Dead To The World

[RandyK]

You may have heard of this "jar of life" analogy - you have a large jar, first you put in rocks, plenty of empty space left; then you slip in pebbels, there's still space; then you fill the remaining gaps with sand to volume, and it's finally full. However, if you change the order by putting in pebbles or sand first, there'll be no room for rocks. This is a famous demonstration to teach time management and priorities, but it also applies in a lot of other areas including the primary, secondary and tertiaru issues in Christianity. Primary issues are the essential beliefs, the core narrative of the bible - creation, desecration (or fall), redemption and glorification, that is the narrative of our life that shapes our worldview through which we perceive all the information input from the world, and that sets us apart from the world; secondary issues are denominational differences in practices and traditions, while tertiary issues are theologies and doctrines. The way I see it, trinity belongs to the third category, and this statement alone will upset a lot of folks who insist that trinity is the foundation of Christianity instead of those four pillars I named, they identify themselves as "trinitatian" first before a child of God and play identity politics against others, that's how they get hostile. And if you're obsessed with the "sand" that is these theological positions and stances, you won't have any mental capacity for the "pebbles" and "rocks" that really matter. Sorry for this rant, I don't mean to derail this thread, just to explain why trinity topic should be banned.

I don't at all care if a thread is "derailed," unless an issue is being deliberately ignored. We disagree perhaps because we don't agree on your priority list.

I wouldn't at all put "doctrines" in the last and 3rd group. Doctrine is the bulwark of the Christian faith. Among doctrines I would put Trinitarianism as a high priority--perhaps not the highest. I should think that Salvation through Christ is number one, along with living in Christ.

But Trinitarianism is very important because our Salvation is contingent upon our faith in Christ. For this kind of faith to be viable Christ needs to be seen as Savior, Lord, and God.

Hence, the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son. I do understand that some sects have had trouble with the Spirit as a Person in the Trinity, but that does not detract from essential Trinitarianism, which sees the Father as God and the Son as equally God.

I would clearly put denominationalism last because often that is simply dependent upon the society you grew up in. If you grew up in Scandinavia or Germany you might be a Lutheran. If you grew up in the UK you might be Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian.

What is much more essential when considering denominations is whether the church you attend is conservative or spiritual, spiritual or purely nominal? Sometimes a large denomination may be very weak, but individual churches within that denomination solid and valuable.

But you seem to distinguish between "essential beliefs" and "doctrine." I don't see where the dividing line is except with your personal consideration of what is more valuable to you?

The battle over the Trinity was one of the 1st major theological battles in Christian history. There is a reason for this. Those who took the wrong side in this often ended up in heresy-land.

One heresy leads to another, and heretics ended up in full-blown pagan philosophy of one sort or another. It was important to maintain certain tenets to keep things on track with your "primaries."

Just my opinion....

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't at all care if a thread is "derailed," unless an issue is being deliberately ignored. We disagree perhaps because we don't agree on your priority list.

I wouldn't at all put "doctrines" in the last and 3rd group. Doctrine is the bulwark of the Christian faith. Among doctrines I would put Trinitarianism as a high priority--perhaps not the highest. I should think that Salvation through Christ is number one, along with living in Christ.

But Trinitarianism is very important because our Salvation is contingent upon our faith in Christ. For this kind of faith to be viable Christ needs to be seen as Savior, Lord, and God.

Hence, the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son. I do understand that some sects have had trouble with the Spirit as a Person in the Trinity, but that does not detract from essential Trinitarianism, which sees the Father as God and the Son as equally God.

I would clearly put denominationalism last because often that is simply dependent upon the society you grew up in. If you grew up in Scandinavia or Germany you might be a Lutheran. If you grew up in the UK you might be Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian.

What is much more essential when considering denominations is whether the church you attend is conservative or spiritual, spiritual or purely nominal? Sometimes a large denomination may be very weak, but individual churches within that denomination solid and valuable.

But you seem to distinguish between "essential beliefs" and "doctrine." I don't see where the dividing line is except with your personal consideration of what is more valuable to you?

The battle over the Trinity was one of the 1st major theological battles in Christian history. There is a reason for this. Those who took the wrong side in this often ended up in heresy-land.

One heresy leads to another, and heretics ended up in full-blown pagan philosophy of one sort or another. It was important to maintain certain tenets to keep things on track with your "primaries."

