Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Church|Fri, Jul. 03 2009 10:17 AM EDT

ELCA Head: Church Unity Will Not Be Lost by Vote

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

The head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) said this week that he has “deep confidence” that the unity within the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination will not be lost amid concerns that a “church-dividing decision” might result from next month’s churchwide assembly.

Furthermore, unity will not be won or lost at the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly in a plenary session vote, clarified ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson ahead of the Aug. 17-23 gathering in Minneapolis.

“Sometimes, when I hear concerns about division in the ELCA, I worry that they express a fear that unity depends on the actions of church leaders or assemblies,” Hanson expressed in a statement. “Our unity, however, comes to us because God gives it freely and undeservedly in Jesus Christ.

“The unity of Christ’s church is God’s daily work through the Holy Spirit calling, gathering, enlightening and sanctifying us with the gospel,” he added.

Like a number of denominations, ELCA has been wracked by issues surrounding homosexuality, which has become one of the most hotly debated issues in secular society and the Church today.

And next month, ELCA is expected to adopt its first statement on human sexuality based on proposals that conservative Lutherans have rejected as ones that would liberalize the denomination's stance on homosexuality.

Earlier this year, the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality released a long-awaited report acknowledging that there is neither a consensus nor an emerging one in the denomination on homosexuality. At the same time, the task force recommended that individual congregations be allowed to choose whether to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships to be ordained.

Currently, the ELCA allows the ordination of gays and lesbians if they remain celibate.

"They (the proposals) clearly imply that same-sex blessings and the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons in committed relationships are acceptable within the ELCA," noted a conservative group of Lutheran scholars and church leaders in a letter cautioning voting members against changing the denomination's current position on same-sex blessings and the ordination of partnered gays.

"The teaching of the church will be changed," warned the letter mailed this past May to the assembly’s 1,045 voting members. "We should not make such an important decision without clear biblical and theological support."

As the sexuality issue has created significant rifts in other denominations and also put a strain on ELCA, Hanson has encouraged all members – those attending the assembly and those not attending – to take part in “50 Days of Prayer” to give public witness that ELCA is a church united in evangelical mission for the sake of the world.

In his latest message, dated Tuesday, Hanson again urged for a stronger push toward unity from the grassroots – unity within the denomination and also with other Christians throughout the world.

“Rather than approach the assembly apprehensively, I invite you to see it as an opportunity for faith-filled witness to the larger human family that struggles with division and yearns for healing and wholeness that is real and true,” the presiding bishop stated.

“We live in a polarized culture that equates unity with uniformity and sees differences as a reason for division. This moment, and our witness as a church body in the midst of it, deserves something better from us,” Hanson continued.

“We have the opportunity to offer the witness of our unity in Christ─diverse, filled with different-ness and differences, broken in sin, and yet united and whole in Christ. This moment deserves the witness of a community that finds and trusts its unity in Christ alone, engages one another with respect, and seeks a communal discernment of the Spirit’s leading,” he added.

With 4.7 million members, ELCA is the largest Lutheran church body in the United States and the fourth largest Protestant body.

Aside from acting on a proposed social statement on human sexuality and a recommendation on ministry policies, ELCA voting members at next month’s churchwide assembly will consider various churchwide program proposals, conduct elections and consider memorials and resolutions.

The ELCA Churchwide Assembly is held once every two years.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
  • Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:22 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Dan said, "Antiochus is the little horn"

    Really; if that is true...then you should not have a difficult time SPECIFICALLY addressing the five points that were posted on Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:52 pm, right?

  • Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    " Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, "there is the Catholic Church" [what do you know]. It is not permitted without authorization from "the bishop" either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever "he approves is also pleasing to God." Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid."

    Strange that the Bishop of Antioch could say this in 107 A.D. since according to OnLine the Catholic Church did not originate until the 6th century. Perhaps Ignatius was "prophetic?"

  • Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    "Antiochus is the little horn"

    I agree with the Baptist; his Holy Spirit is completely accurate than your holy spirit.

  • Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Well, at least they gave a position...

  • Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "That elusive response does not address Daniel 7; maybe he can explain it to you and then you can share it with me... "

    Daniel 7 has been addressed by a Baptist cohort of yours and was posted here. He stated his position and says your position is wrong, and right out of the Middle Ages.

  • Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    (And the priest at this morning's Mass said he always avoids those "who have God in their pocket" since they don't know what they are talking about)

    That elusive response does not address Daniel 7; maybe he can explain it to you and then you can share it with me...

  • Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    (Then you'll have to take it up with your Baptist friends...)

    You claim that your faith is the one true faith, so, I assumed that you would be able to explain this chapter with ease. If my understanding ot this chapter is wrong then you sould be able to explain it; seeing that your faith holds the truth...

  • Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Is this all you have to say..."Doesn't surprise me since you pass on all things"...What about my last post that clearly dismisses Antiochus as the little horn?"

    Then you'll have to take it up with your Baptist friends who interpreted the verse because under "Sola Scriptura" his post (under his Holy Spirit) is as valid as your post; he says "Antiochus is the little horn" and he also says "who cares?"

    And the priest at this morning's Mass said he always avoids those "who have God in their pocket" since they don't know what they are talking about.

  • Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Is this all you have to say..."Doesn't surprise me since you pass on all things"...What about my last post that clearly dismisses Antiochus as the little horn?


    I never said 569 was a starting date; maybe it was someone else. Anyway, Antiochus is not the little horn as you proposed; do you have someone else in mind?

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "but I will have to pass on asking Catholic Answers for the meaning of this chapter..."

    Doesn't surprise me since you pass on all things...such as the Catholic Church "founded in 569?," well-after the Ecumenical Church Councils of Nicea (325), and all of the Bishops of Rome in the lineage of St Peter. And still no name for "who?" founded the Church in 569? (since all Churches in history have a name for their founder?

    "A great enemy of the Church, a precursor of the Antichrist, will take the title of Saviour. Heretics will join this precursor of the Antichrist and persecute the true Church of Christ. Their cunning will be great, so great in fact that they will be able to draw many righteous men to their side. The Bishops in general will remain faithful, but all will, on account of their courage and faithfulness to the Church suffer much, yet many Protestants will console the children of God by their conversion to the Catholic Church. Immediately, preceding Antichrist there will be starvation and earthquakes.

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Something to consider:

    A "time" in Bible prophecy represents a "year". A prophetic "time" or "year" had 360 days. In prophecy, each "day" has a symbolic value, and represents one literal year. (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6, "I have appointed thee each day for a year.")

    So, the 1260 "days" of the little horn's supremacy symbolizes 1260 literal years. A prophetic "month" had 30 days, therefore: 42 "months" - 42X30=1260 days.

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn is very problematic for a number of reasons:

    1) In Daniel 7 these horns are not represented by single individuals; but kingdoms. Also note that it was DIFFERENT from the rest.

    2) Antiochus' kingdom was weak and tributary to the Romans,

    3) verse 8 of Daniel 7 says, "there came up among them" - meaning, among the ten horns; so, that would mean that Antiochus would have lived long enough to come up among the ten horns-during the division of Rome,

    4) if Antiochus is the little horn, which three kingdoms out of the ten did he uproot?,

    5) Daniel says that the little horn would rule for "a time, and times and the dividing of times" - this same time period is also mentioned in Rev. 11:2 - "A Time, Times, and an half", Rev. 11:3 - "Twelve Hundred and sixty days", Rev. 12:6 - "Twelve Hundred and sixty days", Rev. 12:14 - "A Time, Times, and half a time" ...

    How can these verses which all describe the same time period apply to Antiochus Epiphanes?

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now who conquered Greece? Daniel 7 goes on to describe a fourth beast (kingdom) as strong as iron; a perfect description of the Roman Empire, not Greece. Besides, Greece was not divided into ten smaller kingdoms represented by the ten horns ON THE head OF the fourth beast. Verse 41 says of this fourth kingdom (Rome), "the kingdom shall be divided" and true to enough the Roman Empire was in fact divided originally into the following kingdoms:

    Anglo-Saxons (England), Franks (France), Alemanni (Germany), Burgundians (Switzerland), Lombards (Italy), Visgoths (Spain), Suevi (Portugal, Ostrogoths (disappeared from history), Vandals (disappeared from history), Heruli (disappeared from history).

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Thank you for the suggestion but I will have to pass on asking Catholic Answers for the meaning of this chapter. Scholars are not unanimous that the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabaean revolt; many date it much earlier. Nevertheless, I would like to move on to the meaning of this chapter. Daniel 7 actually parallels chapter 2 but gives us additional revelation that was not previously given.

