Development of Doctrine

[GodsGrace]

As I expected you completely ducked the point I made to indulge in an anti-Catholic diatribe as a diversion

Of course we can, and do, receive the Holy Spirit after we are born again. But the point I made was that the promise Jesus made at the last supper - to the apostles - was the the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. He would lead His Church into all truth.

The Holy Spirit dwelling in us does not guarantee He will lead us into all truth.

The proof of that sort of misapplication that has led to 40,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, cults and one pastor churches all believing the Holy Spirit has led them into different and contradictory truths.

This is correct.
When persons do not agree and then state the Holy Spirit led them to believe what they do....
they are, in essence, saying the Holy Spirit does not have only one truth.
This has always bothered me about Protestantism.
We Protestants have to AT LEAST acknowledge that this is a problem which has no resolution.
I had started a thread some time ago called THE PROTESTANT POPE.
Maybe we need one?

 

[GodsGrace]

It is really tragic that you think -- or rather not think -- the way that you do. By your reasoning, what is written in the Bible was meant only for the original readers/hearers.

To show you how absurd this is, many people received the Holy Spirit after the "last supper", after Jesus' death, and after His resurrection. So clearly, when Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit, it was not for just those in attendance (including Judas?), but for everyone who believes.

I know that since you think that all believers must be like unthinking sheep, listening to whatever their clergy dreams up (as you Catholics do), you are taught not to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but by men. That is an unScriptural tragedy of the highest order.

Your criticism of Protestantism is bizarre. You of course leave out the Orthodox denomination and other denominations, all of which come from the same root, There is one church, the body of Christ, which has many members.

You Gentiles are "Johnny-come-latelies", yet you boast as though you are the one true church, which was started by the Jews. Romans 11:13-21, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.

Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root, do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you."

Here is something that your clergy doesn't teach you, but to which you should pay careful attention. Luke 18:9-14, " Jesus also told this parable to some who were confident that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else. “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee [one with your attitude!] and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: [sound familiar???] extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.’ The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’ [notice this is not to Mary, but to God!] I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

You will have to answer to God for your false Catholic attitude! Repent of your divisive arrogance before it is too late!!

Divisive arrogance?
What do YOU do?
Instead of accepting what is the same for all believers,
you persist in feeling confident and righteous yourself.

We should look for what makes us be the same as Jesus instructed - He wanted only one church.
Not what makes us different and divides those that believe in Christ as their Savior, as Catholics also do.

Anyone kneeling at the foot of the cross should be humble, Jesus said the humble are blessed.
Perhaps you could also start acting like what would please Jesus?

Although the Catholic forum is a safe zone and we can state what we believe,
it should still be done in a Christianly manner with some respect for those that believe differently.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hello wondering

Concerning the need for confession:

According to the CC – as you may know – there are grades of theological certainty; the highest of which (identified as ‘de fide’): ‘Appertains to the immediately revealed truths (and are) based on the authority of God Revealing; and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that (such a) truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’).

The Church teaches – as formal dogma, graded ‘de fide’ – a) that it has received from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism; b) that by the Church’s absolution, sins are truly and immediately remitted; c) that the Church’s power to forgive extends to all sin, without exemption; and d) that the exercise of the Church’s power to forgive sin is a judicial act, akin to the function assigned to the Jewish priesthood under Mosaic law (see Leviticus 13).

You will agree, I’m sure, that the Jewish priesthood was in no position to judge the character of an ailment, unless the afflicted person first showed himself. In like manner, the Church cannot exercise her office in regard to sin, unless the sinner describes exactly what he or she has done. Hence the need for confession.

Jimmy Atkin writes:

‘Are all our sins – past, present, and future – forgiven once and for all when we become Christians? Not according to the Bible, or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray for ongoing forgiveness: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Mt 6:12).’ (‘The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church’).

Quoted that same book – under a chapter entitled ‘Confession’ are the following Fathers:

Origen of Alexandria:

‘In addition to these there is also a seventh (remission of sins), but it is hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner washes his pillow in tears (Ps 6:7), when his tears are his nourishment day and night (Ps 41:4), and when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine.’ (‘Homilies on Leviticus 2:4’; c. A.D. 249; my emphasis).

