheranism known .
I really like Pastor Packer’s point that too many rely on the way they have always worshipped not knowing if it is even Lutheran. After having read the Augsburg Confessions and much of the Augsburg Apologies, the current Lutheran Churches (at least in America) have moved further from their Roman Catholic origins than the reformers ever intended. We should revisit them with an objective view and reflect on where we are today.
Interesting…I think we should explore their understanding of vicarious satisfaction. It differs from the Lutheran understanding of vicarious satisfaction in relations to God’s wrath being poured out or not on Jesus (from what I know). RC would reject that idea, which even as someone who isn’t RC, I think that the RC view has a stronger basis biblically than Lutherans when it comes to that specific issue. Especially when we see the council’s decisions that focused on the nature of the unity of the Father and Son, plus the incarnation, it’s impossible for me to disagree with the RC on that. 🤔
As I've asked my Catholic friends, "are the books of the Bible authoritative because the Church picked them or did the Church pick them because they are authoritative?"
there is no single verse either in your 66-book bible or in 73-book Catholic Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to Scripture. Many books of NT were anonymous like the four Gospels, Acts and Hebrews. The early Christians did not agree with each other on what comprises Scripture. They unanimously agree on 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT - Esther, apocryphal books as well as 2 Pe, 2 & 3 John, Heb, James, Jude and Rev were disputed, together with Shepherds of Hermas and epistle of Barnabas. We need external authority to decide which books belong to Scripture. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples in truth, including things to come. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of NT was written - why would He?
That's a false dichotomy. Jesus gave authority to the church. The New Testament was written under the authority God gave to his Apostles and prophets. It is one Church. The answer to your question is both.
The books of the Bible are authoritative BECAUSE they are consistent with apostolic teachings AND because the Church recognizes them as being consistent with apostolic teachings. See Council of Carthage 397 AD, and other councils thereafter, all prior to Trent. The books excluded from Bible were excluded because they are not consistent with apostolic teachings and therefore are not authoritative.
If we took marriage more seriously before marriage. I was so infatuated, we conceived our daughter before marriage and not of same denominational unity. We were doomed before we started and it was awful. She left, not because of audultery, and in spite all my efforts to reconcile we divorced. I remarried five years later to a woman who shares my faith and the difference is dramatic. I'm sorry how things transpired the first time, but I am so blessed in this current marriage. I would be in despair if I learned my current marriage was not blessed or is really living in sin. I'm glad for this second chance, and helps me to not live in sin if I couldn't marry. I also see the wisdom in not marrying so I could devote more to God.
Well your first wife desserted you, so you are free to marriage. I agree Christian men especially need to be instructed more in our churches about how to behave before marriage.
Your Catch 22 was not unappreciated. If Rome builds the dream of authority over Scripture on the fact that they decided the canon, they can't condemn Luther for the dismissal of the Apocrypha because he does nothing less. Luther however, never claimed to be in authority over the word of God. Rome is like a giant wizard, fighting the small villagers and then they lift his robes to see him only on stilts.
If anyone wants a deep dive on the 66 book canon & Roman Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura, Javier Perdomo has a 4 part series on his RUclips channel & Anglican Aesthetics has great stuff talking about Sola Apostolica (the foundation of Sola Scriptura) as well.
I am a Lutheran, but I wasn’t baptized until I was about 12 and that’s because my father and mother were involved in the church at the time I was a child.
My biggest problem with Luther's (reformation) teaching is double imputation embedded in his understanding of justification, that is, through faith alone an exchange took place between believers and Christ. The believers got Christ’ righteousness imputed on them as if that righteousness were theirs while they remain sinners. Christ got believers’ entire sins (past, present, future) imputed on Him as if those sins were His while He remains sinless. In Luther's own words: Is not this a beautiful, glorious exchange, by which Christ, who is wholly innocent and holy, not only takes upon himself another’s sin, that is, my sin and guilt, but also clothes and adorns me, who am nothing but sin, with his own innocence and purity? And then besides dies the shameful death of the Cross for the sake of my sins, through which I have deserved death and condemnation, and grants to me his righteousness, in order that I may live with him eternally in glorious and unspeakable joy. Through this blessed exchange, in which Christ changes places with us (something the heart can grasp only in faith), and through nothing else, are we freed from sin and death and given his righteousness and life as our own. Luther, M. (1540): Sermon on Matthew 3:13-17 at the Baptism of Bernhard von Anhalt Lehmann, H.T., general editor, Doberstein, J.W., editor, Luther’s Works, Vol. 51, page 316 In contrast Scripture denies double imputation in Eze. 18:20: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Scripture also says we cannot be righteous and sinner at the same time (in Latin simul iustus et peccator) as taught by Luther in Eze. 33:13: “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die."
I know you can only fit so much in a RUclips comment, but there’s more to scripture than just those two verses in Ezekiel that talk about righteousness. In the Bible there’s chastisement for those who love their sins more than God and there’s comfort for those who love God yet know they can’t meet his standard of justice “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” -Ps 32 “But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” -Rom 4. You can also see the Passover lamb which is a type & shadow for the Lord’s Supper where the Angel passes over the houses and doesn’t kill the firstborns because the lamb was sacrificed instead. There’s more that could be said, but to keep this reply from getting too long I’ll leave it there. Hope it’s helpful :)
@@kolab5620 You cited Psa. 32:2, which Paul also cited in Rom. 4:7. That verse does NOT say sin is covered by Christ' righteousness - that will contradict Eze. 18:20 and Scripture won't contradict itself. Neither does the verse say our sins imputed to Christ as taught by Luther. What it says match well with what Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): "Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE; HE SHALL NOT DIE. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE." Based on that verse when a wicked person turns from sin (repents) AND does what is just and right he would be back to life - all his past wickedness will be forgotten or not counted/imputed on him anymore, those wickedness are not imputed on Christ. In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith, cited by Paul in Rom. 4:3. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). Faith is NOT the only source of our righteousness - doing what is right also makes us righteous as it is written in 1 John 3:7. It is NOT salvation by works - our ability to do what is right and to have faith comes from and is only possible by grace through Christ as it is written in Rom. 5:19 that through Him we are made righteous.
On the topic of Mary worship. The other day I heard pastor Rosebrough in a video talking about Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus. For the first time I started to consider how the Catholic and Orthodox exalt Mary and make her perfect, but she was considered unclean in scripture. So I wonder how they deal with the fact that Mary was not exempt from making an offering like an "unclean" woman. If any Catholic trolls do show up I hope they can explain this to me. If Mary is so perfect and flawless then why was she not exempt from the sacrifice of 2 doves or 2 pigeons.
Any learn catholic would just flip it around and ask why Jesus, being perfect, would need circumcision? The obvious answer would be He didn't because He was without sin. But He did it as an act of obedience to the Law, because Christ had to keep the Law perfectly. Thus, for Mary being immaculately conceived, and without the stain of original sin, only kept the Law as an act of obedience, not because she needed it. I'm afraid your comment is no slam dunk, unless your talking to a catholic who is uncatechized.