    We agree that the first kingdom is the Babylonian Empire followed Medo-Persian Empire but the third kingdom is Greece not the Achaemenid Empire. Here are a few reasons to consider: 1) Daniel 2 depicts this third kingdom as a kingdom of brass which clearly depicts the brazen armor of the Greek soldiers, 2) Daniel 7 says the third beast had four heads representing the four generals who divided the kingdom in four after Alexander died; the generals were (Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus), and 3) history shows that the Greeks defeated the Medo-Persian Empire.

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Dan,

    Can you explain these verese?
    No, I am but a humble servant of the Lord. Jesus gave the power of "binding and loosing" to his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...whoever hears you hears Me...I am not arrogant to believe my interpretation would be the Word of God; (this seems to be something "stuck in your craw" like "water Baptism" is stuck in the craw of Believer. If you want Jesus' Holy Church's explanation ask Catholic Answers but I can give you a Protestant (Sola Scriptura) answer which will be a Logical 101 error...sine theirs is as good as yours under Luther's rules: (Let's not forget you have still not given me the name of who you believe founded the Catholic Church in 539 (several centuries after the Popes have been active in the Ecumunical Church councils):

    So here is the Baptist [Protesant] translation:
    (Interesting since Luther threw out Maccabees becasue he did not want youse guys to know about Purgatory and you fell for it):

    The Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabaean revolt, a rebellion against the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted orthodox Jews. The hero of the book, Daniel, is a courtier of the Babylonian ruler Belshazzar, the son of king Nabonidus and regent during his father's absence.

    In the seventh chapter, Daniel describes future events, which are in fact events that took place when the Book of Daniel was composed. This chapter is one of the oldest apocalyptic texts that was ever written; only the Book of watchers (a part of the First book of Enoch) is older. The interpretation of this vision is comparatively simple, as we will see below. The translation is the Revised Standard Version.

    The four beasts stand for the great eastern monarchies.
    The lion with eagle's wings: the Babylonian empire (which existed until 539 BCE). The image is well chosen, because animals like these are sometimes depicted in Babylonian art.
    The bear: the Median empire (which existed until 550).
    The four-headed leopard with fowl's wings: the Achaemenid empire (539-330).
    The ten-horned beast with iron teeth: the empire of Alexander the Great (336-323). Alexander was often depicted with the ram's horns of his divine father Ammon.

    Antiochus IV Ephiphanes The ten horns represent Alexander's successors; the eleventh is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews and blasphemed against their God. Therefore, this horn is said to be speaking 'boastful words'.

    He is punished by God, who is presented to us as an ancient of days. (The image of God as an ancient man can also be found in texts like Job 36.26 and Psalm 102.25.) The author of Daniel believes that God will give the power in all the world to a mighty ruler who will bring peace to mankind (the 'one like a son of man' who comes 'with the clouds of heaven'). This ruler can not be identified, but several ancient authors have interpreted this text as relating to the Messiah.

  • Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Can you explain these verese?



    Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

    And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

    And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time (Daniel 7:23-25).

  • Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    More on St.Apollinaris:

    The miracles he wrought there (in Ravenna) soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city. He was found half-dead on the seashore, and kept in concealment by the Christians, but was captured again and compelled to walk on burning coals and a second time expelled. But he remained in the vicinity, and continued his work of evangelization. We find him then journeying in the Roman province of Aemilia [in Italy]. A third time he returned to Ravenna. Again he was captured, hacked with knives, had scalding water poured over his wounds, was beaten in the mouth with stones because he persisted in preaching, and was flung into a horrible dungeon, loaded with chains, to starve to death; but after four days he was put on board a ship and sent to Greece. There the same course of preachings, miracles and sufferings continued; and when his very presence caused the oracles to be silent, he was, after a cruel beating, sent back to Italy. All this continued for three years, and a fourth time he returned to Ravenna. By this time Vespasian was Emperor, and he, in answer to the complaints of the pagans, issued a decree of banishment against the Christians. Apollinaris was kept concealed for some time, but as he was passing out of the gates of the city, was set upon and savagely beaten, probably at Classis, a suburb, but he lived for seven days, foretelling meantime that the persecutions would increase, but that the Church would ultimately triumph. It is not certain what was his native place, though it was probably Antioch. Nor is it sure that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as has been suggested. The precise date of his consecration cannot be ascertained, but he was Bishop of Ravenna for twenty-six years.