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

‘Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who . . . with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds . . . I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord’ (‘Letters 9:2’; A.D. 250).

St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage:

‘And to you (priests) also, disciples of our illustrious physician, it is fitting that you should not withhold healing from him who needs healing. Whoever shows his wound to you, give him the medicine of penitence; and whoever is ashamed to show his disease, you shall exhort him not to conceal from you, and when he has revealed to you do not publish it, lest by means of it the innocent should be considered as debtors by enemies and those who hate them.’ (‘Demonstrations 7:4’; c. A.D. 340).

St. Basil of Caesarea:

‘It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries has been entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist; but in Acts they confessed to the apostles, by whom also all were baptized.’ (‘Rules Briefly Treated 288’; c. A.D. 375).

St. John Chrysostom:

‘For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority has he given them when he says, “Whose sins you remit they are remitted, and whose sins you retain they are retained?” (Jn 20:23). What authority could be greater than this? “The Father has committed all judgment to the Son?” (Jn 5:22). But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to heaven.’ (‘The Priesthood 3:5’; c. A.D. 388).

St. Jerome:

‘If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him.’ (‘Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11’: c. A.D. 388).

St. Augustine of Hippo:

‘Once for all we have washing in baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, who have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, daily prayer would suffice to blot these out. . . . In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance.’ (‘Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 15, 16’; c. A.D. 395).

Joseph Sylvester Hunter reminds us that the Fathers:

‘Frequently speak of a sinner as a shipwrecked man, who seeks to support himself on a plank, and when the first fails him, grasps a second. The second plank is the Sacrament of Penance, which avails for one who has lost the grace of Baptism, and is again plunged in the abyss of sin.’ (‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology: Complete in Three Volumes’).

Have a great day, and very best regards.

Niblo,
My last post to you regarding the above in the salvation thread pretty much covers the above also.

I just have one questions:

You say above...
You will agree, I’m sure, that the Jewish priesthood was in no position to judge the character of an ailment, unless the afflicted person first showed himself. In like manner, the Church cannot exercise her office in regard to sin, unless the sinner describes exactly what he or she has done. Hence the need for confession.
(my emphais)

The Israelites brought a sacrifice to the priest to have it offered to God.
I don't remember that they had to confess any sin to them.

 

[jaybo]

This is correct.
When persons do not agree and then state the Holy Spirit led them to believe what they do....
they are, in essence, saying the Holy Spirit does not have only one truth.
This has always bothered me about Protestantism.
We Protestants have to AT LEAST acknowledge that this is a problem which has no resolution.
I had started a thread some time ago called THE PROTESTANT POPE.
Maybe we need one?

Since the idea of a pope is unScriptural, why do Protestants need one? Because the Catholic denomination has one?

 

[jaybo]

Divisive arrogance?
What do YOU do?
Instead of accepting what is the same for all believers,
you persist in feeling confident and righteous yourself.

We should look for what makes us be the same as Jesus instructed - He wanted only one church.
Not what makes us different and divides those that believe in Christ as their Savior, as Catholics also do.

Anyone kneeling at the foot of the cross should be humble, Jesus said the humble are blessed.
Perhaps you could also start acting like what would please Jesus?

Although the Catholic forum is a safe zone and we can state what we believe,
it should still be done in a Christianly manner with some respect for those that believe differently.

I had my most recent post deleted by Mungo, and I'm sure he will delete more of my posts. I'm not surprised that he lets your posts that are critical of me remain.

The truth hurts!

 

[Walpole]

I had my most recent post deleted by Mungo, and I'm sure he will delete more of my posts. I'm not surprised that he lets your posts that are critical of me remain.

The truth hurts!

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

---> https://christianforums.net/threads/what-is-the-baptism-that-saves-us-now.91910/post-1694693

 

[GodsGrace]

Since the idea of a pope is unScriptural, why do Protestants need one? Because the Catholic denomination has one?

So we could agree to at least on some degree on different teachings?
For instance there's a long thread going on right now about whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now, we may be wrong or Catholics may be wrong, but at least they all agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

I had my most recent post deleted by Mungo, and I'm sure he will delete more of my posts. I'm not surprised that he lets your posts that are critical of me remain.

The truth hurts!