Just my opinion....

Please understand that I'm not here to challenge the validity of the trinity doctrine, what I'm arguing is its priority. The second group isn't just about cultural differences among denominations, but works, you know, what you have actually achieved under the guidance of your denomination, what transformative impact does it have in your private and public life, that's what I mean by "practices and traditions", because everyone will be judged according to their work, not their words. Salvation belongs to the first group (redemption), and of course, it's contingent upon our faith in Christ, but faith is validated and substantiated by work, you don't work to be saved, you work BECAUSE you're saved, faith without work is dead.

Doctrines come last because usually doctrines and theologies are developed to explain and justify practices and traditions that have already existed, in other words, doctrines and theologies are the raison d'etre of practices and traditions, and not the other way around. More is caught than taught, people learn things by doing them, they observe and imitate before they study and analyze. "Trinitarianism" is not a religion, and "trinitarian" is not an identity, we shouldn't let these things divide the church. If you know a thing or two about the background of Paul's letters to the churches, most of them are his response to specific issues, and one of those is theological division.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 2:10-13)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But you seem to distinguish between "essential beliefs" and "doctrine." I don't see where the dividing line is except with your personal consideration of what is more valuable to you?

The battle over the Trinity was one of the 1st major theological battles in Christian history. There is a reason for this. Those who took the wrong side in this often ended up in heresy-land.

One heresy leads to another, and heretics ended up in full-blown pagan philosophy of one sort or another. It was important to maintain certain tenets to keep things on track with your "primaries."

Just my opinion....

If you really understand Church history, you would know that any theological battle is just a facade of political battle, the essence of the Reformation movement was a national independence movement against the papacy, the "protest" in Protestantism was a protest against the Vatican's monopoly of Christianity, and it was sparked by their the sales of indulgences, not any particular theological teaching. This is why the way I see it, protestants are NOT necessarily on the right side and Catholics are NOT necessarily on the wrong side, but the opponents of LGBTQ, socialism or New Age witchcraft are necessarily on the right side, the proponents of those are necessarily on the wrong side. The dividing line is your relationship with God through Christ, that determines your identity, while any theology is just head knowledge, and more often than not it makes simple things complicated.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't at all care if a thread is "derailed," unless an issue is being deliberately ignored. We disagree perhaps because we don't agree on your priority list.

I wouldn't at all put "doctrines" in the last and 3rd group. Doctrine is the bulwark of the Christian faith. Among doctrines I would put Trinitarianism as a high priority--perhaps not the highest. I should think that Salvation through Christ is number one, along with living in Christ.

But Trinitarianism is very important because our Salvation is contingent upon our faith in Christ. For this kind of faith to be viable Christ needs to be seen as Savior, Lord, and God.

Hence, the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son. I do understand that some sects have had trouble with the Spirit as a Person in the Trinity, but that does not detract from essential Trinitarianism, which sees the Father as God and the Son as equally God.

I would clearly put denominationalism last because often that is simply dependent upon the society you grew up in. If you grew up in Scandinavia or Germany you might be a Lutheran. If you grew up in the UK you might be Anglican, Methodist, or Presbyterian.

What is much more essential when considering denominations is whether the church you attend is conservative or spiritual, spiritual or purely nominal? Sometimes a large denomination may be very weak, but individual churches within that denomination solid and valuable.

But you seem to distinguish between "essential beliefs" and "doctrine." I don't see where the dividing line is except with your personal consideration of what is more valuable to you?

The battle over the Trinity was one of the 1st major theological battles in Christian history. There is a reason for this. Those who took the wrong side in this often ended up in heresy-land.

One heresy leads to another, and heretics ended up in full-blown pagan philosophy of one sort or another. It was important to maintain certain tenets to keep things on track with your "primaries."

Just my opinion....

If you still don't get it, let me put it in this way: are we originated from smarter apes migrated from sub-Sahara Africa? Or made in the image of the Creator of the universe in probably today's Iraq? Are we born with a good, altruistic nature tainted by the society and the environment we grow up in? Or sinners with an evil, selfish nature to harm others? Do we find meaning and purpose in Christ and only in Christ? Or other human accomplishments and activities? Will we conjoin with the Lord forever, or cease to exist, or reincarnate into a newborn after we die? These are the core beliefs I'm talking about, even if you answer all four questions with the latter, you can still justify them with certain theologies. In fact, you can justify anything including genocide, abortion or socialism with certain verses out of context. That's why theology is put in the "sand" category after practices and beliefs. In 1st Judea there were different Jewish sects with different theologies, Jesus condemned them all in Matt. 23 especially the scribes and Pharisees not for any of their doctrines or theologies, but for their practices, to which doctrines and theologies were just a facade, a "whitewashed tomb". Jesus cared about what they'd done - and what they should've done but left undone.

