Christ for Us

Part 2 of Justification and Rome by Rev. Dr. Robert Preus (chapters 9-14), read by Rev. James Preus. You can listen to Part 1 here.  Justification and Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Dialogues by Robert Preus © 1997 Concordia Publishing House. Used with permission under license number 24:8-1. All rights reserved. This publication is available as an eBook from CPH at www.cph.org. Permission to publish this audio was given for one year. I will request an extension, but that is not guaranteed, so try listening to it before the end of 2025. I did not record the valuable endnotes, but you can read those if you purchase the book. Below is a copy of the timestamps for the chapters. The links work on Podbean, but have not transferred over to other platforms.  00:00:00: Copyright 00:00:34: Chapter 9: Justification, Propter Christum, and the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness 01:10:34: Chapter 10: Faith, Justifying Faith, Faith Alone 01:29:21: Chapter 11: The Object of Justifying Faith 01:46:51: Chapter 12: Faith’s Part in Justification 01:57:17: Chapter 13: Justification by Faith Alone 02:12:51: Chapter 14: Conclusion: Some Necessary Comments 02:47:57: Copyright

Justification and Rome by Rev. Dr. Robert Preus Part 1: Introduction through Chapter 8.  Read by Rev. James Preus Justification and Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Dialogues by Robert Preus © 1997 Concordia Publishing House. Used with permission under license number 24:8-1. All rights reserved. This publication is available as an eBook from CPH at www.cph.org. You can listen to Part 2 Here.  Permission to publish this audio was given for one year. I will request an extension, but that is not guaranteed, so try listening to it before the end of 2025. I did not record the valuable endnotes, but you can read those if you purchase the book. Below is a copy of the timestamps for the chapters. The links work on Podbean, but have not transferred over to other platforms.  00:00:00: Copyright 00:00:33: Title, Dedication, and Forward 00:04:41: Introduction 00:10:45: Chapter 1: The Centrality of the Doctrine of Justification and Its Hermeneutical Role 00:27:50: Chapter 2: Recent Dialogues between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on the Doctrine of Justification 00:42:21: Chapter 3: The Basic Structure of the Article of Justification 00:50:11: Chapter 4: The Context of the Doctrine of Justification 00:58:39: Chapter 5: Sin 01:06:29: Chapter 6: The Bondage of the Will 01:10:33: Chapter 7: Repentance 01:18:04: Chapter 8: Grace    

Pope Francis died. What hopes do Lutherans have for the next pope? Does it matter? 

It has become popular for Christian congregations to celebrate the Passover Seder. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? You can follow along with the Bible study outline and see sources referenced at Christforus.org. 

Episode 33 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast is on False Humility. The Bible teaches us to be humble. The Christian life and faith is about humility. Yet, Scripture gives examples of misplaced or false humility. You can follow along to the outline to this bible Study at Christforus.org. 

Episode 32 deals with Misplaced Compassion. Jesus commands us to be merciful as our Father in heaven is merciful. But can mercy be abused? How? You can follow along to this Bible Study through the outline on Christforus.org.  #Bishop Fulton Sheen #Mercy #Compassion #Lutheran

God's Riches At Christ's Expense is a helpful acronym for understanding what Grace is. God's grace is a free gift. We are saved by grace. But what is grace? You can read along to the outline and read the quotations at Christforus.org. 

Episode 30 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast responds to Bishop Barron's answer to Ben Shapiro about whether Ben can be saved without faith in Jesus. You can follow along to the outline to the episode and see the original clip on Christforus.org.  #DailyWire #BishopBaron #BenShapiro #Catholocism #LumenGentium 

Short episode of Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast answer the question, "Can you love your family more than God?" As always, outline can be found at Christforus.org. 

Episode 28 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast discusses the question: Should Christians be confident, that is, certain of their salvation? You can read the outline and detailed notes at Christforus.org. 