I don't think I've been critical except to say that you should post with respect.
I've never criticized your ideas.
Every denomination has the right to believe what they believe.
There are Protestant denominations that teach pretty odd ideas.
I hope God will show us all His mercy.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since the idea of a pope is unScriptural, why do Protestants need one? Because the Catholic denomination has one?

Could we forget the word POPE for a few posts?

Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter.
Did He mean for there to be an institution called church?

Did Jesus realize His teachings would never be incorporated into the Jewish religion?

Would you consider Peter to be an elder?
And maybe if the church grew enough, there would have to be an elder for the elders?

I know you're non-denominational, but denominations do have central headquarters
Where decisions and teachings are approved.
An institution would not be able to exist for long without a hierarchy. It's just how we humans are.

Think about anarchy.

 

[PeterJens]

.

The institutional church in England is Anglican, as in church of England.
At the reformation Henry 8th VIII, decided to break from Rome, catholicism and form his own version
of catholicism called Anglicanism, which had Henry as its head. He used the protestant movement
as an excuse. The catholic church was rich and powerful, and a threat to Kings, so this move caused the
sacking of monasteries and changing of the social structure. Anglicanism is a version of Catholicism
keeping the form of service and beliefs, just removing the Pope as the head.

Over the centuries parts of Anglicanism became evangelical and later charismatic, while other parts remained
Catholic in ceremony and behaviour. The Catholic church established its own identity with its own funded
churches but no longer part of the state church or politics.

So the dedication of Mary would be the Catholics plus High Anglicans, who are Catholic except with allegiance
to the anglican church and not the pope.

I hope this explains the complexity of the church in this regard and quickly summarised.
God bless you

 

[Walpole]

So we could agree to at least on some degree on different teachings?
For instance there's a long thread going on right now about whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now, we may be wrong or Catholics may be wrong, but at least they all agree.

And this same poster is in that thread arguing that baptism does not save, contrary to 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the Apostle explicitly states that baptism "now saves you".

These threads demonstrate, in near real time, the need for a body, organ or mechanism to determine what is or is not the Christian faith. Otherwise, it becomes entirely subjective and whatever each individual adherent wants it to be.

Without an authoritative Church, Christianity devolves into chaos.

 

[jaybo]

And this same poster is in that thread arguing that baptism does not save, contrary to 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the Apostle explicitly states that baptism "now saves you".

These threads demonstrate, in near real time, the need for a body, organ or mechanism to determine what is or is not the Christian faith. Otherwise, it becomes entirely subjective and whatever each individual adherent wants it to be.

Without an authoritative Church, Christianity devolves into chaos.

So taking three words(!) out of Scripture to try to prove doctrine is meaningless.

The Bible is the source of all truth, not an "authoritative church". Why is it so important to you to determine "what is or is not the Christian faith". If people disagree with each other, it does not "become entirely subjective and whatever each individual adherent wants it to be". It is and always will be a living organism, composed of thinking and feeling people.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27, "For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body—though many—are one body, so too is Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, [different people!] we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. For in fact the body is not a single member, but many. If the foot says, “Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. And if the ear says, “Since I am not an eye, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor in turn can the head say to the foot, “I do not need you.” On the contrary, those members that seem to be weaker are essential, and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our unpresentable members are clothed with dignity, but our presentable members do not need this. Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another. If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it. If a[f] member is honored, all rejoice with it.

Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.

Instead of Christianity devolving into chaos, it functions exactly as God wants it to function.

 

[Walpole]

So taking three words(!) out of Scripture to try to prove doctrine is meaningless.

The Bible is the source of all truth, not an "authoritative church". Why is it so important to you to determine "what is or is not the Christian faith". If people disagree with each other, it does not "become entirely subjective and whatever each individual adherent wants it to be". It is and always will be a living organism, composed of thinking and feeling people.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27, "For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body—though many—are one body, so too is Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, [different people!] we were all made to drink of the one Spirit. For in fact the body is not a single member, but many. If the foot says, “Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. And if the ear says, “Since I am not an eye, I am not part of the body,” it does not lose its membership in the body because of that. If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor in turn can the head say to the foot, “I do not need you.” On the contrary, those members that seem to be weaker are essential, and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our unpresentable members are clothed with dignity, but our presentable members do not need this. Instead, God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another. If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it. If a[f] member is honored, all rejoice with it.

Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.

Instead of Christianity devolving into chaos, it functions exactly as God wants it to function.

Meaningless? Amazing how quickly you throw sola Scriptura onto the trash heap when it contradicts you.

I must admit I don't understand the exegetical approach you seem to be advocating, which states the opposite of what the text says is the true meaning. For example, in 1 Peter 3:21 it explicitly states baptism "now saves you." I don't quite understand how this can be interpreted to be baptism "DOES NOT actually save you."

Can you make a case why you are correct and St. Peter is in error?

 

[WIP]

Could we forget the word POPE for a few posts?

Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter.
Did He mean for there to be an institution called church?

Did Jesus realize His teachings would never be incorporated into the Jewish religion?

Would you consider Peter to be an elder?
And maybe if the church grew enough, there would have to be an elder for the elders?

I know you're non-denominational, but denominations do have central headquarters
Where decisions and teachings are approved.
An institution would not be able to exist for long without a hierarchy. It's just how we humans are.

Think about anarchy.

When our congregation was deciding whether or not to disassociate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), one of the points I stressed in our meetings was how I believed it to be important for us to not remain forever independent but sooner or later find an association/synod/whatever to join up with. The reason I believed it to be important is that left to ourselves without some kind of structural guidance, we tend to take off on various rabbit trails. Case in point is the multitude of denominations that we have today even sub-denominations within denominations so even our decision to eventually make a tie with the LCMC, might not necessarily be a solid footing either.

For example, here are few in the Lutheran denomination that I am aware of in my own community. Each has their own specific doctrinal differences and this list is not exhaustive.
LCMC - Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ
AFLC - Association Free Lutheran Church
CLB - Church of the Lutheran Brethren
LCMS - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

We should keep in mind too that this is not unique to Protestant churches either for within the Catholic church there are quite a number of sub-denominations as well.

 

[Mungo]

When our congregation was deciding whether or not to disassociate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), one of the points I stressed in our meetings was how I believed it to be important for us to not remain forever independent but sooner or later find an association/synod/whatever to join up with. The reason I believed it to be important is that left to ourselves without some kind of structural guidance, we tend to take off on various rabbit trails. Case in point is the multitude of denominations that we have today even sub-denominations within denominations so even our decision to eventually make a tie with the LCMC, might not necessarily be a solid footing either.

For example, here are few in the Lutheran denomination that I am aware of in my own community. Each has their own specific doctrinal differences and this list is not exhaustive.
LCMC - Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ
AFLC - Association Free Lutheran Church
CLB - Church of the Lutheran Brethren
LCMS - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

We should keep in mind too that this is not unique to Protestant churches either for within the Catholic church there are quite a number of sub-denominations as well.

There are no doctrinal differences within the Catholic Church so by your definition no sub-denominations.

 

[PeterJens]

And this same poster is in that thread arguing that baptism does not save, contrary to 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the Apostle explicitly states that baptism "now saves you".

These threads demonstrate, in near real time, the need for a body, organ or mechanism to determine what is or is not the Christian faith. Otherwise, it becomes entirely subjective and whatever each individual adherent wants it to be.

Without an authoritative Church, Christianity devolves into chaos.

I like this response to Peter's declaration of saving baptism. I could say prayer saves you, or going to church or any Christian activity that reflects ones life and relationship in Christ. I will be correct in the sense the affirming act of faith is the life blood of a relationship, but does not encapsulate the whole but reflects its reality.

How we handle all encompassing phrase is very important and also can be very miss-leading.
The obvious miss-interpretation of many phrases has caused many splits and arguments within a church that seeks
simple clarity rather than a growing walk and experience of one another.

A simple example of this was shown clearly when meeting someone who says the sermon on the mount only applied to Jews before Jesus died and was a sarcastic jibe at the impossibility of doing anything that God was pleased with.
Speaking to an audience who feel life is a disappointment of success and Jesus came to deliver us only to be
realised on our deaths, this is an obvious interpretation. In the context though of God laying out all the time of
blessing the righteous, those who love, who have integrity, who honour Him and His ways, such a view is actually ignoring the very nature and leading of the Lord.