 

[RandyK]

If you still don't get it, let me put it in this way: are we originated from smarter apes migrated from sub-Sahara Africa? Or made in the image of the Creator of the universe in probably today's Iraq? Are we born with a good, altruistic nature tainted by the society and the environment we grow up in? Or sinners with an evil, selfish nature to harm others? Do we find meaning and purpose in Christ and only in Christ? Or other human accomplishments and activities? Will we conjoin with the Lord forever, or cease to exist, or reincarnate into a newborn after we die? These are the core beliefs I'm talking about, even if you answer all four questions with the latter, you can still justify them with certain theologies. In fact, you can justify anything including genocide, abortion or socialism with certain verses out of context. That's why theology is put in the "sand" category after practices and beliefs. In 1st Judea there were different Jewish sects with different theologies, Jesus condemned them all in Matt. 23 especially the scribes and Pharisees not for any of their doctrines or theologies, but for their practices, to which doctrines and theologies were just a facade, a "whitewashed tomb". Jesus cared about what they'd done - and what they should've done but left undone.

You don't think I "get it" because I don't agree with your priority list? I explained to you my concern. Apparently you don't wish to acknowledge that? You don't have to agree. This is just how I see it.

Your "theology" follows your own view and experience of God. Once you determine who your God is, then it is doctrine that determines if you're going to live consistent with your God's religion. Denominations are irrelevant unless they don't live consistent with your God's religion.

So I put doctrine right up there with your theology, or your belief of who the right God is. Who your God is determines what doctrine follows from that.

The Trinity is very much involved in how you see God and how He relates to you and your character. If He remains before and separate from our history, then we can never really know Him and have Him affect us.

Unless God makes an appearance in our world, as the Spirit, in the form of theophanies, and in the form of Christ, what He did for our redemption will have no value. Already we've established the need for all three members of the Trinity, if our theology is going to make an impact on our life at all.

Perhaps you still don't think I understand? In that case perhaps you really just don't think I understand because I don't agree? Surely if I properly understood you I would be compelled to agree? Not really....

 

[RandyK]

If you really understand Church history, you would know that any theological battle is just a facade of political battle, the essence of the Reformation movement was a national independence movement against the papacy, the "protest" in Protestantism was a protest against the Vatican's monopoly of Christianity, and it was sparked by their the sales of indulgences, not any particular theological teaching.

It turned out to be a major theological issue, since Protestant Doctrine evolved to counter the Catholilc Church's resistance to Luther's 95 theses. You appear to be talking a bit inconsistently? Was Luther's intent political or was it theological?

You admit that Indulgences was a theological issue with Luther. So then, it was both political and theological, since countering the Catholic Church required a theological argument, and utilizing the Protestant princes required a political movement.

This is why the way I see it, protestants are NOT necessarily on the right side and Catholics are NOT necessarily on the wrong side, but the opponents of LGBTQ, socialism or New Age witchcraft are necessarily on the right side, the proponents of those are necessarily on the wrong side. The dividing line is your relationship with God through Christ, that determines your identity, while any theology is just head knowledge, and more often than not it makes simple things complicated.

No, theology is not purely "head knowledge." It may be for those who are not Born Again. But for those who are truly Born Again, theology and doctrine are critical to maintain a proper understanding of God and to safeguard, therefore, a proper walk with Him.

Luther's emphasis on Christ with his doctrine of Faith led many back from a hollow "Head Knowledge" that had been in Catholicism, which we might call Nominalism. Thus, Luther's doctrine of Faith brought people back into a proper relationship and practice with God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You don't think I "get it" because I don't agree with your priority list? I explained to you my concern. Apparently you don't wish to acknowledge that? You don't have to agree. This is just how I see it.

Your "theology" follows your own view and experience of God. Once you determine who your God is, then it is doctrine that determines if you're going to live consistent with your God's religion. Denominations are irrelevant unless they don't live consistent with your God's religion.