Episode 27 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast deals with the question: Does God reward us for good works? Will we all be equal in heaven, or will some be rewarded more?  You can read along to my very detailed outline for this Bible Study at Christforus.org. 

Episode 26 of the Christ for Us Bible Study podcast is on the Two Kinds of Sacrifice. You can read the outline of the Bible Study at Christforus.org. 

Episode 25 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast is a response to a CARM.org article, which claims that certain early church fathers denied the real presence and taught a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper. You can read along to the Bible Study, including all the quotes at Christforus.org.  

Episode 24 for the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast. You can read the outline on Christforus.org. 

Episode 23 of Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast on Mortal and Venial Sins. Learn more at Christforus.org.  Mortal and Venial Sins   Introduction   The controversy between venial and mortal sin has led to great confusion, not only among Roman Catholics, but especially among Lutherans! The Roman Catholics erroneously define mortal and venial sins, so Lutherans laity have been led to believe that there is no such distinction between mortal and venial and many mistakenly assert that all sins are the same. However, there is a biblical distinction between mortal and venial sins. Lutherans still make this distinction. And this distinction is helpful for the justification and sanctification of a Christian.   A mortal sin simply means a sin leading to death. Venial comes from the Latin for pardonable or forgivable. So, a mortal sin is one that leads to damnation and a venial sin is a sin that does not lead to damnation. However, the question is why? The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize concupiscence as sin. Concupiscence is the activity of original sin, the inclination to sin. And because concupiscence, which is the very desire to sin, is not sin in Roman Catholic theology, concupiscence is not mortal, but venial. This is also how the Roman Catholic Church deals with lesser sins. They categorize them as venial, because they do not estimate them as serious enough to merit God’s wrath. Roman Catholic Doctrine on Mortal and Venial Sins   The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Mortal Sin: A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil act, and full consent of the will (1855, 1857)   The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Venial Sin: Sin which does not destroy the divine life in the soul, as does mortal sin, though it diminishes and wounds it (1855). Venial sin is the failure to observe necessary moderation, in lesser matters of the moral law, or in grave matters acting without full knowledge or complete consent (1862).   The Difference between Mortal and Venial Sin[1] Do the remains of sin exist and remain in the reborn in this life? They by all means are and remain. For though [the reborn] are ruled by the Holy Spirit, yet they complain that nothing good dwells in their flesh, in fact, also when they want to do good, evil is connected [with it] (Ro 7:18, 21)[2], and that the flesh wars against the spirit (Gl 5:17)[3]. And even also when they are holy and serve God and are not conscious of any evil, yet they confess that they are sinners. 1 Cor. 4:4; Psalm 32:6; 130:3; 143:3.[4] In fact, he that does not acknowledge and confess this, but says that he has no sin, deceives himself. 1 Jn 1:8. Therefore all the saints have need in this life daily to repeat this: Father, forgive us our sins.   Is then David, committing adultery, nevertheless righteous and holy, and does he remain so? By no means. For Scripture distinguishes between sins, namely that in the saints or reborn there are some sins because of which they are not condemned, but at the same time retain faith, the Holy Spirit, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. Rom 7:23-8:1;[5] 1 Jn 1:8-9[6]; Ps 32:1[7]. But Scripture testifies that there are also some other sins in which also the reconciled, when they have fallen, lose faith, the Holy Spirit, the grace of God, and life eternal, and render themselves subject to divine wrath and eternal death unless, turned again, they are reconciled to God through faith. Rom. 8:13[8]; 1 Cor. 6:10[9]; Gal. 5:21[10]; Eph. 5:5[11]; Col. 3:6[12]; 1 John 3:6, 8[13]; 1 Tim. 1:19[14]; 2 Peter 1:9.[15] And the useful distinction between mortal and venial sin is drawn from this basis. Paul speaks of sin ruling against conscience or with conscience put away, and sin that indeed dwells in the flesh but does not rule.1 Tim. 1:19[16]; Rom 6:12, 14[17]; 7:17[18]   What is the use of retaining and earnestly inculcating this difference between mortal and venial sin in the church? That we might learn to acknowledge and earnestly avoid mortal sins. If we are caught in that kind of sins, that we do not obstinately persevere and continue in them impenitently. That we try the more to restrain and control sin that dwells in us, lest it become mortal. For, when this distinction is neglected or not rightly understood and used, Christians also often fall into security and impenitence. Pastors are therefore to be reminded and trained in the examinations not only to list the 7 mortal (or deadly, capital) sins,[19] but to be able to point out to their hearers, in each Commandment, which sins are mortal, which venial.   