    God Bless grand Saint

  • Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Happy Appollaris Day - Those who die for Christ we still remember:

    St. Apollinaris was a bishop, martyr, and disciple of St. Peter. He was mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Apollinaris was born in Antioch, Turkey, and the Bishop of Rome (St Peter) appointed him the first bishop of Ravenna, in Italy. As such he faced nearly constant persecution. He and his flock were exiled from Ravenna by Emperor Vespasian. On his way out of the city he was identified, arrested as being the leader, tortured, and martyred. St. Apollinaris died in the first century.

    God bless, we need more of you today for the Church is built upon the blood of martyrs.

  • Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes:

    "The passage you referred to is Acts 16:31, which reads, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Sounds pretty simple. However, the Bible says much more about salvation and forgiveness. Jesus repeatedly affirmed that if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven (Matt. 6:15). When Jesus breathed on the apostles in John 20, he gave them the power to retain sins. But if oneâ

  • Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Sorry, but you have not proved otherwise....there has been no post from you addressing Daniel 7.... Please, explain this chapter and provide a sound interpretation of it....

    Let's begin in God's Word and then we can move on to secular History....

  • Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part II

    These events are all well before 569.

    Council of Nicea - 325 - [Boy you are really a poor historian--as how could such a momentous event in Christian history under Pope Sylvester 1st if the Catholic Church wasn't founded until 2 1/2 centuries later]

    First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius.

    '-- Council of Carthage (397)
    Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

    -- Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
    Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
    Council of Carthage (419)

    So - "O what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive." Willy Shakespeare (another truth not mentioned in Scripture [like Ovid, Plato, Aristotle, and thousands of others)

  • Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part I
    OnLine: "Since Catholicism arose out of the collapse of the Roman Empire as Scripture [the Roman Empire collapsed long after Scripture was written] and History [source please?] attests then it cannot be the Church that Jesus founded,in fact, it is indeed the little horn spoken of by the prophet Daniel; can you prove otherwise? [your confusing this with the little big horn--Custers last stand]

    Yes, I already have "proved otherwise" and by Protestants no less. This is why Adolph Harnack a virulent "anti-Catholic" says ... to deny Peter was in Rome is pure Protestant prejudice. He also said Sola Scriptura would not be recognized by Apostolic Christians (for one thing you got it from a Catholic priest named M Luther) Strange you should follow this priest, a Catholic no less. And all the other things "Catholic" that are followed, like the Gregorian calendar [Pope Gregory] and the change in the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by Pope Sylvester the 1st (and later affirmed by another Catholic, Constantine, the first Christian Emperor.

    Again, the events listed below are history and found in any European History book, and these events are much earlier than your so called "fiction of the Catholic Church being founded in 569" [this is in no history book nor have you given the name of its founder (Jesus who died in 28 AD)[who founded it in 569?] I would be satisfied with the name of a standard history text book that asserts this so called claim...you are getting like Prophet -if she doesn't know something she just makes it up, and wings it.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Peter died of old age, as prophecied by Jesus.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Since Catholicism arose out of the collapse of the Roman Empire as Scripture and History attests then it cannot be the Church that Jesus founded, in fact, it is indeed the little horn spoken of by the prophet Daniel; can you prove otherwise?

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued (2)
    PART II
    Incidentally as my prior post indicates these several Councils also shows your post false - Catholic Church founded "sometime around 569 or Fall of Rome."

    How could these Councils overseen by the Popes have occurred "before you so called founding date- 569?"

    Posted earlier:

    -- Council of Carthage (397)
    Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

    -- Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
    Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
    Council of Carthage (419)

    So - "O what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive." Willy Shakespeare (another truth not mentioned in Scripture [like Ovid, Plato, Aristotle, and thousands of others)

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued

    PART I
    Yes, enlighten yourself with missing the first 500 years which is hardly a minor mishap; and begin with the first Christian prayer book written about 70 AD which describes the Christian service (same Mass as we have today)...also confess your sins in Church (which we still do today); (to be continued)
    No - Year 569 is not right since Logic 101 - "an event cannot happen before the mover (host) of the event was founded" another principle which cannot be avoided. So how could St Augustine been appointed as Bishop of Hippo in the 300/400s by a Church which did not supposedly come into being until 569? And of course the Church Councils overseen by the Popes of that time before 569?
    Ignatius [Bishop of Antioch on his way to execution as martyr]
    then read his 7 letters of St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, [Patristic Father of the Church], these written only 12 years after the death of St. John: this is part of his letter to the Smyrnians:
    107 AD

    "Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount--the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions [heresies] concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty. [these are WORKS].