@@leeenk6932 I wasn't trying to dunk on any Catholics. I was just curious what nonsense they would recite. You are probably right, they would probably just say she was just going through the motions for show, to be obedient. That's kind of boring.
On the very first point...the early church did not either license or approve or authorize inspiration, it received it. In this truth lies the kernel of answer to every Catholic challenge to sola scriptura.
Are you not aware that the same 4th century councils that listed the 27 books of the New Testament as canonical also listed the "Apocrypha" in the OT Canon?
The Sacrament of Baptism is not age related. It is a gift from God. Born with a fallen nature and tainted with original sin, infants also have need in the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
hello , I just found your podcast . I started with finding the right church. I really enjoyed it. and then followed with the podcast around reformation. I am writing to ask a question or questions. I will give a little background. I grew up in Canada with a Hungarian Lutheran father and Canadian mother who con versed to Lutheran for my father but grew up pentecostal. In Canada my father gather enough people in the sixties to start a Lutheran church. it was Missouri synod and that is what I grew up. I didn't know there were other Lutheran churches. I married an Anglican but also Had Lutheran minister do our marriage. after children were baptized Anglican closer to our home.after they allowed Gay Pastors we left church. when we moved to Massachusetts we started attending a Lutheran church. ELCA. our children were confirmed . I did find them a little more liberal even women pastors. but now they hired a gay woman pastor and now we just received a little from out senior male , married pastor that he is going to transgender now. his wife is divorcing and his children are aware. as is the Bishop of our synod. my husband and I are no longer attending . there is no Missouri synod Lutheran church near by. so I listen to my son's in Beaufort, SC. I love when I attend his church and it is the church of my youth. I listen for the word. please How else can I doo . I miss church and communion. we go to Florida in the winter. found a church close to home but also Ella but doesn't seem so woke . . I am handicapped so travel can be difficult. I am finding churches becoming so woke. suggestions?
This is a problem many of us cradle Lutherans are facing today. I left the ELCA 20 years ago because I saw negative change coming. I too have no LCMS church close by. We did have a LCMS outreach in town, but it was never advertised and I only discovered it after they left and the contact number no longer working. I have since found a very small NALC church that hopefully will not be sent a woman pastor. The members are mostly older so I don't think a woman pastor would be a good fit. God bless you as you continue your search.🙏🏼
Pastor W said there is no prohibition in Scripture for praying to the saints? Woah! 1Tim 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” Pastor P’s point about divine omniscience required to receive prayer would negate any thought of prayer the saints and Mary. It would be idolatry and a violation of the 1st Commandment. Scripture is quite clear that the Holy Trinity alone is to be the object of our prayers. That’s my 2 cents.
In terms of the divorce remarriage issue discussed by the esteemed pastors, it seems that they are taking a similar position of most fundamentalist Baptist's. In my view this is a complicated question that really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Now, if marriage is considered a sacrament like it is for the Catholics and Orthodox then this would change the way it's handled.
We have so much resources and books dealing with issues like Church History, Scripture, the nature of the Church and many more, but are not being utilized.
100 m race. We watch who comes in first, second and third. Then the organizing body declares them so. Did the governing body determine the places or did the runners? The runners determined the race. The governing body simply stated the results (assuming no wrong doing). The early church simply identified what God had done.
Curious of your thoughts pastors. What if we simply accept Jesus’ Words about divorce and remarriage and we find ourselves falling short of His original intent of marriage, what if we just repent of our sins and ask for His mercy? I think trying to find a legal argument simply gets us deeper into the weeds. Do the Scriptures offer some legal cases for justified divorce and remarriage? Yes they do. But what about those of us who don’t fall into those legally established categories? Can’t we just repent of our past sins and move forward into a new life of Jesus’ grace and fidelity to the marriage currently in?
The so-called Apocryphal books were not canonized by the Council of Trent. This happened in the 4th century. The canonical scriptures are listed by the Synod of Hippo, in Canon XXIV, as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, Kings iv books [1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], The Chronicles ii books, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], the Twelve Books of the Prophets [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra ii books, Maccabees ii books. Of the New Testament: The Gospels iv books, Acts of the Apostles i book, Epistles of Paul xiv, Epistles of Peter, the Apostle ii, Epistles of John the Apostle iii, Epistles of James the Apostle i, one of Epistle of Jude the Apostle, Revelation of John, i.
The issue with the exception for victims of abuse, abandonment, and adultery (of which I feel for as I am one such victim), is that realistically, because of our human fallen nature, we all see ourselves as victims even if we're not. I know my ex probably casts herself as the victim even though she was actually the perpetrator, for example. But here's the issue, how can we be sure we're really the victims when we know we have a sinful human nature as well as our ex spouses? Who gets to decide? If it's us, we'll always rule in our favor. I am really liking Lutheranism, but how do Lutherans get out of this dilemma? Isn't the solution that one should not be allowed to remarry unless there is some type of trial like the Catholic Church does durring its annulment proceedings? But the Lutheran Church doesn't do this right?
I have no idea if this is true, but I heard that part of the reason the books that were picked were picked because they were the most moving in the spirit to the congregance back in yhe day???
Good morning! I have two questions. 1. My father was adamant about never getting divorced. My mom was violent and threatened to kill my dad, my sister and myself. She suffers from severe mental illness and is controlling and violent. My father refused to divorce her because he believed that he wasn’t allowed to. Is that a case where he could have divorced her to protect my sister and myself? 2. I married my ex when I was 25. There were red flags everywhere but I still pushed forward with getting married. He cheated on me multiple times and after 5 years I finally got divorced and moved on. I met my now husband 13 years later and we got married in 2017. Was I supposed to remain single after my divorce? Am I now going to hell? I believe that even this can be forgiven but am I wrong?
Here's my non-professional opinion. 1) If what you say is true, if your father was set on avoiding divorce, I think a legal separation for the sake of the children would have been a wiser course of action than staying under the same roof. 2) Marriage implies that both parties have the will to marry and are fit to marry. If either or both are not free to marry, for example, because the intent to remain faithful to the other is absent, there's no real marriage in the first place. Then you will be left trying to save a marriage that doesn't really exist in the first place. If that's the case, you didn't sin by divorcing him. Perhaps you sinned by marrying him in the first place, but God desires to forgive us of all of our sins.
Yea, the first argument doesn’t have anything to do with the Church “having more authority” than scripture. That’s actually blatantly false and goes against Church teaching.
Marriage and remarriage of the divorced person while their x-spouse is still alive is committing adultery. Paul speaks of this adultery in multiple places not just Corinthians, Jesus points it out too. After I left the protes’tant Lutheran conference, and came into the synodical conference. I noticed this remarriage has happened all over the Lutheran church’s. This is troubling to me. Even after I brought it up, this very subject, trained pastors did not even have an idea of how to interpret the scripture which I think speaks even greater volumes about where the church is at today. It appears that peoples feelings and the way they just don’t wanna live the rest of their lives single, becomes more important than the words that are spoken from Jesus and the apostles.