So I put doctrine right up there with your theology, or your belief of who the right God is. Who your God is determines what doctrine follows from that.

The Trinity is very much involved in how you see God and how He relates to you and your character. If He remains before and separate from our history, then we can never really know Him and have Him affect us.

Unless God makes an appearance in our world, as the Spirit, in the form of theophanies, and in the form of Christ, what He did for our redemption will have no value. Already we've established the need for all three members of the Trinity, if our theology is going to make an impact on our life at all.

Perhaps you still don't think I understand? In that case perhaps you really just don't think I understand because I don't agree? Surely if I properly understood you I would be compelled to agree? Not really....

Can we at least agree on one biblical fact that Jesus hated the hypocrites above any other groups? Does any theology of those pharisees' matter when they preached like angels but acted like devils? I don't think denomination is relevant either, but what they do is highly relevant. So yes, I still don't think you understand. If you're triggered by certain words, then allow me to rephrase the priority list: faith, work, knowledge. Theology is not faith, but knowledge.

 

[RandyK]

Can we at least agree on one biblical fact that Jesus hated the hypocrites above any other groups? Does any theology of those pharisees' matter when they preached like angels but acted like devils?

I do agree that Jesus hated hypocrisy. And it is worthless to listen to theologians argue if they are themselves void of Salvation.

The Pharisees in Jesus' time were not the equivalent of "theologians" today, unless you're referring to liberal theologians? Solid believing theologians in our day are not hypocrites and are interested in preserving the faith as Christ intended.

Some of these "theologians" in our day have been Christian apologists, serving a useful purpose in answering questions that need to be answered. Some of them have been helpful in putting biblical doctrine in context so that we understand better and are better able to explain Christianity to others.

I don't think denomination is relevant either, but what they do is highly relevant. So yes, I still don't think you understand. If you're triggered by certain words, then allow me to rephrase the priority list: faith, work, knowledge. Theology is not faith, but knowledge.

I'm not "triggered." I'm explaining to you that I don't abide by your own particular "list." You have trouble accepting that.

 

[RandyK]

Please understand that I'm not here to challenge the validity of the trinity doctrine, what I'm arguing is its priority.

I understand that your priority in dealing with the issue of the Trinity is lower than mine. Period.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It turned out to be a major theological issue, since Protestant Doctrine evolved to counter the Catholilc Church's resistance to Luther's 95 theses. You appear to be talking out of 2 sides of your mouth. Was Luther's intent political or was it theological?

You admit that Indulgences was a theological issue with Luther. So then, it was both political and theological, since countering the Catholic Church required a theological argument, and utilizing the Protestant princes required a political movement.

Indulgences was an economic issue, it was a scam, Luther exposed it, and this escalated into a political issue. As I said, theology is just a facade, any theological difference only serves the purpose of forming national identities, any defection from the Vatican's teaching was a political statement against the Vatican. It was very similar to today's political conflict between the nationalists and globalists. Was Luther's intent political or theological? Well, was Jesus's intent political or theological when he condemned the religious elites? You be the judge.

No, theology is not purely "head knowledge." It may be for those who are not Born Again. But for those who are truly Born Again, theology and doctrine are critical to maintain a proper understanding of God and to safeguard, therefore, a proper walk with Him.

Luther's emphasis on Christ with his doctrine of Faith led many back from a hollow "Head Knowledge" that had been in Catholicism, which we might call Nominalism. Thus, Luther's doctrine of Faith brought people back into a proper relationship and practice with God.

They should be head knowledge because we're not supposed to form identity groups and play identity politics upon certain doctrines, this kind of division is particularly condemned by Paul. You don't identify yourself with certain doctrines and build your faith upon that instead of your relationship with God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I do agree that Jesus hated hypocrisy. And it is worthless to listen to theologians argue if they are themselves void of Salvation.

The Pharisees in Jesus' time were not the equivalent of "theologians" today, unless you're referring to liberal theologians? Solid believing theologians in our day are not hypocrites and are interested in preserving the faith as Christ intended.

Some of these "theologians" in our day have been Christian apologists, serving a useful purpose in answering questions that need to be answered. Some of them have been helpful in putting biblical doctrine in context so that we understand better and are better able to explain Christianity to others.