Is, then, original sin, which still remains in the reborn in this life, in itself such a light little sin, or, so to say, peccadillo, that God neither can nor wants to be angry against it? All sins are not equal; some are more grievous and greater than others (John 19:11; Matt 11:22; Luke 12:47-48)[20]; yet if one judges according to the sense of the divine law, no sin per se and by its own nature deserves forgiveness; that is, none is so small and insignificant, but that it makes [one] subject to divine wrath and worthy of eternal damnation if God enters into judgment with him. Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; James 2:10.[21] This error regarding the least commandment of the divine law is condemned by Christ in the Pharisees. Matt. 5:19.[22] Paul sadly complains also about sin still dwelling in his flesh. Rom. 7:24; Gal. 5:17.[23] Are some sins so great and horrible that they cannot be forgiven in the Gospel to those who repent and believe in Christ? No. Christ made satisfaction for all sins. 1 John 2:2[24]. He wants to save also the greatest sinners. 1 Tim. 1:15.[25] He commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name to all sinners. John 20:23[26]. Matt. 9:13[27], Luke 15:7[28]; 24:47[29]. Grace abounded more than sin. Rom. 5:20.[30] Now, then, since it is clear that no sin per se deserves forgiveness, likewise that no sin is so horrible that it cannot be forgiven to those who repent and believe in Christ—why, then, are some sins in the reborn called venial, some mortal? This should be well and carefully explained, so that each Christian can know and determine if he is living in mortal or venial sin. The explanation consists essentially in this, that everyone examine himself as to whether or not he has true repentance and faith. Rom. 2:4-5[31], Jer. 5:3[32] 2 Cor. 13:5[33]. Original sin, which still dwells in the flesh of the reborn, is not idle, but is the restless law of sin in our members, enticing, tempting, driving to sin with various suggestions and evil lusts. James 1:14[34], Rom. 7:8[35], Gal. 5:17[36]. Since, then, one who is reborn does not delight in this kind of carnal lusts, and is neither led by them nor follows [them], but earnestly represses and crucifies them as sins and mortifies {them}, but earnestly represses and crucifies them as sins and mortifies [them], but earnestly represses and crucifies them as sins and mortifies [them] through the Spirit, lest they rule or be performed (Rom. 6:12[37]; 7:15[38]; 8:13[39]; Gal. 5:24[40]), this very thing is a very sure sign of true and earnest repentance. And when the reborn pray that God would not impute their weaknesses to them but forgive for the sake of Christ, and at the same time believe and trust that Christ, as the true propitiation, would, in the sight of God, cover this their uncleanness with His innocence and obedience (Rom 4:7[41]; Psalm 32:1[42], 1 John 1:7[43], 2:1-2[44]), this also is a sure sign of truth and justifying faith. And where true faith, in earnest repentance, apprehends Christ in the Gospel, and relies on Him and is supported [by Him], there is no condemnation, but the pure grace of God, forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation (Rom. 8:1; 1 John 1:9; Psalm 32:2)[45].  In this way there are and occur these venial sins in the reborn, for which they are not condemned, because, as Augustine says, they live under grace. But what if we indulge and delight in evil lusts and seek occasions to give them free rein (Rom 6:12; Micah 2:1; James 1:15)[46]? Then they become mortal sins (Rom. 8:13[47]; James 1:15), because there surely is no room for true repentance and faith where the lusts of the flesh are served and given rein, so that they break out into action. 1 Tim. 1:19; 5:8; 2 Peter 1:9[48]. It is the nature and particular character of true faith that it does not seek how to commit, continue, and heap up sins freely, but rather hungers and thirsts after the righteousness that releases and frees from sins. Therefore, where there is no true repentance, the Holy Spirit pronounces a very solemn sentence. Jer. 5:3, 9; Rom 2:5, 9; Luke 13:3; Rev. 2:5[49]. And where there is no true faith, there is neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the grace of God, nor forgiveness of sins, nor any salvation. Therefore what? Doubtless the wrath of God, death, and eternal condemnation, unless the fallen are turned to God again. Col. 3:6; Rom 8:13[50]. As a result of this, therefore, and for this reason mortal sins occur in the reborn, namely when repentance, faith, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are driven out and lost. How, then, should one deal with those who have fallen into this kind of sins? There sins are not to be disguised by silence, camouflaged, excused, or defended, but solemnly and earnestly censured and rebuked. Isaiah 56:10; 58:1; Ezekiel 13:10, 18; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 11:13[51]: “Reprove them sharpl”,: in such a way that the fearful judgment of God is threatened on them; 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21; Col. 3:6; 1 John 3:15; Mt. 11:21; 2 Peter 2:10.[52] For he that regards those people as true Christians, and charms and misrepresents them, not only miserably misleads them, but also makes himself partaker of their damnation. Isaiah 3:12; Jerem