Revelation 19:1-4 (KJV) 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. 4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
there is no single verse either in your 66-book bible or in 73-book Catholic Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to Scripture. Many books of NT were anonymous like the four Gospels, Acts and Hebrews. The early Christians did not agree with each other on what comprises Scripture. They unanimously agree on 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT - Esther, apocryphal books as well as 2 Pe, 2 & 3 John, Heb, James, Jude and Rev were disputed, together with Shepherds of Hermas and epistle of Barnabas. We need external authority to decide which books belong to Scripture. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples in truth, including things to come. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of NT was written - why would He? Contrary to what you said Tradition was as old and even predated NT books. The Greek word (noun) for tradition is παράδοσις (Strong G3862) and it appears 13 times in 13 verses of the New Testament: Mat. 15:2, 3, 6; Mar. 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. 11:2, Gal. 1:14, Col. 2:8, 2 Th. 2:15, 3:6. While Jesus did condemn man-made tradition of the Pharisees and so did Paul in Col. 2:8, the same Greek word is also applied to the tradition of the apostles in 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Th. 2:15 and 3:6 which say (ESV): 1 Cor. 11:2: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (παράδοσις) even as I delivered them to you.” 2 Th. 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παράδοσις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2 Th. 3:6: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition (παράδοσις) that you received from us.”
None of the verses you cited put tradition on par with scripture. Tradition is fine, even Jesus followed tradition when it did not contradict scripture (like worshiping in at synagogues). But when tradition comes on par with scripture and inevitably contradicts it is when Jesus sides with scripture as being over tradition. Think about the example you referenced in Matthew 15. Your argument could fit well with the Pharisees. They could use your argument to support their oral tradition. Think about it, they believed that the oral tradition was given directly by God to Moses and then kept through the elders that God had filled with the Spirit to help Moses and then passed down faithfully through their successors all the way to the Pharisees. When Jesus challenged their traditions as nullifying scripture, they could say back that Jesus and his disciples need their tradition. They could point to how their tradition was the keeper of the very scriptures Jesus pointed to. They could say that Jesus and his disciples need their tradition to provide clarity where scripture is oh so unclear. Rome’s argument fits well with the Pharisees in my opinion.
@@blondebeautician 2 Th. 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παράδοσις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Paul told us to stand firm and hold both to written and unwritten tradition and you wrote tradition is not in par with Scripture? The Jews has written Law (five books of Moses) and oral Law. You can get the latter online with English tradition. Show me any part of that Oral Law that support what the Pharisees said. They did not cite from Oral Law.
@@blondebeautician In 2 Th. 2:15 Paul wrote to stand firm and hold to tradition both written and unwritten. And you claimed tradition is not in par with Scripture?
The Jews have written Law (five books of Moses) and Oral Law. The latter was then put in written form after the destruction of the Temple. You can get them online with English translation. The Pharisees did not cite from Oral Law in what Jesus referred as tradition of men.
The Pharisees didn’t cut their oral law against Jesus? Let’s just go to scripture and check out what it says: “Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!”
It was Luther who taught that we sin when we do good works. Luther wrote: Thus we sin even when we do good, unless God through Christ covers this imperfection and does not impute it to us. Thus it becomes a venial sin, though the mercy of God, who does not impute it for the sake of faith and the plea on behalf of this imperfection for the sake of Christ. Therefore, he who thinks that he might be regarded as righteous because of his works is very foolish, since if they were offered as a sacrifice to the judgment of God, they still would be found to be sins. Luther, M. (1515 - 1516): Scholia (added commentaries) of Lectures on Romans Oswald, H.C., editor, Tillmanns, W.G., translator, Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, page 276
Yes, we sin because....we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. Original sin is key to understanding. Even our good works have sin in them, but thanks be to God he cover's everything with his work on our behalf. So we do all the more good works because of our freedom to share God's grace and love even though nothing is done absolutely perfectly.
For by grace are we saved, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast- Ephesians 2: 8-9 That is clear teaching from the Bible that works do not save. It is not some idea of Luther.
@@cathyp.4995 Tell me where does Scripture says that our good works have sins that must be covered by God? God, our Father, does reward us, His adopted children, for our good works (Pro. 13:13,, Psa. 18:20, 2 Jo. 8, Rev. 22:12 etc.) and that reward even includes eternal life (John 5:28-29, Rom. 2:6-7). Pro. 19:17 says: “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Psa. 18:20 says: “The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me”.
The Catholic Church does not believe it is above scripture. What we fear is bad translations and misuse of scripture teaching If sola scriptura works, then why are there so many denominations of protestants?
I am with you on your first point, but perhaps you could back your claim with evidence from church documents. I agree with your second point, too, but if they don't see that as an issue, well...
You have to distinguish what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Lutherans mean something very different than what other Protestants mean. For Lutherans it is only that the scriptures are the only infallible source of teaching. Now this comes from the 16th centaury reformers, so don't try to shoehorn in 19th centaury definitions of these words. The problem with the denominations argument is again one of definitions. There are many Lutheran groups in various levels of theological agreement with each other. There are also various Catholics with various levels of theological agreement with each other. Fr. James Martin isn't exactly a welcome name among some Catholics.
@hofii2 I agree with you on that. Many Protestantists and Catholics don't understand what Sola Scriptura means because they take it as literally meaning that the Bible alone is a Christian's sole authority. I don't think Catholics and Lutherans are as far apart on that point as some make them out to be.
@jimmu2008 sorry for the delayed response. In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are not seen as separate or unequal, but as complementary sources of divine revelation. The Second Vatican Council's document *Dei Verbum* explains that both Scripture and Tradition flow from the same divine source and work together towards the same end. They are to be accepted and venerated with equal devotion and reverence (Dei Verbum, 9 Hope this helps
@@JMTeBOCK08 I have no issue with that, but as I understand it, "Tradition" in this context refers to the "oral" parts of "the Apostolic Deposit of Faith," and not to things like the Stations of the Cross or nativity creches.
The comment made by the other pastor, not Wolfmeuller, about the persons situation is irrelevant! Jesus doesn’t give any situational circumstances where this issue doesn’t apply. He and Paul simply in numerous places says that divorce and remarriage is an abomination of the purpose and picture that marriage stands for. Now because of many different circumstances there are Christian people who have been married and divorced two times and they just sit in church as if nothing’s wrong , and we wonder why the church is falling under so much judgment nowadays?!
I don't believe we know how they feel about their divorce unless we actually speak with them about it. When I have done so, I find plenty of remorse and a desire to do better. I would rather have folks with that attitude than smug pietists who look down on people that struggle badly in certain areas of life. We can't undo the past, but we can repent of it. Maybe that remarried person confesses daily and knows deeply that he/she is a sinner who looks to Christ for forgiveness. I believe that such a person understands grace very well.
@@timllewellyn884 when it’s been done there’s no going back but yes there is forgiveness. But moving forward we need to keep it in the correct perspective and leave emotions out of it. God’s will is His will, regardless of how we feel.
We have no fault divorce. My wife left me for non biblical reasons. She abandoned the marriage when I was relatively young. Should I never remarry despite having been a good husband and father?