Oh really? Weren't they "the teacher(s) of Israel" (Jn. 3:10)? The most respected and admired influencers of the day? That even Jesus himself once discussed with them when he was a boy (Lk. 2:46)? Well is easy to denounce them now with 20/20 hindsight, isn't it?

I'm not "triggered." I'm explaining to you that I don't abide by your own particular "list." You have trouble accepting that.

I understand that your priority in dealing with the issue of the Trinity is lower than mine. Period.

I don't have trouble with different opinions, I have trouble with identity politics and pious attitude. I don't have any trouble with trinity either, I believe it with all my heart, I have trouble with the so called trinitarianism who push the trinity doctrine with such fervor as though it's the truth, the life the way instead of the Lord himself, whoever don't conform to their lingo and interpretation is a pagan condemned to hell. It's not just trinity though, I've seen the same kind of attitude when it comes down to rapture, baptism or speaking in tongues.

 

[netchaplain]

That depends on what kind of church you're in. Surely, not in bible believing and teaching churches, but those are rare these days. If you don't have one in your area to attend to, then what are your options?

I wanted to thank you for your replies! Just wanted to say that I've visited quite a few Churches for the last few decades and found most are Bible Churches; and it's my opinion most will continue as such, they being guided and protected by the Father.

I don't know if this is you, but those who think most Churches are not Bible-believing are usually not in a Church and have not gone to Church a lot!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I wanted to thank you for your replies! Just wanted to say that I've visited quite a few Churches for the last few decades and found most are Bible Churches; and it's my opinion most will continue as such, they being guided and protected by the Father.

I don't know if this is you, but those who think most Churches are not Bible-believing are usually not in a Church and have not gone to Church a lot!

Not those mega churches with celebrity pastors, and longer worship session than sermon. You have lots of fans in there, but very few disciples. Bible-believing and teaching churches may not be in decline, I’ll give you that, but organized religion surely is. People care more about contents than form.

 

[RandyK]

Oh really? Weren't they "the teacher(s) of Israel" (Jn. 3:10)? The most respected and admired influencers of the day? That even Jesus himself once discussed with them when he was a boy (Lk. 2:46)? Well is easy to denounce them now with 20/20 hindsight, isn't it?

I was thinking of all the hours I spent weekends in S. CA in the 70s, listening to Walter Martin answer Bible questions. He was certainly not a Pharisee!

Think of all of the Bible colleges, where believing professors attempt to transfer all of their spiritual knowledge to young Christians--are they Pharisees too?

Think of all of the Christian books you've read, written by those trained in theology--were they all Pharisees too? I can't think of a more contemptible claim than to brand "theologians" a group of "Pharisees!" It is nearly as bad to drop them to the bottom of the list of priorities in Christian instruction!

I don't have trouble with different opinions, I have trouble with identity politics and pious attitude. I don't have any trouble with trinity either, I believe it with all my heart, I have trouble with the so called trinitarianism who push the trinity doctrine with such fervor as though it's the truth, the life the way instead of the Lord himself, whoever don't conform to their lingo and interpretation is a pagan condemned to hell. It's not just trinity though, I've seen the same kind of attitude when it comes down to rapture, baptism or speaking in tongues.

You do seem rather weak when it comes to discussing any subject you care to demote as "irrelevant" or "insignificant" to you! Why don't you stop characterizing legitimate pursuits as "unimportant" or even "bad?"

How can you say the "Trinity" is important to you and in the same breath brand it as a "waste of time?" It seems like a scheme to dilute conversation down to the very insignificance you assign to theology?

It seems like a form of censorship to me. I hope you're not pushing for that?

 

[RandyK]

Indulgences was an economic issue, it was a scam, Luther exposed it, and this escalated into a political issue.

Yes, as I said it was both a political and a theological issue! What made it a political issue was the controversy created with Luther's *theological concern!*

Luther was not out to break up the Catholic Empire or the Catholic Church. He was seeking to fix a theological problem, which was his job to address. And in light of his own person problems in religion he wanted to fix this religious problem for others within his orbit.

As I said, theology is just a facade...

So you don't believe Luther had legitimate theological or spiritual concerns for his people? Those who want to slander religious leaders will have to answer to their own conscience. I personally am not comfortable with it in this case.