Episode 22 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast is on Women Pastors and Transgenderism. You can read below or visit Christforus.org.  Women Pastors and Transgenderism   The title of this topic might seem to be needlessly provocative, but it addresses a real theological issue in the Church. When Christ instituted the pastoral office, He instituted it as an exclusively male office. A pastor is a male job, not a female job. For a woman to usurp the office of pastor is for her to transgress a gender barrier established by Christ. The promotion of female pastors is in essence transgenderism. And when we make this connection, we see why most churches that have female pastors have also embraced homosexuality, so-called same-sex marriage, and now transgenderism.   But before we go further, let us pray:   Enlighten our minds, we beseech Thee, O God, by the Spirit which proceedeth from Thee, that, as Thy Son hath promised, we may be led into all truth; through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord.     Biblical Argument for Male only Pastors Start with Jesus So, why can’t women be pastors? Simply put, the Bible forbids women to be pastors. We must start with Jesus. Jesus instituted the pastoral office. He did this when He called His disciples, gave them authority to forgive sins, and sent them out to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments (Luke 10:16; John 20:19-23; Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-47). Jesus sent only men to preach. All twelve of His Apostles were men (Matthew 10:1-4). Why did Jesus choose only men? Did He not have women followers? The Bible teaches that Jesus had many female followers (Matthew 27:55; Luke 8:2-3). These women loved Jesus, and Jesus loved them. Why didn’t He make Mary, Martha, Joanna, or Susanna apostles? Jesus certainly loved these women. He even honored some of them as being the first witnesses of His resurrection. But He did not send any of them to publicly preach and teach. Jesus certainly wasn’t afraid of going against the social norms of that day or upsetting the Jews, who would have been opposed to female rabbis. Jesus did not call women to be preachers, because He did not want women to be preachers.   It is important that we started with Jesus, before we got to the prohibitions by Paul, because starting with the institution helps us understand why Paul makes prohibitions. When arguing against women pastors, we often jump immediately to 1 Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. And many critics and proponents of women’s ordination will then attack Paul or his letters to defend women’s ordination. But it is Jesus who placed only men into the ministry. He chose the disciples. He sent out the apostles. And He did not send women to preach, even though He had many wonderful, pious women to choose from.   The Apostolic Descriptions of the Pastoral Office Still, before we get to Paul’s explicit prohibition of women preaching and performing the pastoral office, we should look at how Scripture describes the pastoral office. Under-Shepherd of the Chief Shepherd Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17) Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood. (Acts 20:28) So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4) The hearers (sheep) are supposed to submit to the under shepherd as to Christ. Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17) Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17) The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseermust be above reproach, the husband of one wife,sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7) “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” 2 Timothy 4:1-2   St. Paul’s Explicit Prohibition The reason for reading these passage before going into the prohibitions given by Paul, is so that we see that Paul’s prohibitions are necessary and they are what we would expect from what we already know about the pastoral office. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if we did not have Paul’s explicit prohibition of women teaching and speaking publicly in Church in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the church would still not have women pastors and would have sound biblical reasons not to have women pastors. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-37   The Order of Creation and the Distinction between Men and Women The reasons Paul gives for prohibiting women from teaching and publicly speaking in church is that Adam was formed first, Eve was deceived, and that women will be saved in child-birth. Adam being formed first shows the order of creation. When God created Adam and then Eve, he made the husband the head of the wife. This is shown in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a]is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:22-33 In marriage, a husband represents Christ to his wife. The wife takes the place of the church. The husband provides and gives, the wife receives. This is the model Scripture gives us for Christ and His Church as well as a husband with his wife. In the church, the pastor fills the roll as husband and father. The congregation fills the roll as bride. For a woman to fill the roll of pastor is for a woman to stand in the place of Christ. It would be a lesbian relationship. Note also, that St. Paul explains that the woman was deceived first. Why does he say this? I often hear people say, women would make great pastors, but God just says no. It’s as if God made an arbitrary rule, and we just need to follow it. This also leads to permitting women to do all sorts of activities in the church, which St. Paul clearly forbids, but it is justified, because the women are not ordained. So, women will still publicly teach, read lessons, distribute communion, etc. However, nowhere in Scripture does it say that women would make good pastors. It says that they make good mothers. And there are many examples of good godly mothers in Scripture, including Eunice and Lois, the mother and grandmother of Timothy, who taught him the faith as a child. There are examples of faithful sisters in Christ, who have corrected erring brothers, like Priscilla correcting Apollos after taking him aside with