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PART III (St Peter's Death in Babylon (Rome)

    (supported by virulent anti-Catholic Protestant scholars, but scholars interested in truth)

    Next -- Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan.

    PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero.

    "The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."

    On the other hand, 1 Peter 5:13 IS plausibly interpreted as testifying to a Roman residence of the apostle."

    "...it does seem highly probable that Peter did visit Rome. As has been stated previously, the tradition is too old and too unchallenged in antiquity to be challenged with any force in the present."

    "...if the suggestions and implications which are drawn from certain of these early notices are studied with those of the later sources, there results a most persistent tradition which sets the martyrdom of Peter in Rome within the reign of Nero (most probably between A.D. 64 and 67)."

    Daniel O'Connor
    "In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: (1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. (2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. (3) He was remembered in the traditions of the Church and in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. (4) His body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later...came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave."

    The above citations above are all Protestans; this one being the foremost of his day:

    One honest Protestant historian and theologian -- Adolph Harnack -- wrote that "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is NOT BLIND. The martyr death of peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PART II (St Peter's death in Babylon (Rome)

    We call on the Protestant scholars:

    We call the biggest anti-Catholic critic of all time, who wrote the 500-page volume THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, the Anglican Fish of the last century, George Salmon, who James White can't hold a candle to and in fact rips off all of Salmon's arguments. Tell us about Peter, Dr. Salmon?

    SALMON: "Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was NEVER at Rome...I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death....[but some] Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was NEVER at Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin."

    "For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and NONE but Rome made the claim."

    "If this evidence for Peter's Roman martyrdom be not deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate."

    Next -- German historian and archaeologist Hans Lietzmann.

    LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document."

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Again, the Roman Church arose out of the Roman Empire...both Scripture and History demonstrates this...

    This is correct when Peter took it to Rome according to historians both Catholic and Protestant (Adolph Harnack, the foremost Theologian and Historian of his time) [see last post below}.

    "On the other hand stands united Catholicism -- immovable amid the ebb and flow of human innovations, impregnable to the attacks of heresies, indifferent to the rise and fall of empires, surviving spoliation, superior to schism, steadfast in persecution, and calmly watching the disintegration of its enemies! Thus does the changeless Church of Rome endure, and thus she will endure, till Christ who founded her shall come again.

    "Wonderful Body of the Living Christ! In faith, in sacraments, in doctrine, in ceremonial, in language, in discipline, in its identical catechism, and in its one obedience to a single head in chapel, in cathedral, in hamlet, in metropolis, in Europe, Asia, Africa, America and on the islands of all seas -- everywhere and at all times it is the same!

    "Surely if the testimony of 2000 years does not effectively prove the Church of Rome to be the institution founded by our Savior on the Rock of Peter, then has the world no Church of Christ at all."
    "The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dan,

    Again, the Roman Church arose out of the Roman Empire...both Scripture and History demonstrates this...

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Was that a serious statement?"

    St. Peter has such important meaning because of his role in the history of salvation. When you read the New Testament, one will find that after the name of Jesus, the name of St. Peter is the one that appears the most (195 times--more than all the other Apostles put together). He is the one that Jesus chose to be the head of the Apostles and he told Peter to â

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dan -"We are the vine the branches are the Orthodox and the Byzantine."

    Was that a serious statement?


    John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches.
    (That would be Jesus talking.)

    He has already declared John 15:1 that HE is the True Vine, but he had not before declared that every disciple is a branch of the Vine. Observe that, NOT Denominations, but church members, are the branches.



    Matthew Henrys Concise Commentary

    15:1-8 Jesus Christ is the Vine, the true Vine. The union of the human and Divine natures, and the fulness of the Spirit that is in him, resemble the root of the vine made fruitful by the moisture from a rich soil. Believers are branches of this Vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree, diffuses sap to it, and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all true Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, meet in Christ. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and unable to stand but as they are borne up. The Father is the Husbandman. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must prosper. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes, and from a Christian we look for a Christian temper, disposition, and life. We must honour God, and do good: this is bearing fruit. The unfruitful are taken away. And even fruitful branches need pruning: for the best have notions, passions, and humours, that require to be taken away, which Christ has promised to forward the sanctification of believers, they will be thankful, for them. The word of Christ is spoken to all believers: and there is a cleansing virtue in that word, as it works grace, and works out corruption. And the more fruit we bring forth, the more we abound in what is good, the more our Lord is glorified. In order to fruitfulness, we must abide in Christ, must have union with him by faith. It is the great concern of all Christ's disciples, constantly to keep up dependence upon Christ, and communion with him. True Christians find by experience, that any interruption in the exercise of their faith, causes holy affections to decline, their corruptions to revive, and their comforts to droop. Those who abide not in Christ, though they may flourish for awhile in outward profession, yet come to nothing. The fire is the fittest place for withered branches: they are good for nothing else. Let us seek to live more simply on the fulness of Christ, and to grow more fruitful in every good word and work, so may our joy in Him and in his salvation be full.