@ the outcome of your marriage regardless of what you tell me on this thread, is that both of you played a role in it. Whether you got married to her as Christian’s or you two decided to get married in view of God’s will, it wasn’t centered in Christ, and therefore you reap the consequences. That being said, if she is still alive and you remarry, you are committing adultery because your union whether you are seeking Christ or not is a holy matrimony, which is now destroyed. As God word says, if you remarry while your spouse is still alive, you are committing adultery. Notice how nowhere in scripture does Paul or Jesus give any makeshift arrangements that cancel this truth out.
@ read what Paul says in Romans 7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters-for I am speaking to those who know the law-that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. Notice that this law applies only as long as the other person is still alive.
The Jews did not reject the Apocrypha or settle their canon until towards the end of the 2nd century AD. At least that is what my Jewish Study Bible says.
@jimmu2008 The Jewish canon was accepted by the first century as the same books we have in our Old Testament. Josephus, for example, lists the same books we gave today.
@@darylrahfeldt2162No, he doesn't. Josephus's list does not match the modern list. It is close, but he says that there are 22 books, not 24, and he doesn't name them all. And please remember, I cited a Jewish source which says that the Jews had not settled the Canon until the second century AD. But the source noted that some rabbis treated the Wisdom of Sirach as Scripture much later than that. I am referring to the first edition of the Jewish Study Bible published by Oxford University. There's a second edition that I don't have. You can find some Jewish sources online, I am sure.
if tradition was over the word of God then we would all still be following the pharisee's. Likewise Adam and Eve wouldn't have been in the wrong for eating the fruit as they would've just said that tradition lead them to change it. Or how about the last verses of revelation that curses people who add or remove anything from the prophecies in the book which I would think would apply to all the prophecies of scripture as Paul says let anyone who gives a different gospel be anathema. The Orthodox who condemn Lutherans for leaving the Romans is also hilarious to me as they left over a sentence of the creed and we left because the Romans were blatantly attacking the scriptures and the gospels. We might not have the passing of the laying on of hands to pastors or whatever but I would remind them of two things 1) that even if Peter was the pope of the church he would have to repent and correct the church for it's attack on the word of God and Peter himself was rebuked by Paul in his day for conceding to the circumscion party and so even if Peter had some higher authority it's not like he or any theorectical church he founded would be above rebuke for going against the word of God. 2) in the book of Acts God gave his spirit to some gentile believers even before they were baptized as a sign that they to were to be saved so it's not like God can't give his spirit without the laying on of hands and if I remember right God commanded in another place for gentiles to be baptized and the current Orthodox and Catholic church are in this way condemned because they themselves go against the word of God and instead of passing on the spirit as God would've commanded they instead try and keep it to themselves. They are like the guy in acts that tried to buy the gift of miracles in that they keep the spirit to themselves for their own prestige and authority and greed and if the Orthodox church was justified in leaving Rome over one sentence of the creed how much more credence would the reformers have? At least as long as they keep to the word and spirit of God. Also for argument against praying to mary we have Luke11:27 As he said these things, pa woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, q“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, r“Blessed rather are those swho hear the word of God and tkeep it!” As for infant baptism in the passage of Paul where it talks about divorce it says 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. If the children then are holy then their is no reason to not get them baptized as the argument against infant baptism is usually something along the lines that they need to prepare themselves or be made good enough or make a descision themselves but this in itself is a misinterpretation on what baptism is and with correct interpretation of baptism I see no reason why something that someone who is holy is to not be baptized. I also think part of the argument against baptism to aided by the fact that parent's don't teach and disciple their kids as much as they should and so many of them fall away later in life where I think the apostles would have the infants be baptized and would push the parents especially the fathers to teach the children the faith my reasoning behind this belief is that when Jesus commanded to make disciples and baptize them these two things go hand in hand.
I feel bad for that Catholic woman because you are giving her husband advice based the assumption that she feels that she cannot talk directly to Jesus. She probably doesn't feel that way at all, and now you possibly have prejudiced her husband to read motives or fears into her actions and beliefs that may not be there at all. And now she probably will be put on the defensive. Lord have mercy!
As her husband he is the head of her home and responsible for the Christian education of his family members. To leave her in false faith and practice is not loving.
@run4cmt that doesn't answer my objection. My objection is that the advice assumes a motive that may not be her actual motive. Pastor W. said to ask her why she feels she cannot approach Jesus directly. The question presumes without even asking that she feels that way.
I have friends that in Catholic elemntry school they asked why they can't just talk to directly to Jesus and the Nun taught them they need to go through Marry. 😢
@andrewkreais3683 they were taught incorrectly. The nun was wrong, or they misunderstood her. A Catholic nun is not necessarily an authority on Catholic doctrine or practice. The magisterium and its documents are. We are fortunate today to have the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an authoritative guide. But the nun was wrong.
@jimmu2008. I completely agree that the nun was wrong. But saddly you have children being taught at a young age that their is a Barrier between them and Jesus
@@andrewpacker2592[Edited comment] I disagree. I do think the tone of his voice reveals some contempt for Roman Catholics themselves, not just "false" teaching. Generally, I find that Pastor Wolfmüller comes across as very kind, and I think he probably is, but he seems to slip into expressing this side from time to time. When he talks about Lutheranism and its basis in the Bible, I think he is a great teacher. I enjoy how he breaks things down. But in this video at least, he didn't represent the Catholic position well, so he didn't even refute the real thing.
I took one look at him and knew how hateful he'd be. As a Catholic convert, I still had a soft spot for Protestants and would defend them; but I've gotten burned so bad by people full of prejudice and hate that I instantly shudder when I see the word "pastor" or "bible-believing" or the like, because I know what's coming next.
I love how Packer knew there was no way Wolfmueller could do lightning round 😂 great video as always
We lost two babies, and I do pray to God that, if he could, let them know we love them and miss them and we will see them soon. That's as far as I take it.
My wife and I lost two also. It’s very very difficult. I hope you have success and I hope you are alright.
So excited for that Chemnitz translation!!!
It is always a joy to listen to the two of you!
Wow, I’m feverishly taking notes. Greetings from Greece!
Excited for this Chemnitz summary!
Me too! It'll be on my wishlist. A more affordable must-have for my library. Hopefully, there will be an audio version as well.
Great news to hear about that Chemnitz translation! As always very edifying content.
I can’t believe how much time it must take to read a million comments and answer them. You are doing an eternal service to the world and making Lutheranism known .
I really like Pastor Packer’s point that too many rely on the way they have always worshipped not knowing if it is even Lutheran. After having read the Augsburg Confessions and much of the Augsburg Apologies, the current Lutheran Churches (at least in America) have moved further from their Roman Catholic origins than the reformers ever intended. We should revisit them with an objective view and reflect on where we are today.
Interesting…I think we should explore their understanding of vicarious satisfaction. It differs from the Lutheran understanding of vicarious satisfaction in relations to God’s wrath being poured out or not on Jesus (from what I know). RC would reject that idea, which even as someone who isn’t RC, I think that the RC view has a stronger basis biblically than Lutherans when it comes to that specific issue. Especially when we see the council’s decisions that focused on the nature of the unity of the Father and Son, plus the incarnation, it’s impossible for me to disagree with the RC on that. 🤔
As I've asked my Catholic friends, "are the books of the Bible authoritative because the Church picked them or did the Church pick them because they are authoritative?"