President of Luther Classical College, Rev. Dr. Harold Ristau visited my congregation and we sat down for a podcast conversation. Apologies on the audio. I have difficulties with interview. I'll improve it before my next interview. However, it is audible.     

Episode 20 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast deals with the question whether Christians must obey the Levitical laws concerning clean and unclean foods as well as the laws governing the Sabbath. You can read along to the outline at Christforus.org. 

In Episode 19, Pastor Preus discusses the course of error in the Church as described by Charles Porterfield Krauth in his book, "The Conservative Reformation." Enters the Church in three stages:  1. Asking for tolerance. 2. Demanding Equality. 3. Asserting Supremacy.  Listen to how this progression of error is taught in Scripture, seen in history, and how it takes root in the present day, including in our own lives. You can read the quote and outline to the Bible Study at Christforus.org.  #Theology #Krauth #errorinthechurch #Lutheran #Biblestudy   After recording this episode, I discovered that Charles Porterfield Krauth’s “Conservative Reformation” is available free online at lutheranlibrary.org as a pdf. You can find it here. You can also purchase “Conservative Reformation” from CPH . Course of Error in the Church By Charles Porterfield Krauth When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balanced forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. There recommendation is that they repudiate faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful [sic] in combating it. Charles Porterfield Krauth, Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, CPH, St. Louis, 195-196. Summary of Krauth’s Thesis on Error in the Church Error enters the Church in three stages: Asking for Toleration. Demanding Equal Rights. Asserting Supremacy. Biblical Evidence of Krauth’s Thesis on Error in the Church The High Places, God’s prohibition to let the pagan nations abide with them. Solomon tolerated the high places. 1 Kings 3; 11 Soon the kings of Judah and Israel worshiped the other gods as equals to the true God. 1 Kings 12:25-33 Ahab and Jezabel as well as Athaliah and Manasseh forbid true worship. 1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 11; 21 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Galatians 5:9 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Romans 16:17 Evidence in History The Roman Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification by works. The Reformed Church verses the Lutheran Church and forced unions, Rationalism, Higher Criticism, Unionism, etc. C. P. Krauth’s experience with Protestant Unionism in America, Samuel Simon Schmucker (1799-1873), organizer of the General Synod, founder of Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg and Pennsylvania College. He among others pushed for union among the protestants in America, even removing five articles from the twenty-eight articles of the Augsburg Confession.   What we are seeing today! In the Church/Synod Feminism, universalism, and higher criticism in the Church Open Communion                                                                                                                 Evolution, relativism Unionism, thinking that Lutheran is equal to other denominations and it is just a matter of preference.   In the Nation Sexual Revolution Abortion “LGBT” In Yourself! What sins and errors have you tolerated? What opinions have you accepted as equal to the teaching of Scripture? What opinions and errors and sins have you permitted to rule over you in regards to your faith and morals instead of what Scripture teaches. First Petition of the Lord’s Prayer from Luther’s Small Catechism Hallowed be Thy name. What does this mean? God’s name is certainly holy in itself, but we pray in this petition that it may be kept holy among us also. How is God’s name kept holy? God’s name is kept holy when the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, and we, as the children of God, also lead holy lives according to it. Help us to do this, dear Father in heaven! But anyone who teaches or lives contrary to God’s Word profanes the name of God among us. Protect us from this, heavenly Father!