So repentance and faith is Gods way, being His ambassador on earth, so baptism is the outward symbol of an inward change, not some super spiritual saving experience that has no inward affect or cause. But equally refusing such a statement of faith and rejoicing, is to rebel against Gods edict, and is a sin. For me this meant being baptised as an adult even though I was christened and confirmed in an Anglican church. I wanted to declare a living faith over a sense of belonging to a human group, whether they had faith or not. And unfortunately most did not understand what faith and Jesus was, let alone believe He was the Son of God.

God bless you

 

[WIP]

There are no doctrinal differences within the Catholic Church so by your definition no sub-denominations.

Actually, there are quite a number of Catholic denominations some of which are in communion with the Catholic church and some which are not. The fact that you and/or your association does not recognize them, does not make them non-existent. In fact, you have already pointed out elsewhere that there is a difference between RCC and CC, although I don't know what those differences are.

Using that line of reasoning, I could just as easily claim there are no doctrinal differences within the Lutheran church even though as I've already shown there are many others, some of which are in communion and some that are not. Additionally, the Lutheran church, which came out of the Catholic church, can trace its roots all the way back to Peter and Jesus and likewise so can the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Mungo]

Actually, there are quite a number of Catholic denominations some of which are in communion with the Catholic church and some which are not. The fact that you and/or your association does not recognize them, does not make them non-existent. In fact, you have already pointed out elsewhere that there is a difference between RCC and CC, although I don't know what those differences are.

Using that line of reasoning, I could just as easily claim there are no doctrinal differences within the Lutheran church even though as I've already shown there are many others, some of which are in communion and some that are not. Additionally, the Lutheran church, which came out of the Catholic church, can trace its roots all the way back to Peter and Jesus and likewise so can the Eastern Orthodox.

If they are not in communion with the Catholic Church (i.e. with the Pope) then they are not sub-denominations. They are Protestant.

The Catholic Church consists of 24 different "Rites", The Largest is the Latin or Roman Rite. These are not differences in doctrine,

They differ in liturgical practices and some aspects of governance.
There is a useful article in Wikipedia explaining this with a list of the different particular churches.
Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites - Wikipedia

A couple of quotes:
There are 24 autonomous churches: one Latin Church and twenty-three Eastern Catholic Churches, a distinction by now more historical than geographical. The term sui iuris means, literally, "of its own law", or self-governing. Although all of the particular churches espouse the same beliefs and faith, their distinction lies in their varied expression of that faith through their traditions, disciplines, and canon law. All are in communion with the Holy See.

The word "church" is applied to the Catholic Church as a whole, which is seen as a single church: the multitude of peoples and cultures within the church, and the great diversity of gifts, offices, conditions and ways of life of its members, are not opposed to the church's unity. In this sense of "church", the list of churches in the Catholic Church has only one member, the Catholic Church itself (comprising Roman and Eastern Churches).

 

[jaybo]

Actually, there are quite a number of Catholic denominations some of which are in communion with the Catholic church and some which are not. The fact that you and/or your association does not recognize them, does not make them non-existent. In fact, you have already pointed out elsewhere that there is a difference between RCC and CC, although I don't know what those differences are.

Using that line of reasoning, I could just as easily claim there are no doctrinal differences within the Lutheran church even though as I've already shown there are many others, some of which are in communion and some that are not. Additionally, the Lutheran church, which came out of the Catholic church, can trace its roots all the way back to Peter and Jesus and likewise so can the Eastern Orthodox.

I agree. I have read many times that the Catholics claim to be "the first church". They ignore that a) The church is the body of Christ, b) there are many churches described in the Bible, c) the first believers were all Jews, d) the word "Catholic" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, e) the Orthodox can also claim to be "the first church" and, f) most importantly, all Christian denominations can trace their origins to Jesus Christ and the first apostles.

IMHO their claim is just Catholic propaganda with no basis in fact.

 

[Mungo]

Additionally, the Lutheran church, which came out of the Catholic church, can trace its roots all the way back to Peter and Jesus and likewise so can the Eastern Orthodox.

I agree that the Orthodox Church can trace its roots back to the apostles but surely the Lutheran cChurch only traces its roots back to Martin Luther.
Perhaps it depends on what you mean by roots.