Great statement😊
there is no single verse either in your 66-book bible or in 73-book Catholic Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to Scripture. Many books of NT were anonymous like the four Gospels, Acts and Hebrews. The early Christians did not agree with each other on what comprises Scripture. They unanimously agree on 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT - Esther, apocryphal books as well as 2 Pe, 2 & 3 John, Heb, James, Jude and Rev were disputed, together with Shepherds of Hermas and epistle of Barnabas. We need external authority to decide which books belong to Scripture. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples in truth, including things to come. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of NT was written - why would He?
That's a false dichotomy. Jesus gave authority to the church. The New Testament was written under the authority God gave to his Apostles and prophets. It is one Church. The answer to your question is both.
The books of the Bible are authoritative BECAUSE they are consistent with apostolic teachings AND because the Church recognizes them as being consistent with apostolic teachings. See Council of Carthage 397 AD, and other councils thereafter, all prior to Trent. The books excluded from Bible were excluded because they are not consistent with apostolic teachings and therefore are not authoritative.
@@kylewdufour Apostolic teachings that are outside the Bible?! 😂
Great discussion, gents! Very edifying.
Thank yall. God's peace.
Amen to the comments about "we've always done it this way" I am continually reminding my LCMS church of this. We need to know the Biblical origin.
If we took marriage more seriously before marriage. I was so infatuated, we conceived our daughter before marriage and not of same denominational unity. We were doomed before we started and it was awful. She left, not because of audultery, and in spite all my efforts to reconcile we divorced.
I remarried five years later to a woman who shares my faith and the difference is dramatic. I'm sorry how things transpired the first time, but I am so blessed in this current marriage. I would be in despair if I learned my current marriage was not blessed or is really living in sin. I'm glad for this second chance, and helps me to not live in sin if I couldn't marry. I also see the wisdom in not marrying so I could devote more to God.
Well your first wife desserted you, so you are free to marriage. I agree Christian men especially need to be instructed more in our churches about how to behave before marriage.
Thank you for answering the questions I found it to be very helpful!
Your Catch 22 was not unappreciated. If Rome builds the dream of authority over Scripture on the fact that they decided the canon, they can't condemn Luther for the dismissal of the Apocrypha because he does nothing less. Luther however, never claimed to be in authority over the word of God. Rome is like a giant wizard, fighting the small villagers and then they lift his robes to see him only on stilts.
Yes, and all the time any tyrant deflects what they do onto any and all oppositions. So too Roman Catholic.
If anyone wants a deep dive on the 66 book canon & Roman Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura, Javier Perdomo has a 4 part series on his RUclips channel & Anglican Aesthetics has great stuff talking about Sola Apostolica (the foundation of Sola Scriptura) as well.
I am a Lutheran, but I wasn’t baptized until I was about 12 and that’s because my father and mother were involved in the church at the time I was a child.
The Word does the work of Baptism - Jesus Baptizes us in good time whether at birth or later. Works great and lasts a long time! GBY!
Did you mean to say your parents were not involved in the Lutheran Church at the time of your birth???
@ true
My biggest problem with Luther's (reformation) teaching is double imputation embedded in his understanding of justification, that is, through faith alone an exchange took place between believers and Christ. The believers got Christ’ righteousness imputed on them as if that righteousness were theirs while they remain sinners. Christ got believers’ entire sins (past, present, future) imputed on Him as if those sins were His while He remains sinless. In Luther's own words:
Is not this a beautiful, glorious exchange, by which Christ, who is wholly innocent and holy, not only takes upon himself another’s sin, that is, my sin and guilt, but also clothes and adorns me, who am nothing but sin, with his own innocence and purity? And then besides dies the shameful death of the Cross for the sake of my sins, through which I have deserved death and condemnation, and grants to me his righteousness, in order that I may live with him eternally in glorious and unspeakable joy. Through this blessed exchange, in which Christ changes places with us (something the heart can grasp only in faith), and through nothing else, are we freed from sin and death and given his righteousness and life as our own.
Luther, M. (1540): Sermon on Matthew 3:13-17 at the Baptism of Bernhard von Anhalt
Lehmann, H.T., general editor, Doberstein, J.W., editor, Luther’s Works, Vol. 51, page 316
In contrast Scripture denies double imputation in Eze. 18:20: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Scripture also says we cannot be righteous and sinner at the same time (in Latin simul iustus et peccator) as taught by Luther in Eze. 33:13: “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die."
I know you can only fit so much in a RUclips comment, but there’s more to scripture than just those two verses in Ezekiel that talk about righteousness.
In the Bible there’s chastisement for those who love their sins more than God and there’s comfort for those who love God yet know they can’t meet his standard of justice
“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.”
-Ps 32
“But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” -Rom 4.
You can also see the Passover lamb which is a type & shadow for the Lord’s Supper where the Angel passes over the houses and doesn’t kill the firstborns because the lamb was sacrificed instead. There’s more that could be said, but to keep this reply from getting too long I’ll leave it there. Hope it’s helpful :)
@@kolab5620 You cited Psa. 32:2, which Paul also cited in Rom. 4:7. That verse does NOT say sin is covered by Christ' righteousness - that will contradict Eze. 18:20 and Scripture won't contradict itself. Neither does the verse say our sins imputed to Christ as taught by Luther. What it says match well with what Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine):
"Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE; HE SHALL NOT DIE. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE."
Based on that verse when a wicked person turns from sin (repents) AND does what is just and right he would be back to life - all his past wickedness will be forgotten or not counted/imputed on him anymore, those wickedness are not imputed on Christ.
In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith, cited by Paul in Rom. 4:3. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). Faith is NOT the only source of our righteousness - doing what is right also makes us righteous as it is written in 1 John 3:7. It is NOT salvation by works - our ability to do what is right and to have faith comes from and is only possible by grace through Christ as it is written in Rom. 5:19 that through Him we are made righteous.
I missed you in Edmonton, I appreciate your point of view
Great job guys😊
On the topic of Mary worship. The other day I heard pastor Rosebrough in a video talking about Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus. For the first time I started to consider how the Catholic and Orthodox exalt Mary and make her perfect, but she was considered unclean in scripture.
So I wonder how they deal with the fact that Mary was not exempt from making an offering like an "unclean" woman. If any Catholic trolls do show up I hope they can explain this to me. If Mary is so perfect and flawless then why was she not exempt from the sacrifice of 2 doves or 2 pigeons.
Any learn catholic would just flip it around and ask why Jesus, being perfect, would need circumcision? The obvious answer would be He didn't because He was without sin. But He did it as an act of obedience to the Law, because Christ had to keep the Law perfectly. Thus, for Mary being immaculately conceived, and without the stain of original sin, only kept the Law as an act of obedience, not because she needed it. I'm afraid your comment is no slam dunk, unless your talking to a catholic who is uncatechized.
That's true. But Mary did call God her savior. She is as scripture portrays her. A sinner who is blessed above all women forever!