Episode 17 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast answers the question, "Is the pope the head of the church? You can follow along to the outline at Christforus.org.  #theology #Catholicism #pope #papalsupremacy #Lutheran According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope is “The successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church. The pope exercises a primacy of authority as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church; he receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Papacy: “The supreme jurisdiction and ministry of the pope as shepherd of the Whole Church. As successor of St. Peter, and therefore Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, the pope is the perpetual and visible principle of unity in faith and communion in the Church.” CCC 881 states, “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he called Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the Whole flock (Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17). ‘The office of the binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ (Lumen Gentium* 22) This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.” CCC 882 states, “The Pope Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ (Lumen Gentium 23) ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’ (Lumen Gentium 22; cf. Christus Dominus** 2, 9)” * Lumen Gentium is a document of Vatican II, November 21, 1964, which defines the nature and mission of the Catholic Church. ** Christus Dominus is the Vatican II Council “Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops,” October 28, 1965. Summary of Catholic Position on the Pope The Papacy is the supreme office of the Church, the Pope, being that Office holder. He is the Vicar of Christ. Jesus appointed Peter as Pope and pastor of the entire Church (Matt. 16:18-19; John 21:15-17) The Bishop of Rome is Peter’s successor and visible source of unity of the bishops and of the entire Church. The bishops, who are successors of the apostles, and the entire priesthood receive the binding and loosing office from Peter. The pope, as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church. This means he has the right and authority to “infallibly” define Church doctrine of faith and morals. Defense of the Primacy of Peter By James A. Corbett from The Papacy: A Brief History The Primacy of Peter. The first and best source of our knowledge about the origin of the papacy is, of course, the New Testament. From it we learn that the first pope was Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida on the left bank of the Jordan. Until he met Christ, he was called Simon, son of Jona. It was his brother Andrew who brought Simon to Christ. At this very first meeting Christ gave Simon a new name, one full of meaning for the role he was chosen to play. He renamed him Cepha, the Aramaic word for rock. The Greek word for rock is petros, whence the English Peter. The reason for giving him a new name was only made clear on another occasion before the Crucifixion when Christ said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In these simple but momentous words Christ singles out Peter from all the others to be the head of the Church and to have supreme power over it after Christ should have left them. The appointment was confirmed on His third appearance to the disciples after the Resurrection. Then He asked Peter three times whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. To Peter’s affirmative answers Christ replied: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” Peter, then was entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of teaching and caring for the whole body of the faith. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never doubted the primacy which had been given to Peter: when naming the Apostles they always name Peter first. Peter himself had no doubt of it. As the Apostles assembled in Jerusalem after the Ascension, it was Peter who presided at the election of Matthias to replace Judas. Ten days later when at Pentecost the Apostles received the gift of tongues, it was again Peter who explained to the astounded crowds how Christ had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him. It was Peter who, first of all the Apostles, performed a miracle by restoring a lame man to health, and who told the rulers and elders of Jerusalem by what power he had cured the cripple. It was Peter to whom the vision was given which explained that Christianity was to be for the Gentiles also, and who answered those insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised. “There was much disputing over