    http://bible.cc/john/15-5.htm

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, I guess it is true. The bread and the wine really aren't literally Jesus' body and blood.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ""Where is your well? I've never seen water flowing out of a catholic yet...."

    That's because you weren't at the wedding feast at Cana - our Founder's first miracle, "They have no wine." Thank you, Mom."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    That didn't happen at the wedding feast of Cana. Bible-literate people would realize that.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "We are the vine' the branches are the Orthodox and the Byzantine."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Lie. Jesus is the vine. Catholics are what is pruned off the vine. They are a cult.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Why not. We wrote the Gospel. I meditate on it each day -the Rosary is the Gospel."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Luke was a catholic? The rosary is the Gospel? Wow, another comment pushing catholicism into the catagory of "cult". The catholics may have perverted the gospel, but they didn't write it. As I read the New Testament, I see no mention of the catholic church.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Scriptures and History prove that Catholicism emerged from the Roman Empire . . .

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Repent and believe the gospel."

    Why not. We wrote the Gospel. I meditate on it each day -the Rosary is the Gospel.

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Where's your branches?"

    We are the vine' the branches are the Orthodox and the Byzantine.

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Where is your well? I've never seen water flowing out of a catholic yet...."

    That's because you weren't at the wedding feast at Cana - our Founder's first miracle, "They have no wine." Thank you, Mom.

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." Jesus said that too. Where's your branches?

    Jesus also said "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

    Where is your well? I've never seen water flowing out of a catholic yet....

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Jesus: "Very truly, I say to you, "unless" you "eat the flesh of the Son of Man" and "drink his blood," you have no life in you."

    Jesus. Your words are desperate. Britzy

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I have never called God a liar, neither do I limit his power, he is all powerful."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Actually, you do limit His power. You don't think He can forgive sins and you don't think He can hear your prayers.

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    On your head be it dan...

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    "dan, drinking blood is an abomination, you either believe the Bible, or you don't.

    I have never called God a liar, neither do I limit his power, he is all powerful.

    Your words are desperate.

    Repent and believe the gospel.

    Yes, my? words are really desperate, Jesus: "Very truly, I say to you, "unless" you "eat the flesh of the Son of Man" and "drink his blood," you have no life in you."

    Thank you, my Lord. I enjoy Your Flesh and drink Your Blood" daily as You, being God, has commanded.

    Britzy (Didymus II) has replaced you as god; however she will be kept busy committing people to hell; unlike Your Mercy for us sinners. By the way, thanks for Your Mom and Your Death on the cross. Deo Gratias, Deo Gratias, Deo Gratias.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    dan, drinking blood is an abomination, you either believe the Bible, or you don't.

    I have never called God a liar, neither do I limit his power, he is all powerful.

    Your words are desperate.

    Repent and believe the gospel.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oh, come on Dan; since you say that I am off sync give me the proper interpretation regarding the little horn in Daniel chapter 7.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So far, nothing the catholics have presented have any evidence of being true.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Not really. It's a fact; Purgatory has already been discussed..."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    And found to be a false teaching.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And yet another night passes as they ignore the Church Fathers and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ;

    "Just checking to see if any of the Prots passed my quiz; and none of them have for a 4th night. I didn't think they did-so it remains that the largest Christian Church (founded by Jesus in Scripture) No prize - no reward - an F is once again earned by the board."

    No - Year 569 is not right since Logic 101 - "an event cannot happen before the mover (host) of the event was founded" another principle which cannot be avoided. So how could St Augustine been appointed as Bishop of Hippo in the 300/400s by a Church which did not supposedly come into being until 569? And of course the Church Councils overseen by the Popes of that time before 569?

    Going wink wink - another enjoyable evening though, thank you all

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Church Fundraisers
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links