@@leeenk6932circumcision was not for atonement. sacrifices were.
@@leeenk6932 I wasn't trying to dunk on any Catholics. I was just curious what nonsense they would recite.
You are probably right, they would probably just say she was just going through the motions for show, to be obedient. That's kind of boring.
@@shanekahrs4776 The way Jesus portrayed her is the best. Like in Luke 11:28 and Mark 3:34
How dare Jesus disrespect Mary.
On the very first point...the early church did not either license or approve or authorize inspiration, it received it. In this truth lies the kernel of answer to every Catholic challenge to sola scriptura.
Are you not aware that the same 4th century councils that listed the 27 books of the New Testament as canonical also listed the "Apocrypha" in the OT Canon?
When will Chemnitz’ summary of his Trent refutation be published? By CPH?
The Sacrament of Baptism is not age related. It is a gift from God.
Born with a fallen nature and tainted with original sin, infants also have need in the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Well said
hello , I just found your podcast . I started with finding the right church. I really enjoyed it. and then followed with the podcast around reformation. I am writing to ask a question or questions. I will give a little background. I grew up in Canada with a Hungarian Lutheran father and Canadian mother who con versed to Lutheran for my father but grew up pentecostal. In Canada my father gather enough people in the sixties to start a Lutheran church. it was Missouri synod and that is what I grew up. I didn't know there were other Lutheran churches. I married an Anglican but also Had Lutheran minister do our marriage. after children were baptized Anglican closer to our home.after they allowed Gay Pastors we left church. when we moved to Massachusetts we started attending a Lutheran church. ELCA. our children were confirmed . I did find them a little more liberal even women pastors. but now they hired a gay woman pastor and now we just received a little from out senior male , married pastor that he is going to transgender now. his wife is divorcing and his children are aware. as is the Bishop of our synod. my husband and I are no longer attending . there is no Missouri synod Lutheran church near by. so I listen to my son's in Beaufort, SC. I love when I attend his church and it is the church of my youth. I listen for the word. please How else can I doo . I miss church and communion. we go to Florida in the winter. found a church close to home but also Ella but doesn't seem so woke . . I am handicapped so travel can be difficult. I am finding churches becoming so woke. suggestions?
This is a problem many of us cradle Lutherans are facing today. I left the ELCA 20 years ago because I saw negative change coming. I too have no LCMS church close by. We did have a LCMS outreach in town, but it was never advertised and I only discovered it after they left and the contact number no longer working. I have since found a very small NALC church that hopefully will not be sent a woman pastor. The members are mostly older so I don't think a woman pastor would be a good fit. God bless you as you continue your search.🙏🏼
Pastor W said there is no prohibition in Scripture for praying to the saints? Woah! 1Tim 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” Pastor P’s point about divine omniscience required to receive prayer would negate any thought of prayer the saints and Mary. It would be idolatry and a violation of the 1st Commandment. Scripture is quite clear that the Holy Trinity alone is to be the object of our prayers. That’s my 2 cents.
In terms of the divorce remarriage issue discussed by the esteemed pastors, it seems that they are taking a similar position of most fundamentalist Baptist's. In my view this is a complicated question that really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Now, if marriage is considered a sacrament like it is for the Catholics and Orthodox then this would change the way it's handled.
He really only covered some very general things because so many things need to be done in a case-by-case basis.
We have so much resources and books dealing with issues like Church History, Scripture, the nature of the Church and many more, but are not being utilized.
Yes! Publish Chemnitz!!!
God's Word is THE authority. But sometimes God writes and other times he preaches, and then he works through a council or magisterium of his church.
100 m race. We watch who comes in first, second and third. Then the organizing body declares them so. Did the governing body determine the places or did the runners? The runners determined the race. The governing body simply stated the results (assuming no wrong doing). The early church simply identified what God had done.
Curious of your thoughts pastors. What if we simply accept Jesus’ Words about divorce and remarriage and we find ourselves falling short of His original intent of marriage, what if we just repent of our sins and ask for His mercy? I think trying to find a legal argument simply gets us deeper into the weeds. Do the Scriptures offer some legal cases for justified divorce and remarriage? Yes they do. But what about those of us who don’t fall into those legally established categories? Can’t we just repent of our past sins and move forward into a new life of Jesus’ grace and fidelity to the marriage currently in?
While watching this video, I got an ad for a Roman Catholic podcaster and app. 😅
The so-called Apocryphal books were not canonized by the Council of Trent. This happened in the 4th century.
The canonical scriptures are listed by the Synod of Hippo, in Canon XXIV, as follows:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, The Judges, Ruth, Kings iv books [1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], The Chronicles ii books, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus], the Twelve Books of the Prophets [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra ii books, Maccabees ii books.
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels iv books, Acts of the Apostles i book, Epistles of Paul xiv, Epistles of Peter, the Apostle ii, Epistles of John the Apostle iii, Epistles of James the Apostle i, one of Epistle of Jude the Apostle, Revelation of John, i.
The issue with the exception for victims of abuse, abandonment, and adultery (of which I feel for as I am one such victim), is that realistically, because of our human fallen nature, we all see ourselves as victims even if we're not. I know my ex probably casts herself as the victim even though she was actually the perpetrator, for example.
But here's the issue, how can we be sure we're really the victims when we know we have a sinful human nature as well as our ex spouses? Who gets to decide? If it's us, we'll always rule in our favor.
I am really liking Lutheranism, but how do Lutherans get out of this dilemma? Isn't the solution that one should not be allowed to remarry unless there is some type of trial like the Catholic Church does durring its annulment proceedings? But the Lutheran Church doesn't do this right?
I have no idea if this is true, but I heard that part of the reason the books that were picked were picked because they were the most moving in the spirit to the congregance back in yhe day???
Good morning! I have two questions.
1. My father was adamant about never getting divorced. My mom was violent and threatened to kill my dad, my sister and myself. She suffers from severe mental illness and is controlling and violent. My father refused to divorce her because he believed that he wasn’t allowed to. Is that a case where he could have divorced her to protect my sister and myself?
2. I married my ex when I was 25. There were red flags everywhere but I still pushed forward with getting married. He cheated on me multiple times and after 5 years I finally got divorced and moved on. I met my now husband 13 years later and we got married in 2017. Was I supposed to remain single after my divorce? Am I now going to hell? I believe that even this can be forgiven but am I wrong?
I don't know enough about the first situation to give an opinion. But if what you said on the 2nd is all true, then you did not sin.
Here's my non-professional opinion.
1) If what you say is true, if your father was set on avoiding divorce, I think a legal separation for the sake of the children would have been a wiser course of action than staying under the same roof.
2) Marriage implies that both parties have the will to marry and are fit to marry. If either or both are not free to marry, for example, because the intent to remain faithful to the other is absent, there's no real marriage in the first place. Then you will be left trying to save a marriage that doesn't really exist in the first place. If that's the case, you didn't sin by divorcing him. Perhaps you sinned by marrying him in the first place, but God desires to forgive us of all of our sins.
Really gotta timestamp the rumor
Yea, the first argument doesn’t have anything to do with the Church “having more authority” than scripture. That’s actually blatantly false and goes against Church teaching.
