In so many ways, the two men are mirror-images of each other

If you are wondering why Luther said that, read more. There are 54 volumes, plus a 55th serving as index. Plenty of opportunities to get the answer to your question. Those are just the works translated into English.

Don’t just cherry-pick One sentence that, standing alone as you have written it, completely misrepresents what he was driving at.

As to Lutherans citing Luther all the time–

We also cite the Greek Church Fathers, the Western Fathers, Chemnitz, the Pope, the Eastern Patriarchs, Merton, Lewis, Tolkein, Chesterton, Marquart, Scaer, Preus, Nagel, Pieper, Walther, et. al. Lot of reading for you there, before you fire off your next zinger.

Dominus vobiscum, my friend.

In reference to earlier posts: David Platt is a Southern Baptist (from what I have been told).
And, if Lutheran was a non-Protestant sacramentalist, why did he write: “The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important and not the mass”? (Luther’s Works, Vol. 53, Worship and Liturgy, p 13).

Somebody’s theology is gittin’ taught!

Other than a few sects in hiding (sects always like to proudly herald their distinctions), those churches calling themselves non-denoms are most often Calvinists updating Wesley’s methodology.

The Sacraments are whatever you and the Holy Spirit (or your wife and his) decide should or should not be Sacraments–if we are to recognize them as such to begin with), but be sure to drop that envelope in the plate, brother, and know you will be blessed and receive in like measure that you give.

Hmmm . . . seems just keeping it would be the most economical course. But I digress . . .

“Denomination” has always defined a specific confession of faith. Non-denoms are too cute by half, wanting to sell the products of their pulpits without identifying the author.

Almost always (again, excluding sects), the trail will lead back to Geneva, and Calvin. If, as he stated, the Holy Spirit needs no specific vehicle (despite Christ’s own witness to the contrary) to convey grace, then the non-denoms are the evolutionary “perfect fit.”

Luther, the Reformer, having gored the Roman ox precisely where said ox was denying historical and dogmatic theology (and the faith of the faithful) in favor of the abuses of the age, has been forced until only recently to being tarred with the “Protestant” label.

Calvin (and Zwingli) were protesters. Luther was IN the Church and challenged the Church to mend its ways, and was excommunicated by one of the most corrupt popes in history. And Luther knew then what Catholicism is just now discovering–the faith is ALL about the Sacraments and the sacramentals–Luther was all over that in the positive! And he knew and predicted where Calvinism would lead without the sure doctrine of the means of grace. Rome was lazy at Trent, and lumped Luther together with Calvin and Zwingli and completely muddled their (Rome’s) attempt at counter-reformation.

But Luther, whom Rome has never refuted theologically, was right, and he was even moreso about what heresy would grow out of Calvinism.

Joel Osteen and John Calvin are theological compatriots and brothers. Likewise, most all other denoms.

Note: There are Confessional Reformed Churches that have come to realize their Reformational heritage and linkage to Wittenberg, and to the Holy Sacraments. Not all once under Calvin’s influence have followed the logical course of Calvinism.

Awful judgmental statement. Have you been to every “non-denominational” church out there? How do you know?

The answer is of course, you don’t and you just wanted to make some provocative statement.

Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Perhaps later in life I will understand the needs, desires to embrace the stale, effeminate spirituality I’ve found in loud churches and quiet churches (is there any other relevant distinction?), yet as I approach the age of thirty, the last pangs of youth still crave a vigor, a vitality, a dynamo to stir one’s soul awake—something not found in the non-denominational church of my childhood, or my father’s establishment church, or his father’s.

Do beta-males deserve their own denomination? Or should all denominations remain united in shrugging them off by focusing only on the married portion of their congregations (and the children accompanying them)?