 

[netchaplain]

Not those mega churches with celebrity pastors, and longer worship session than sermon. You have lots of fans in there, but very few disciples. Bible-believing and teaching churches may not be in decline, I’ll give you that, but organized religion surely is. People care more about contents than form.

I agree that there's not much useful Bible study in many of the nondenominational music-centered Churches. They are believers that are most immature in Scripture, but they seem to do ok with home-study Bible fellowship (which is not as useful as a Pastor teaching the Word). These will grow in Christ the least because it requires much Bible study (esp. in Paul's epistles) for spiritual growth in our faith.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I was thinking of all the hours I spent weekends in S. CA in the 70s, listening to Walter Martin answer Bible questions. He was certainly not a Pharisee!

Think of all of the Bible colleges, where believing professors attempt to transfer all of their spiritual knowledge to young Christians--are they Pharisees too?

Think of all of the Christian books you've read, written by those trained in theology--were they all Pharisees too? I can't think of a more contemptible claim than to brand "theologians" a group of "Pharisees!" It is nearly as bad to drop them to the bottom of the list of priorities in Christian instruction!

Well not really, I'm not so cynical with a distrust in everybody. I wouldn't call them names because name calling is one immature cheap shot which I hate the most.

So you don't believe Luther had legitimate theological or spiritual concerns for his people? Those who want to slander religious leaders will have to answer to their own conscience. I personally am not comfortable with it in this case.

The legilimate concern is the Catholic church's corruption, they were ruining their own credibility and authority with this scam of indulgence sales. I personally believe that Luther's intent was to expose this scam through theological arguments, but only God knows what he was really up to, I'm not talking about him; I'm talking about the essence of the reformation movement, which was political. I don't know much about other countries, but in England, king Henry VIII confiscated the Catholic church's land and property, established a national church institution, of which the monarch is the head. That doesn't sound either theological or spiritual to me.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You do seem rather weak when it comes to discussing any subject you care to demote as "irrelevant" or "insignificant" to you! Why don't you stop characterizing legitimate pursuits as "unimportant" or even "bad?"

How can you say the "Trinity" is important to you and in the same breath brand it as a "waste of time?" It seems like a scheme to dilute conversation down to the very insignificance you assign to theology?

It seems like a form of censorship to me. I hope you're not pushing for that?

Because there're more important and urgent issues to worry about, it is a waste of time to be obsessing with these basics, it's a sign of spiritual immaturity. I'd rather go back to the topic of "dead to the world", and consequently, what it means to be "alive in Christ". As far as I'm concerned, trinity is just mechanism through which God communicates with his people, it shouldn't become an idol of worship and exclusivity.

Yes, as I said it was both a political and a theological issue! What made it a political issue was the controversy created with Luther's *theological concern!*

Luther was not out to break up the Catholic Empire or the Catholic Church. He was seeking to fix a theological problem, which was his job to address. And in light of his own person problems in religion he wanted to fix this religious problem for others within his orbit.

But the Catholic church was beyond repair after the black death, what he did achieved the opposite.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I agree that there's not much useful Bible study in many of the nondenominational music-centered Churches. They are believers that are most immature in Scripture, but they seem to do ok with home-study Bible fellowship (which is not as useful as a Pastor teaching the Word). These will grow in Christ the least because it requires much Bible study (esp. in Paul's epistles) for spiritual growth in our faith.

Yeah, and these underground home groups are bourgeoning in other countries, including Iran and China, the most unlikely places you'd expect to see church growth.

 

[RandyK]

Well not really, I'm not so cynical with a distrust in everybody. I wouldn't call them names because name calling is one immature cheap shot which I hate the most.

The legilimate concern is the Catholic church's corruption, they were ruining their own credibility and authority with this scam of indulgence sales. I personally believe that Luther's intent was to expose this scam through theological arguments, but only God knows what he was really up to, I'm not talking about him; I'm talking about the essence of the reformation movement, which was political. I don't know much about other countries, but in England, king Henry VIII confiscated the Catholic church's land and property, established a national church institution, of which the monarch is the head. That doesn't sound either theological or spiritual to me.

Well, of course there's truth in what you say. But to me it's entirely too cynical. I don't think Luther's concern was at all political. His interest was never to divide up the Catholic Empire, nor to set Protestant states against Catholic states. This was simply the only alternative to his being burned at the stake for trying to lead people to Christ, and not buy their way into Heaven.