Marriage and remarriage of the divorced person while their x-spouse is still alive is committing adultery. Paul speaks of this adultery in multiple places not just Corinthians, Jesus points it out too. After I left the protes’tant Lutheran conference, and came into the synodical conference. I noticed this remarriage has happened all over the Lutheran church’s. This is troubling to me. Even after I brought it up, this very subject, trained pastors did not even have an idea of how to interpret the scripture which I think speaks even greater volumes about where the church is at today. It appears that peoples feelings and the way they just don’t wanna live the rest of their lives single, becomes more important than the words that are spoken from Jesus and the apostles.
Catholics get remarried too. Costs vary on the cost of getting an annulment. Been there.
These Catholic arguments and claims clearly drive Pastor Wolfmeuller up a tree.
Manifesting demon in a Roman collar.
Revelation 19:1-4 (KJV)
1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
4 And the four and twenty elders
and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
there is no single verse either in your 66-book bible or in 73-book Catholic Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to Scripture. Many books of NT were anonymous like the four Gospels, Acts and Hebrews. The early Christians did not agree with each other on what comprises Scripture. They unanimously agree on 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT - Esther, apocryphal books as well as 2 Pe, 2 & 3 John, Heb, James, Jude and Rev were disputed, together with Shepherds of Hermas and epistle of Barnabas. We need external authority to decide which books belong to Scripture. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples in truth, including things to come. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of NT was written - why would He?
Contrary to what you said Tradition was as old and even predated NT books. The Greek word (noun) for tradition is παράδοσις (Strong G3862) and it appears 13 times in 13 verses of the New Testament: Mat. 15:2, 3, 6; Mar. 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. 11:2, Gal. 1:14, Col. 2:8, 2 Th. 2:15, 3:6. While Jesus did condemn man-made tradition of the Pharisees and so did Paul in Col. 2:8, the same Greek word is also applied to the tradition of the apostles in 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Th. 2:15 and 3:6 which say (ESV):
1 Cor. 11:2: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (παράδοσις) even as I delivered them to you.”
2 Th. 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παράδοσις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
2 Th. 3:6: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition (παράδοσις) that you received from us.”
None of the verses you cited put tradition on par with scripture. Tradition is fine, even Jesus followed tradition when it did not contradict scripture (like worshiping in at synagogues). But when tradition comes on par with scripture and inevitably contradicts it is when Jesus sides with scripture as being over tradition. Think about the example you referenced in Matthew 15. Your argument could fit well with the Pharisees. They could use your argument to support their oral tradition. Think about it, they believed that the oral tradition was given directly by God to Moses and then kept through the elders that God had filled with the Spirit to help Moses and then passed down faithfully through their successors all the way to the Pharisees. When Jesus challenged their traditions as nullifying scripture, they could say back that Jesus and his disciples need their tradition. They could point to how their tradition was the keeper of the very scriptures Jesus pointed to. They could say that Jesus and his disciples need their tradition to provide clarity where scripture is oh so unclear. Rome’s argument fits well with the Pharisees in my opinion.
@@blondebeautician 2 Th. 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παράδοσις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
Paul told us to stand firm and hold both to written and unwritten tradition and you wrote tradition is not in par with Scripture?
The Jews has written Law (five books of Moses) and oral Law. You can get the latter online with English tradition. Show me any part of that Oral Law that support what the Pharisees said. They did not cite from Oral Law.
@@blondebeautician In 2 Th. 2:15 Paul wrote to stand firm and hold to tradition both written and unwritten. And you claimed tradition is not in par with Scripture?
The Jews have written Law (five books of Moses) and Oral Law. The latter was then put in written form after the destruction of the Temple. You can get them online with English translation. The Pharisees did not cite from Oral Law in what Jesus referred as tradition of men.
The Pharisees didn’t cut their oral law against Jesus? Let’s just go to scripture and check out what it says: “Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!”
It was Luther who taught that we sin when we do good works. Luther wrote:
Thus we sin even when we do good, unless God through Christ covers this imperfection and does not impute it to us. Thus it becomes a venial sin, though the mercy of God, who does not impute it for the sake of faith and the plea on behalf of this imperfection for the sake of Christ. Therefore, he who thinks that he might be regarded as righteous because of his works is very foolish, since if they were offered as a sacrifice to the judgment of God, they still would be found to be sins.
Luther, M. (1515 - 1516): Scholia (added commentaries) of Lectures on Romans
Oswald, H.C., editor, Tillmanns, W.G., translator, Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, page 276
Yes, we sin because....we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. Original sin is key to understanding. Even our good works have sin in them, but thanks be to God he cover's everything with his work on our behalf. So we do all the more good works because of our freedom to share God's grace and love even though nothing is done absolutely perfectly.
@@cathyp.4995 Excellent response Cathy
For by grace are we saved, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast- Ephesians 2: 8-9 That is clear teaching from the Bible that works do not save. It is not some idea of Luther.
well said
@@cathyp.4995 Tell me where does Scripture says that our good works have sins that must be covered by God? God, our Father, does reward us, His adopted children, for our good works (Pro. 13:13,, Psa. 18:20, 2 Jo. 8, Rev. 22:12 etc.) and that reward even includes eternal life (John 5:28-29, Rom. 2:6-7). Pro. 19:17 says: “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Psa. 18:20 says: “The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me”.
The Catholic Church does not believe it is above scripture. What we fear is bad translations and misuse of scripture teaching
If sola scriptura works, then why are there so many denominations of protestants?
I am with you on your first point, but perhaps you could back your claim with evidence from church documents.
I agree with your second point, too, but if they don't see that as an issue, well...
You have to distinguish what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Lutherans mean something very different than what other Protestants mean. For Lutherans it is only that the scriptures are the only infallible source of teaching. Now this comes from the 16th centaury reformers, so don't try to shoehorn in 19th centaury definitions of these words.
The problem with the denominations argument is again one of definitions. There are many Lutheran groups in various levels of theological agreement with each other. There are also various Catholics with various levels of theological agreement with each other. Fr. James Martin isn't exactly a welcome name among some Catholics.
@hofii2 I agree with you on that. Many Protestantists and Catholics don't understand what Sola Scriptura means because they take it as literally meaning that the Bible alone is a Christian's sole authority. I don't think Catholics and Lutherans are as far apart on that point as some make them out to be.
@jimmu2008 sorry for the delayed response. In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are not seen as separate or unequal, but as complementary sources of divine revelation. The Second Vatican Council's document *Dei Verbum* explains that both Scripture and Tradition flow from the same divine source and work together towards the same end. They are to be accepted and venerated with equal devotion and reverence (Dei Verbum, 9
Hope this helps
@@JMTeBOCK08 I have no issue with that, but as I understand it, "Tradition" in this context refers to the "oral" parts of "the Apostolic Deposit of Faith," and not to things like the Stations of the Cross or nativity creches.
The comment made by the other pastor, not Wolfmeuller, about the persons situation is irrelevant! Jesus doesn’t give any situational circumstances where this issue doesn’t apply. He and Paul simply in numerous places says that divorce and remarriage is an abomination of the purpose and picture that marriage stands for.