it until Peter rose and said to them: Brethren, you know well enough how from early days it has been God’s choice that the Gentiles should hear the message of the Gospel from the lips and so learn to believe.” After a number of years of preaching in the Near East, Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. These two historical facts are no longer seriously questioned by historians of the early Church. There is still, however, strong disagreement as to whether the supreme jurisdiction entrusted by Christ to Peter devolved upon his successors, the bishops of Rome. The Church teaches, and it has always taught, that the primacy of Peter is held by all the successors of Peter. The popes, like Peter, are the vicars of Christ. Christ founded the Church and remains its true, though invisible, head. The popes, as successors of Peter, are the visible heads of the Church in this world and have the same powers and duties which Christ gave to Peter: to preserve intact the original deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, to teach it with authority and without error to all nations, to be the center of unity with supreme jurisdiction over the Church. This teaching has been and remains a great stumbling block for those outside the Church. It has led historians to interpretations that differ all the way from complete acceptance to complete rejection. This does not mean that the methods of historical research are faulty, but rather that every historian has a philosophy or theology which will influence his interpretations of the documents he studies. The Historian is limited in his search for the truth not only by the great loss and destruction of documents of other ages, but by the nature of historical knowledge, its methods and limitations. History is not the only way of knowing. The philosopher and the theologian use different methods to discover truths of a different and even higher order. Their conclusions do not contradict the truths learned by the historian; rather, they complete them and give us a richer and deeper understanding of reality. The documents which have survived indicate an almost universal acceptance in the early Church of a belief that the Bishop of Rome actually possessed supreme authority. They indicate the continuing presence of a strong tradition in favor of the primacy of Rome. Actually, the successors of Peter did not claim a primacy, they exercised it. Before the end of the first century, Pope Clement I, who had known Peter and Paul, intervened with gentle firmness in a schism in the church of Corinth: “If some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him through us,” Clement writes, “Let them know, that they will involve themselves in no small transgression.” Although St. John the Apostle was still living at Ephesus and there were other bishops closer to Corinth, it was the Bishop of Rome who exercised the right to settle the dispute. Corinth recognized the right of Rome to intervene by accepting the decision. The letter of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, which he wrote to the Roman church in 107 while on his way to Rome to be martyred, indicates the special position this eastern bishop recognized Rome as possessing: “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers. I trust that what you have taught and prescribed to others may now be applied to yourselves.” The pre-eminence of Rome is seen again in the book of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heretics, written towards the end of the second century. In this, desiring to offer a simple means of learning with security what is the true tradition of Christian belief, Irenaeus refers his reader to the tradition of the Bishop of Rome, whose succession from Peter and Paul, he says, all men know. He adds a further reason for the security of the Roman tradition: “With this church, on account of its greater authority, every church must agree.” When the churches of Asia were in disagreement as to the proper time to celebrate Easter, about the year 190, Pope Victor did not hesitate to intervene and to excommunicate those churches that refused to follow the Roman custom. There was a great controversy and Victor’s severity was blamed. But no one questioned his right to act. Later, in 260, Pope Dionysius condemned the bishop of the great and ancient see of Alexandria in Egypt, and Alexandria accepted the decision. In this same third century, Cyprian, the Roman lawyer who after his conversion became Bishop of Carthage, was no doubt an independent-minded bishop, yet he recognized Rome as the center of unity of faith. Although he disagreed with Pope Stephen on the que