Now because of many different circumstances there are Christian people who have been married and divorced two times and they just sit in church as if nothing’s wrong
, and we wonder why the church is falling under so much judgment nowadays?!
I don't believe we know how they feel about their divorce unless we actually speak with them about it. When I have done so, I find plenty of remorse and a desire to do better. I would rather have folks with that attitude than smug pietists who look down on people that struggle badly in certain areas of life. We can't undo the past, but we can repent of it. Maybe that remarried person confesses daily and knows deeply that he/she is a sinner who looks to Christ for forgiveness. I believe that such a person understands grace very well.
@@timllewellyn884 when it’s been done there’s no going back but yes there is forgiveness. But moving forward we need to keep it in the correct perspective and leave emotions out of it. God’s will is His will, regardless of how we feel.
We have no fault divorce. My wife left me for non biblical reasons. She abandoned the marriage when I was relatively young. Should I never remarry despite having been a good husband and father?
@ the outcome of your marriage regardless of what you tell me on this thread, is that both of you played a role in it. Whether you got married to her as Christian’s or you two decided to get married in view of God’s will, it wasn’t centered in Christ, and therefore you reap the consequences. That being said, if she is still alive and you remarry, you are committing adultery because your union whether you are seeking Christ or not is a holy matrimony, which is now destroyed. As God word says, if you remarry while your spouse is still alive, you are committing adultery. Notice how nowhere in scripture does Paul or Jesus give any makeshift arrangements that cancel this truth out.
@ read what Paul says in Romans 7
Do you not know, brothers and sisters-for I am speaking to those who know the law-that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.
Notice that this law applies only as long as the other person is still alive.
Even the Jews did not accept the Apocryphal books as canonical.
The Jews did not reject the Apocrypha or settle their canon until towards the end of the 2nd century AD. At least that is what my Jewish Study Bible says.
@jimmu2008 The Jewish canon was accepted by the first century as the same books we have in our Old Testament. Josephus, for example, lists the same books we gave today.
@@darylrahfeldt2162No, he doesn't. Josephus's list does not match the modern list. It is close, but he says that there are 22 books, not 24, and he doesn't name them all. And please remember, I cited a Jewish source which says that the Jews had not settled the Canon until the second century AD. But the source noted that some rabbis treated the Wisdom of Sirach as Scripture much later than that. I am referring to the first edition of the Jewish Study Bible published by Oxford University. There's a second edition that I don't have. You can find some Jewish sources online, I am sure.
If both parties committed adultery, none can re-marry
if tradition was over the word of God then we would all still be following the pharisee's. Likewise Adam and Eve wouldn't have been in the wrong for eating the fruit as they would've just said that tradition lead them to change it. Or how about the last verses of revelation that curses people who add or remove anything from the prophecies in the book which I would think would apply to all the prophecies of scripture as Paul says let anyone who gives a different gospel be anathema. The Orthodox who condemn Lutherans for leaving the Romans is also hilarious to me as they left over a sentence of the creed and we left because the Romans were blatantly attacking the scriptures and the gospels. We might not have the passing of the laying on of hands to pastors or whatever but I would remind them of two things 1) that even if Peter was the pope of the church he would have to repent and correct the church for it's attack on the word of God and Peter himself was rebuked by Paul in his day for conceding to the circumscion party and so even if Peter had some higher authority it's not like he or any theorectical church he founded would be above rebuke for going against the word of God. 2) in the book of Acts God gave his spirit to some gentile believers even before they were baptized as a sign that they to were to be saved so it's not like God can't give his spirit without the laying on of hands and if I remember right God commanded in another place for gentiles to be baptized and the current Orthodox and Catholic church are in this way condemned because they themselves go against the word of God and instead of passing on the spirit as God would've commanded they instead try and keep it to themselves. They are like the guy in acts that tried to buy the gift of miracles in that they keep the spirit to themselves for their own prestige and authority and greed and if the Orthodox church was justified in leaving Rome over one sentence of the creed how much more credence would the reformers have? At least as long as they keep to the word and spirit of God.
Also for argument against praying to mary we have Luke11:27 As he said these things, pa woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, q“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, r“Blessed rather are those swho hear the word of God and tkeep it!”
As for infant baptism in the passage of Paul where it talks about divorce it says 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
If the children then are holy then their is no reason to not get them baptized as the argument against infant baptism is usually something along the lines that they need to prepare themselves or be made good enough or make a descision themselves but this in itself is a misinterpretation on what baptism is and with correct interpretation of baptism I see no reason why something that someone who is holy is to not be baptized. I also think part of the argument against baptism to aided by the fact that parent's don't teach and disciple their kids as much as they should and so many of them fall away later in life where I think the apostles would have the infants be baptized and would push the parents especially the fathers to teach the children the faith my reasoning behind this belief is that when Jesus commanded to make disciples and baptize them these two things go hand in hand.
You lost me on the biceps mention. RIDICULOUS.
I feel bad for that Catholic woman because you are giving her husband advice based the assumption that she feels that she cannot talk directly to Jesus. She probably doesn't feel that way at all, and now you possibly have prejudiced her husband to read motives or fears into her actions and beliefs that may not be there at all. And now she probably will be put on the defensive. Lord have mercy!
As her husband he is the head of her home and responsible for the Christian education of his family members. To leave her in false faith and practice is not loving.
@run4cmt that doesn't answer my objection. My objection is that the advice assumes a motive that may not be her actual motive. Pastor W. said to ask her why she feels she cannot approach Jesus directly. The question presumes without even asking that she feels that way.
I have friends that in Catholic elemntry school they asked why they can't just talk to directly to Jesus and the Nun taught them they need to go through Marry. 😢
@andrewkreais3683 they were taught incorrectly. The nun was wrong, or they misunderstood her. A Catholic nun is not necessarily an authority on Catholic doctrine or practice. The magisterium and its documents are. We are fortunate today to have the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an authoritative guide. But the nun was wrong.
@jimmu2008. I completely agree that the nun was wrong. But saddly you have children being taught at a young age that their is a Barrier between them and Jesus
Your contempt for your Catholic brethren is distressing and disappointing.
The contempt is for the false teaching, not for the people.
And since there is no false teaching, must for us Catholic brethren
@@averh6347 Not a productive way to argue.
@@andrewpacker2592[Edited comment] I disagree. I do think the tone of his voice reveals some contempt for Roman Catholics themselves, not just "false" teaching. Generally, I find that Pastor Wolfmüller comes across as very kind, and I think he probably is, but he seems to slip into expressing this side from time to time. When he talks about Lutheranism and its basis in the Bible, I think he is a great teacher. I enjoy how he breaks things down. But in this video at least, he didn't represent the Catholic position well, so he didn't even refute the real thing.
I took one look at him and knew how hateful he'd be. As a Catholic convert, I still had a soft spot for Protestants and would defend them; but I've gotten burned so bad by people full of prejudice and hate that I instantly shudder when I see the word "pastor" or "bible-believing" or the like, because I know what's coming next.